Nymphas and church as churches should be

The Reference:            Colossians 4:15           Greet Nymphas and the church in her/his home

The story that emerges:

The first thing that needs to be cleared up is the gender of this person Nymphas. Is this a woman who hosted this house church or a man? The Greek brings no help. This name could be either a man or woman. The single variable is the placement of the accent. One placement indicates female and the other indicates male. So which is it? More on that in the heavenly interview.

Paul’s comment is that this person hosted a church in his/her home. That’s all he says. “Greet Nymphas and all the people in the church that meets in his/her home.” But that in itself is highly significant. Paul is saying that this was a full-fledged church--with no qualification. He could have said that the group lacked this or that foundational piece. Paul does not hedge. This was a New Testament church.

What can we say about the church universal based on this church in a home in Colossae? What are the distinctives of a church? Let me offer four marks, chosen merely by process of deduction; that is, deducted by what Paul wrote about a church.

First would be worship. The church in the home was a worshipping community. That included teaching the gospel that pointed to Christ and was based on the Jewish Scriptures. A shining example of that is the second chapter of Philippians where Paul drew from Isaiah in his moving Christological passage. Worship included bringing a psalm or hymn, and of course the Lord’s Supper. These Paul addressed in 1^stCorinthians chapters 11 and 14.

The church was a family. There was caring within the fellowship, “weeping with those who weep, rejoicing with those who rejoice.” And working through disagreements, as the dispute between Euodia and Syntyche, for the sake of unity.

The church had witness to Christ, to those near and to those far. The church in Philippi stood with Paul on his journey westward but they also had local work carried out, “not terrified by their adversaries.”

The fourth mark is a connection with the larger church for accountability and for oversight. Paul functioned in that role himself, but he also enlarged the connection through the travels and friendships, like the news brought by Stephen, Fortunatus, and Achaicus about the church in Corinth (1^stCor. 16:17).

If those are the distinctive features, then how were they carried out? Paul referred to three workings of the Holy Spirit. These are the manifestation of gifts, of ministries, and of activities (1^stCorinthians 12:4, 5, 6). Using the image of the body for the church, each part is valued and works with all the others. Even the prominent eye is dependent on the lowly foot. There was no role for a star. Harmony depended on each knowing that the Holy Spirit’s calling lay beneath and within these varieties.

The church in the home had the roots of the church today. Like a healthy rose, one has blossomed into the other. Some blossoms, however, show signs of aphids, or disease, or some alien shoots —along with vibrant expressions of worship, family, witness, and connection. After all, the church is both a human institution as well as a divine creation.


I had two pressing questions for Nymphas when we sat down on my bench in heaven. One was to settle the gender question. I thought a direct question may lack taste, so I expected to rely on a visual. How foolish! Gender disappears in heaven. You knew that. So Nymphas’ gender will remain fixed in the fog of textual apparatus and where to place the accent.

The question I did ask was about how that first blossom morphed into such wild descendants. How did it happen that the church began to define itself by hierarchical patterns, number of committees, elegance of bricks and vestments, and other items absent in the church in Nymphas' home?

Nymphas had two answers. One was to say that the eye will, in fact, often make the foot feel unneeded. The foot will withdraw, so tiers of status arise. That was the spiritual answer. The other answer was more down to earth. Those diversions arose the first time a member objected, “Hey, who gave you the podium, the right to think you are our teacher?” Or a related objection, “How come we are giving so much money to this project over here when these over there need the fund more?” From simple questions like that came complex evolution.

And that brought to mind a simple statement from a very learned professor of mine. He was colorfully garbed as Oxford D.Phil. and then wore a purple shirt as bishop, with years in a thriving parish in between. He introduced me to Lancelot Andrewes and Roland Allen and other giants of the faith. But the statement of his that I quote with frequency bears none of that luminous cast. It is simply this: “The reason there is such dissension in churches over things like library funds and committee heads is that…….the stakes are so small.”