FROM EKKLESIA TO CHURCH:
How a Word for a Gathering of Diverse People Became Associated with Buildings, Institutions, and Denominations
Jesus declared, "I will build My ekklesia"
- Matthew 16:18
When Jesus declared, "I will build My ekklesia" (Matthew 16:18), He pointedly chose the Greek civic word ekklesia. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, an ekklesia was not a sacred shrine or a passive religious service; it was an open gathering of citizens summoned into the public square to deliberate and govern–it was the invention of democracy. Blended with the Hebrew qahal—the covenant assembly of Israel (Deuteronomy 9:10)—the New Testament assembly was an egalitarian "theodemocracy" under the sole headship of Christ, where every member shared an active voice (Colossians 1:18; 1 Peter 2:9).
Early believers met organically in domestic spaces (domus ecclesiae), sharing meals, prayer, and mutual ministry (Romans 16:5). In these environments, ministry was multi-directional: "When you come together, each of you has a hymn... For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn" (1 Corinthians 14:26, 31). However, following the imperial recognition of Christianity, gatherings moved into Roman basilicas—civic audience halls. The elevated apse and axial rows transformed active participants into passive spectators. Classical rhetoric replaced mutual assembly, establishing a professionalized pulpit monopoly where a designated orator spoke while the populace remained silent.
To protect this top-down hierarchy, the democratic assembly was linguistically replaced by the Germanic-rooted word "church" (kyriakon, "the Lord’s house"). The suppression of ekklesia was intentional. When William Tyndale translated the Greek New Testament into English in 1525, he faithfully rendered ekklesia as "congregation," stripping the text of clerical power. The authorities' motive for insisting on the word "church" was clear: a "church" represents a physical property controlled by an ordained hierarchy, whereas a "congregation" is a living assembly governed by the people. Recognizing that an egalitarian assembly of diverse citizens threatened the scaffolding of papal authority and financial tithing, Sir Thomas More violently opposed Tyndale. For his faithful, non-institutional translation, Tyndale was hunted down, strangled, and burned at the stake in 1536. This institutional firewall was later codified by King James I, legally mandating that translators preserve the word "church".
Today, the traditional church operates primarily as a localized "house of ministry"—a property-owning organization where an administrative team delivers religious programs. When personal or doctrinal friction occurs, the structure cannot resolve it through democratic deliberation; instead, believers simply "vote with their feet" and transfer to a competing brand. Even independent house church movements fall into this trap: by discarding formal governance without understanding that the ekklesia requires the inclusion of diverse believers, they develop invisible, charismatic hierarchies and sectarian elitism—echoing the Corinthian crisis where factions insulated themselves by claiming, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:12).
Recovering the ekklesia does not require the abolition of local institutional churches. Localized houses of ministry serve vital, temporal functions: organizing benevolence, establishing educational institutions, and equipping believers for service (Ephesians 4:11–13). The solution is clarity of identity: recognizing that local institutional churches are provisional instruments, whereas the relational, diverse ekklesia assembled under Christ's direct authority represents God’s eternal purpose (Ephesians 3:10–11).
From Ekklesia to Church: How the Focus Shifted
How a word for a gathering of people became associated with buildings, institutions, and denominations—and why that matters today.
When you hear the word church, what comes to mind?
A building? A Sunday service? A pastor? A particular denomination?
In the New Testament, the Greek word usually translated as “church” is actually ekklesia, meaning an assembly or gathering of people.
The argument is that, over time, Christianity’s focus increasingly shifted from the gathered people to the institutions that organized them.
Understanding that history invites us to think again about how Christians gather, participate, and belong to one another.
Before Christianity, Greek speakers used ekklesia for an assembly of citizens who gathered to discuss public matters and make decisions.
The word also had roots in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, where it described the assembled people of Israel.
When New Testament writers used ekklesia, they were speaking about people gathered in relationship with God and one another. The word did not name a religious building.
The paper understands this as a community under Christ’s leadership in which members actively contribute. People bring different gifts, encourage one another, and share responsibility for the life of the gathering.
Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 (one of the only narratives in the Bible where an actual gathering of God’s people is found) illustrate this emphasis: several people can contribute, speakers take turns, and the gathering should help everyone learn and be encouraged. Participation comes with order and responsibility.
What did “ekklesia” mean?
How did “church” become the familiar word?
The English word church comes through a different language history. It is generally traced through Germanic languages to a Greek expression meaning “belonging to the Lord,” associated with the Lord’s house.
Over time, “church” came to describe several things:
-
A building where Christians meet.
-
A local ministry or religious organization.
-
A denomination.
-
The whole body of believers in Christ.
We move between these meanings so easily that we may hardly notice.
But a building, an organization, and the whole body of Christ are different things. OBL argues that using one word for all three can blur the distinction between belonging to Christ and supporting a particular institution.
The translation debate was also about authority.
During the Reformation, translators challenged familiar religious language.
Martin Luther used a German word meaning congregation or community. William Tyndale likewise used “congregation” when translating ekklesia into English.
These choices mattered because they encouraged readers to picture gathered people when reading the New Testament.
Later, the translators of the King James Bible were specifically instructed to retain the word “church” rather than replace it with “congregation.”
OBL sees this as an example of how translation choices could help preserve established religious authority. The disagreement concerned more than vocabulary: it touched on how people understood Christian community and who had authority within it.
Meeting places helped shape the experience
Early Christians often gathered in homes. These settings could support meals, conversation, and contributions from different members.
As Christianity gained public recognition and imperial support in the fourth century, large worship buildings became increasingly prominent.
A large hall with a central speaking area creates a different experience from a gathering around a table. It makes it easier for one person to address many people, while conversation among everyone becomes harder.
The paper argues that this helped shift the emphasis toward leaders speaking and congregations receiving.
This was a gradual development. Leadership already existed before large church buildings, and a building does not determine everything that happens inside it. Still, the space we use can encourage certain habits.
Property also brings practical responsibilities: maintenance, fundraising, staffing, and administration. Those responsibilities can begin to shape a community’s priorities.
What has this given us—and what can it cost?
Organized churches have accomplished enormous good. They have supported education, healthcare, disaster relief, missionary work, and care for people in need.
OBL recognizes these contributions. It describes such organizations as “houses of ministry”: places where a leadership team organizes gospel preaching, teaching, worship, service, and other activities.
Its concern is that a particular ministry can become the main boundary of Christian belonging.
People may gather mainly with those who share their preferred teaching, worship style, or cultural outlook. When disagreement arises, leaving for another congregation can become easier than working through differences together.
Hon argues that these organizational habits can reinforce division among believers who nevertheless belong to the same Christ.
Would meeting in homes solve the problem?
Changing the location alone does not guarantee shared participation.
A small gathering can still be controlled by its founder, host, strongest personality, or an inner circle. Without clear accountability, people may find it difficult to question decisions or express disagreement.
OBL therefore challenges both established institutions and informal groups. Every gathering needs ways for people to contribute, raise concerns, and hold leaders accountable.
Recovering the focus on people
The paper’s conclusion leaves room for Christians to participate in local churches while also gathering across denominational and cultural boundaries.
Local ministries can provide valuable teaching, practical support, and opportunities to serve. At the same time, believers can recognize a wider belonging that extends beyond any one organization.
The invitation is to ask:
How can our gatherings make room for more people to contribute, learn from one another, and live out their unity in Christ in diversity and freedom?
Recovering ekklesia means giving renewed attention to the people themselves—their relationships, their gifts, and their shared life under Christ.