Before that question can be truly be pondered, a clear definition of exactly what defines the 'church' as the subject in this particular question.
Merriam-Webster (www.merriam-webster.com) lists 5 definitions:
1. a build for public and especially Christian worship
2. the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
3. a body or organization of religious believers: as
a. the whole body of Christians
b. Denominational church>
c. Congregation
4. a public divine worship
5. the clerical profession
For me, the definitions listed above boiled down to a 'church' being either:
A. a building
B. the clergy
C. the people
So, let's plug each on into the sentence and see how it fits:
1. Does the "build" exist for the people or do the people exist for the "build"?
--Ok, the church being 'the building doesn't make sense in this particular question
2. Does the "people" exist for the people or do the people exist for the "people"?
--Again, the church being the 'people' doesn't make sense is this particular question
3. Does the "clergy" exist for the people or do the people exist for the "clergy"?
--The 'clergy' being the church makes sense in this particular question
So, for this particular question, the 'church' is defined as the "clergy". This question could have been asked this way: "Does the clergy exist for the people or do the people exist for the clergy" but I think many people would have not considered the question at all because most people would say, "that's absurd, of course the clergy exist for the people"...or...would they????
An even more thought provoking question could be: If Christ is the "Universal Church", can the question be, "Does Christ exist for the people or do the people exist for Christ"?
Your thoughts....