Church or No Church, That Is the Question

Have you ever wondered where words come from or how they came about? We pretty much take them all for granted. However, when you consider how many there actually are and the new ones being invented (Googling, and texting have not always been with us), it is a pretty amazing thing. Then compound that with the plethora of languages and dialects, the billions of words bouncing around is beyond amazing. In one way or another they are used to communicate things from one person, group, or generation to another. Words are pretty much my life. I teach with them, offer counsel, encouragement, and I also write them in a number of different forms. I also read them, lots of them. Every day of my life in filled with words. I sometimes even sing them in my car when the windows are rolled up. Words have been around for a long time and some have even changed a bit over the years. I like words. In my study I like finding out where they came from and what they meant at the time and in the culture they were spoken. There is likely a bit of archeologist and anthropologist woven into my DNA.

As the years have gone by I have noticed that some folks like to use long or complicated words. If you go to seminary you no longer talk about sin but rather hamartiology. Study of the Spirit is pneumatology. It does not make the study any clearer but it does sound impressive. Did you know there are common words we read in Scripture that we simply accept, which are not the words that the text holds. Translators add and delete words as they attempt to make their translations more clear or more acceptable. There are words the translators use or avoid using due to political pressure and fall-out. They may even conceal the original intent due to bias or subtle prejudice. For example, many of the names in the New Testament are Jewish. However, at the time of King James, there was a bias against the Jews, so we have James instead of Jacob, Simon instead of Simeon, and Mary instead of Miriam. We also have the word "baptize" which is a transliteration of the Greek baptismos. The simple translation is to immerse, dunk and is used of washing in Hebrews 9:10. However, as the king of England was an Anglican who believed in infant sprinkling.  The Anabaptists, who taught immersion for believers, were a group in disfavor at the time. Thus, the translators chose to make the Greek sound English rather than talk about immersing people or John the Immerser. Neither would have been appreciated by King James. It was not wise to irritate the king so they invented an acceptable word.

The word of interest for today is the very common word "church". It replaces the Greek word ekklesia, meaning "assembly". In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, ekklesia is used to translate the Hebrew word for assembly every time. But not so in the English translation of the new Testament. Here, ekklesia, magically turns into the word "Church" whenever it refers to an assembly of Messianic believers. Assembly is used whenever ekklesia refers to a political group or gathering of people (See Acts 19:32 and Acts 23:7). So why this new word "Church" to refer to the Messianic assembly? Where did it come from? The best guess and most closely related words from the time the Scriptures were translated in 1611seems to be chirche, circe,or kirk. They are Middle English or Celtic words for a circle where people gathered for some kind of worship. The Stonehenge is the remains of one example. It was originally a place of pagan worship but grew into a general term for a religious gathering. The Greek word kuriakon, meaning "of the Lord" is used twice in scripture: 1 Cor 11:20 The “ Lord’s, kuriakon, supper;” and Rev 1:10, the “ Lord’s, kuriakon" day.” or "Day of the Lord". Some attempt to find the word "church" here, however, I believe that is a stretch in an attempt to find a Biblical word to justify a translation that never occurs anywhere in Scripture. Assembly is the normal, reasonable, and accurate translation of the word ekklesia. 

This being so, why the odd use of "church" in our English translations? And, at this point, does it really matter? We all know what the church is. Well, actually, it is seen now more as a building than an assembly. We go to church, we build a church, and we meet at the church rather than being the church. Only a relative few would think of this as a gathering of Messianic followers. Followers of Jesus or Christ, perhaps, but not the Jewish Messiah. Setting that aside, the word church is now fully accepted and has come to be defined as a place where Christians gather. So when we read the New Testament we understand these are groups of Christian believers. The people who gathered at that time would never have thought that, but that is beside the point. My concern is that there has been, and continues to be a great divide between Judaism and what has become the church. The early assembly of believers were made up of Jews and Gentiles meeting at the Synagogues and in homes learning about the Scriptures (read Old Testament here, it was all they had) and how to follow the Jewish Messiah. We do not need to return to the Synagogues (though an occasional visit might be worthwhile). However, we should not forget our Jewish roots.

Whether or not we want to believe it, the "church" has been quietly guilty of a form of antisemitism in our translations. From removing Jewish names to borrowing words from pagan meetings, English translators have tried to deny and hide the Jewish reality of the New Testament times. Find this hard to believe? Look up James 2:2. Here the translators are more than willing to use the word assembly or meeting, "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings" (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and RSV),   "Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes" (NIV). The word translated "assembly" or "meeting" is  synagōgē, synagogue. The word synagōgē, is translated as synagogue everywhere else in the New Testament, but not here. Why? Because we know that James is writing to the church and we know they would not be at the synagogue. However, in truth, Jacob did write to the assembly of Messianic followers meeting at the synagogue. The translators, and many who say they follow Jesus, find this so hard to believe they simply hide from or ignore the truth.

So do you go to church or an assembly of Messianic followers? Does it matter? I guess that is up to you to decide.  

The Death of "LY"

How important is it to be accurate? Is it better to just sort of grasp the general principles of things and move on or do the details really matter? Perhaps the answer is yes and no. You certainly want your surgeon to have a grasp on the particulars before he begins that triple bi-pass, a general understanding of anatomy is not enough. But, "it is about 2:30" may be close enough.  I have noticed that, over time, what used to be important is now not so much. I am not an English scholar. I was born void of a spelling gene so spell check is my life line, though I must admit that at times even spell check has no idea what I am trying to write. That being said, I do get a bit bugged by the growing lack of appreciation for the simple ending "ly". These little letters turn an adjective to an adverb. However, the adverbial form is losing ground quickly, or as it is now quite commonly said, losing ground quick. The defenseless little "ly" is being removed from speech, literature, even road signs. "Drive slow, school zone" for example.

Now we must get to the sale quick or all the good bargains will be gone. If we drive too slow we may get none at all. And be sure to drive safe on the way so you don't get in an accident. Alas poor "ly" I knew thee well. I am aware that many will say, "Lighten up!What is important is that we communicate. Don't get all hung up on the details." There are ongoing changes to our language. Language is a living thing, so words change and even their meanings can change over time. Most people would think that if their savings were decimated they would struggle to recover. Even Webster would tell you that the large portion was destroyed. However, the original meaning was to reduce by ten percent. Just a tithe. Misuse of the word has actually changed it's meaning. So, if something isn't done quick, errr quickly,  the little "ly" may soon find itself as extinct as the dinosaurs.

What is true with the adverb is also true in Scripture. It seems there is a growing desire to just stick with the principles that we find there. Read a passage and get the basic application and move on. I was talking to another pastor who said he appreciated my interest in the history, cultural context and details; however, he found that such things could cloud how the passage was applied to life. That kind of detail may have its place in academia but preaching needed to stick to general principles that are easy for people to apply. I guess I should assume that Paul's encouragement to Timothy to "Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15) only applied to academics and not to common disciples. That certainly makes things easier. No need to really dig into the Word; just skim the surface and get the gist of the text and come up with a nice principle to supply.

There are some consequences to that approach. It leaves us with a number of diverse opinions that cannot all be true. It leaves us depending on others assumptions about the Word that, if passed on often enough, just become accepted as true, like decimated or the passing away of adverbs. As long as we communicate what do the details matter? This is why translators of Mark 7:19 can change the text, which, translated from the Greek says, "because it [meaning food]enters not into the heart but into the belly and into the drain goes out purging all foods". A simple description of the digestive process. However, we all "know" that Jesus did away with the Law and the dietary restrictions so the translators help us out with translations similar to the NIV, "For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.' (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)." The words, "In saying this Jesus declared" is not in the original text but the general application is that Jesus ended dietary laws so accuracy doesn't really matter. How the text can be applied is all that is important.

The same "help" is offered for James 2:2: "Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in.(NIV). The NASB uses the word "assembly", as does the ESV and NKJV. The word is actually "Synagogue". However, we all "know" that the "church" would not be meeting at a Jewish Synagogue so the "helpful" translators correct the text to avoid confusion. Accuracy does not matter, just so long as we get the gist of the text to apply to our lives. Church people would certainly not be at a synagogue, would they?

Who knows, maybe in time Christians can find comfort in getting a divorce from another believer "knowing" the general principle we see in Scripture is that God wants us to be happy. We can defraud our creditors by declaring bankruptcy knowing the gist of Scripture does not want us to be in debt. The details don't matter as long as we are comfortable with the general application of what we find in the text. It is a far easier and more comfortable way to look at God's Word. Much less judgemental than sticking to all those details. It seems believers are comfortably drifting further from the truth, becoming content with the traditions that we "know" and the applications that fit with our predetermined desires.

I wonder, over time, what will happen to the things we now see as true. What other areas of life will we find new, more palatable ways of applying? There may be few standards or boundaries that make believers distinct from the world unless the Lord comes quick..................................ly.