What Constitutes "Church"?

Exploring the question “what is church”, linked as it is with “who is a member” we are faced with the question – what constitutes the ekklesia? An assembly of “citizens” gathered for the purpose of prayer, study, and service – tells us about the purpose of the ekklesia, and a little bit about who may join the ekklesia, but not much about what properly constitutes one.

In our OC/IC tradition we inherit a substantial collection of ideas and images – many, we simply accept without consciously considering the ramifications for our identity as indie-folk – “church” is one of these.

Our inherited awareness of “church” associates the ekklesia with buildings, money, numbers of people, money, venerable institutions, money, offices/titles, money, status/social standing, money, fund-raising/stewardship and of course, money. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see much about the Gospel here – and there is very little prayer, study, or service involved in this inherited image.

Now before some of you start shouting and screaming that I’m being prejudiced and unfair, look carefully at what I’ve just written. I did NOT say that other churches ARE exclusively concerned with the things I listed. What I DID say, however, is that the unconscious inherited ideas and imagery we often bring to the table about what “church” is, and how it ought to look, and feel, include – and indeed sometimes are utterly overwhelmed by – the things I listed above. Think I’m misrepresenting the situation? Then I invite you to look through the wonderful milieu of indie sites and blogs, take note of how many waste space and creative effort attempting to “look” and “feel” like “church”.

My point here is to demonstrate our un-questioned assumptions about what “church” is, and what we “feel” it “ought” to look like. I am also suggesting (OK, OK, in my case repeating my criticism) that an uncritical assumption of inherited imagery and concepts may, and sometimes does damage our indie cause. The inherited image “church” is a perfect example of this.

So, lets take a moment, and explore the idea of what constitutes the ekklesia anew (or perhaps for the first time). If it reinforces existing ideas and images of “church” then we’ve simply gained an appreciation for having taken the time to explore the matter. If, on the other hand, it reshapes, or reinterprets that image – all the better, because that will reflect and express our unique OC/IC views and identity.

I believe I am correct when I say that there is nowhere in the Gospels that explicitly states a minimum number of “citizens” constitutes the ekklesia. There is however, one place that suggests that this minimum requirement is two or more. Mt. 18.20: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Now, there is a great deal to be said about re-imagining or re-considering “ekklesia” from this verse and its context – but I’m only interested in the number of members or “citizens” that properly constitute an ekklesia – and that number is two or more. Two people can pray together, study together, and serve together, and Christ, the central point of reference for the ekklesia, is in their midst.

It is easy to be overwhelmed by the “noise” of our inherited imagery of what a “church” ought to look and feel like. The properly constituted ekklesia is two or more citizens who come together in Christ’s name for the purpose of prayer, study, and service – they form relationships with one another, and with others. There are no buildings, there are no titles, no money changes hands – a “proper” ekklesia is established on relationships.