Introduction

In the first few years after the documents and ideas of the Second Vatican Council

began to filter down to the laity, Intentional Eucharistic Communities (“IEC’s”) began to

emerge. Some were parish based; others, not. Some were large; others, small. All were

self-governing, lay-led, liturgically-oriented, involved in social justice, and fearful that the

institutional Church would perceive them a threat and attempt to terminate their existence.1

Many saw these communities as the new local sign and building block of Church.

Excitement ran very high as organizers and participants took to heart the call to baptismal

equality (the “priesthood of the faithful”) in the Church and greater lay participation.

Ultimately, many had “identity crises” in that they did not perceive a place for their

communities in institutional Roman Catholicism. Some disappeared. Some disaffiliated

with Roman Catholicism. Many members began to ask whether their participation in the

IEC somehow violated their cradle-instilled views of what it meant to be Church,

particularly Roman Catholic Church. Recently, as a result of scriptural study and sharing,

some have begun to point to the house church in the “golden age” of Christianity described

in the Pauline literature as the “authentic” church—which coincidentally corresponds more

closely to the way IEC’s do church, than do most parishes. This paper examines the issues

raised by these views—at a time when many IEC members are beginning to feel that the

calls of Vatican II were “too much” for the Roman Catholic laity or “too much” for the

1
In 2001, Communitas, a Washington, D.C. area IEC, called for a meeting of representatives of IEC’s in
Washington, D.C. during the summer of 2001. Representatives of Communitas mailed invitations to 250
separate groups across the United States, including six in the Washington area, that they assumed might be
IEC’s. Ultimately, it was concluded that only 80 recipients met the minimum definition: a lay-led, self-
governing, community which met regularly for liturgy, discussion, fellowship, and social action. The weekend
meeting was held in May 2001. It was attended by representatives of 33 groups who discussed liturgical
planning, Church-IEC relations, and other (mostly) administrative issues. A follow-up meeting is planned for
2006. Call to Action, www.cta-usa.org/news0901. Representatives of the Pax Community which is profiled in
this paper became co-hosts and were in attendance.

1
Roman hierarchy. Many are experiencing crises of middle age as they rethink mission,

identity, and the future. The Pax Community is one of these; but in many ways it is

representative of an IEC.

A review of recent texts on Pauline theology suggests that ecclesiology is not

considered to be high on the list of Paul’s contributions to theology. Nothing could be

farther from the contemporary truth. Several reasons are suggested. As Luke Timothy

Johnson notes, Pauline theology is not systematic. Rather it is varied and practical,

characteristics which are not necessarily solely attributable to the dictated letter format, for

Paul demonstrates remarkable rhetorical ability and thorough development of theological

argument in his letters. As a consequence, many have engaged in selective quotation or

proof-texting, i.e. using a single thought, out-of-context, to prove a point.2 Stanley Marrow

points out that Paul’s strong, authoritarian language in instructing his church communities

on their obligations inter se may not satisfy those with contemporary sensitivities who are

looking for charismatic characteristics, gender equality, and appeals to world citizenship in

Paul.3 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor agrees with Johnson (“What he heard about the situation

at Corinth [referring to the divisions caused in part by the intellectual followers of Apollos]

strengthened Paul’s bias against speculative theology.”)4 and adds that the underlying

essence of the Pauline church is the interdependent community experience, which is

incompatible with the post-modern ethic of exaggerated individualism, particularly in

Western society.5 Or perhaps, the community model of the Pauline church is incompatible

with the structured, (some would say “exaggerated”), hierarchical nature of Christianity
2
Luke Timothy Johnson, “Paul’s Ecclesiology,” in James Dunn, ed., The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul
(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press, 2003), 199.
3
Stanley B. Marrow, Paul, His Letters and His Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1986), 138ff.
4
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, A Critical Life (Oxford, UK: Oxford Press, 1996), 282.
5
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, The Pauline Letters, a series of lectures delivered at Notre Dame University,
South Bend, IN, July 2004.

2
which has developed subsequent to the time of Paul and which persists today in Roman

Catholicism, despite the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Thus, it is unwelcome to a

church built on hierarchy.

But, the very nature of Paul’s letters to churches that he founded and to which he

maintained a strong attachment throughout his life, and the extraordinary measures that Paul

undertakes to place his churches within the universe of nascent first century Christianity in a

secular, non-Semitic environment suggest that Paul was at least implicitly mindful of the

defining aspect of his Christianity—community. And, in many ways church is community.

Paul’s ecclesiology is first, always, and essentially practical. Paul’s pragmatism is much more

than one can explain by the fact that Paul’s writings are “only” letters responding to

community problems. And, if Paul is a pragmatist, it is fair to ask, “How did his communities

work?”, “What did they do to bring about the Reign of God?”, and “Are there lessons for the

contemporary Church, or at least the IEC’s?.” These are the tests of a strain of contemporary,

“bottom-up,” ecclesiology which is locally oriented, culturally attuned, horizontal, mindful of

the contributions of all the baptized people of God, and intensely pragmatic—characteristics

of the Pauline community and the IEC.

After his violent conversion on the Damascus Road and an extended retreat “in

Arabia” (Acts 9:1-9; Gal 1:17),6 Paul is moved by the Spirit to preach the gospel. He does so

without any apparent thought to what the organizational or administrative consequences might

be; that is, how will the group of believers, who respond to his call and message, live

converted, interdependent lives in community. He preaches to Jews and God-fearers in the

synagogues, apparently assuming they will remain there—that is, in a pre-existing group of

6
All biblical references and quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from Donald Senior et.al., eds., The
Catholic Study Bible, New American Bible, 1990 ed. (New York: Oxford U. Press, 1990).

3
believers.7 In this case, as in so many other aspects of Paul’s life, the model is Jesus who

leads a community (but does not found a “church”)8 within a pre-existing religion (Judaism)

with pre-existing rituals, rules, priests, feast days, and theology. Just as Jesus ignores the

inevitable administrative requirements of a church other than to remind his disciples to

continue teaching (converting), baptizing (admitting to membership), and life-modeling (the

code of conduct) after him, so does Paul. Later, when Paul is forced from the synagogue and

turns to the Gentiles, he assumes his audience will meet together in house or apartment

churches9 and that most of the rest of their religious lives will be lived according to centuries-

old Judaic customs. Although, for Paul, there is no early concern for logistics and

administration, there is an assumption that Christians will be in community (note, however,

that the assumption is “in community” and not “in the world”) and will frame their view of

Church and the responsibilities of Christian lifestyle from community--for this is the only

experience of religion and life that Paul knows.

As Paul develops his ministry, first in Asia and then in Europe, he is faced with the

practical aspects of who and how—to bring about the Reign of God—as the foundational

questions which remain today as those to be asked of any community professing itself to be

Church. These questions are not those of temporal or spatial requirements; they are

questions of the essential character. In reading the Letters and specifically the instructions

that Paul gives to his churches in response to their questions and problems, Paul’s

recommendations appear to be those repeatedly noted by ecclesiologists through the

7
Subsequently, the topic of possible models for Christian community formation will be explored. Richard S.
Ascough, What Are They Saving About the Formation of the Pauline Churches? (New York: Paulist, 1998).
See page __ below.
8
Matthew’s Gospel is the only synoptic gospel which uses the word ekklesia in chapters 16 and 18.
9
The Gentile churches may have adopted and adapted their form from the secular social clubs which
apparently existed throughout the Greco-Roman world, called “ekkesiae.” Johnson, 201.

4
centuries: how well do his communities do kerygma, koinonia, eucharistia, and diakonia.10

His answers to those questions are not found in elaborately developed theological tracts, but

in his acts, in his personal life, and in the exhortations he gives to his churches, all as

evident, albeit occasionally implicit, in his Letters and the Acts of the Apostles.

The foundation principle is koinonia—for Paul is convinced that in the

fullness of community all else follows.11 This is true at the local level and at the universal

church level. Paul has experienced locally the Pharisaic community, and he certainly

understands the concept of the chosen nation from Hebrew Scripture. So there is precedent

for both within him. From his participation in the Jerusalem Conference, which is described

both by Luke in Acts (Acts15:1-21) and by Paul himself, with a slightly different emphasis,

in a letter (Gal 2:1-10), Paul illustrates a concern with universal solidarity for Christians.

But, Paul’s letters are all addressed to local communities with specific culturally and

temporally dictated issues. For example, in his letter to the community at Corinth, Paul

demonstrates a concern with solidarity (or koinonia) within the local church. Paul, a

Pharisee has studied, understands, and implicitly knows that a community which exhibits

koinonia is one which necessarily desires the community strengthening of communion in

Eucharist (eucharistia), practices service within the community and reaches out beyond it

(diakonia), and which has the strength, the impetus, and the credibility to proclaim the Reign

10
Peter Phan, “Proclamation of the Reign of God as Mission of the Church,” www.dlilibrary.acu.edu.
au/research/theology/ejournal/Issue2/Peter_Phan. This paper was originally presented in Memphis, TN on
October 26-28, 200l, but it has been re-presented at various locations. (Note: the internet version is not
paginated.)
11
Raymond Brown considers koinonia to be one of the two most important features of church in understanding
how Paul established and nurtured his churches. (The other is kerygma.) Raymond Brown, The Beginnings of
the Church, (12 lectures delivered at Damascus House in London, and recorded on audio tapes on January 30-
February 2, 1998) (Hawarden, Flintshire, Wales: Welcome Recordings (www.welcomerecordings.com), 1998),
tape 4, side 2.

5
of God through the example of daily life and, as Francis of Assisi suggests, to proclaim “in

words sometimes” (kerygma).12

This paper will identify the essential characteristics of a Pauline church, the church

about which we derive such a clear image from the Pauline letters and Luke’s Acts and then

use these characteristics to measure how well The Pax Community, a post-Vatican II IEC,

located in Northern Virginia (“Pax”), or any similar IEC does “church” in the twenty-first

century.

The paper is divided into five sections:

A. “Group solidarity” is the implicit Judaic view of life as both anthropological

reality and theological necessity in the Second Temple period. It is assumed that Paul

absorbed this view in his Pharisaic period, if not during his earlier educational experience as

a diaspora Jew, born to devout Jewish parents, in a cosmopolitan and educated Greek

society in Tarsus, and that he was influenced (perhaps without much introspection or

deliberation) by this view in his post-conversion life. This section will also review the

Hebrew Bible evidence for the view and a brief description of the elements of the Judaic

notions of solidarity as the essential characteristic of society. Thus, the foundational

background for Paul’s view of community will assume his adherence to the primacy of the

Semitic view of community as the social building block.13

B. The letters disclose the repetition of certain words in describing community.

Four of these words (koinonia, soma, sarx, and ekklesia) are examined as “markers” of

12
Raymond Brown also characterizes the church community with four attributes: prayer and worship practices,
Eucharist, catechesis (a code of common conduct), and koinonia. Brown, tape 4, sides 1 and 2. Paul would
likely prioritize the list as koinonia, kerygma, diakonia, and eucharistia—the latter of which is the ultimate
sacramental sign of the other three done well. It could also be noted that Paul understands full well the
importance for group identity and cohesiveness that the individual feel an integral part of the group which is
itself set apart from the rest of society.
13
L.T. Kreitzer, “Body,” in G.F.Hawthorne and R.P. Martin, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers
Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 71.

6
community ideal and metaphor. Taken together (and in the putative order in which they

were written), these words suggest a complex and multi-faceted picture of the totality of

Paul’s notion of a religious community.

C. These “words” are placed in context to establish the primacy of koinonia as a test

of church in Paul, using Paul’s conduct at the Jerusalem conference, the Jerusalem

collection, the First Letter to the Corinthians, and, to a lesser extent other Pauline writings.

Thus, the evolutionary realization by Paul of the importance of koinonia (and related

concepts), as disclosed by the evidence in his letters, is demonstrated when the letters are re-

ordered temporally.14 The Pastoral Letters are considered as the logical development of a

Pauline notion of community, consistent, at least with respect to koinonia, with Paul’s

earlier letters. Simply because these letters disclose an implicit organization, even a

hierarchy, does not detract from the equality of responsibility for mission with the whole

community (masculine-exclusivity excepted).

14
This paper uses a modified chronological and epigraphical technique which is substantially, but not entirely
consistent with a majority of Scripture scholars. It does not explore questions of whether certain letters are
authentic Pauline letters and whether certain letters are in fact more than one letter. While there is no
unanimity, the letters are generally described as Pauline (i.e., dictated by Paul himself, perhaps with the help of
assistants named in the letters, or scribes), deutero-Pauline (i.e. where some doubt of authorship exists, such as
Second Thessalonians, Colossians and Philippians), and pseudo-epigraphical (where there is a majority view
that the letter was not written by Paul himself, but may or may not reflect his views). If the deutero-Pauline
letters were not written by Paul, it is likely that they should be placed later than Romans. However, Jerome
Murphy-O’Connor, in Paul, A Critical Life, argues that these letters (linguistically and as a matter of subject
material) “belong” in the sequence of Paul’s life, rather than after Romans, even if the secretarial hand might
have been a little heavier in these cases because of Paul’s imprisonment. In the case of the development of the
words described in this section, Fr. Murphy-O’Connor’s argument fits nicely. Therefore, the paper treats the
deutero-Pauline letters in the logical sequence of Paul’s biography. Thus, the chronology of the letters is: First
Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians (the latter two or three being “prison
letters”), Philemon, First and Second Corinthians, and Romans. This paper refers to these as the “Pauline
Letters.” First and Second Timothy and Titus, the Pastoral Letters, also occasionally called pseudo-
epigraphical, are presumed to have been written later (Raymond Brown postulated in the AD 90’s), and there is
more debate as to whether Paul personally wrote all or parts of them or merely inspired them. Finally, there is
general consensus that Ephesians is both late and pseudo-epigraphical. This summary is not intended to pose
any question whatsoever about the canonicity of the Letters as a whole or their value in examining early
concepts of church.

7
 D. In order to set the stage for an ecclesiological inquiry into the practical aspects of

church in a contemporary IEC, the history of the Pax Community15 is set out, a “measure of

the community is taken (following the typical methodology of social organization), and

questions asked about whether the experience of Paul in his communities and the consequent

projections of community behavior are useful in observing and understanding a

contemporary community, which sees itself as returning to the golden age of Pauline

Christianity.

E. Conclusions are then drawn about whether the Pauline model of church is

sufficiently comparable to the Pax model to permit analysis and whether it is a useful tool in

understanding the IEC, in ministering to that community as it develops its life in the gospel,

and for PAX itself as it struggles with its identity, mission and future. A few limited

pastoral suggestions follow.

A. Paul’s Community Heritage

A definitional article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary describes the sociology of

community which is assumed in the Hebrew Bible.16 The basic unit of society is the

extended, patriarchal family; women were property; kinship patterns insulated the tribes

from urban-based monarchies. Annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem united the tribal units

theocratically, but not politically or economically. Yahweh’s perceived rules operated as a

natural limit to the accretion of power by the strongest and most talented. The Davidic

Monarchy reduced significantly the tribal unit’s role, but ultimately the failings of the

monarchies to bring about a nation firmly rooted in the laws and ways of Yahweh brought

15
The author and his family have been members, occasional leaders, and “practical historians” of The Pax
Community since 1975 and thus he writes as an “insider” with the associated cultural myopia which this
implies.
16
Paul Hansen, “Community—Old Testament,” in D.N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, v.1 (New
York: Doubleday, 1992), 1099-1103.

8
disappointment—and exile. The post-exilic period saw the rise of rival communities (e.g.

the this-worldly Sadducees, the apocalyptic other-worldly Essenes, and the proto-rabbinic,

centrist Pharisees) each claiming the way of Yahweh. Paul was born into this political

milieu.

The people of the first century Eastern Mediterranean saw community, or koinonia,

as the logical (perhaps only) context for living and understanding. The concept of koinonia

has been variously described. It involves elements of solidarity, unity, community, and

group identity. In a cultural milieu in which individuals view their own self in terms of

group, koinonia becomes the critical behavioral predictor and the path to social security. It

seems to be synonymous with communion (although contemporary ecumenical use of

communio suggests that communion, as a concept, may mean less than the unity-identity

assumption of the Eastern Mediterranean).

Paul’s life corresponds roughly to the last 70 years of Second Temple Judaism. This

was a period of ferment in Palestine. Greco-Roman dominance provided an envelope in

which religio-political groups vied for favor. Sectarianism, apocalyptism, and messianism,

as idealistic views of history competed with the pragmatic political desires of those seeking

freedom from outside domination, collaboration, cultic monasticism, anarchism, or the

submersion of Israel into the Greco-Roman social empire. With so many pulls upon the

allegiance of the urban Jews, they sought refuge in groups that helped to define life—just as

they had done for centuries in the countryside. Paul chose to become a Pharisee, a group

which seems to have had both political and religious features—but which decidedly

heightened the sensitivities of its membership to unity in belief and life-style.17

17
Jacob Neusner, From Politics to Piety, The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism, 2nd ed., (New York: KTAV
Pub, 1979) pp.

9
 Paul’s letters implicitly assume the acceptance of the prevailing view of koinonia in

first century Israel. For many years, the proposition that Paul was first a Jew, grounded in

Judaic concepts (including solidarity and group identity) has been a cornerstone of Pauline

exegesis. Biographers have counted the number of direct quotations of the Hebrew

Scripture in Paul’s letters (at least 75), have recognized his allusion to that same literature,

and have parsed his facility with rabbinic rhetoric.18 19 Similarly, it is difficult to imagine that

Paul did not understand and had not internalized the basic mindset of the first century Jew,

particularly one apparently raised in a devout Jewish family (a “Hebrew born of Hebrews”)

who, in his own words, had “starred” in his studies as a Pharisee. (Phl 4:5 for heritage; Gal

1:14 for studies) We therefore assume, as so may others have, that Paul, as a Jew and an

educated and acculturated first century Eastern Mediterranean man, had internalized the

essentiality of group identity and community to a far greater extent than contemporary

Westerners can conceive. When Paul writes to his churches, he is writing to his brothers

and sisters, his family, and his closest friends with whom he fully identifies as an essential

aspect of his very being and personality. What they feel, he feels; when they sin, he feels

guilt; when they succeed, he exults. (1 Cor 12:16)

An important study by Bruce Malina, which uses the methods of modern cultural

anthropology to postulate individual personality and group behavior, describes the first

18
Russell P. Shedd, Man in Community, A Study of Paul’s Application of Old Testament and Early Jewish
Conceptions of Human Solidarity (London: Epworth Press, 1958), 4-5 (and footnotes on those pages) refers to
works by F. Prat, 1945, by F.C.Porter, 1922, W.F.Stinespring, 1944, W.D. Davies, 1948, and H.W. Robinson,
1936 for examples of studies demonstrating the pervasive use of the Hebrew Scriptures in the Pauline Letters.
19
There is some complexity to Paul’s heritage, however, which must be noted. Many now believe that Paul
spent most of his youth in Tarsus and that he went to Jerusalem as a late adolescent or young man. This
proposition is founded upon an analysis of Paul’s use of Greek in his letters, implying a thorough education in
the Greek gymnasium. Paul’s first language was Greek, not Hebrew. Thus, Paul’s notion of community would
have been complicated by the experience of the diaspora Jewish community of his family and the ghetto in
which it lived, the Greek background of his classmates in the gymnasium, and the cosmopolitan atmosphere of
Tarsus, a bustling and important entrepot. See Alvin Roetzel, Paul, The Man and His Myth, (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress Press, 1999), 8-20, and Murphy O’Connor, Paul, A Critical Life, 32-51.

10
century Eastern Mediterranean person as acutely conscious of reputation (the view of others,

dependence upon the group for status, and “common thinking” to the extent that the actor in

the human drama is not the individual so much as the group with which the individual

identifies and is a part).20 This concept is foundational when examining both the explicit

and implicit references of Paul to community, whether the references are to ekklesia,

koinonia, or the metaphorical sarx or soma. Paul’s expectations for human conduct within

his churches, his moral theology (for example, his Body of Christ imagery), and his

ecclesiology derive from his personal experience (praxis) in life. The Letters are extremely

personal manifestations of experience. The number of references to personal trauma

(imprisonment, illness, travails on the road, persecution) would seem to be needlessly self-

serving and plaintive for a “saint” were it not for the fact that Paul expects that his

addressees (brothers and sisters), as part of him, were suffering with him because of his

story and would “feel his pain.”

It is not necessary to rely only upon deductions from cultural anthropology to

determine that solidarity was an overarching concept in Judaic culture. Numerous Hebrew

Bible references to this concept exist. The Torah begins with a creation account designed to

demonstrate that all humankind claims Adam as ancestor. Old Testament scholars point out

that the names of individuals stand for whole nations (e.g., Jacob for Israel [Isaiah 40:27],

Esau for Edom [Malachi 1:3-4]), thus testifying to the readiness to equate the individual and

the nation.21 Judaic law was designed to create “signs” of membership in the group (e.g.,

circumcision, purity laws, and dietary laws) and to enforce tribal identity (marriage and

20
Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World, Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 3rd ed., (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2002), 58-67.
21
Lawrence Boadt, Reading the Old Testament, An Introduction, (New York: Paulist, 1984), 103-106, in
describing the “P” source of the Hebrew Bible indicates that the literary genre of this source implicitly accepts
the concept of solidarity by emphasizing the uniqueness of the chosen people of God.

11
inheritance practices). In fact the very monotheism which characterized the Jewish nation

suggests that there is a unity in God, reflected in a unity in humankind, both to be sought on

earth and to be realized eschatologically.

Even in the first century, as the evangelists began to compile their gospels, persons

are not named so much as identified as members of their respective groups (cf., the

Samaritan woman or man)—reinforcing the group identity thesis. Finally, we find a

number of references to this concept of unity in Acts 17:26-29; Eph 3:15, and Col 1:16-17.

While there may have been a nascent understanding of the notion of the individual among

the Greek philosophers, this view does not appear to have had a strong influence among the

Jews—and there is no deference to individualism in Paul. Judaic culture and Pauline

thinking were built upon assumptions of group identity and the necessity for members of the

group to contribute to the status of that group economically and socially.22

While the anthropological studies have focused upon the agrarian aspects of society

which were pervasive in terms of the bulk of the population, urban conduct appears to have

“brought the farm to the city.” Thus, in the urban setting some sought identity by

participation in guilds of workers, parties, sects, or clubs. In adulthood, when Paul lives in

Jerusalem, he becomes a Pharisee. In this group of scholarly men, Paul finds camaraderie

and identity among eating companions (men who observe the ritual purity and eating

requirements of the Torah outside the Temple precinct), Torah-study companions,

philosophical co-disputants, and men with common values and culture—and identity.23

Without belaboring this point any further, it is irrefutable that Paul, as many others of his

time and place, would have seen community and koinonia as the norm. (The only point

22
Malina,43-45, and Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, A Social
History of Its First Century, trans. by O.C. Dean, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 7-14.
23
Neusner, pp.

12
which is still the focus of conjecture is the extent to which, in an urban setting, which of

various overlapping identity groups held first place in the loyalty of each person.)

Assumptions of individuality, personality, and self-introspection must be put aside, if one is

to understand the cultural dynamics of Paul’s churches. The genius of Paul, however, is his

simultaneous grasp of (1) the essential element of the teachings of Jesus about the Reign of

God—it was for all, including the Gentiles, not just the Jews, that is, a kerygma for all

humankind and (2) the cultural expectation that his community (the local church) would act

in context (that is, according to anticipated social morays) and in solidarity to bring about

the Reign of God for themselves and then others on earth. Thus, Paul’s primary “identity

group” was defined by belief in the kerygma of Jesus, the coming of the Reign of God, and

the necessity to preach that kerygma. Paul understood the tension between local and

universal, but he seems to suggest that one who truly is in koinonia with a local church will

ultimately understand the demands of diakonia to the universal church. Paul’s church then

is built on local group solidarity, in other words, community.

B. Words of Community in Paul

This study of community in Paul occurs on two levels. First, the “words” of

community are identified; then, secondary sources (primarily biblical lexicons) are used to

gain a depth of understanding as to potential meanings. This process identifies the range

and variety as these words are located and examined in specific context.24 Second, the
24
The methodology used is iterative and utilizes both written sources and Internet data bases. A review of the
literature suggests that four words in the Greek New Testament are most often associated with notions of
community (in all of its fullness): koinonia, soma, sarx, and ekklesia. (There are at least three other words with
metaphorical implications for the Pauline notion of community: field, building, and oikia [household], but none
of these words were used often and Paul does not rely on these metaphors in the development of his notion of
community.) These words were determined by a full reading of the Pauline corpus and several biblical lexicons
from which various Greek verbal possibilities were derived. However, these words are not consistently
translated—even within a single version of the New Testament, let alone among the various versions.
Therefore, a computerized Greek concordance was used to find all uses of the four words in the Pauline
letters. The concordance used was Strong’s Concordance, which assigns numbers to all Greek words in the
New Testament. (In other words, this is not a “key word” search system.) Once the number is known, the

13
works as a whole are examined to determine the complex fabric into which these words are

woven.

Koinonia

The first word examined is koinonia. Strong’s defines koinonia as fellowship,

association, community, communion, joint participation and intercourse. Note that the

definition implies action, not just passive identification.25 The Hebrew word, chashash, has a

similar meaning, but is not etymologically related. The word appears 18 times in the Pauline

letters and once in Ephesians. It does not appear in the Pastoral Letters.

Paul’s first use of the term is found in the Letter to the Galatians,26 in which Paul

describes his visit to Jerusalem to discuss the requirements that will be imposed on the

Gentiles, specifically, will they be required to become Jews before they can be considered

Christians. There were at least two practical consequences of the requirement: adult

circumcision and adherence to the Deuteronomic purity laws. Paul argues that the Gentiles

should not be required to undergo circumcision. Cephas and James, two of the “so-called

pillars” of the Jerusalem church discuss the issue with Paul, and they apparently agree with

Paul. At this point, the evangelical mission undergoes a significant transformation: Paul will

preach to the Gentiles and not impose Judaic cultic rules; James and Cephas will preach to
word can be searched and all appearances of that Greek word can be printed out. Since the print out is the KJV
and follows the order of the KJV bible presentation, the citations are then manually cross-referenced to the
New American Bible translation—which was frequently materially different with respect to these words and
the citations were reordered. Since the computer search is done on the Internet and the data base is actively
maintained, it is necessary to cite the day of search. All of the data searches were done on June 8, 2005, and
updated on June 28, 2005. No changes were noted. “Lexicon and Strong’s Concordance Search for ****.”
Blue Letter Bible, 1996-2002, June 28, 2005. http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?
strongs=****&page=1. In each case where the **** appears, the **** would be replaced with the four digit
word number for each of the four words searched. A sample printout is attached as an appendix to this paper.
Whereas the written literature was an excellent source for historical material—both the development of
language and the development of concept, the computer data search was a very efficient method for identifying
uses, providing “quick” definitions, and, at least on a preliminary basis, suggesting possible different meanings
implicit in the selections of the translators.
25
Blue Letter Bible, www.blueletterbible.com, “koinonia”, June 28, 2005, 1.
26
Paul and Barnabas were delegates to Jerusalem from the Church at Antioch, but Paul does not write about
the incident until some years later in this Letter, and Luke’s account in Acts is no doubt later still.

14
the Jews and maintain the “Jewish-ness” of the Christianity of Jerusalem. As they part,

James, Cephas, and Paul offer their hands to each other “in partnership in ministry.” (Gal

2:9) The apostles recognize the different needs and the different places of the evangelized.27

The koinonia or “partnership” of Christianity is to be a unity which recognizes difference.

This decision sets the stage for a universal Christianity, and ultimately, a church which is not

“just a Jewish sect.” Partnership implies co-activity, co-responsibility, and co-authority

within a negotiated framework for an agreed objective. But, at this stage Paul is arguing his

legitimacy as an apostle, i.e. as a co-evangelizer. Koinonia here is active: the partnership is

in mission, to spread the kerygma, but it is also acculturated in that it recognizes diversity.

Paul’s next28 use of koinonia is in Philippians. This is a prison letter; Paul may feel

imminent death; he may be restricted or compromised in his use of a secretary. He is

writing to his then “favorite” community, his first church in Europe, which has supported his

missionary activities materially for some time. It is deeply personal and shows Paul’s

identity with his fellow church members. In the thanksgiving section of the letter (a section

which almost always immediately follows the greeting), Paul recognizes the Philippians’

“partnership in the Gospel.” (Phil 1:5) Later in a plea for community unity, he describes

their “partnership in the Spirit.” (Phil 2:1) And finally, he invites the Philippians to a

“sharing of his sufferings” in imitation of the life of Jesus. (Phil 4:10) In each of these

27
Curiously, Luke does not use the word koinonia in describing the conference and the entire tone of Luke’s
account suggests that a general meeting of the Christians in Jerusalem, chaired by Peter and James, comes to
the conclusion (announced, perhaps finalized, by James) that imposing all aspects of the Jewish Law on the
Gentiles does not seem appropriate because those who have been joining and acting in community have
exhibited some of the same qualities of personal conduct and demeanor as those who were Jews, and thus, they
conclude the Spirit must be working in all—even the uncircumcised. The sign of the Christian is to be conduct,
not an outward cultic sign. This, of course, is not the end of the story as dissent continues for some time.
(Acts 15:1-21)
28
This paragraph is an illustration of the point made in fn 14.

15
cases, Paul is using koinonia to recognize the commonality of the life journey and the

common assumption of responsibility for kerygma by the whole community.

In his shortest letter, a personal note to a dear friend Philemon whose slave has

illegally escaped and has apparently been assisting Paul’s ministry, Paul reminds Philemon

(not too subtly) that theirs is a partnership in faith, a faith which imposes requirements on

the lives of community members. (Phm 1:6)

After founding a church in Corinth, this community pre-occupies Paul for much of

the rest of his ministry. In a sense, Paul has found his home and writes to them (and

presumably preached to them) repeatedly, trying to make this community the ideal both for

this ministry and his life.29 The early Christian community at Corinth is perhaps the one

about which most is known, and thus it can be a (note, not “the”) model for other

communities professing Christianity. In the Thanksgiving section of his first letter to this

community, recognizes “God’s call to fellowship with Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor 1:9) Again,

Paul recognizes the horizontal responsibility of all to work to spread the Reign of God.

Later, in the same letter, Paul introduces one of the major themes of his preaching, the unity

of Christians, among themselves and with Jesus, which naturally flows from the

“participation” in his body and his blood, concluding this description with the one-loaf-of-

bread imagery. (1 Cor 10:16) In this almost accidental description of the Eucharist, , as Paul

berates the Corinthians for conduct which is a violation of unity, Paul links two underlying

Judaic themes in his ministry: the unity of community and the immediate presence of the

past. In bringing forward the life and ministry of Jesus and inviting participation, Paul is

using a common technique in Semitic life: participation in the past enlivens the story telling,
29
It may be argued that the entrepreneurial, middle-class, Greco-Semitic, cosmopolitan community of Corinth
most closely corresponds to Paul’s own family experience in Tarsus, and was, therefore, the one with which he
was most comfortable. Under these circumstances he would have wanted this community to be the perfect
Christian community which he was idealizing in his own mind.

16
creates a newness to history, and involves the participants in action today as they learn by

doing.30

In his Second Letter to the Corinthians, Paul explicitly links koinonia with service

(diakonia). Chapter eight focuses on the collection for the church in Jerusalem. Since well

before the time of Christ, Jerusalem, the pilgrimage goal of Jews and the site of the Second

Temple which Jews believed to be the center of their religious existence, had not been self-

supporting. Pilgrims helped, but the diaspora Jews needed to make periodic contributions

for the welfare of the Jews in Jerusalem—the poor, the widows, and students. Paul and his

communities have taken on similar financial obligations for the ‘agioi of Christian

Jerusalem. Thus, Paul invites the Corinthian community to “take part in the service of the

holy ones” (by contributing to the Jerusalem collection).31 (2 Cor 8:4) Two important

implications are derived from this passage (and the entire focus of Paul on the collection).

First, Paul suggests that the church of Corinth is in koinonia with the church in Jerusalem.

This koinonia has two aspects: common belief in the gospel and common responsibility for

service to its members. While there is some debate about universal/congregational aspects

of Paul’s notion of church, his focus on the collection certainly suggests that at least

concerning the obligation to service, the focus is both parochial and universal. Secondly,

Paul inextricably links community and the obligations of community, both inside and

outside. It can also be noted that these obligations go beyond the kerygmatic aspects of

evangelization; they extend also to the physical and financial needs of community. Paul

concludes his discussion of the responsibility of the members of a community, one to the

30
This gets to the heart of the notion of sacrament as active sign: not just a re-creation of the past as a sign of
that past, but an action which changes and converts the participant. Without this, the sacrament is an empty
sign. Obviously, the Corinthian community was not in major pat Semitic, but Paul does not hesitate to assume
the validity of his Judaic background.
31
The King James’ version uses “fellowship of ministering.”

17
other, by linking the words koinonia, charis (grace, gift) and eucharistia at the end of

chapter nine, making it completely clear that he considers service to be the logical

consequence and partner of community. (2 Cor 9:13-15)

At the end of this same letter, Paul concludes with the tripartite conclusion which has

become ubiquitous in Christianity, as he blesses his Corinthian church with the grace of

Jesus, the love of God and the “fellowship of the Holy Spirit”—thus using koinonia in the

last words he leaves with this community. (2 Cor 13:13)

Thus, a rich tapestry of meaning emerges to characterize the actual and ideal for the

Christian community of Paul’s time, or of any age:

--Koinonia is active participation;

--Koinonia is a partnership with co-authority and co-responsibility toward a

common goal;

--Koinonia suggests common lifestyle and common life-journey;

--Koinonia is participation in the ministry of Jesus (periodically refreshed by

a reenactment of the eucharistia;

--Koinonia involves co-responsibility for service ministry; and

--Koinonia, particularly when externally demonstrated, is a sign of unity in

the Holy Spirit.

Soma and Sarx

Soma and sarx are used a total of 143 times in the Pauline literature. Soma, in

accordance with Paul’s Semitic anthropological heritage is not evil as there is no rigid

body/mind-soul dualism in Paul,32 but sarx generally carries a negative concept. Most often

32
Wilhelm Pesch, “Body,” in Johannes B. Bauer, ed, Sacramentum Verbi (NY: Herder and Herder, 1970), 81-
4.

18
therefore, one can expect soma to have a positive metaphorical connotation indicating

“wholeness” or, adopting the Roman concept, the “body politic.”33 The metaphorical use of

“body” to indicate the community creates a tension, which has contemporary overtones.

The individual identity (for “body” can mean the whole person, denying the dualism) is not

swallowed up in community because the fitness of the entire body is dependent upon the

fitness and quality of each part, but each individual is responsible for the salvation of all of

the others parts of the body, i.e. the community.34 In this sense interdependence replaces

both independence and dependence as the key value of community.

Soma and sarx are related words with overlapping translations. Both words have

obvious literal equivalences, body or flesh. Since this paper is primarily focused on the

metaphorical implications for praxis, the literal uses are only briefly reviewed and then

discarded. Strong’s suggests one definition (the other three definitions reflecting literal

translations such as a living or dead body) for soma, “a (large or small) number of men

closely united into one society, or family as it were; a social, ethical, mystical body.”35 The

definition of sarx, while not always literal, does not contain a reference to a group.

Suggestions include the body of a person, the sensuous side of human existence, flesh, or

any living creature.36

Paul uses both terms prolifically in his letters. Soma is first used in Galatians where

it is a physical reference to the body (Gal 6:17); and in First Thessalonians with similar

import. (1 Thess 5:23)

33
L.T.Kreitzer, “Body,” in G.F. Hawthorne and R.P.Martin, eds., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
(Downers Group, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 71-76 and R.Y.K. Fung, “Body of Christ,” in the same volume,
76-82.
34
Robert Wald, “Community—New Testament,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1106.
35
Blue Letter Bible, Greek lexicon results for soma (Strong’s 4983), June 28, 2005.
36
Blue Letter Bible, Greek lexicon results for sarx (Strong’s 4561), June 28, 2005.

19
 There are seven uses of the word in Colossians. On four occasions, the reference is

physical. (Col 1:22; 2:17; 2:23; and 3:15) In one the reference, it is to the circumcised

foreskin (Col 2:11) and in another the metaphoric aspect of an individual who thinks only of

“fleshly” things. (Col 2:19) However, this letter introduces the important concept of body as

a metaphor for Paul’s view of the community of believers united in Jesus. In an extended

hymn, likely an adapted creedal statement of the Colossian community, Paul refers to Jesus

as “the head of the body, the church.” (Col 1:18) This concept, using the body as a

metaphor for the church with Jesus as its head, is to be much more fully developed in the

first letter to the Corinthians.37 But, even here, Paul is demonstrating the remarkable ability

to distinguish between essential theology and cultural expression (i.e. the pagan metaphor)

of that theology. Giving believers (or perhaps adapting) a convenient “handle” for

understanding theology, by expressing in the vernacular of local cultural language and

image is not syncretism, rather it is pastorally sensitive—for Paul knows his community.

This is both a key to Paul’s success in evangelization and a statement about his acculturated

ecclesiology. Paul sees the church as the new and continuing personification of Jesus with a

responsibility to carry on the ministry of Jesus in the world, to bring about the Reign of God.

By the time he writes to the Corinthians, the richness of the body imagery has been

developed in Paul’s mind. In addition to the commonplace physical references (nine

separate references), Paul uses soma to describe (1) the unity of a couple, particularly with

respect to sexual congress (1 Cor 6:16), in his description of Eucharist, in a discussion of the

appearance of the post-Resurrection body (1 Cor 37, 38 and 44), and, most importantly for

this paper, in his description of the ideal community/church in Chapter 12.

37
It has been suggested that Paul is adapting both a creedal statement of the addressee community and his
familiarity with Stoic philosophy which holds that the world is the “body of Zeus.” Thus, Paul is adapting the
pagan views of his church members to a new Christian vision. New American Bible, fns 1:15-20 and 1:18 to
Colossians.

20
 Chapter 11 contains Paul’s version of the Last Supper sequence, paralleling similar

material in the synoptic gospels. In the description, Paul twice uses the word soma (1 Cor

24 and 29). In this case, he is conveying that Jesus is really present at the Eucharist and he

is providing a metaphor for the unity of the church—with its members and head in that one

body. It is interesting to note that Paul sets his only description of the Last Supper

immediately prior to his extended explanation of what he means by the church as body.

The structure of First Corinthians suggests that Paul is responding to issues that have

arisen within the community and of which he has been made aware. It has been remarked

that Paul’s church in Corinth was particularly difficult. Corinth was a thriving metropolis,

built on trade and commerce because of its unique geography, but also because first century

entrepreneurs had determined to make Corinth a major commercial center. Thus, the

citizens are self-made persons of commerce, whom, it seems, were conscious that their

wealth and position were not inherited or old, derived from the land, or protected from the

vicissitudes of politics, which were controlled by the patrician class. Their competitiveness

and insecurity carry over into church affairs. As a seaport and crossroads, one can imagine

the polyglot nature of the immigrants, service providers, refugees, and petty entrepreneurs.

This was a “rough and tumble” city where it was possible to make or lose one’s life. Church

members are beginning to seek legitimacy and stature by claiming association with well-

known speakers and philosophers (such as Apollos who has apparently achieved an

academic pedigree and a preaching stature—perhaps, as Murphy-O’Connor suggests from

his education at the famous school of Philo in Alexandria).38 They are also beginning to

rank themselves within the church community by the claimed quality of their respective

gifts: prophecy, healing, miracle working, glossalalia, etc. Paul understands the competitive
38
Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, A Critical Life, 271-278; particularly 275 with respect to Apollos.

21
mentality (he had been raised, after all, in Tarsus, a trading center very like Corinth, by

parents who probably became financially successful in their business) and he knows his

brothers and sisters in Corinth. In many ways, Corinth is a metaphor for the individualistic,

entrepreneurial, materialistic, “humanist” cites of the contemporary world, perhaps even

with a view that sacred intervention was unlikely, if not mythic. Therefore, he fashions the

powerful metaphor of the body—which he hopes all can readily see reflects reality.

Although different in appearance, function, and placement, the body needs all of its parts.

As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of
the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit
we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or
free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.
Now the body is not a single part, but many. If a foot should
say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not
for this reason belong any less to the body. Or if an ear should say,
“Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for
this reason belong any less to the body. If the whole body were an eye,
where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where
would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God placed the parts, each of
them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one part, where
would the body be? But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
(1Cor 12:12-20)

While Paul is exhorting his fellow Corinthians to recognize that in Jesus, there is no

hierarchy of entitlement or honor, he is simultaneously making a remarkable statement about

his church. In baptism there is a horizontality of responsibility and in Paul’s gospel, there is

no hierarchy. Whereas in koinonia, Paul talks about partnership in kerygma (the outward

thrust of mission), in soma, Paul is talking about the internal character of the community and

its relationship to Jesus.

Corinth has interested ecclesiologists for a long time, not simply because we know

more about this community than any other first century Christian community because of

Paul’s letters (and the availability of an archaeological record and secular classical writings

22
to provide detail), but also because this community seems to reflect the conditions and the

questions of contemporary Western Christianity. Fiercely individual, competitive,

entrepreneurial Christians, who, for the most part spend most of their lives in a

representative democratic setting, are looking for ways to understand their roles in their

churches—and they are questioning the hierarchical imagery which has developed in the

church since the time of Paul. Paul provides some of those answers, but typically not in the

way that all might expect: he focuses on responsibility, not entitlement.

Paul uses soma six times in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, but all of these

references are to the physical body, not metaphoric. Similarly, in the Letter to the Romans,

Paul uses nine physical references, but in chapter 12, he succinctly restates the argument of

First Corinthians. (Rom 12:4-5) There is one physical reference in the First Letter to

Timothy (1Tim 5:23). The Letter to the Ephesians contains eight uses of the word and

virtually all metaphorical references. The author has adopted Paul’s concept of the church

as the body and freely uses this metaphor. (For example, Eph 2:16; 4:4; 4:12; 4:16; and

5:30)

There are nearly as many references to sarx in the Pauline corpus as there are to

soma, but in the case of sarx, the metaphorical use to imply participation in the church, the

body of believers, headed by Jesus is completely absent. Generally, as in the Letter to the

Galatians, the metaphor means “human being.” (E.g., Gal 1:16, 2:16, 2:20), but sarx is also

commonly used as the antithesis of spirit (E.g. Gal 4:29, 5:13, 5:16), and, as might be

expected, given the anti-Judaizer polemic style of Galatians, sarx is also the word used for

foreskin as Paul terrorizes the men of Galatia with the prospect, pain, and danger of adult

circumcision. (Gal 6:12-13)

23
 In Philippians, Paul develops a theme which is to reappear often in his letters. Flesh

is unreliable, carnal, ephemeral, constricting. Flesh is the partner and occasion of sin. Flesh

is the denial of spirit. (Phil 1:22; 1:24; 3:3, 3:4) Similar conclusions can be drawn from the

nine uses in Colossians. Sarx is moving in meaning from mere flesh or body to a metaphor

for sin. In Philemon, sarx is a metaphor for human being. (Phm 1:16)

The First Corinthians contains seven uses. Sarx is metaphor for human (1 Cor 1:26),

a metaphor for the unity of man and woman in sexual congress (1 Cor 6:16), and opposed to

the spirit. (1 Cor 15:50) Since a part of this letter deals with questions of whether the

community at Corinth might consume sacrificial meat which has been previously sacrificed

to pagan gods (parts of which were often sold by priests on the market), a practice which

would be abhorred by a Pharisaic Jew, sarx is the word used to describe this sacrificial meat.

(1 Cor 10:18 and 15:39) {Paul never uses the word sarx in describing the body of Jesus,

although he does occasionally use it to describe himself, particularly when he is describing

his physical afflictions.)

Second Corinthians contains nine uses: as a metaphor for human being (2 Cor 5:16),

as the antithesis of spirit (2 Cor 10:3), and various literal uses.

Sarx is a common word in Romans; there are 23 references.

These uses fall into the categories described above: flesh as sin, as contrary to God, as

humanity, as carnal. However, the use in Rom 1:3 is designed to emphasize that Jesus was

truly human since he was descended “in the flesh” from David.

The physical reality of Jesus is again emphasized in 1 Tim 3:16. The eight uses in

Ephesians are almost all literal; only Eph 5:30 contains the metaphorical allusion of the

members of the body of Jesus.

24
 Thus, with the notable exception of the metaphorical references to the body of Christ

in Chapter 12 of First Corinthians, and the related early, undeveloped reference in Colossians

and the summary reference in Romans, soma and sarx are useful in developing Pauline

ecclesiology only with respect to the powerful image of the interdependent parts of the body,

with equally valued responsibilities, and a caution against hierarchical thinking.

Summary concepts emerge:

--Soma is an individual being, or a part (rarely just a physical body);

--Soma is the body of Jesus, the physical, continuing presence of Jesus in the

world, in the community of believers, who call themselves church;

--One is baptized into the soma of Jesus and is thus “in-Spirited”;

--The parts of the soma are of equal value, although different in function; and

--There is no hierarchy of charisms, as there is no hierarchy of body part.39

Ekklesia

The word ekklesia is borrowed from the Greek secular notion that a group of people (for

example, Greek citizens) are “called out” (ek kaleo) from their homes to gather for various

purposes such as discussion, determination of a course of action, or defense of the community.40

It was a verb before it was a noun. It does not mean a building. Ekklesia, when describing the

“church of God,” is really describing the individuals who are called by God to be in community

39
It is this observation which underpins a Pauline charismatic ecclesiology without any need for hierarchy. It
is also the concept which is so easily forgotten in the daily and necessary requirements of ministry and
administration and in the obvious reality that some individuals do certain things more efficiently and
effectively than others and that society values some activities more highly than others. It is perhaps only with
the maturity of old age that humanity comes to this recognition.
40
P.T.O’Brien, “Church,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 123. O”Brien notes that Philo and Josephus
both use the term with same connotation.

25
with God.41 A similar notion is found in the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint translates the Hebrew

qahal Yahweh, as ekklesia42), where until the time of Solomon, the Jews had no fixed “home” for

God as the ark was carried with them and placed in their midst in a tent. The temple (both the

First and Second Temples) was a place for priestly sacrifice, the site of the holy of holies, but it

was not the gathering place for Jews to worship (although it was a pilgrimage goal for periodic

sacrificial offerings and in this sense a “worship” site, but the sacrifices were performed by the

priestly class at the request of the pilgrim) and it was not referred to as ekklesia. While the Jews

had synagogues (there is debate as to the earliest existence of synagogues, but most likely there

were many by the beginning of the first century), these were buildings for discussion of Hebrew

Scripture, education, gathering, and a place for visitors to stay, not church buildings as would now

be considered such.

In the Christian sense, ekklesia has many meanings: “an assembly of Christians….for

worship,” a “company of Christians…[who] observe their own religious rites, hold their own

religious meetings, and manage their own affairs…,” “the whole body of Christians scattered

throughout the earth,” and/or “an assembly of faithful….already dead and received into

heaven.”43 It also, in Paul at least, has the meaning of universality in that the search for truth

is a unifed concept as “there is only one legitimate historical collective embodiment of the

church.”44 The word appears only three times in Matthew and not otherwise in the gospels,

throughout the New Testament, but is particularly prevalent in the Acts of the Apostles and in

the Pauline literature. This discrepancy of use has fueled the discussion about whether Jesus

founded a church, or whether it was done in his name after his death and resurrection. The
41
This is the Pauline use, i.e., the redeemed community called to a new covenant. Viktor Warmach, “Church,”
in Sacramentum Verbi, 101.
42
“…the assembly called by God…” (See, e.g., Ex 12:6, 16:3; 35:1; Dt 4:10, 9:10, among others.) Marrow,
142.
43
Blue Letter Bible, Greek lexicon for “ekklesia,” Strong’s number 1577, June 16, 2005.
44
Warmach, 112.

26
difference in use also sets the stage for the debate as to whether the local church is the

building block of the universal church or “merely” the localized expression of the universal

church. Paul’s use permits argument on both sides, but the entire context of his gospels does

not. Paul did not anticipate the debate: he assumed his local churches were the primary

manifestations of church, but he expected that the unity in essential belief would demonstrate

result in a de facto universality and unity.

Paul first uses ekklesia three times in Galatians. He describes his addressees as the

“church” in greeting (Gal 1:2) and later compares them with the “churches of Judea.” (Gal

1:22) He also refers to how he had personally “persecuted the church of God” in his pre-

conversion life. (Gal 1:13) In each case Paul is obviously referring to groups of Christians

who are gathering together for prayer, story-telling, and, presumably an agape meal. He

clearly understands that there is both a local church (both because he refers to a church as

being of a certain place and because he compares them) and a universal church (in that all are

called by God to this belief had been persecuted by Paul). As Walter Cardinal Kasper has

said:

The starting point must be the Scriptures. In the letters of

Paul, the local church is clearly and firmly at the center. When in
his principal letters uses the word “church” (ecclesia) in the
singular, he refers to a particular church or to a given community.
When he speaks of “churches” in the plural, he refers to several
local assemblies. For Paul, the one church of God comes to life in
each local church. Thus there is the church of God in Corinth, and
so forth. The church of God is present in each of them. In the
captivity letters (which in the opinion of many scholars are not by
Paul), this meaning of ecclesia recedes into the background and
the universal church as a whole comes into focus.45

There are two uses each in the First and Second Thessalonians and in Philippians. A

single geographic reference in Philemon is contained in the address. These are similar in
45
Walter Kasper, “On the Church,” America, Vol 184: 14, April 23, 2001, www.america.com.

27
meaning and form to those in Galatians: singular and plural, in greeting, of a place,

compared one to the other, and referenced as “of God.” (1 Thess 1:1; 2:4; 2 Thess 1:1 and

1:4; Phil 3:6 and 4:15: Phm 1:2)

In Colossians two additional dimensions are added in a progression to greater

emphasis on universality.46 First, Paul, in the adapted Colossian hymn-creed, equates the

church with the body of Jesus, “He is the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18), an

assertion which he repeats. (Col 1:24) A second and controversial use occurs in his

concluding blessing. (Col 4:15) In the Greek, Paul sends his wishes to the ekklesia at the

home of Nymphan.47

Since we know most about Paul’s church at Corinth, the richest material concerning

the development of his local ekklesia is derived from his letters to the Corinthians. After the

typical greeting and a reference to Timothy’s mission to the “churches (1 Cor 1:3 and 1 Cor

4:17), Paul begins to respond to various concerns which have been brought to him. In

chapter 6, Paul criticizes the Corinthians because they have been using secular law courts to

resolve disputes among members of the community. His use of the word ekklesia in this

context (1 Cor 6:4) as a metaphor for the Corinthian Christian community suggests that he

envisions a church which is far more than a group of worshippers. Rather, his community is

bound together in every aspect of their lives. In imitating Jesus, the Corinthian Christian is

expected to have converted every aspect of life to the Christian mold—even to the extent of

forgoing secular remedies for alleged wrongs such as contract breaches. Later in chapter 10,

he suggests that certain conduct which is logically and “officially” acceptable in secular life

46
Kasper, quotation above and fn 45 and O’Brien, 127-8.
47
The proper name Nymphan a feminine name and a related feminine pronoun (autaes) are translated in some
Bible versions with a masculine name and pronoun. This reference lends credibility to the proposition that
women hosted the gatherings of early Christians in their homes, at least in Paul’s churches in Asia Minor. It is
cited as a “patriarchal” attempt to disenfranchise women.

28
(such as consuming meat which has been offered in pagan temples, but later sold by the

priests of these temples) should be avoided if it scandalizes others in the community who are

perhaps less sophisticated.48 (1 Cor 10:32) As Stegemann puts it:

Thus the New Testament term ekklesia is connected with two

constitutive characteristics that are fundamental for its analysis
as an organizational form: the Christ-confessing ekklesia is an
assembly in which its members come together, and it is a
community or group whose members are bound together even
outside their actual meetings through reciprocal social
interaction.49

Thus, for Paul (and for the contemporary Christian), the community is the

totality of life, not just a liturgical interlude in a week of commerce.

Paul is particularly concerned about the conduct of his community when they gather

to worship or for the agape meal. In chapter 11, he warns against personal appearance or

demeanor which suggests a lack of respect for the integrity of the community—but,

although he offers advice, he refuses to invoke a “law” since “we do not have such a custom,

nor do the churches of God.” (1 Cor 11:16) In the same chapter is found evidence that the

community in Corinth is re-enacting the Last Supper as Paul has taught them—blessing,

breaking, and consuming the bread and wine, but they are violating the essence of the

sacramental unity of the community which is both signed by and results from the

sacramental act. It seems that the Eucharistic sacrament is part of an extended gathering

involving, presumably, prayers, socializing, story-telling, and a full shared meal. However,

at the gathering, some are given more comfortable places; some enjoy the agape meal (while

others have less or lower quality food); some are richly dressed. (1 Cor 12:17-34)

Corinthian entrepreneurship has created an inevitable, de facto class system within the
48
In this, Paul demonstrates an important pastoral lesson. Christian ministers and educators who are well-
trained and well-studied in the nuance of Scripture, morality, liturgy, etc. should refrain from “scandalizing”
others who have not obtained that level of understanding, even if they are technically and theologically correct.
49
Stegemann, 264.

29
secular society, and this class system is being reflected in the house church meetings. Paul

is very disturbed that his church is not exhibiting the outward signs of metanoia—

particularly at the moment of celebrating the Eucharistic meal. In this Paul implicitly

underlines his view of church as total community and total lifestyle without class or

distinction once more.

The Corinthians are apparently a truly gifted people as well as being commercially

successful. Chapters 12-14 describe these gifts (and contain ten references to ekklesia, in

addition to the references to soma)—and the attempted hierarchical ranking that the

Corinthians have proposed. Two conclusions can be drawn from these chapters. Paul calls the

community to a classless and non-hierarchical state irrespective of calling, gift, or social

status. Paul’s church, as a community, is judged by the pragmatic consequences, that is, the

changed personal lives, the public lifestyles of the members of the community, and of the

community itself.50

Paul adverts to the responsibility of local churches to respond to the needs of the

universal church—or at least the manifestation of that church in Jerusalem—by asking the

Corinthians to continue to set aside funds for the collection that will be carried to support the

church in Jerusalem. (Paul is blackmailing the Corinthians in this regard by suggesting that

the church of Galatia has already been doing this, and perhaps outshines the Corinthians.)

(1Cor 16:1) Corinthians concludes with a reference to the church at the house of Prisca and

Aquila which is evidence that homes were being used for the assembly of Christians. In fact,

the house (or apartment) church appears to be the norm for a Pauline church community—thus

implying relatively small size, informality, and integration with every day life.51(1Cor 16:19)

50
Note for example that Paul judges the value of glossalalia by the extent to which the listeners can
comprehend the Spirit-filled language in chapter 14.
51
Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, A Critical Life, 265-273; Murphy-O’Connor, St.Paul’s Corinth, 178-186.

30
 Second Corinthians contains nine references to ekklesia. These references are both

singular and plural, but in every case, Paul is referring to the various local gatherings of

Christians in Europe or Asia. The six references in Romans are similar and do not add to our

understanding of church in Paul except to emphasize that, even when he is writing to a

community he does not know personally, he assumes the existence of many local churches. In

addition, there is the reference to Phoebe (also referred to as “sister,” so not easily

masculinized in translation) who is described as a diakonon (minister) of the church at

Cenchrea. It can thus be argued that the Pauline churches had female ministers as well as

house church hostesses.

One would expect numerous references to ekklesia in the Pastoral Letters (pastoral in

the sense that they contain advice on the administration of the church, not “of the fields and

flowers”), but this is not the case.52 Although the letters provide significant insights into the

business and organization of the early churches, they do not provide significant insight into

the concept of church. Neither Titus (perhaps the first written) nor Second Timothy (the letter

most often attributed to Paul himself since it contains so much personal information) contains

the word ekklesia. First Timothy is a series of instructions to Timothy who apparently has

been left the responsibility for administration of the church at Ephesus. Two uses of ekklesia

in this letter links church with household (oikia) and suggest that those who administer the

church should have first demonstrated the ability to “run” their own households. (1Tim 3.5

and 3:15) The qualifications for episkopos (bishop) suggest a lifelong commitment to the

faith, a successful marriage, a sober demeanor and lifestyle, and a well-ordered family. If the

church is a household and the bishop is a pater, this “father” must have demonstrated the

52
Recall from fn 14 that this paper does not take up the question of whether these letters or any of them were
actually written by Paul. An excellent summary of the state of this debate is provided in the introduction to the
First Letter to Timothy in The Catholic Study Bible, 332 (of the New Testament pagination).

31
ability to manage a successful and loving family. A second use of ekklesia implies that the

church is responsible for its most vulnerable members—widows. (1Tim 5:16)

It has been suggested that First Timothy and Titus which dwell so extensively on the

administration of church are of a very different sort from the rest of the Pauline corpus, and it

is correct to note the emphasis in these letters. However, if these letters were “late” as most

believe, Paul might have begun to sense his mortality and, while he has demonstrated

remarkable evangelical success in starting churches, he has not spoken much about their future

(perhaps, it is said, because of his expectation of the imminent second coming). Perhaps, as

Murphy-O’Connor suggests,53 late in his ministry Paul began to think about his legacy. In this

case, some of the material may be authentic Paul, even if the letters are not entirely his.

There are eight uses of ekklesia in Ephesians. Many are references to the universal

church. (E.g. Eph 3:10; 3:21, and 5:32) Chapter five contains the unfortunate simile

comparing Jesus as head of the church to the husband as head of his wife (that have caused so

many feminists to cringe, but one must remember that it is extremely unlikely that the

pragmatic Paul, who has permitted his church to be hosted by women and who respects their

place in economic society, has written this material. (Eph 5:24, 25, 27)

The conclusions to be drawn from the use of ekklesia in the Pauline literature are

briefly summarized:

--Ekklesia is not a building;

-- Ekklesia is both local and universal; but the building block of ekklesia is local; there

is no authority over the local church by a “mother” church (although Paul himself is

53
Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, A Critical Life, 356-358. Murphy-O’Connor believes that Paul wrote most or all
of Second Timothy, and this letter was then “packaged” with First Timothy and Titus, lending them
authenticity by reason of the packaging, but not likely entirely or substantially the work of Paul himself. In
this case, Murphy-O’Connor appears to be in the majority of scriptural scholars.

32
 ready to provide instruction and deputize others to administer in his name); the

acceptability of local culture is assumed in the local ekklesia.

--Ekklesia is non-hierarchical, classless, and gender-blind (except in the Pastoral

Letters), perhaps as Marrow suggests because the essential unity of the community

makes such distinctions meaningless;54

--Ekklesia takes the house church as its normative form, thus emphasizing informality

and organic incorporation into family and community life;

--Ekklesia is community, whose members have changed their entire lifestyle; and

--Ekklesia’s success is measured by the external conduct of members as they exhibit a

“holy” and “unified” lifestyle, care for one another in community, and recognize

responsibilities to others in similar communities of believers.

On the other hand, there is a culturally and temporally dictated aspect of ekklesia in

Paul which must also be noted. Paul’s Eastern Mediterranean heritage is premised on the

solidarity of membership in a group—and this membership, while strengthening its members,

necessarily excludes all of those who are not in the group. Paul’s church, while recognizing

an evangelical responsibility for those outside, is essentially closed when it comes to diakonia.

Charitable responsibility is limited to those within the community and to those in solidarity

with that community—the universal church, as exemplified by the pre-occupation with the

various Jerusalem collections. The notion of an extra-communal, universal responsibility for

welfare is missing. This would have been a truly radical concept for the first century.

C. Contextual Setting for the Use of Community Metaphors

54
“Here [at the Eucharistic table], as nowhere else, neither race, nor gender, nor social position, nor worldly
possessions, nor ecclesiastical dignity makes any difference whatsoever—all the popular opinions to the
contrary and all the evident past and present abuses withstanding [thus resulting in the transformation of
individuals into a unity]. Marrow, 140, citing, W.A.Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of
the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1983), 159.

33
 In addition to examining the words that Paul uses frequently in connection with his

churches (as described in the previous section), it is possible and necessary to note that the

entire body of the Pauline literature provides both explicit and implicit theological themes.

These themes can be divided into three areas: (1) the episode of the Jerusalem “Apostolic”

conference, described in Acts and Galatians, (2) Paul’s concern for the Jerusalem collection,

barely noted in Acts but noted in Galatians and First Corinthians as a recurring pastoral

concern, and (3) deductions that can be justifiably drawn from the apparent independent

structure of the churches founded by Paul and the differences that can be noted in the

techniques he uses in the letters he addresses to them (which implicitly accept these

differences).

Richard Ascough has succinctly summarized the four models of social organization

that were available to Paul.55 The first model was the synagogue. Ascough concludes that the

current state of study and archaeology on the role of the synagogue in first century Judaic life

and particularly the extent of Jewish proselytism associated therewith—an admittedly

important aspect, given Paul’s evangelization-first conduct—cautions against drawing too

many hard conclusions about influence or similarity at this time.56

The second model is the philosophical school of which there were apparently many in

the Greco-Roman world. Some of Paul’s language is traceable to the Cynic/Stoic literature of

the time, and Paul was doubtless aware of this type of association. A third model is found in

the groups who gathered to celebrate the “ancient mysteries” and who were devoted to the

55
Ascough devotes one chapter to each of the four examples, identifies the proponents, provides resource
material, and conclusions.
56
It should be kept in mind that the Second Temple was not destroyed (AD 70) until after the date most often
given for Paul’s death (AD 67) and, as a consequence, the entire field of the development of the Pharisaic-
rabbinical tradition in the aftermath of the temple destruction is still the subject of much scholarly
development. Until recent years, more was known about first century Christianity that first century Judaism
and, therefore, the natural desire to draw historical precedent from the earlier “tradition” was difficult.
Neusner, pp.

34
rediscovery of the Mesopotamian and Semitic religions (with which Christianity was

competing in the Greco-Roman world). Ascough concludes that, while this thinking had some

influence on the early development of Christian thought, not much is known about the nature

of the associations devoted to these studies and liturgies. Finally, there were voluntary

associations, particularly in Asia Minor, which appear to be trade guilds or the like, but again

little is known about their administrative and organizational structure.57 Ascough draws two

conclusions:

By way of conclusion, we might briefly address the implications of

the study of Pauline community formation for the contemporary
church. It should be clear that Paul’s communities were neither
based on one specific analogical model, nor was each Pauline
community the same [nor were they necessarily similar to those
formed by Peter or John]. Each community was locally based and
thus part of its context. Although united under the founder-figure of
Paul, there were autonomous groups and reflect a number of
differences from one another.58

….[I]nherent to the earliest period of Christian formation (as shown

in our canonical texts) is a view that Christian communities
experiment and modify in order to represent a commitment to the
tradition handed down by the “founders” alongside a willingness to
adapt to the social situation of local believers.59

With these models in mind, the evidence in the Letters can be considered.

In 51 A.D., after his missionary journey to Galatia, Thessalonika, and Philippi,

presumably as an emissary of the Christian community at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas are

selected to take some questions to the Jerusalem church.60 Thus, Antioch clearly looks to

Jerusalem for doctrinal orthodoxy and authority in the resolution of local disputes of faith.
57
Perhaps Ascough has omitted a fifth model: the Pharisaic sect within Judaism, whether political party,
religious group, or “club.”
58
Ascough, 98.
59
Ascough, 99.
60
The story of the conference is described by Luke in Acts, chapter 18 and by Paul in his Letter to the
Galatians, chapter 2. An excellent exegetical interpretation is found in Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, A Critical
Life,131-157.

35
Most likely, Antioch viewed itself as a missionary effort of its mother church in Jerusalem.

(Similarly, the churches in Galatia, Thessalonika, and Philippi would have been considered

mission churches of Antioch.)61 Members of the church have (at least) two issues: is it

necessary that one be circumcised before becoming a member (that is, must one be a Jew

before one is a Christian) and what dietary/purity laws must be observed? Murphy-O’Connor

concludes that the Antioch church must have consisted of several house churches and that

some of these churches were Gentile, others were Jewish. But, on occasion when they

gathered together as a church of Antioch, the differing table customs would have created a

problem for the Jews as it was impure for them to eat with non-Jews.62 After presentations

and some debate, James, determines that the Gentiles need not be circumcised nor need they

adopt the Pharisaic dietary rules. However, it does seem that the determination had not been

supported unanimously. One “rightist” group, often called the “Judaizers,” held that

Christians should not break with Judaism, could not be Christians unless they were Jews, and

thus should follow the Deuteronomic law. Paul and his sympathizers argued persuasively that

the cultural requirements of Judaism need not be applied to the Gentiles, particularly since it is

apparent that the Spirit is working in the Gentiles, even those not observant of the Judaic

culture (thus enabling a theme which Paul later develops in his letters in which he sees

Christians as the new chosen people who would one day reconvert the Jews). But, it seems

that the center holds and James announces a pragmatic result.63 Universal koinonia is
61
Note how Paul greets the Thessalonians in his first letter, written before the Jerusalem Conference, and the
Galatians in a letter written after the Conference and Paul’s subsequent break with the church in Antioch. In
the former, there is no recital of Paul’s authority or mission, presumably because he had been “sponsored” by
Antioch; while, in the latter, he recites his qualifications and begins to divorce himself from the
Jerusalem/Antioch which would have challenged his orthodoxy, right to preach, and form communities.
62
Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, A Critical Life, 149.
63
Raymond E. Brown argues that the Jerusalem conference marked the beginning of the end of Christianity as
a sect of Judaism, particularly as Gentiles soon outnumbered Jews—thus creating a Gentile church. Brown,
tape 6, side 1. Stanley B. Marrow disagrees and suggests that there were actually three parties in interest at the
Jerusalem Conference and, while superficially it appears that the Gentiles enjoyed a pragmatic victory, the
centrists actually maintained a level of doctrinal control which saw the essentially legalistic nature of Judaism

36
preserved, and Paul achieves his objective—to permit the local community to enjoy koinonia

within the community through a recognition of diversity. The principle is established: the

local community has both the right and the obligation to practice unity at the local level as the

most visible sign of unity with Christ. Only the most important elements of the creed need be

preserved. In closing, Paul is reminded that his churches must remember the poor in

Jerusalem with a collection for their welfare. Is this a financial settlement or a continuing

recognition of the kerygma-in-diakonia of the early Church?64

The account of the conference permits several conclusions. First, at least some of the

churches of the first century recognized the apostolic primacy of the Jerusalem church and in

that, they both professed and sought a universal unity. The Jerusalem church itself,

however, recognized the importance of permitting local cultural deviations from Judaic

norms. Unity was defined in narrow substantive terms. While Murphy-O’Connor has

suggested this was a mere pragmatic recognition of reality, particularly in a church which

was besieged, Brown argues that Paul was motivated by the implicit commitment to

koinonia for the whole church, a concept which, Paul believed, permitted local cultural

variation within a unified creed.65 Paul fully develops this foundational principle of this

view of community in First Corinthians when he employs the metaphor of the body which

must be applied at the community level and the universal level. This has significant

implications for Pauline ecclesiology, particularly in the ground rules for ecumenism, post

dominate Christianity for the next several hundred years. Marrow, 85-91. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor believes
that the conference resulted in a pragmatic settlement, but that it pushed Paul into his anti-nomian views and
his theology that Christians were the new Israel. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, A Critical Life, 142-3.
64
It is interesting to note that late twentieth century ecumenism among Christian churches made its greatest
inroads in the pursuit of joint service projects (diakonia).
65
Paul has taken a step along the path to radical anti-nomianism. He has concluded that one part of the
community can observe the Deuteronomic law while the Gentiles do not. Later, when dissenters from the
Jerusalem Conference attempt to reverse the decision and convince the Galatians that Paul is wrong, Paul
reacts violently in his Letter to Galatians and proceeds to a completely anti-nomian view.

37
Vatican II acculturation, and the rights of the local church. Paul’s ecclesiology is “bottom-

up,” recognizes the necessity to understand the local church in pasturing and evangelizing,

and is fully acculturated.

The concluding passages in Acts describe the techniques for communicating the

decisions to the people of Antioch in a credible way, but there is no mention by Luke that an

“economic settlement” may have been involved. One must look to the “other” description of

the conference in which Paul describes a collection for the poor of Jerusalem. While this

charge was apparently given to Paul and Barnabas as official representatives of the church at

Antioch, Paul takes it personally. In Galatians, he acknowledges a personal commitment and,

by implication given Paul’s personal poverty, the transfer of that responsibility to his

churches. (Gal 2:10) He reminds the Corinthians of this obligation as well. (1 Cor 16:1; 2

Cor 8:10) At great personal cost and risk, Paul determines to hand-deliver the collection to

Jerusalem, but the stalling that he employs on this (perhaps his last) journey to Jerusalem,

suggests that Paul may not have been assured that the collection would be welcome. Does

Paul suspect that the power in Jerusalem has shifted to the right? Does Paul see that the

hierarchy in Jerusalem cannot permit a diaspora Christianity to dominate the universal church?

At the time of the Jerusalem Conference in the autumn of AD 51, a

financial contribution from Gentile believers seemed like a reasonable quid
pro quo for Jerusalem’s concession on circumcision, and no doubt would
have been proclaimed as such to the church by the three Pillars. But as
Paul’s radically antinomian stance became known in an ever more
nationalistic Jerusalem church, there must have been those who insisted
that they would accept nothing from hands so soiled.66

However, irrespective of the reception of the collection in Jerusalem, and the

controversies that surround Paul’s visit (which brought to the fore the issues which the

Jerusalem church had with many of Paul’s missionary activities and statements), the
66
Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, A Critical Life, 149.

38
compelling fact is that, some five years after the Jerusalem Conference, Paul was still

committed to a universal church and desired that his churches be in koinonia with that

church. Paul was prepared to place his life in jeopardy as a result of this belief?

Paul uses very different techniques and language in addressing his local churches.

He obviously understands the unique cultural attributes of each and the varying levels of

“Jewishness.” He doesn’t compare them, one to the other or to an ideal of universal

conformity (although he does occasionally use the exemplary conduct of one community to

“blackmail” another).

The fullness of Paul’s vision of community unity is expressed in First Corinthians.

Although he probably spent more time in Ephesus, Corinth is Paul’s home church, and the

one he wanted to be perfect. Paul has taught them the glories and the requirements of true

Christian freedom. But, messengers come to him informing him that the community is

sorely troubled—it has permitted the competitive, socially-structured, and worldly side of

members to interfere with the development of true community. Paul is alternately angry,

frustrated, and conciliatory. Has his message failed? Don’t his brothers and sisters grasp

the import of the gospel? He takes on a series of issues—with the potential to be divisive,

scandalous, and community destroying—and in each case attempts to show the Corinthians

how to “walk the walk” of Christian freedom in a society which is obviously secular. Paul

understands that the Corinthians import their secular notions of life into their religious

community, and he must carefully explain that religious life in terms the Corinthians can

understand (and accept) without permitting the political reality to create the model for the

Christian community. This is extraordinarily difficult, as has been noted through the

centuries—with the result that some determine to reject the secular completely. Again he

39
explains to them that Christian freedom in community is freedom to build up that

community, not “freedom from” the law. And, in this situation, he fully develops the

metaphor of the body to explain most vividly his view of community: a unity of diversity,

equality, and purpose.

The most important aspect of this exposition, however, involves the agape meal and

the Eucharist. What Paul sees as the ultimate symbol of unity has become the ultimate

symbol of his community’s failure to achieve that unity. Paul, exhibiting the Semitic sense

of re-enacting history and responding to the dictum, “Do this in remembrance of me,”

recognizes the Eucharist as the participation of the community in the life and passion of

Jesus.

Every sacramental gesture is in its own way an act of proclamation of

the saving significance of the death of Christ; the Eucharist….is that
proclamation par excellence.
Herein lies Paul’s genius in interpreting both the community and the
Eucharist by means of the “body of Christ” metaphor. But
“metaphor” here is misleading. For Paul the Eucharist is the body of
Christ, and the Church too is the body of Christ. It is not only that the
death of Christ gathered the believers into a Church, into a community
of believers, but that this Church’s act of worship proclaims Christ’s
saving death and, in so doing, manifests its unity as a body.67

The unity of community is the sacrament of Christ’s continued presence, and the visible

conduct and activities of that community, both of which are radically transformed in the

gospel, are the continuing works of Jesus in the world. This is Paul’s theology of Church.

In summary then, Paul’s ecclesiology consists of a three-fold definition of

community: (1) there must be solidarity within the local community (with associated

responsibility for each other’s spiritual and temporal welfare) that is demonstrated in the

individual and collective changed life of the community; (2) there must be a solidarity in the

67
Marrow, 147.

40
universal church in diakonia and in the fundamental belief in the ultimate reachievement of

unity of God and humankind, through the redemptive act of Jesus, and because all are

essentially united in an in-Spirited creedal statement of belief; and (3) each local church

must be permitted to express the essential features of its culture and understanding of the

Incarnation--since church, as a community of humans must be in the world and reflect its

values, as converted by the gospel. In this regard the metaphor of the parts of the body

becomes the critical image of the relationship between the local and the universal church.

No one of these definitions should be taken so far as to exclude the full actualization of the

other—because to do so would deny the essential meaning of the Incarnation. If Jesus

entered and became part of the world, and if God created that world with a purpose, God

must have planned that the experience of God would occur in the local place, a local culture,

and by a local people. The message of the gospel is universal, but only insofar as it

understands, reflects, and thus draws local cultures to it. If the message of the gospel is for

the Gentiles as well as the Jews, then it is also “for” the Asians, the Africans, and the native

peoples of Latin America. It must draw the fullness of its meaning from the experiences and

cultures of the world; that is, the local church. Intentional Eucharist Communities have

attempted to retell and relive the gospel in ways that are culturally meaningful to a post-

modern community,68 and Paul’s ecclesiology is, therefore, their ecclesiology. Does it work

for them—does it permit them to understand their mission and their life in the Church?

D. The Pax Community: A Brief History69

68
Thus, belying the notion that “postmodern community” is an oxymoron.
69
This history is based upon the personal experiences of the author and his family and is adapted from their
informal archives that have been maintained since 1975. It draws also upon two comprehensive histories that
have been prepared. The first was the product of a committee, vetted by several founding families for accuracy
and emphasis, published on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of Pax in 199_. During the anniversary
year, many events were scheduled to introduce new members to the “story” of Pax. Many of those events were
also documented. More recently, using the archives of the community, interviews, and the earlier written
history, Lisa Schwartz published a multi-part series of histories in the monthly newsletter of the community.

41
 Pax was created in the early 1970’s in a small parish, St.Luke, in McLean, Virginia.

McLean, at the time, was an “outer” suburb of Washington, D.C., a bedroom community for

government employees and others whose families needed the rural atmosphere and lower

housing prices. The pastor of the parish had been a student of the Second Vatican Council and

believed that he could effectively share the burdens of ministry, including liturgy, with

members of his parish and that he could permit his parishioners to find the gospel through

creative, participatory liturgy and the resulting responsibilities that this liturgy demanded.

Therefore, Fr. Al Pereira, who had already formed an elected Parish Council (which met

monthly and was substantively involved in the fiscal and physical affairs of the parish),

invited a dozen couples to a discussion. The couples selected were many of the most active in

the parish as they were involved in family religious education, social justice outreach, and

parish governance. (This should not imply that these individuals were the most devout, the

“most holy,” or even the best Christians.) All had children, but none were in the parish

school, although some were students at Catholic private schools. At this meeting, the group

agreed to meet “off campus” in an attempt to create an intentional community (they didn’t call

it that) which would plan and conduct liturgy, educate themselves and their children in

Christianity, and follow the social justice dictates of the gospel.

The earliest Masses were conducted in a local shopping center’s town hall, until about

six months later, the group moved to the parish chapel. (At the time, the parish had a school

and a rectory. The rectory had been built as a convent, but there were no available religious

All of these documents have been deposited at the library of Washington Theological Union for future study.
However, none of these studies have attempted, in a systematic way, to explore the principal themes of an
Intentional Eucharistic Community, particularly in the light of Pauline ecclesiology, the way these themes
work out in practice, and the relevance of this experience in the history of the Church. Recent incidents in the
community have suggested that it “needs” a theology, that is, a community self-understanding of its mission
and how the relationship of the community to other communities and the universal church helps or hinders that
mission. The models of the first century churches of Paul are a starting point in this dialogue—as Cardinal
Kasper has suggested.

42
women to teach in the school, and so it was converted to a rectory with a chapel where daily

Mass for the parish was celebrated. The Sunday liturgy was conducted in the school

gymnasium.) A few months later, as the popularity of the “planned liturgy” grew, the group

moved to a regular position in the Sunday Mass schedule in the gymnasium.

Liturgy, both planning and doing, was the first and always the most important aspect

of the community. Given the opportunities for experimentation in liturgy opened by Vatican

II, the Liturgy of the Word contained liturgical dance, multi-media presentations, gospel

drama, and dialogue and shared homilies. All in the church were invited to surround the altar

for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Lord’s Prayer and other lay “parts” were emphasized,

often by holding hands or with other gestures of worship. For active and committed

Christians, who had followed Vatican II, this was an invitation and an opportunity to live out

the baptismal rights and responsibilities of all.

Music was chosen from a new outpouring (usually “folk”) of liturgical music that was

appropriate to the liturgical theme that was the focus of each Sunday. Groups met with the

celebrant and musicians to determine seasonal and specific themes. Statements at the

beginning and end of the Mass, and communion meditations underlined the theme. The

liturgy became quite “popular” and, although the members of Pax at this time numbered only

about sixty adults, 3-400 would attend an average Sunday liturgy. Most, but not all, of the

non-Pax attendees would participate actively in the liturgy. Celebrants included the parish

priests and others from the Washington community who were offered the hospitality of the

rectory or otherwise were invited to celebrate.

Outside of liturgy, Pax began to undertake a variety of social justice projects. (Many

of the younger members of Pax had come to maturity during the political turmoil of the

43
Vietnam era and were thus accustomed to responding as a movement to the perceived issues

of the times.) Many social justice issues were brought to the attention of the community by

members who were actively working in these areas—for example, refugee matters (Northern

Virginia experienced a large influx of Hispanic and Vietnamese refugees at this time), soup

kitchens, low cost housing, and women’s rights. Thus, Pax became a clearinghouse to

publicize the social justice work opportunities of its members and a creator of its own projects.

The community developed a decidedly “liberal” concept of life: a community could make a

difference in the world by enabling individuals to overcome the obstacles of poverty, lack of

education, or lack of social status. The parish’s family religious education program also

became an adjunct of the Pax ministries. Soon Pax became the center of the lives (and

extended family, since many were émigrés to the Washington area with little biological family

in the area) of its members as liturgy, education, social action, and entertainment merged to

create community.

Pax began to perceive a need for organization, primarily to insure that all functions

were adequately performed, and debated and wrote a short constitution. It was determined

that a steering committee of four persons, two elected every other year, nominated from

within the community and with the expectation of regular rotation throughout membership,

would undertake the direction of the physical organization. Virtually all of the parish council

members were members of Pax by 1977 so parish liaison seemed superfluous. In addition,

liturgy chairs and social chairs were elected for one year terms; the former to prepare a

liturgy planning guide, to recruit planners, and to prepare the physical aspects of liturgy

(wine, bread, linens, chair placement etc); the latter to see to hospitality, care for members of

44
the community in need, social occasions, and social justice outreach. This constitution and

this organization have persisted to the present day. Pax soon adopted its mission statement:

The Pax Community is a Catholic Christian group committed to

planning and celebrating meaningful liturgies, developing
community, and responding to the needs of our world as those needs
are revealed to us in liturgy and community dialogue.

In 1975 the Diocese of Arlington was created and the diocesan priests were asked to

choose whether they would move south, remaining the Diocese of Richmond, or “join” the

northern diocese. Fr. Pereira moved south and a new pastor, Fr. Jack Hughes arrived. It

soon became apparent that Fr. Hughes was not so enamored or even comfortable with Pax as

had been his predecessor. The parish was growing and was becoming wealthier and more

conservative. The Diocese soon established its reputation as one of the most conservative in

the United States. Fr. Hughes arrived at a growing and increasingly wealthy and

conservative parish. He recognized the need to accommodate the worship needs of his

parish, and he personally (and many of the parishioners) determined to build a new church.

Although Pax had never taken a community political position on matters outside the

community itself, there was a perception that Pax was attempting to sabotage the efforts of

the parish to build a new church (which some members considered a waste of resources

which could be used in social justice outreach) and that it had never supported the parish

school which was heavily subsidized by the parish collection.70 This was the beginning of

an atmosphere of “we-they” in the parish, as many members of the parish who were not part

of Pax began to perceive that they were considered to be “second class” Catholics by Pax

because of their refusal to become more deeply involved in Church.

70
The author was parish treasurer and on the Parish Council at this time and was aware that the school issue
was bogus—Pax members, who had no children the parish school, were nevertheless the largest contributors to
the school collection since they perceived that the school was a social justice project in that a high percentage
of the students had linguistic issues or were underachievers for other reasons in the local public schools which
had embraced the “open classroom” pedagogy.

45
 An accommodation was reached. Pax members on the Parish Council agreed that Pax

would support any building decision made by the parish at large, if the parish would first

conduct a series of parish meetings on options, costs, and the theology of church (building).

Five meetings were organized (by a Parish Council member who happened also to be a

member of Pax) and held in 1985, and, after numerous pleas from parishioners that a more

attractive worship space be built, the parish overwhelmingly voted to build. A Pax member

was asked by the pastor to chair the building committee. A structure was designed (that

would accommodate both the regular parish liturgy and a more interactive Pax liturgy), funds

were raised, and the building was completed. This took several years as the diocese was in a

rapid growth mode and approval processes were slow (and the St. Luke model of church

architecture—austere, multi-functional, and emphasizing the role of the laity in its

amphitheatre style—was not entirely acceptable to the conservative diocesan building

committee); financial requirements were changing; and, the building boom taking place in

Northern Virginia caused rapid price escalation and contractor tie-ups. Once again Pax was

“blamed” for the delays and was accused of not supporting the church building fund.71

After the church building was started and given the expanding size of the parish, the

pastor proposed a re-districting of the parish and a new election to the Parish Board, which, at

the direction of the diocese, he renamed the Parish Advisory Council. At this election, Pax

members were elected to only two of the eleven seats.72 Within two months, Pax was

requested by the pastor and the Council to consider moving the Pax liturgy out of the “core

71
Once again, the author was involved. He chaired the building committee throughout the period and attended
most diocesan meetings. As treasurer he was aware that the most generous contributions to the building fund
had come from Pax members.
72
Most of the members of Pax did not live in a single “district” and, in fact, many lived outside the geographic
confines of the parish, but were drawn to the Pax liturgy. Only one Parish Advisory Council seat was allocated
to all of those outside the geographic boundaries of the parish—almost one half of the total votes cast in the
election.

46
Catholic Mass times” on Sunday morning. Several reasons were given. The pastor expressed

concern that Pax was a “parish within a parish” and presented him with both spiritual and

physical concerns. Some members of the parish had apparently been reporting to the Bishop

of Arlington that the Pax liturgy did not conform to appropriate norms, and the Bishop had

spoken to the pastor. The pastor also felt that some who worshipped at the liturgy who chose

not to participate in the interactive aspects of the Pax liturgy were made to feel “left out” or

“irreverent.” In addition, the Pax liturgy tended to be long, generally over an hour, and often

involved post-liturgy social time, with resulting parking lot issues. Finally, the local

professional football franchise changed the start time of its home games, and football fans

“had” to attend the Pax liturgy if they wanted to do a Sunday liturgy and attend the game.

This group was vocal and conservative—and they disliked the style of the Pax liturgy. At the

same time, the pastor indicated that parish priests would no longer celebrate with Pax—Pax

needed to find its own celebrants and pre-clear those celebrants with the pastor at least one

week in advance. Other requests were made: the community should cease gathering about the

altar during the Liturgy of the Eucharist; dialogue and shared homilies were forbidden, the

offertory collection was to be “raised in prominence” as an action of “justice” within the

liturgy, the community should cease “holding hands” during the Lord’s Prayer.

Pax recognized that it could not survive if its liturgical practices were not supported by

those who worshipped with it. Pax asked that it be permitted to hold its liturgy in the

gymnasium and offered to set up and take down the space. This would permit the parish to

have a “normal” liturgy in the new church. The pastor refused. So, in an attempt at

accommodation, Pax agreed to move its liturgy to Saturday afternoon. This format held for

less than a year as the many recognized the difficulties of holding a liturgy for a family-

47
oriented community at a time which conflicted with dinners and children’s Saturday athletic

schedules. The children were effectively lost. Members began to drift away. Others began to

see the new church as the symbol of the rejection of Pax by the parish. The two Pax members

of the Council resigned in protest. By this time, the link between the parish and Pax was

tenuous, if not broken. The pastor concluded that the Saturday afternoon liturgy would

become a “normal” parish liturgy, and he unilaterally allocated 3 p.m. on Sunday afternoon to

Pax and strongly suggested that this not be a Eucharistic liturgy.

Pax then entered into an extended discernment process. It invited Fr. James Hug, S.J.,

President of the Center of Concern in Washington, D.C., and a frequent celebrant with Pax, to

assist in decision making using the broad outlines of the Ignatian discernment process. Other

regular celebrants were also consulted. Over six months, the adult members of Pax met on

more than a dozen occasions at the homes of various members to explore the meaning of

church, to study the words of the Second Vatican Council and canon law, to examine the

practical implications of various alternatives, and to look for other liturgical space. At the end

of the period, after a consensus vote, and with great reluctance, Pax advised Fr. Hughes that

they would leave the parish to worship at a local elementary school cafeteria.

With the move, the administrative and organization responsibilities of Pax increased

enormously. It needed to create its liturgical space every week. It needed to find celebrants

every week. It needed to educate, conduct sacraments, maintain a social justice agenda, and

make decisions on so many issues that were taken as given in the parish context. A new surge

of spiritual energy infused Pax. The sense of community was heightened. At about this time,

several members of the community died after long illnesses and Pax grieved with family

members, recognizing the extended family which Pax had become. A fund was created to

48
deal with family and individual financial emergencies and a small group was appointed to

administer these funds without embarrassing those in need. Social aspects of community

grew, both around special liturgical events (such as Epiphany, Easter, and Mardi Gras) and

sacramental celebrations (marriages, first communion, and baptisms).

Freed from the oversight of a pastor and bishop, Pax felt a need to study and

understand the theology of liturgy and the rational for Catholic orthodoxy. In this sense, Pax

understood that it was local church, but it nevertheless desired to remain a recognizable part of

universal Catholicism. A comprehensive program of shared education in liturgical history and

spirituality resulted.

Freed from responsibility to support a parish, it found the resources to make practical,

its social justice commitments. After operating expenses (like rent, celebrant stipends, and the

cost of liturgical materials) were met each quarter, the balance of the treasury was given over

to a social outreach committee which was charged with responsibility to “zero out” the

treasury each quarter. Regular relationships were forged with various providers of social

services such as Zaccheus House, So Others Might Eat, Cirimex, The Jesuit Refugee Fund,

and Oxfam Relief. In every case, members of the community agreed to provide time in

addition to the financial contribution. Several members agreed to host refugee families in

their homes; many undertook to serve meals to the needy or pick up the homeless on cold

winter nights.

Religious education for both children and adults was undertaken. The members of the

community accepted responsibility for conveying the essential elements of the Catholic faith

to its children. Ultimately, through the generosity of one of its members a permanent

Montessori classroom was established and equipped to provide a pace for a comprehensive

49
Catholic Montessori program for the youngest members of the community. Thanks to the

propinquity of Washington’s Roman Catholic higher education resources, experts were

available and speakers were engaged to challenge the adult members of Pax. A regular

program of Friday night lecture/discussions on a wide range of Christian topics was instituted,

as were “mini-courses” in Scripture, liturgy, and mission-enabling subjects (feminism,

pacifism, social action in Latin America).

Since new members did not “come upon” Pax by attending a regular Sunday

morning parish liturgy, issues of evangelization came to the fore. Many became engaged in

introducing new potential members to the community and Pax continued to grow as others

were attracted to the meaningful liturgies and by the lives that Pax members were living in

the community. Individuals were assigned to “hospitality” before and after liturgy;

newcomers were greeted and introduced during the liturgy. A newsletter was created—and

ultimately an Internet list-serve which has become the primary means of communication in

the last few years.

In ____, Pax decided that its community model was a viable one for the Church and

decided to seek diocesan legitimacy. A committee was formed and a canon lawyer (Fr.

James Coriden, a professor of Canon Law at Washington Theological Union) was retained

to prepare and present a request to the Bishop of Arlington that he recognize Pax as a “non-

territorial parish.” A local pastor agreed to act as chaplain and offered his parish as the

“parish of record” for sacramental registrations. Several meetings with the Bishop and his

Chancellor convinced Pax that recognition was not to be anticipated, and canonists advised

that such a status was not a “matter of right.” At the final meeting, the Chancellor advised

the bishop would not grant the status. He urged Pax to break up and “return to your

50
parishes” where members would be welcomed. He did, however, indicate that the Bishop

would not take action adverse to Pax “provided Pax does not embarrass him publicly.”73

Since that time, although Pax has frequently discussed internally its claims and desires for

“legitimacy,” Pax has not had any communication with the hierarchy in Arlington—other

than periodic contributions to diocesan funds in the name of Pax (which have been

accepted).74

After five years at the elementary school, Pax needed to look for a new home again.75

Since no school facilities were available at affordable rents, various other alternatives were

considered. By this time, the community was very concerned about the “appearance of

propriety” and the avoidance of scandal. It was a functioning Roman Catholic Church within

the tradition of the universal church, and it consciously determined to present a “mainstream”

image. This left out several possible venues, such as halls and restaurants. An opportunity

presented itself. A Serbian Orthodox Church in McLean, Virginia was having financial

difficulties due to dwindling population, at least partially due to sympathies within the

congregation to various sides in the ongoing Balkan strife. There was only one downside to

the location—it was only one-half mile from the original home of Pax and on the same road

73
During the period when Pax was searching for a new home, it had come into contact with four other
Intentional Eucharistic Communities in the Washington area. Three of these (including Pax) were theoretically
under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Arlington since they met in the diocese. One other met “across the
river” near George Washington University; another crossed the river into Maryland after a stormy, well-
publicized series of disagreements with their pastor and the bishop which were taken to Rome. Thought was
given to “merger” with one such community, NOVA, but the liturgical styles of the two groups were
sufficiently different that a looser cooperation and “sharing” of liturgical celebrants and materials resulted.
74
During the first two years of the “exile,” there were periodic attempts at reconciliation. Several active
members of both Pax and St. Luke Church in McLean attempted to mediate, but the pastor was unrelenting in
his view that Pax members were welcome back, but not Pax as an organization or as an IEC. When the pastor
retired and was replaced, the new pastor proposed discussions, but it was clear that he too was not prepared to
host a liturgical community within the larger parish, although he invited participation in social action,
education, and other parish activities.
75
Fairfax County, Virginia which owned and operated the elementary school has a policy of renting school
facilities to not-for-profit organizations for below market rents for periods of up to five years. The second five
year period is priced at 150% of fair market rent. The third five year period is priced at 200% of fair market
rent. This policy is designed to assist in start-up, but not to offer permanent homes to these organizations.

51
and with the same name—St. Luke. Some feared that operating so close to the “mother

church” would raise political issues for the old parish. However, since there was little else

open as an alternative, the move was made in ____. Pax has worshipped at that site since that

date, except for occasional feast days when the Orthodox church needs its entire facility for

the entire morning. On those days, the community celebrates at a parish in downtown

Washington, D.C., in the chapel of the Missionhurst Fathers retreat center, or in private

homes.

As it approaches its thirty-fifth anniversary, Pax is once again self-examining—its

mission, its meaning, and its future. A comparison with Paul’s churches of the first century

provides some interesting insights, and some ready comparisons.

E. The Pauline Model of Church and Pax: Some Conclusions

Before beginning a compendium of the comparisons and contrasts between Pax and a

Pauline model, it is necessary to validate the demographic and decision making similarities.

As it turns out, there are striking similarities.

Demographics

Extensive research has been done on the demographic composition of the “typical”

first century Christian community, and particularly the Pauline churches.76 Contrary to

popular belief, “typical” members were not agrarian, poor, undereducated, and

disenfranchised. Paul tells us that “not many” were wise (i.e. formally educated), well-born

(i.e. members of the patrician class), or powerful (i.e. politically and economically influential).

(1Cor 1:26) But, some obviously were. Meetings were held in households of members—

76
This section is a composite picture drawn from the frequently overlapping conclusions of Stegemann, 288-
317; Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, A Critical Life, 271-273; Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in
Corinth, a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing,
1995), 22-32; and Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 3rded. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
2002).

52
implying land ownership and homes sufficiently large to accommodate up to 50 people, as

archaeological evidence has determined. But, some were slaves (1 Cor 7:21; and of course,

Philemon). Murphy-O’Connor concludes that the Pauline communities included various

grades of the middle of the social scale.77 Some had the skills of a secretary (a valuable asset

at the time). (Rom 16:22) Others obviously were involved in various aspects of the Corinthian

trade and commerce on which the city was built. Paul himself worked with Prisca and Aquila

in tent and sail making, a skilled trade in support of commerce.

Greek, Roman and Jewish names appear, but Jewish culture does not predominate

(note the nature of the questions that Paul is asked by his communities). There were women,

and probably women of influence, wealth and power, such as Chloe.78 Many of these women

had functional, ministerial roles in the community. There is no indication that most of these

women were involved because their “spouses brought them”—although there is evidence that

a householder might involve his entire household as a result of personal conversion. There

were members whose spouses were not members. And, they were urban. In fact it appears

that virtually all of the first century Christian communities arose in cities, small and large.79

The letter to the Corinthians and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Galatians and

Thessalonians all suggest that the variety of backgrounds, social status, economic position,

and education caused significant problems for unity within the Pauline community. In fact,

the development of a horizontal view of community, patterned on a co-dependent body part

metaphor is remarkable under these circumstances. The early Christian community was open

to all, and once membership was accepted, the community assumed a responsibility for all

members. Some moved easily into functional positions in the community, perhaps because of
77
Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, A Critical Life, 273.
78
Stegemann points out that the Pauline ekklesia differs from the secular ekklesia of the time in that in the
secular model only male citizens participated. Stegemann, 287.
79
Stegemann, 265.

53
their greater time, financial wherewithal, social skills, or education, but at least theoretically,

all had the opportunity to do so.80

The Pax Community presents a demographic composition that is, in many ways,

similar to the Pauline community.81 Most members are families, but there are single members.

Membership spans three generations. Many members have spouses who are not members.

Women play key roles in the community. There tends to be a high level of education

including ministerial education. (A number of the male members of the community have, at

one time, studied for the Roman Catholic priesthood; two men are former priests; several

members are priests. A number of the women have been or are religious women. Many

graduated from Catholic colleges and universities.)

Most are homeowners. Many are professionals or white-collar workers; a majority of

the women work outside their homes. But, there are some with much less education and

lower-paying jobs. They are drawn from all parts of the United States, but there are a number

of first generation immigrants. Most would describe themselves as solidly middle class,

although there is a significant range within that appellation. There are few who are genuinely

poor or wealthy. Almost the entire community is drawn from “cradle-Catholics,” although

there are a number of non-Catholic Christians in membership.

Politically, it would appear that the average view is left of center, but there are wide

extremes from the most conservative to the radically liberal. This description carries over to

views on religion—particularly with respect to the largest issues of moral theology that are

currently debated. It is only in the area of the Church organization, hierarchy, and liturgy that

the community is very liberal—being overwhelmingly and vociferously in favor of , for

80
Contrast this with the set of personal requirements for a position in Church leadership suggested in First
Timothy. (1 Tim 3:1-13)
81
This description is drawn from the author’s personal experience, although there has not been a formal
survey.

54
example, reduction of hierarchical authority, “whole Church” involvement in the “election”

of bishops, a married and female clergy, flexibility in liturgical practice, a “Church in the

world” theology, and openness to the participation by people of other faiths.

Members have consciously chosen membership, often at substantial inconvenience and

cost. Some see the community as a “support group” for daily involvement in social

action/justice. Others, who work in more secular positions, see the community as weekly

“leavening.” But, all understand that membership in Pax and the corresponding commitment

to the Christian gospel require that lives change. Pax members would hope to be known as

Christians by their personal conduct and commitment in an essentially secular world.

Decision Making

From time to time, the Pax community, just as the Corinthian community, has been

confronted with issues and problems of an organizational, spiritual, or doctrinal nature.82 In

Corinth, the community seems to have appealed to Paul—or at least those who were unhappy

with the decisions that the community might have made or might be making through conduct

appealed to Paul. Within Pax, the decision-making techniques have been remarkably similar

in each instance. Some of the decisions appear relatively inconsequential; others go to the

heart of the Pax vision of church. Pax has had to deal with (1) venue and liturgy time (on

several occasions); (2) variation from the Roman Missal, such as the use of inclusive

language, use of alternative canons, or lay participation in parts of the Eucharistic Prayer; (3)

the decision by a popular celebrant to marry and remain a priest; (4) the request of a growing

part of the community, which had migrated farther west, for liturgical support closer to home
82
Most of the early “leaders” of Pax have died, retired, or moved away, although a few are present in the
community from time to time. In this sense, the current situation in Pax resembles the crisis of leadership in
the first century Church, when the apostles began to die, leaving a vacuum of authority (at least with respect to
the personal experience of Jesus). Pax seems to be moving in the direction of consensus decision-making
whereas by the end of the first century, it appears the Church was moving toward a hierarchical, “inherited”
form of governance.

55
(which could signal the advent of another community); (5) requests by mission groups that

Pax, as Pax, take a stand on politically charged issues such as women in the church, right to

life, war, or capital punishment.

In each case, the process was commenced by a request from an individual or a mission

group voiced at an extended “announcement” time, scheduled at the end of each Sunday

liturgy. The proposal was discussed on a preliminary basis at the next general meeting, and if

there was sufficient interest (or if the matter were sufficiently important), the matter was

referred to an ad hoc committee to present the issues. Another meeting, generally for the sole

purpose of discussion and deciding was scheduled. Decision was by substantial consensus,

with a conscious effort not to offend any significant part of the community. Appeals to

external authority, i.e. how the rest of the Church does it, have been minimal and rarely carry

the day, but all of the members having a significant Catholic heritage are mindful and desirous

of retaining substantial unity-in-form to the universal Church. As a consequence, matters

relating to changes in liturgical form have typically been adopted as the whole community

recognized the needs of various constituencies within Pax. Matters that tended to separate Pax

from the universal church have been avoided, such as permitting female or married presiders

at a Eucharistic liturgy. However, there is an implicit view of many that non-liturgical issues

are not “core” and thus do not require consensus. (Others believe, as the Pax mission

statement attests, that social justice activities are both core and required by the gospel and the

liturgy.) Thus, attempts to forge “community” social and political positions have also been

generally avoided, although Pax supports many “mission groups” with special purpose

agendas so long as they do not present their views as essential to membership in Pax.

Throughout all, participatory democracy, attempts to forge consensus, and a genuine concern

56
for the deep feelings of each other have been the hallmarks of process. There has been no

appeal to outside authority. In this sense, Pax has no “Chloe’s people” who ask for advice or

Paul to appeal to authority.83 Through all of this, Pax exhibits both the “freedom in

community” and the essentiality of preserving unity about which Paul writes, although it is

clear that Pax is of the 21st century and much more accustomed to self-governance than is

obvious in Corinth.

Conclusions

The Pax Community exhibits a striking recreation of the Pauline community for

modern times. And conversely, the Pauline model is found to be strikingly modern. Eight

observations characterize and support this conclusion:

1. Unity in Diversity. Pax emphasizes unity in diversity. Unity, which does not

sacrifice individual needs and views, is the fundamental characteristic of the Pax Community.

This is exhibited in a profound respect for difference in belief, commitment to action, and

lifestyle. It does not prevent serious dialogue or proselytism. It celebrates diversity. The

Pauline community would have celebrated this—if they had been true to Paul—as Paul

himself had repeatedly argued and implicitly demonstrated. Pax demonstrates that modern

individualism is compatible with active participation in a Eucharistic community.

2. Equal Charisms. Pax appreciates, and by necessity and philosophy, draws upon

all of the charisms of its members, irrespective of gender, age, education, or social status—and

the individual members of Pax offer up their charisms in an atmosphere where all are equally

valued. There is an active attempt to draw out charisms and a recognition that the body of

83
Of course, a substantial strain of Pauline scholarship argues that Paul is not authority—even in Corinthians.
He maintains his anti-nomian stance and attempts to convince and recommend by appeal to the essential
gospel. In this sense, the “advisory” or “presbyter” role played by the founding members is directly
comparable to the Pauline model.

57
Christ (Pax) is strengthened by the fullness of those charisms. Is there any basis for

challenging this view in Corinthians?

3. Lay Leadership. By choice and necessity Pax is a community with revolving lay

leadership—where all members of the community are called to lead. But, leadership is

functional, temporary, and facilitative—emphasizing horizontality, equality, and validity of all

potential contributions. Pax is radically anti-authoritarian and perpetually vigilant to prevent

accretion of power to the derogation of the community prerogatives. Paul celebrates

community and, creating new churches in the context where there was no precedent, Paul was

reliant upon “lay” community members who were willing and able to demonstrate leadership.

Although he periodically steps in and “offers recommendation,” Paul’s churches are

essentially autonomous, under the umbrella of the Christian creed.

4. Church is Local. Pax recognizes that what it does, what it means, and what it will

become is and will be determined what its members do. Pax is the building block of Church.

The universal church is a theological concept related to the Body of Christ and Pax is fully

confident that, on this basis, it is also universal Church, without requirement of a single

language, a single form of liturgy, or a single culture—or the validating stamp of a church

hierarchy. Paul’s churches exemplified this—and not only out of early necessity.

5. Kerygmatic Impetus. Pax is not vocally evangelical. But, Pax members

recognize that their vision of Church is a wonderful and authentic version that works for many

modern Americans. As a consequence, all are constantly looking for others who are searching

for a community and a vision of gospel that works today. New members are regularly

introduced and welcomed and are soon participating. A Pax member is a recognizable

58
Christian in society. The Pax model is one which holds promise for the democratic, free

thinking communities of America.

6. Reign of God. Pax’s view of the mission of Christians corresponds to the views

of many modern “bottom-up” ecclesiologists. There is minimal attention to organizational

detail and hierarchy. Rather there is a confidence that though well-created liturgies and

dialogue, the members, individually and as community will be transformed. This

transformation will be reflected in the conduct of Pax members and in the significant social

justice activities in which they engage, individually and collectively. They will be

recognized by their lives. And, in this sense they will bring about universal metanoia. They

are actively involved in bringing the Reign of God to themselves, their families, and their

secular communities.

7. Eucharist/Liturgy. As a Eucharistic community which was founded on the

principal of involvement in liturgy, Pax is truly enlivened by this aspect of Church. Its

liturgies are uniformly refreshing, thoughtful, and challenging. Celebrants are carefully

chosen who can work with the community (who for the most part, know each other and have

genuine feelings of concern for each other) in creating genuinely meaningful opportunities

for community building, education, and the promotion of social action. All of this comes to

its apex in the Eucharist which is intentionally the high point of each week. It is deliberately

inclusive and reverential—but the Eucharist also acts as the catalyst for personal change in

community and community outreach. Pax fully illustrates the ideal of the Pauline model

where Eucharist is simultaneously community-building and the sacramental sign that the

community has been built.84

84
Paul has been occasionally criticized for failing to emphasize the centrality of Eucharist. However, the
exposition in First Corinthians certainly establishes that Eucharist is a critical sign and promoter of the
community of God. The letter format (where things were “going right” are not mentioned) could well explain
the apparent lack of emphasis.

59
 8. Diakonia. Seeing community as family and as social agent, Pax is totally

committed to the welfare of the members of the community, and, unlike the Corinthian

community, sees the obligations of bring about the Reign of God in diakonia as a truly

global responsibility. Thus, Pax takes on the injustices of the world and contributes

materially to their redress.

The Pax theology of Church, like that of Paul, is pragmatic. It doesn’t have or

propose to have all the answers. Nor is it a model for all people. Pragmatic theologies,

however, have some limitations, and those pastoring to Pax might consider these:

--Pax needs to think about and formulate explicitly its implicit view of mission and

Church—to contextualize what is happening and what it means. That is, there needs to be a

recognition that Pax has a place in the Church, and an important place as a model of what

local church is and can be. This will permit Pax to measure specific proposals against a

view of what Pax is and where it is going.

--Pax should consciously consider what it means to be community and discuss it

openly. Pax celebrates community in liturgy and declares that liturgy is the agent

motivating its members to justice, but for many, liturgy is only the sign of community, not

an invitation to community development. Liturgy is the beginning of the developing

community. A view of what it means to be community—and the demands of community

which go beyond assisting in creating liturgy—would place a supportive platform under the

periodic debates about how uniform the views of Pax must be on a wide range of issues

from the political process to inclusive language in the liturgy. Pax is quintessentially not a

triumphal Christian community. But, it needs to balance the psychological demands of its

60
members to be nourished at the weekly liturgy, with the fact that liturgy itself also demands

diakonia and metanoia.

--Pax needs to develop the self-confidence that comes from knowing that it is

Church. Many have noted that since leaving the institutional walls of a parish, Pax has been

less willing to experiment with liturgy, lifestyle, and community expression. Perhaps this is

attributable to the insecurity of independence rather than the desire to continue to

demonstrate outward similarity with parish models. At any rate, the lack of creativity has

been noted. There is a serious “disconnect” between the views of many on the role of

women in Church and the actual practice within Pax, particularly with respect to liturgy.

There is no reason why Pax could not adopt a liturgical format which gave women much

greater role in presiding.85 The role of women in the Church is at the heart of many of most

important issues within Pax. Pax needs to recognize this and take the necessary steps to be

radically inclusive of women. Contrary to much popular belief, Pauline teaching would

support this.

--And, finally, Pax should take the time and the effort to understand its Catholic

Christian heritage and the reality behind the signs of Church which are in it and all around it.

All of this would give Pax the strength to respond to challenges as they arise, permit it to be

more creative in its liturgical formation and mission achievement, and could well place Pax

in a leadership role in Church development in Roman Catholicism.

Pax seems to have struck the correct balance between the inward (attention to

worship life, catechesis, fellowship, and stewardship)--which tend to be over-emphasized in

85
Throughout the Church in the United States, because of the shortage of priests, women are serving as
pastoral administrators who periodically celebrate liturgies in the absence of priests. If there is validity to this
practice, there is an opening for Pax to do so.

61
the typical parochial setting today--and outward (evangelization, global outreach,

ecumenism, and social justice ministry) aspects of church.86

Pax is too valuable a model to lose—and too valuable to hide or silence. It is indeed

an attempt to recreate the earliest, perhaps the most authentic, view of what it means to be

Church, the continuing physical embodiment of Jesus in the world which Paul, with the

guidance of the Spirit, understood. In this sense, followers of Jesus seek the Reign of God in

their midst and Church results from this joint activity—not the other way around. Pax, as

the Body of Christ is on mission: to convert its members to a lifestyle which in every way

proclaims that the Reign of God can be now.

John D. Hushon August 2005

86
These are the hallmarks of an inward and outward model of Church. Phan, pp.

62