Form, Function, Fellowship, and Unity tagged: , , , ,

Form, Function, Fellowship, and Unity

Posted by in Bible & Theology

Recently, in some circles, there has been a lot of discussion over the relative value of church programs and leadership structures. From the information given us in Scripture, we know much more about the purpose or function of the church than we do about its structure or form. We know, for example, that the members of the early church in Jerusalem “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). We also know that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, admonished the believers in the congregations he established to carry out a series of “one another” behaviors. We know that the believers strove together to carry out the Great Commission of making disciples (including “going,” “baptizing,” and “teaching”), both on a local basis, among those in their midst, as well as a global basis, among all the nations of the earth.

But, for the most part, we don’t know exactly what “programs” or structures they used to carry these purposes out. The Bible doesn’t give us a whole lot of information regarding the structure of the church. And most of what we know, we know by way of example. We do know, for instance, that the early church in Jerusalem met together regularly, both in the temple courts, and from house to house (Acts 2:46-47). We also know that the church in Troas came together on the first day of the week (on at least one occasion) “to break bread” (Acts 20:6-7). We know that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in a number of the congregations they planted (Acts 14:23), instructed Timothy and Titus to do the same in other churches (1Timothy 3; 2 Timothy 2; Titus 1:5-9), and can make a fairly good assumption that it was considered the norm for New Testament churches to have at least one elder/pastor/bishop, and in most cases, more than one (Acts 11:30, 14:23, 15, 16:4, 20:17-28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 4:14, 5:17; Titus 1:5; Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1-2). We know the church in Jerusalem appointed seven men to wait on tables (Acts 6:1-6), and that Paul wrote to Timothy about the qualifications of deacons (1 Tim. 3:8-13). We also know that the New Testament church in Corinth came together regularly for meetings in which “everyone [had] a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation,” and were generally encouraged to practice their spiritual gifts publicly in order to edify one another (1 Cor. 14:26).

Beyond those few things that are specifically spelled out in Scripture, however, it seems to me that the best church structures are those which, in practice, most effectively carry out the purposes of the church. Ideally, these purposes should be carried out in proper balance with each other. If, for example, a church is doing a fantastic job at teaching its people the Word of God, but not so good of a job at facilitating quality fellowship among its members, it needs to dedicate a proportionately greater amount of its efforts toward promoting and facilitating fellowship. And vice versa.

It is my contention that evangelical churches in the United States are, for the most part, proportionately lacking in the areas of fellowship and unity. Especially among Southern Baptists, I believe that the biblical emphasis on fellowship and unity has become, as it were, the “Cinderella” doctrine, banished to insignificance and neglect in the backrooms of everyday church life. To a great extent, I believe this is a reflection of individualistic tendencies in the culture surrounding us, and, in part, a reaction to misguided ecumenical efforts that have sacrificed truth on the altar of unity. Correspondingly, we need to adjust our structures in order to give greater support to the proper carrying out of this function of the church.

Fellowship and unity, from a biblical perspective, should be expressed both on a small-scale, intimate level, and on a broader level, with the worldwide Body of Christ. According to my understanding of Scripture, we are essentially one with every other member of the Body of Christ, no matter where they may live, what language they may speak, what culture they may be a part of, or their gender, race, or denominational affiliation. And there ought to be meaningful ways of expressing and practicing this essential unity. At the same time, though, limitations of time and space make it practically impossible to maintain quality, intimate fellowship on a personal level with more than just a much smaller subset of God’s children. To the degree possible, though, I believe that good church structures will work towards promoting fellowship and unity on both a deep and broad level.

Various church structures or “programs” can either work to better fulfill this function, or work against it. Small groups, for example, can be a great setting for getting to know each other on a more intimate level, and carrying out the various “one anothers” of the New Testament. But, if they turn into “navel-gazing” groups that pull people away from fellowship with the broader Body of Christ, and from practical ministry in the world outside, they can become counter-productive. Local congregations provide the opportunity to regularly make contact with a broader spectrum of brothers and sisters in Christ. In the case of large congregations, we may not actually know or have meaningful relationships on a practical level with all of the other members and attendees; but there does, at least, seem to be some value in coming together under the same roof, in the name of Jesus, to celebrate our common devotion to our common Lord, and share gifts, ministries, and resources in an effort to be better stewards of those things He commends into our hands for the advance of His kingdom. However, if the tendency becomes for people to get lost in the shuffle, or to carry out ministry in isolation from the broader Body of Christ, some congregational structures can also prove, in some ways, to be counter-productive. Similar applications can be made at the levels of local associations of churches, denominations, and interdenominational structures.

Basically, what I am saying is that it is a mistake to assume “programs” and structure necessarily get in the way of life and fellowship in the church. Good church structures can help facilitate the carrying out of biblically mandated purposes or functions. Those that get in the way should probably be pared down or done away with. But those that help should be maintained and supported. By the same token, leadership structures and styles that best promote and facilitate the carrying out of the biblical functions of the church should be maintained and supported. Those that do not should not.

I am interested in learning from you, my brothers and sisters in Christ:

1. Do you think what I have written here accurately reflects God’s revealed will in Scripture?

2. Do you think I am correct in my assertion that fellowship and unity are comparatively underemphasized and neglected in the American church?

3. If so, what do you feel we could do to adjust our church structures to better promote and facilitate fellowship and unity among us?

4. If not, why not?