Understanding the church in a locality is among the “Defective and Undone,” things that need “Straightening Out,” that are “Out of Order” and that are “Lacking” in the church today. (see Titus 1:5) The misunderstanding of the nature of the local church as an independent, autonomous, seperated grouping based on doctrine, personalities, practices, areas of focus, or “distinctives” affects our unity, our ability to minister to one another, and our example of love to the world.
Most of us think of the church as bounded by a group of people who have joined themselves together. But this joining together also purposely serves to separate ourselves from other saints because of disagreements of one sort or another. We are “us” and right (or righter); they are “them” and wrong (or not as right). It is up to us to choose the best church, the one we most agree with. Most think you become accepted as a member of this defined church formally (by actively agreeing to join this group); others think this is done informally (or passively, simply by frequent attendance). If you ask most active Christians what church they belong to, they can give you the name of their church. They may live quite a distance away; they may drive past a dozen other churches on their way, but this particular group of saints is “their church.” Unfortunately, this is the house that Joe builds.
The house that Jesus builds is different on several levels. Suspend for a moment what you “already know” about how to define/bound a church as we take a fresh look at the scriptures. When Paul writes to the church divided in the NT, he begins with:
“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours…” I Cor 1:2 KJV
“To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:” I Cor 1:2 NIV
“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:” I Cor 1:2 NASB
Where this church was seeking to form into parties who followed specific doctrines and teachers, Paul underscores several points:
1. The church is bounded by the city (not by doctrines, not by personalities)
2. The church is set apart in Christ Jesus (not by externally defined membership)
3. The church in Corinth is not independent:
- the church is together with all those everywhere
- the church has the same Lord everywhere
Note the following as you consider how God bounds the churches:
1. Paul uses the singular in reference to the church when referring to a locality. (see Acts 11:22; 13:1; 14:26-27; 15:4; 20:17; Rom 16:1; I Cor 1:2; II Cor 1:1; I Thess 1:1; II Thess 1:1; Rev 2:1, 8, 12, 18, etc
2. Paul uses the plural when referring to churches in a region. (see Acts 9:31; 15:41; 16:4-5; Romans 16:4; I Cor 16:19; Gal 1:2; Gal 1:22
3. The use of the phrase “the whole church” in a locality indicates it is likely the church in a locality often met in smaller units.
- For the phrase, “the whole church,” see Acts 15:22; Romans 16:23; I Cor 14:23)
4. These smaller units were typically in homes, and were also called a “church.”
- In Romans (Rom. 16:5,14, 15), it seems there were at least 3 congregations recognized by Paul and also referred to as the church in a home.
- In I Cor 16:3-5 Aquila and Priscilla hosted a church in their house.
- I Cor 16:15 probably refers to a church hosted in the home of Stephanus
- In Col 4:15, Nympha hosted a church in her house in Laodicea
- In Philemon 1:2 the church met in Philemon’s home
- Acts 8:3 implies the church in a locality met in many houses
- Taking I Cor 1:2 and the whole chapter of Rom 16 together, we see that there is an essential unity in a locality (and beyond), even though the church may meet in separate homes (congregations)
5. Paul associates elders (pastors) in the plural with a locality, not with a house. (see Acts 14:23; 15:22; 20:17; Phil 1:1; I Thess 5:12; Titus 1:5)
- John gives us one exception in II John in the case of Diotrephes, whose actions John denounced.
Philip Schaff, in Vol 1 of Apostolic Christianity (p.475) sums up the church in this way:
The prominent members and first converts, as Mary, the mother of John Mark in Jerusalem, Cornelius in Caesarea, Lydia in Philippi, Jason in Thessalonica, Justus in Corinth, Priscilla in Ephesus, Philemon in Colosse, gladly opened their houses for social worship. In larger cities, as in Rome, the Christian community divided itself into several such assemblies at private houses, which, however, are always addressed in the epistles as a unit.
The church in the NT then is seen bounded by a locality, a locality has a plurality of elders (pastors), the church often and regularly meets in smaller groups in homes and the church occasionally meets all together as a whole. But importantly, the believers in a locality are in relational unity, loving one another whenever and wherever they can.
One more thing. Let’s stop building our own kingdoms. It might help us perceive the depth of this error if we stop using the phrase “my church” or “our church” and start speaking in terms of “His church” in this locality or that locality, or “the church that meets at xyz.”
Why is this important?
I don’t know. I don’t have to know. I’m happy enough with the “God said so” answer to these things. But if I had to guess?
1. Bonus Now - Because God does everything for our good, being open and connecting relationally with all believers in our locality (and when available, beyond) is good for us and them.
2. Bonus Later – Obedience matters to God; being faithful to Him will be rewarded.
3. Kingdom Demo – Relational unity among the saints demonstrates the Kingdom of God better than the competitive divisions we now display to the world.
4. The Main Apologetic for the lost – Our Lord’s prayer in John 17 reveals why He wanted us to be in unity:
They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
What are the implications?
1. Work towards connecting with and participating in the lives of other believers where you live, without regard to building the “your church” thing. This includes being open to sharing your resources with them.
2. Work towards recognizing the locality as the bound for building relationships. Yes, this may mean you need to consider whether the people attending “your church” should be regularly connecting with saints somewhere nearer where they live, rather than attending “your church.”
3. Consider that those you work with for 40 hours a week may be the ones you need to focus on building up and receiving help from, rather than those you meet with once a week for an hour or two.
4. …what else do you see this perspective changing in your life?
How do we proceed?
Let us not perpetuate new separations nor cling to existing divisions. My natural eyes can’t see past the divisions that ravage His impure and impoverished bride. But read the scriptures and consider what He sees.
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Do you hear His sweet whisperings? Dismiss what is seen with the eye. We are one in Him. Stop relying on our senses. Through His eyes, through His word, see no denominations, no clergy-laity hierarchies and no multi-million dollar holy places. Though they are shadows along the way, they are not barriers keeping us in or out. Let us rather submit to all believers, esteem them all better than ourselves. He invites us to join in intermingled life–not only with our own congregation–but also, as opportunities arise, with every brother and sister in as many practical ways as possible. Let us simply believe He is the active, living Head and that we are one with our brothers and sisters. Seek to see Him in every saint.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
I have hope because I see what He sees: His life in every believer, His church clean and pure, His glory manifested by the church in every place. Love is that process where my arms are pried from being wrapped tightly around myself, and opened to embrace–to give and receive—from/with/to every brother and sister. To know He is in them, and in me, and among us. Love sees that in the other and elicits it; love receives instruction and rebuke in seeking Him to live in us more freely. We are hidden in His love and under no threat from without or within. His love for us is endless and unchanging, and births in us a similar passion for others.
Alan Knox described this on his blog this way:
So, what is it that creates or maintains relational unity between myself and my neighbors? God creates the unity, and we decide to maintain that unity in the way that we treat and interact with one another. If we decide to ignore one another, even though we say we are brothers/sisters and even though we live next door to one another, [or work together all week long -added,] we will quench the work that God is attempting to do in our lives in creating and maintaining relational unity.
However, if we choose to spend time with one another (regardless of what our denominations decide), and if we choose to accept one another and treat one another as brothers/sisters, then we are working to maintain the unity that God has created in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.
This is the kind of unity for which Jesus prayed, and this is the kind of unity that Jesus said would demonstrate to the world that the Father sent him into the world.
There is so much truth in here. The “one anothers” are greatly missing from much of the life of the church (which happens every day of the week). But in the midst of the truth you write about, there is also something missing.
Although you mention multiple elders over a locality, there is nothing said of the responsibility of the elders or the non-elders (though the Word, especially the same letters cited above, has much to say about each). Certainly it is difficult to defend “denominationalism” or even “my-church-ism” from a biblical perspective. But the same Paul who wrote to a locality appointed elders in a locality, gave instructions to elders and non-elders, deacons and non-deacons, widows on and off the list, and more. The “church” is “the gathering” and there is lots of order in it (though not like much of the order we see in many of today’s “church that meets in a particular building”). Paul never wrote to an “emorphous blob that has no order in a particular locality”.
I’m not sure what “the church in Wake County” should look and act like today, but I’m sure it is not completely free of order other than “love the one you’re with”. If a brother in sin needs to be restored, and has not listened to you, or the two or three others you’ve brought with you, how do you “tell it to the church in Wake County”? Take out a newspaper/radio/tv ad? Post it on twitter and facebook? If your answer is no (and I’m sure it is), how do you keep someone who is in sin from wandering from place to place claiming he is part of the church while continuing to walk in sin (from one end of the locality to the other). If he is not more closely connected to a regular gathering of brothers and sisters, how is his soul guarded over? (see Heb 13:17, Acts 20, 1 Tim 5:17, et al). Although we definitely need to not divide over secondary “distinctives”, we also need to be making “disciples” not just fond acquaintances. We need to seek holiness and we need to recognize that though God threw out the “old order”, He did not replace it with the “new chaos”. As many leaders have ignored the duty of watching over our souls, it is worth driving past “a dozen other churches” who are not acting as the church described and prescribed in Scripture and have missed their calling “you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light”.
Should we mix with brothers and sisters we spend 40 hours/week with? Absolutely. Should we go to the places Jesus went to seek and save the lost? Certainly. (We should also follow His and Paul’s example of not spending too much time with people who don’t want to listen to the Words of Life whether at a quiet rural synagogue or an inner city mob). But when he says do not forsake the assembly, he isn’t just talking about having a burger with your buddies and speaking some words of truth (which should definitely do more of, especially the latter). The gathering described in 1 Cor 11 wasn’t just some occasional quarterly or semi-annual gathering. (And it wasn’t a weekly gathering to hear one guy talk either).
There are certainly a lot of assumptions made about “what the church looks like” that are flawed (including mine). But I think there are some faulty assumptions in this article also. We all do some “reading between the lines” to figure out the practical working out of what it means to be a part of Christ’s body in the place God has us in space/time, but let’s not ignore a good chunk of the lines when reading between them. When Paul spoke of a church meeting in a house, it was a small group of people gathering together on a regular basis, practicing the one anothers, with an order to them… they may not have been divided up by denomination and “distinctives”, but they made it a point to assemble (and were encouraged to if they did not).
Hi Ken,
Lots missing. Some yet to come.
Overall, we seem to agree on some of the implications, such as more open interaction/participation with Christians outside our “church.” But I think you’ve made one or two assumptions about the implications of the church in a locality that I am not espousing. This tells me I need to be more explicit in what I do and don’t think are the implications, if I’m going to cut doorways into existing walls.
Let me confirm that I share your passion for a consistent assembling of the saints, and that I’m not advocating these be disbanded (not even for a loose city collective wandering around having burgers with buds). In fact, I completely agree with:
When Paul spoke of a church meeting in a house, it was a small group of people gathering together on a regular basis, practicing the one anothers, with an order to them… they may not have been divided up by denomination and “distinctives”, but they made it a point to assemble (and were encouraged to if they did not).
Of course, the problem today is that they are divided up, whereas in the NT they were not.
In Jerusalem, they met at the temple grounds, and they met from house to house (”in houses all over the place”). Paul taught in Ephesus “publicly, and from house to house.” In I Cor 14: 23 we find that sometimes the whole church gathered together (implying this was not always the way they assembled). It is likely that more usually they gathered in smaller congregations, regularly, in homes. In Romans 16, we see three house groups mentioned, but one church addressed. In Acts 15 we see the whole Jerusalem church assembled in one place, for a special purpose.
So, I am asking about what the implications are for the local church, if it is based on a larger geographical group (City) than the home-sized meetings (without throwing out the home-sized meetings)? How is the unity of the Spirit to be expressed in real ways? I’m not trying to re-invent the wheel, but I think the church did. I’m trying to un-invent it!
So, if it is true that God partitions the “local” church in a local geography, and not by our own decisions and preferences, what are the implications? And, in the case of unrepentant sin, how do we “tell it to the (whole) church” if we have no connections with the (whole) church? What good does it do to isolate someone from a single congregation where there are 100’s of other “churches” in the city (with open arms) to join?
I will be doing a separate article(s) on the work of elders. I do think all these things are interwoven. For example, it is interesting to note that in scripture the plurality of elders is associated with the locality (”elders in every city”), just like the church is consistently delineated by the locality (city).
Thanks, as always, for your prods forward! I think my blog posts are already way too long to include everything in one post.
Hi Art,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. It seems like we share the same goals, just coming at it from different starting places.
By the way, the reason we named the “church that started meeting in our house” Southwest Wake Christian Assembly was for ALL of the reasons you are talking about. In fact, in the first draft of the principles and practices document of our church (I forget what the document was called then) I got all kinds of heat from those I asked to review it for having the nerve to suggest our goal was to build a church based on the picture of the church in the bible, and we even chose the name “Southwest Wake Christian Assembly” based on the idea that the biblical church was identified by its location. Our goal was (and still is) to be part of the reformation (small “r”) of the church starting in Southwest Wake county and to lead by example… my choice of (borrowed) words were a bit strong and deserved the criticisms by those who reviewed it as “arrogant! You are setting yourself up to claim you are the true church and all of the other churches are not”.
Obviously, I listened to their point (you don’t reform the church by alienating them with your first set of words by overemphasizing a point – the biggest problem with the local church is NOT what they name themselves – this led to the next major revision of the document being divided into Principles, Primary Practices, and Secondary Practices… and the reason we named the church was dropped from the document as it was clearly tertiary.
From the beginning, however, we have struggled with how to reach out to the rest of the church in Southwest Wake (and beyond) for mutual ministry. And, though we have had some “limited success” (and are currently praying that our current effort to minister to the needs of some single parents in other assemblies in North Carolina by coming alongside their local body) it seems very difficult to break through the church hierarchies and infrastructure… turning a steamliner takes a lot longer than turning a dinghy.
But we also need to be careful not to torpedo the steamliners where much of the church assembles.
Is it better to address this by trying to find “new wineskins”? I don’t know, but the “new wine” needs to include the whole counsel of God to those called by him and teach the whole counsel of God.
I eagerly look forward to the “elders” article(s) you’ve mentioned… and perhaps the deacon articles, the “widows of the list” article and others.
http://www.webcamvice.com/...
it’s about Live Webcam Girls. For more informations, visit us!…