stole this from Justin Kuek http://www.nhm-i.org/
a) The earliest English translation of the Bible (from the Latin Vulgate) was by John Wycliffe in 1380 (and was handwritten). THIS bible does not contain the word CHURCH. Congregation was used instead (still not a correct rendition of “Ekklesia” in my opinion).
b) 1517 – Martin Luther nails 95 Thesis to the door of the Cathedral at Guttenberg and the Reformation begins.
c) Around 1525-6, Tyndale produced another translation – Again, this translation does not contain the word Church – Congregation was used.
d) In 1557, the Geneva bible was produced. Again “Ekklesia” was translated Congregation.
e) In 1611, the King James Version of the bible was completed. The translators were instructed to ensure that the translation would not contradict what was being done in the Anglican Church (King Henry the 8th had split from the Catholics in 1529). The “brief” to the translators of the KJV had 15 general rules that they were instructed to follow. The most significant with regard to our study of the word “Church” is rule 3 which states, “The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.” (see http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html). This shows the bias (it is more important to fit the new translation into church traditions rather than be true to what the bible actually says!) of the translation and fits in completely with the thesis of my article. It is ironic that many Protestant denominations insist on only using the KJV bible – when it was NOT a Protestant translation! (King Henry broke with Rome because of Rome’s opposition to his divorce, not because of a theological difference.)
The word “Church” is derived from the Greek “kyriakon” which is different from the Greek “Ekklesia”. Therefore it should never have been used to render “Ekklesia” as it has a very different meaning. (kyriakon means “House of God”, while ekklesia means “the called out ones” – the people of God).
This explanation is helpful; I never knew about the preference for "kyriakon" over "ekklesia" in the King James, nor the reasons behind it. In a year's worth of Anglican seminary courses I never heard that- I wonder why!! :-)
I too am more or less a "refugee" from church-as-we-know-it. My vision is to see microchurches planted in households in every neighborhood and staying small, with growth being sideways-that is, from household to household, instead of adding to the size and power of one mother congregation with paid leaders. (The kyriakon could then be used as a training center for neighborhood missions).
One thing staying with me from my Catholic/Anglican roots is my deep reverence for the Lord's Table because of belief in the Real Presence. This makes me something of a misfit in BOTH worlds. Culturally speaking, my eucharistic theology doesn't fit with my ecclesiology, because those who hold a high view of the sacrament generally want professionals to be its guardians. Therefore they aren't too keen on "house church". And the house church folks mostly see the sacrament as a memorial of the death of Christ, without other layers of meaning. What to do, what to do?