..
"Church" Is A Collective Noun
New Testament Church Series #4
Not only do we learn something about "church" from the definitions and a
consideration of its two spiritual usages ("universal" and "local" church), we
are also enlightened when we consider the fact that "church" and "ekklesia" are
collective nouns.
A Collective Noun
A collective noun is one "which in the singular form denotes a collection of
individuals (e.g., army, orchestra, crowd): it is treated as singular when the
collection is thought of as a whole and as plural when the individual members
are thought of as acting separately." Webster. We can illustrate a collective
noun in relation to its constituent parts with the following simple
illustration:
SINGULAR NOUN PLURAL NOUN
COLLECTIVE NOUN
Juror
Jurors
Jury
Link
Links
Chain
The Collective Noun "Church"
But our interest lies in a New Testament example of this concept and Matt.
18:15-17 gives an excellent illustration of some things regarding the collective
noun "church": "15. And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault
between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16
But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of
two witnesses or three every word may be established.
17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he
refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the
publican."
Vs. 15 shows a single Christian acting when someone has sinned against him: "go
show him his fault between thee and him alone".
Vs. 16 finds a plurality of Christians involved when the offending brother won't
listen to the one he's sinned against: "take with thee one or two more".
Vs. 17 has "the church" involved when the efforts in vs. 16 have failed: "tell
it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church..."
Continuing with the illustration above, let's examine the collective noun
"church" in relation to its constituent elements and then suggest a number of
practical lessons:
SINGULAR NOUN
PLURAL NOUN COLLECTIVE NOUN
Christian
Christians
Local Church
Matt. 18:15
Matt. 18:16
Matt. 18:17
Christian
Christians
Universal Church
Acts 8:38-39
1 Pet. 1:1
Heb. 12:23; 1 Pet. 2:17
Lesson 1: A single unit of a collective
noun is not the same thing as the collective. For instance, one link isn't the
same thing as a chain, one soldier isn't the same thing as the army, etc.
Therefore, a single Christian is not "a church". In spite of what some say, one
Christian is not "the church in a community if he/she is the only one there."
The Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40) was a lone Christian but wasn't "the church" or "a
church".
Lesson 2: Similarly, a plurality of units
is not the same thing as the collective (many links aren't necessarily a chain,
many soldiers not necessarily an army).
And this is why a plurality of Christians is not necessarily a church. In order
to have a "local church" there must be more than just a plurality of saints.
Those saints must be assembled together or "collected" in some fashion, just as
one connects the plurality of links in order to form a chain. A clear
distinction is made in our text between the plural, "one or two more", and the
collective, "the church". If the "one or two more" constituted "the church" why
are they told to "tell it to the church"?
Lesson 3: Just because the constituent
elements of a collective noun act in some fashion, it doesn't mean the
collective is acting. And just because one of those constituent elements has the
right to engage in some activity it doesn't necessarily follow that the
collective has that right. One soldier may go AWOL but that doesn't mean the
entire battalion, regiment, or army has done so. And, a soldier may have the
right to form some political action organization; but will anyone grant to the
army the same privilege?
This is one reason we maintain that when an individual Christian or a plurality
of Christians engage in some action it is not necessarily the same thing as "the
church" acting. The single Christian acting in Matt. 18:15 was not the same
thing as the church acting in vs. 17. And this is also one reason why we affirm
that just because the individual Christian may be authorized to act in some
capacity, it does not automatically follow that the local church may do so.
Paul, along with Aquilla and Priscilla, made tents (Acts 18:3). But who will
affirm that the church in Corinth could have, as a church, opened up the same
sort of business? The right of a local church to act in some manner must be
found independent of the right of the saint to act.
Lesson 4: Collective nouns "collect" or
bring together that which we find in the corresponding singular and plural
nouns.
And this is why we contend that "church," whether "universal" or "local" is
composed of people, saints, individual Christians. The New Testament passages
speaking of the "universal church" say nothing at all about "the churches" in
various locations around the world making up what Jesus called "my church". We
read of "the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:1-2), "the churches of
Galatia" (Gal. 1:2), and "the churches of Christ" (Rom. 16:16) but nothing is
said to indicate that each of the separate churches were units of some bigger
church.
Along this same line we might point out that a collectivity of Christian is
called a "church" but there is not a scriptural name for a collectivity of local
churches. A collectivity of congregations does have a name but we have to go
outside of the New Testament to find it. That word is "denomination" and it
accurately describes a collectivity of local congregations whether that
collectivity is temporary or permanent and whether or not the churches involved
are churches of Christ or Baptist churches. 1 Pet. 2:17, speaking of the "church
universal", uses the significant word "brotherhood". The word "hood" is "a
suffix denoting (a)state, quality, character, condition, as in childhood; (b)
the whole group of (a specified class, profession, etc.), as in brotherhood. It
is equivalent to -head in such words as Godhead." Webster. "Brotherhood", then,
describes a "hood" of brothers---a group of people who sustain a "brother"
relation to one another. But if the "universal church" is composed of local
churches Peter would have used some term such as "churchhood"---a group of
churches sustaining a "sister" relation to one another, a "sisterhood" of
churches.
SINGULAR NOUN
PLURAL NOUN
COLLECTIVE NOUN
Church
Churches
?????? (Denomination)
1 Cor. 1:2
Rom. 16:16
??????
Conclusion
A failure to realize the simple truths contained in a consideration of "church"
being a collective noun have led well-intentioned people into many unauthorized
areas and practices. Those who have fallen for the "whatever the individual
Christian can do the church can do" philosophy have assigned to local churches
activities that are foreign to those authorized in the New Testament. And Robert
Turner has wisely observed, "When one begins to think of the u. body of Christ
as a 'churchhood' instead of a brotherhood; and assign that u. body some
collective function; the warnings of church history are ignored and the errors
of institutionalism come piling upon us." The Cogdell-Turner Discussion, p. 20
Let's stick with the simple truths from the New Testament and avoid the pitfalls
that come from using human wisdom.l.
By David Smitherman
From Expository Files 5.4; April 1998
