The Article is part of the problem
Although we say that the church is not a building but is the people of God, we, often in the VERY next sentence, nullify this reality by using one grammatical article over another. As is so often the case our theology (or ecclesiology in this case I suppose) is manifest in the smallest words of grammar -- the articles and the prepositions we use.
My point? The use of the article "a" rather than the article "the", yep, there is it.
We say, and do so as if to get past this formality, "thechurchisnotabuildingitisthepeopleofGod." And then say something to the effect of, "We are A church yada yada yada..." "A church" means that there is more than one church, means that Christ's Body and Christ's Bride and God's City (from Revelations) is divided.
Now, one could argue that the use of "a church" is like that which Paul uses in his letters to different churches in the Epistles. But what is quite obvious that what is meant is believers in a particular area. The church in Ephesus is not an organization in Ephesus, it is the whole of believers there, por exemplo.
So the reality is we are THE church, as it manifests in this community, or city, or region, or country. Either way you dissect it, it is still the whole and the whole must be in view for Christ is not divided.
Using the body metaphor, we individual believers could be cells, and those surrounding one another are tissue or better yet an organ. What is it called when tissue or an organ begins to function without connection to the body as a whole...oh yeah, sickness, illness, you know disease. So one could argue that our language, our article choices in this instance, may be a reflection of a diseased or in the very least weakened state. The reality is that THE "church" is not A disease, it is the carrier of THE cure.
So is the solution changing our terminology? Nope. The terminology, the language we use is a reflection of our dependencies, beliefs, understandings, and thinking. Language never changes reality, but when we see reality instead of our comfortable illusions we'll find that our language will naturally change to line up with it.
My point? The use of the article "a" rather than the article "the", yep, there is it.
We say, and do so as if to get past this formality, "thechurchisnotabuildingitisthepeopleofGod." And then say something to the effect of, "We are A church yada yada yada..." "A church" means that there is more than one church, means that Christ's Body and Christ's Bride and God's City (from Revelations) is divided.
Now, one could argue that the use of "a church" is like that which Paul uses in his letters to different churches in the Epistles. But what is quite obvious that what is meant is believers in a particular area. The church in Ephesus is not an organization in Ephesus, it is the whole of believers there, por exemplo.
So the reality is we are THE church, as it manifests in this community, or city, or region, or country. Either way you dissect it, it is still the whole and the whole must be in view for Christ is not divided.
Using the body metaphor, we individual believers could be cells, and those surrounding one another are tissue or better yet an organ. What is it called when tissue or an organ begins to function without connection to the body as a whole...oh yeah, sickness, illness, you know disease. So one could argue that our language, our article choices in this instance, may be a reflection of a diseased or in the very least weakened state. The reality is that THE "church" is not A disease, it is the carrier of THE cure.
So is the solution changing our terminology? Nope. The terminology, the language we use is a reflection of our dependencies, beliefs, understandings, and thinking. Language never changes reality, but when we see reality instead of our comfortable illusions we'll find that our language will naturally change to line up with it.
posted by GBT at
Sunday, September 04, 2005
