The author complains that the English word "church" is the invention of "churchmen" who "inserted" it into the Bible.

The Greek word, Ekklesia, had no English equivalent to convey it's full meaning. The Ekklesia is more than just "the elect." The Greek word refers to the function, life, government, and work of the Elect as a living body, in community. Jesus told of tares among the wheat to describe the fact that the "visible" Ekklesia (the body as we see it) is made up of both Elect and pretenders or deceived. Yet it is only the Elect (the body as God sees it) that is received by the Lord. The word "church" was already in use when Tyndale was doing his work, and was (and still is) the most fitting English equivalent word for the Greek word Ekklesia.

I haven't read Dunstan's book, nor do I intend to, because the entire argument on the introductory pages seems to be based on the idea that the word "church" isn't in the Bible. Neither is the word "baptize" for that matter. A word had to be "invented" to accomodate the greater meaning of the Greek baptizo (I don't think I spelled it right). The words "ceremonial washing" just don't quite convey the full sense of baptism. So the words "baptize" and "baptism" were "invented" and "inserted" into the translation. I don't hear any complaints about that from the author's introductory pages. Yet he takes extreme exception to the "invented" term Church being used to convey the full meaning of Ekklesia. I think he does so because he doesn't approve of "organized churches." Certainly there is plenty to disapprove of in "organized" Christianity. But that is no justification for changing the plain meaning of the Scriptures the way Dunstan apparently does in his book.