www.koinonia.org.il

[Barry]

This is a discussion area for more ideas for interchangable names for who we are.
_________________
Barry Steinman
Carlsbad, California
barrys@koinonia.org.il

[alex davie.Luton. Eng]

In light of most of peoples preconceptions about church, why not remove the word church from the title. This would then allow us to explain who we are before the predudices cast a shadow over conversations.

[Tim taagard@cwnet.com]

One of the great joys of leaving institutional forms of church life and taking up relational church is that ALL the giving goes beyond myself. Institutional church DEMANDS that 75 - 90% of the giving goes to fund services for the givers. This means it isn't giving at all. Two items - special buildings and hired staff - demand this high percentage of giving to the givers. Following Christ without these two "traditional essentials" allows me to invest all my stewardship responsiblities for the two priorities God has given us that require money - reaching all nations, and helping the poor. Jesus never asked us to gather large groups of believers into one building to hear a weekly Bible lecture by a hired guy. Now we can understand why Paul said he would "rather die" than "give up the boast" that he ministered "free of charge". (1 Cor. 9) Now we can really know the specific contextual meaning of "It is better to give than receive." These are the words of Jesus giving proof to the need for the Ephesian elders to follow Paul's example in meeting your own physical needs rather than take your needs out of the offering plate (Acts 20).
100% of the giving goes out the door - beyond myself. You might consider adding to your list of "Values" at the top of your web page. Giving - 100% goes beyond OUR needs.

[Terryco]

Our group uses "home church" as we are lead to teach our families at home. Christ is the head of the church. We church at home - hence home church ie. Christ is the head of our home. Any questions?

[Rick]

Hello to all in this forum.

It's my first visit here. I have only a vague picture thus far of the 'scope' of groups represented here, which you refer to as 'house churches', or similar. My own interest is very firmly in 'biblical church' - that is to say, a desire to follow the example of the New Testament Church in every respect. Meeting in houses would be only one aspect of the picture of course.

I'd like to offer this link as some food for thought on this discussion:
http://www.newtestamentpattern.net/articles/housechurchornormalchurch

Regards to all

Rick

[Ade]

[Josh]

I am a recent home church convert. Went from smaller to small churches till we (my family, wife kids) found a group of christians who fellowship together.

AS for the name thing, most people who are asking about the name of your church/group, are just trying to figure out your theological make up. i.e. lutheren, pentacostal, catholic, ect. our fellowship had a long talk on what to call ourselves and we left it up to the indivula to deside.

(My first Post )

Josh

[Guest]

[I'd like to offer this link as some food for thought on this discussion:
http://www.newtestamentpattern.net/articles/housechurchornormalchurch

Regards to all

Rick[/quote]

RICK, I read your site and you have done an impressive amount of research. Congragulations on a job well done. I have a few questions I would like to kick around with you over the term "CHURCH". New Testament Church, Home Church, Relational Church, Church Life, all basically create a pivotal focal point on the word "CHURCH". Of course, as you pointed out, the term is EK-KLESIA in the Greek. The term CHURCH if you look it up in a heavy dictionary which provides extensive ETYMOLOGY histories, will be listed as Mideviel in origin. A full 2 to 3 hundred years after the New Testament and well into the Byzantium age. I discovered the first use of the term Ecclesia to refer to a Christian temple occured with the Saint Sophia's (originally named "the Thea Sophia, the mega-ecclesia [big church]" in Constantinople) built by Constantine or his son (depending on whose version you accept). That episode is a fascinating study in imperial apostacy and could fill up a book on it's own merit. The term "Sophia" was used by the emperor because during this time the Saint Pacchomos monastary ( and the area known as the "desert fathers" - largley a collection of ascetic "Psuedo-Christoi" gnostics and occultists in Egypt) were very influential and gave advice to the Christian Ceasar. [This is referenced in Augustine's city of God] The name SOPHIA was from a text which has been preserved and is part of a collection of gnostic christian scritpure known as the SOPHIA OF JESUS CHRIST. SOPHIA, of course, is personified as the cosmic woman who gives birth to an androgenous Jesus and secretly raises up "the beast" who is actually only called this because he's smarter than everyone else. Anyway, back to the term CHURCH, since this term has actually been TRANSPOSED onto the English translation, is it really even an appropriate term to use at all? Martin Luther expressed some serious concerns about using the term in his own translation and if you trace the history of the term, you can certainly see why that would be the case. The term CHURCH (i.e., the English word) technically does in fact refer to a building, not a mystical or spiritual catagorey of people. Historically it was the result of combining the term Dominica (meaning "house") and Kyrios (meaning "Lord"), thus CHURCH = "The Lord's House". The term itself is actually a violation of the foundational truth proclaimed in the gospel by the apostles, "God does not dwell in temples made with hands". I believe that the term ECCLESIA is used only a small fraction of the time compared to the other terms; "Disciples" (most frequent) and "saints". The term "Christian" is only mentioned twice, while the term "Disciple(s)" is used (if I recall accurately, something like 40 or 50 times). What are your thoughts on this? And do you not see a problem with the term CHURCH?

[Chris Jefferies]

Hi everyone,

I thought I'd add my three ha'porth to this discussion. I think there are serious pitfalls in naming things. The reality tends to become coloured by whatever name is chosen, quite subconsciously in most cases. Call yourself a house church and before long people start to feel it's wrong to meet in a garden, or a field, or a hired hall, or whatever.

What we really need, of course, is continuing freedom to respond to the Holy Spirit's prompting, wherever he chooses to take us.

So I like Barry's idea of using a number of names interchangeably. How about these as a few more to add to the list...

Unorganised church
Ad hoc church
Organic church

Someone mentioned that the word 'church' may itself be misleading. So how about

Fellowship, Gathering, Meeting, and similar words?

Or, follow the New Testament pattern and call it 'the church in Eaton Ford', 'the church that meets at Chris's house' etc.

Chris[/list][/list]

[Guest]

Hello, particularly to the 'guest' who doesn't leave his name!

You were asking about the term 'church' and its suitability as a translation of ekklesia.

I apologise for such a long delay in replying

I am sure all that you are saying is correct. I have also been told that it is derived from the old English (poss Scottish?) word 'Kirk' - which means a religious building. Tyndale, for whom I have great respect, did not use the word 'church'. He used 'congregation'. This, or 'assembly' are probably much better.

The whole subject is of course one for translators. I am neither a reader of Greek myself (other than by the help of Mr Strong and Co.) nor an academic. However, I believe that neither of these factors will prevent someone from coming into a full understanding of the REAL meaning of 'church' (and all other Scriptural themes) because the Scripture reveals that understanding truth comes by revelation from God to "those that obey him."

My own simple approach to teaching biblical truths is that I use such words as I find in the translation that I use (the KJV) and seek to constantly define/redefine them. There is a whole number of words used in most translations that I would like to see changed. 'Church' is one of them of course, but also: 'bishop' 'office' and possibly 'baptize' and 'pastor' for a starters. I have done studies that centre around all of these words. I just accept the limitations of our translations and hopefully bring out the spiritual truth concerning the theme.

This is my major study on the theme of the N. T. Church, which I suspect you have already been looking at:

http://www.newtestamentpattern.net/biblestudies/hischurch

May the Lord prosper 'HIS Church' in these days.

Best wishes

Rick

[thejesusfreak]

I just found this site and I think it is great. It has got me thinking about a lot of things. I don't think home churches need a name. Why not just call it "Church". When some one asks you were you go to church just tell them we gather at so and so's house for church and leave it at that? Why put a label on it?

God Bless,
Mike
http://home.earthlink.net/~thejesusfreak/

[BruceD]

We tend not to call it anything special at all. If we need to use a descriptive term, it usually comes out as "simple church" or "the gathering" or "Sunday night life". But we whatever we call it, we prefer to place emphasis on the people, not on the meeting.

I have used terms like "get together" and "a gathering of saints". I've heard of people using terms like "dinner party" and "love feast" too. I think they're all good, and highly descriptive. But, like I mentioned, I think it's important to emphasize the people and not the meeting.

Blessings!

Bruce

[Guest]

Folks,
perhaps we could call ourselves "The Disorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"? Only kidding, but some years ago, I gave a lot of thought to this very topic. A name denotes a nature and also an area of authority/responsibility. For a church to be called for example 'Saint Michaels' would immediatly conjure up either Catholic or Anglican congregations and their beliefs and practices. For another group to be called 'Faith Chapel' would also conjure up images of either a charismatic or pentecostal assembly. For a church to hang out a sign that read "Independent Baptist" would also conjure up images of neo Calvinistic beliefs and anti pentecostal/charismatic feelings from that particular group.

When musing on these things, I came across Pauls rebuke to the Corinthians stating to them that 'one sais I am of Paul, another of Cephas, another of Apollos and another of Christ etc' - not even the early church could escape the tendency to get involved in following after a man or a group of men (who in this case were definately called of God to minister to the flock) and then naming their particular division of the body after the name and nature of that individual's ministry and doctrine.

Paul puts paid to all of this, saying that the apostles and their co workers were 'only the servants by whom ye (the Corinthians) believed' and that Christ is not divided, and that none of those ministries mentioned earlier had died for them. Paul teaches that official recognition of divisions within the church based on either personaloties or doctrines is carnal and that those who indulge in such things are being petty and imature.

While this is true, there is also the practical problem of when you have maybe dozens or even hundreds of small independent home churches within a major city or county/council area, how DO you in fact differentiate between them and their differing beliefs, stances on various issues (some of which can become quite heated when discussed even in informal settings between such diverse groups) and their (sometimes hidden) doctrinal statement?

Maybe a name isn't so bad after all, as long as it denotes the emphasis of that group, but not to the exclusion of other CHristian people, who may not necessarily share those same views and beliefs? When I was with the house church in Newcastle many years ago, we never had a name, simply referring to ourselves as a 'free fellowship'.

After a leadership change midstream, we adopted the name 'Beulah Fellowship' and became affiliated with what was known as The Full Gospel Church in Australia. Beulah comes from the book of Isiah and simply means 'married' to the Lord - no harm in that, in itself, but the problem is that it does tend to cause division if others take offence to it, or if it identifies you and your group to another group that is 'anti' you and what you believe.

Non threatening 'names' such as "Smithville Home Fellowship" may ward off any evil spirits (and axe grinders too) and may be the best solution for many for now, but how do you get around hundreds or thousands of church fellowships, noe of which will have a name? God is not the author of confusion, but of peace...

Austin Hellier
Downunder

[billy20772@aol.com]

Seems to me..."Gathering in Jesus name" really aligns with the Word, and tells it like it is.

Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my Name (Jesus) there am I in the midst.


Thks
In Him, The Author and Finisher of our faith.
Billy Wells

[Kinaxis]

In reading some of the posts on the subject of names for a home or non-church building gathering of believers in CHRIST; I am reminded of the early church and the churches described in Revelation. What I find surprising is that anyone would desire to "name" themselves anything that would not simply describe the location of the gathering of the believers. I can only conclude that any motive to come up with a name beyond the simplicity of the facts describing the local churches local are generated by mans own fancy or secret (or not so secret) pride of some sort. I am not claiming superiority over any who do otherwise, but it is quite plain to me as scripture is quite plain that "Naming" outside of location (I am of Paul...) can stem from nothing but self (the old man).

Let us not take part in causing division in THE body by using names that seperate us from "them". Is there not one body? I have two hands, but would it make sense to call my left hand the "great bodily greeting mechanism of greatest strength" when I could simply refer to it based on it's locality: "My left hand"!!!

I can find nowhere in the scriptures where it is not obvious in the name of the church where they are located, ie: " the church at Ephesus".

Let us remember that God is not the God of confusion, and does not support division within the body of Christ. If you take the time to investigate this topic for yourself with a heart to understand, you will know the TRUTH. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to be a disciple of Christ, just teachable.
Feel free to contact me with any comments or questions,
Bill Compeau
(248)396-9358
kinaxis@yahoo.ca