;)
Local Church Membership and City Church
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
In my previous ministry as a missionary church planter, one of the questions I have thought about quite a bit is the biblical basis for local church membership. In planting new churches, it has been my goal (and that of those with whom I was working) to have a biblical basis for everything we were doing, and to help the people who were to be a part of these new churches to understand the reason why we do things the way we do them.
On previous occasions, I have argued in favor of the view that the New Testament Church is expressed (in addition to in other ways and on other levels) on a citywide level (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here & here). At the same time, I think there is good evidence that a plurality of individual house churches existed within at least several of the cities of the New Testament world. What is not so clear is the degree of autonomy with which each of these individual house churches functioned. Did each house church, for instance, have its own separate elder or elders? Were there always a plurality of elders at the house church level? As far as I can tell, with the possible exception of the “angels” or “messengers” of the churches of Revelation 2 & 3, every mention of citywide churches and elders in the New Testament assumes a plurality of elders at the citywide level. What is not so clear is whether or not each individual house church had its own elders, or, if they did, whether they were always plural, or at times singular.
Some of the passages that have a bearing on this question are the following:
Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Hebrews 13:24 Greet all your leaders and all God’s people. Those from Italy send you their greetings.
Titus 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.
Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.
Acts 20:17-18, 28-30 From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. When they arrived, he said to them: … Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.
It is evident (at least, to me) that the church today is not organized exactly as it was in New Testament times. As Baptists, we claim to be restorationists in our ecclesiology; that is, we claim to base our ecclesiology on a desire to return, as much as possible, to the New Testament model, and do the things we do, as churches, according to biblical criteria.
In New Testament times, for example, there were no denominational divisions. As I understand it (at least according to the biblical ideal), neither were there racial or social divisions within the church. The “church of Ephesus” or the “church of Corinth” or the “church of Philippi” was composed of every single person living in each of those cities who was an authentic believer in and disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In a lot of ways it is probably unrealistic to be consistently restorationist in our approach. Sometimes, in order to go back to the way things were in New Testament times, we would have to sacrifice other elements in our ecclesiology that serve as good safeguards for possible abuses. However, in keeping with a consistent restorationist mindset, I believe we should be aware of possible inconsistencies in our ecclesiology, and continually ask ourselves if there are not ways we could reform ourselves even more than we already have in order to come closer in line with the New Testament model.
For example, it is evident from what we read in the Bible that New Testament Christians met together with each other on a regular basis.
Hebrews 10:24-25 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
It also seems to me that some believers within a particular city were considered as being associated with or belonging to a particular subgroup of the church of that city, very possibly (as I see it) one of the individual house churches that jointly made up the church of the city (see Romans 16, et al). It seems likely (at least, to me) that the believers also met together on occasions with the believers from other house churches within their city (Acts 2:46; 1 Corinthians 11:20; 14:23).
However, can we make the jump, on the basis of biblical evidence, that each believer considered themselves to be members of individual congregations on a house church level?
As I understand it, a key to answering this question hinges on the use of the phrase “your leaders,” which occurs three times in Hebrews chapter 13. The author of Hebrews apparently distinguished between Christian leaders who might rightly be regarded as the leaders of the individual receptors of the epistle of Hebrews, and other Christian leaders who were not specifically their leaders. Verse 17 appears to me to be particularly significant in this regard. As I understand this verse, certain leaders were expected to “watch over” certain believers and to “give an account” for them. This implies (if I am understanding this verse correctly) that there were other believers over whom they were not expected to “watch over” or to “give an account,” at least not in the same way as those particular believers who looked to these men as their leaders.
Acts 20:28-30 appears to allude to a similar dynamic. The elders of the church in Ephesus were admonished by Paul to “keep watch over … all the flock of which the Holy Spirit [had] made [them] overseers” and were to “be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Although it is possible to interpret this as referring to a broader group than just the believers in Ephesus, or to the hypothetical members of the particular house church in which each elder served, it makes more sense to me to see the responsibility of oversight and shepherding as a specifically local responsibility. It is a separate question whether or not they each exercised this responsibility individually, or if they exercised it collectively (e.g. if all of the Ephesians elders jointly exercised collective oversight over all of the church of Ephesus).
An additional factor that I believe plays into this is that, logically speaking, in order for someone to effectively “watch over” someone else and “give account” for them, it would be necessary to have a personal relationship with them, and to have a pretty good idea of what was going on in their life. In a smaller group, this would normally not be a problem. However, once a group reaches a certain size, the more and more difficult it becomes for a “leader” or an “elder” to truly “watch over” and “give an account” for every member of the group, or for even a team of “leaders/elders” to do so effectively.
Thus, it seems to me that each believer ought to have spiritual leaders they consider to be their leaders, and that the elders/leaders of a church ought to be clear about who specifically comprises that part of the flock of God of which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers. As far as I can tell, the Bible does not give us specific instructions about exactly how this is to be accomplished. However, it seems to me to be a valid inference that special care should be taken to see to it that no one “slips between the cracks.” Each individual believer ought to have some spiritual leader who knows them personally, watches over them, shepherds them, and gives account of them before the Lord.
It would also seem that each individual elder ought to have someone who shepherds them. I think it is likely due to this concern that very early in church history a system of leadership hierarchy developed, and a distinction was made between the role of bishop and elder. The responsibility of the bishop was to watch over, shepherd, and give account of the other elders.
The problem with this was that it eventually became a recipe for tyranny and corruption within the church. As early as the late first century, Ignatius of Antioch made the argument that the unity of the church hinged upon cooperation with and submission to the local bishop. I think he was almost certainly sincere and well motivated in his thinking on this point. However, what he was not able to foresee was that legitimate appointment and ordination as an elder/bishop through a pure line of apostolic succession did not necessarily safeguard someone from doctrinal error and moral corruption. Wishful thinking, perhaps. Subsequent history, however, was to reveal that faithful adherence to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles through the written records of the New Testament canon is a better safeguard for the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of the church than ordination and apostolic succession.
As best as I can understand it, one of the main reasons (if not the main reason) behind the Baptist distinctives of local church autonomy and local church membership is to guarantee the freedom of the individual believer, within the context of a system of mutual accountability, to seek out and attempt to follow the will of God as revealed in Scripture on their own apart from the coercive imposition of an episcopal hierarchy. However, this does not necessarily mean adopting, at the same time, a philosophy of “to each his own.” As Christians, we are called upon to be mutually submissive one to another, and hold each other accountable in our walk with the Lord. And within this system of mutual accountability, those who are recognized as leaders or elders have a special responsibility to watch over, shepherd, and give account of those other believers of whom the Holy Spirit has made them overseers.
At the same time, I think it is evident that the one another admonitions of the New Testament were not meant to be carried out at only a congregational or local house church level. In a very real way, we are expected to love, exhort, teach, encourage, and hold accountable all of the members of the Body of Christ, to the degree this is possible, even if they are not members of our particular congregation or house church. Evidently, the degree we are able to do this in any practical manner will depend on the level of personal relationships we are able to develop with other believers. And, we can never expect to develop a truly close, personal relationship with all of our brothers and sisters in Christ spread throughout the world. I do think, however, that we have a responsibility to do what we can, especially at a citywide level, to get to know each other better, and to carry out a more meaningful dynamic of body life and mutual accountability among us as the Body of Christ in our locality.
Several interesting side questions to this are the following:
1. Does it necessarily follow, from what I have written here, that every believer should be a member of one and only one local congregation at a time?
2. Is there a biblical basis for condemning church-hopping?
3. How do we, in the current modern-day denominational church system, best watch over, shepherd, and keep account of all the believers in our city?
4. What about our present-day large congregations, which are much larger than the New Testament house churches? Is official membership in a mega-church really a sufficient safeguard of mutual accountability and the watching over, shepherding, and giving account for each of the members of that congregation? Should not the church also be organized in such a way so that each member has at least one “leader” who knows them personally, and feels personally responsible for watching over, shepherding, and giving account of them?
What do you think? Does what I have written here seem biblically faithful to you? Why or why not? How would you answer these side questions from a biblical perspective? Are there other issues that what I have written here bring up that apply to the way we, as Baptists, and as Evangelicals, “do church”?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
I think the NT church in the first century is different from what we would do in America. Our Gentile western culture and the freedoms we have come to know would affect our church make-up. They were persecuted and we are not, yet. As a guideline, I think we must use God’s word to organize what we believe protects those sheep in the body of Christ. My understanding of Church Membership is to make sure the body is protected from wolves that could creep into a church. Unfortunately, membership is attainable so easily today. That, in itself, allows Satan’s terrorist (wolves) to access an unsuspecting body and corrupt it with compromise or whatever.
David, you said: “It is evident (at least, to me) that the church today is not organized exactly as it was in New Testament times. As Baptists, we claim to be restorationists in our ecclesiology; that is, we claim to base our ecclesiology on a desire to return, as much as possible, to the New Testament model, and do the things we do, as churches, according to biblical criteria.”
There are a lot of implications in this statement that are not fully realized or expressed (and diverge from the thrust of your post, which I will have to address separately).
First of all – Does the “model” in the NT set itself up as a model? If it does, then I would think that we we see more advice about organizing the church. Instead I see none. Seriously. None. What I DO see is advice to overseers who are already in position in an existing congregational structure. If the organizational pattern of the NT were intended as a model, would there not be at least SOME attention to this detail?
Second – Is there an individual church we can point to as an examplar of the model? From the seven listed in Revelation to the eponymous churches of the epistles, do any of these demonstrate an ideal? At best, we would have to assemble a model from an aggregate of the best elements of each congregation. However, what this does in the context of social organizations is to completely ignore the internal dynamics of the organizations themselves. (As an example look at how successful Japanese concepts of manufacturing translate into American car companies – NOT! Honda and Toyota are doing fine in the US with their own plants. Kaizen hasn’t proven successful to anywhere near the same degree at GM, Ford, and Chrysler as evidenced by the bailouts and bankruptcies.) For the same reason, “best practices” in the early church will not necessarily translate into our congregations, even with the best of intentions. This is a social dynamic we are often too slow to accept. For that matter “best practices” don’t even translate across town!
Third – Who is the arbiter of which criteria are significant and which are not? Are we going to say that Paul’s admonition for veiled women in the Corinthian church is in effect today? On what basis are we going to argue for or against it? And once we pick a basis, are we going to apply that across the board to other practices like using fermented wine in the Lord’s supper? Should our women eschew braids and jewelry in church? Are we going to have the preacher sit and the congregation stand as was customary during the preaching in Jesus’ day? Your article focused on the role of overseers, but that is only one worm out of the whole can. Your questions at the end suggest even more.
So, lacking a model in either the aggregate or particular, and lacking universally applicable criteria, does it really make sense to advance a restorationist cause? And the reason I ask this is because of the decided LACK of emphasis in the Bible to establishing polity. If we are going to advocate any “restorationist” cause, let it be the cause of adapting existing social forms to the people of God (which is what the church really is – not an institution, but a congregation of people).
For instance: From Acts 13 and 14 on, church planters Paul & Barnabas met with synagogues to share the truth of Jesus. However, they never “established churches” in the sense in which we do. The churches assembled organically and started meeting outside the synagogue since the Jews were persecuting them. In Acts 18:7 Paul & Silas met next door to the synagogue after they were cast out. Surely, we are not to use this as a “model” of church planting – preaching Christ in synagogues. But why not? It’s Biblical. It’s an established pattern. It just happens to be totally impractical for Gentile churches.
But then what did Paul & Barnabas & Silas do? They established alternative synagogues that were open to both Jews and Gentiles, even right next door to the existing synagogue. And what sort of polity and organization do you think they used? Pretty much the same as the synagogue. Why change something if it isn’t necessary?
THAT is the pattern we ought to follow – using what already exists in society as an organizational template. Do we live in a democracy? Well, then, let’s have a democratic congregation where everyone gets to vote. Why? Because that’s the way they did it in the Bible? And I want you to note the danger of this last question. If your answer is that “the way they did it in the Bible is to have a presbytery,” then we need a presbytery. If your answer is, “they organized the same way other institutions in their society organized,” then we need to organize like our society organizes with democratic principles. But one thing you will note, is that BOTH answers are “Biblical” even though they differ. So, are we going to be “patternistic” in our approach or are we going to be “principled” in our approach to being Biblical?
To get back to the discussion at hand, are you advocating we organize along the synagogue “model” which is what the NT church did? If not, then let’s abandon the pretense of claiming to be restorationist. Instead, let us look at the Bible as a model of innovation and prayerfully seek the Holy Spirit’s leading in whatever innovations we adopt or choose to continue as Baptist traditions.
That being said, let’s look at the question of overseers, as you suggest. Let’s just not do it pretending we’re restorationists since we’ve not established that it is a requirement of the NT or even practical or that we are restorationist in anything else that we do.
Bruce and Rick,
If I understand you correctly, you both seem to be making similar points. And, I think I agree with you. Realistically, it is practically impossible to truly get back to NT practice in the way we do things. The context is different, and different contexts call for different responses.
However, as in all biblical hermeneutics, we must get to the principles behind the actual practices, or the function behind the forms, and then apply these principles to our particular context.
Rick, I think I agree with you, in that, if we are not truly pure restorationists, we probably ought to be open and honest about it, and stop pretending that we are. I think that perhaps these types of questions are lurking underneath a lot of the Baptist Identity discussions. What is it that really matters, being “Baptist” in our ecclesiology or being “Biblical”? And then, what does it mean to be truly “Biblical”? Does it mean to do things just like we understand the NT church to have done them?
I suppose the bottom line of what I am suggesting in my somewhat “stream of consciousness” thoughts here is that there are several key NT principles that, in my opinion, our current way of “doing church” as 21st-century Baptists does not facilitate as well as it ought to.
One of these principles is the practical unity of the Body of Christ, especially at a local, or citywide level. We ought to do more than we currently do to live a “one another” lifestyle with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who may not happen to be members of the same local congregation.
A second principle is the need for more personalized pastoral care for all of the members of the church. Church should not primarily be about sitting in rows, listening to choirs, special music, announcements, and sermons. It should be about sharing life, and knowing there are others who know and care about what is going on in our life, and who are encouraged and enabled by our ecclesiological system, however we may choose to adapt it to our particular context, to take on the responsibility to personally hold us accountable for our spiritual growth.
Brother David,
Great subject matter…and subject matter that some like to keep as ambiguous as possible in order to maintain the status quo. I’ll try to make comments on the questions you ask below when you said,…..
Several interesting side questions to this are the following:
1. Does it necessarily follow, from what I have written here, that every believer should be a member of one and only one local congregation at a time?
Being a member of a local congregation is extremely important, for without this “membership” the meaning of “members of one another” is set aside…. and more often replaced with being members of some “place”. A true member of Christ’s body at the local level are aware the members of which they are the “members one of another”. Too many church “members” understand their membership to be on the basis of club privileges, and not on biblical responsibilities to one another. So yes, it is biblical that all that confess themselves as members of Christ know what church (called out ones) they serve.
2. Is there a biblical basis for condemning church-hopping?
There has never been a biblical basis for what we have invented as the practice of “church-hopping”(looking for a place that pleases the senses). Church-hopping today is simply another way of “not” being members one of another. It is a selfish excuse to remain religiously plugged-in.
3. How do we, in the current modern-day denominational church system, best watch over, shepherd, and keep account of all the believers in our city?
The normal way or biblical way is to appoint elders. It is biblical qualified men that are allowed the responsibility to oversee the church for its edification and for its protection through sound doctrine. Paul, John and Jude gave us faithful warnings against false teaches and those false teachings that come from inside the church body as well as outside. It is normal of any church to have multiple elders to serve and lead.
4. What about our present-day large congregations, which are much larger than the New Testament house churches? Is official membership in a mega-church really a sufficient safeguard of mutual accountability and the watching over, shepherding, and giving account for each of the members of that congregation? Should not the church also be organized in such a way so that each member has at least one “leader” who knows them personally, and feels personally responsible for watching over, shepherding, and giving account of them?
Whether a congregation numbers in the thousands or is fifty members strong, it makes little difference. The abnormal biblical pattern that has been established by many mega churches where people are corporately managed by a staff and a lead pastor is completely insufficient and there is no biblical pattern that exists for this type of behavior. On the other hand, Christ has provided through the instruction of the Apostles that all members have leaders/elders to follow and receive edification. It is up to the church to continually appoint “qualified” men that aspire to lead the church,…this is not an option. Unfortunately, many churches and its leader are comfortable at not following the biblical pattern….thus the remarks giving by Christ in the Book of the Revelation.
In summary, the SBC would do well to restore biblical patterns in ecclesiology. This will take some time, since ecclesiology is currently held hostage by tradition….and well established traditions of men are very fortified and held tightly.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Thank you for your well-crafted reply. You addressed some important areas in your answers. However, your close really has me wondering if you read what I wrote with the emphasis I intended.
You said: “In summary, the SBC would do well to restore biblical patterns in ecclesiology. This will take some time, since ecclesiology is currently held hostage by tradition….and well established traditions of men are very fortified and held tightly.”
The close of my post made a distinction between “patternism” and “principle.” In the former, we slavishly copy outward forms with the purpose of doing things the same way they did them in the Bible without substantive evaluation of the impact of those actions. An example of such patternism is found in Primitive Baptists which eschew Sunday School and mission agencies because they are not found in the Bible. Patternism leads to arguments over things like baptismal formulas (baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost or in Jesus’ name only or facing forward vs. facing bakwards to name some archaic examples).
The difficulties with patternism (as I stated earlier) are manifold:
– Which church in the NT represents the pattern we are to follow? Laodicea?
– Where do we find an admonition to follow an established pattern?
– Where do we see the apostles organizing a church according to a pattern?
– How do we determine which things we are supposed to be following vs. which things are “well established traditions of men” (to use your phrase) in the early church? For example: Is veiling women in the assembly a pattern or a tradition? Keeping them silent – pattern or tradition? Agape feast – pattern or tradition? Fermented wine in the Lord’s Supper – pattern or tradition? (I could go on all day long with a rather extensive laundry list, and I’m sure you could too.) Point being, what is the clear line of demarcation between a pattern and a tradition in the NT church? From my experience as a Baptist, the things we like and want to keep doing our way are patterns and the things we don’t like or don’t want to do any more are traditions of men we can abandon freely.
– How do we determine which things we currently practice are in response to the pattern or are (your phrase) holding us hostage by tradition? Is the “membership roll” a tradition or the modern expression of a pattern? How do we know? What about Sunday School – clearly a modern tradition – do we abandon it because it’s a “man-made tradition” or do we recognize that God has made us creative beings who have the ability to innovate and create things to His honor and glory?
Chris, I affirm your sentiment to restore a biblical ecclesiology. However, one quickly gets bogged down in the tall grass trying to define exactly what it is one means by “biblical ecclesiology.” I maintain that it is not the slavish adherence to a pattern for the sake of following a pattern. I deny that “well, that’s the way they did it in the NT” is a valid argument for supporting the present practice of something. The apostle Paul himself made sure Timothy was circumcised. That is not a valid reason for me advocating circumcision of Baptist preachers “because Paul did it.” However I do recognize that Paul did not want to create unnecessary roadblocks in ministering to Jews and so had Timothy circumcised. The PRINCIPLE that we should follow is to make ourselves as inoffensive as the gospel allows but at the same time, not to please the lost for the sake of pleasing them.
I look forward to your clarification of what you intended to mean by your closing paragraph.
rick
Chris,
Thanks for your thoughts on this. In addition to what Rick has already given you to chew on, I will add in my 2¢ worth…
Regarding my questions #1 and #2, I agree that generally it is a good practice to “tie yourself down to” one and only one local congregation. I would say that every believer needs to have at least one group, and one leader, who they feel accountable to in some formal way, and who feels responsible for holding them accountable and for shepherding them.
However, I wonder it there may not be some exceptions to the “one and only one” rule. For instance, while I have been overseas, I have been officially “on the roll” of the churches I was serving in, or helping to plant, and, at the same time, “on the roll” of my home church in the States. And, in some way, I felt I was accountable to both. I know this is an exceptional case. But I am talking now in the realm of the exceptional.
On other occasions, I have been officially a member of one congregation which only had “worship services” on Sunday evenings, and attended another congregation regularly on Sunday mornings. Although I was not officially a member of the church I attended on Sunday mornings, I did have what I considered to be a relationship of mutual accountability to the brothers and sisters at that congregation, in addition to the relationship of mutual accountability I had with the brothers and sisters of the congregation of which I was a “member” and which I attended on Sunday evenings.
Also, what about small groups within the overall context of a congregation? Is my small group leader in some ways my pastor, or “leader,” even though he is not officially recognized as an “elder” at a congregation-wide level? If so, is it any more problematic to simultaneously be a member of 2 small groups within the same congregation than it is to simultaneously be a member of 2 different congregations?
Someone made the observation to me a few weeks ago that they thought it was healthy in the lives of many believers to change congregations every couple of years (or, at least, from time to time) according to the current spiritual needs in their life, the idea being that some congregations are better suited to meet people’s spiritual needs at one stage in their life, and other congregations better suited to meet their needs at another stage in their life.
I have been thinking through how to answer this idea biblically. Personally, I don’t find any hard and fast rules that say we need to commit to a certain congregation or house church or small group for perpetuity. But we do need to have a lifetime commitment to the Lord Jesus, and to the Body of Christ, which will at least include the City Church of whatever place we happen to be living at the time. And, I also think, at whatever stage we are in our lives, we need to have someone to whom we are formally accountable, and who sees themselves as responsible for shepherding us and holding us accountable.
Any further thoughts?
Brother Rick
Thank you for allowing me to clarify the summary I posted earlier. When I use the word “pattern” I am trying to pour into it the same motive and characteristics as the Apostle Paul expressed to those at Philippi, when he said….
Philippians 3:15-19 “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; (16) however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained. (17) Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. (18) For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, (19) whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things.”
So the pattern I am speaking of is more intimate to the person; not to an organization as such… tupos – the Greek expression used here for style or resemblance is important because it is not unlike what you have said, but it is inlaid with the principle set forth through the context of all the letters of the New Testament. An ecclesiology that is not contextually expressive of the intent of the gospel will err to hedonistic and selfish patterns. The men that form the biblical pattern are not so much organizationally minded as they are mission minded. In other words the pattern that they intend for us to follow is one that is not foreign to the principle.
The conclusion may be better rendered principle or at least expanded to include the idea of the definition of tupos as clarified above.
Thanks again for pointing this out.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother David,
In an attempt to shed some more light on the subject, I will use the same meaning of “pattern” which is based on the context of the New Testament letters to the churches. The Apostles were never organizationally motivated,..but they were mission minded which resulted in a group of people as called out members one of another with spiritual gifts…. resulting in edification. When the disciples finally understood this final principle and command of Christ, “Go make disciples”, I believe they began to understand this shift from organization (such as OT Mosaic ecclesiology if you will) to Christ’s church post Pentecost where members are members one of another.
How we think about belong to one another is important. The Apostle Paul gave us an indicator of his thinking when he said to those in Rome…..
Romans 1:8-12 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. (9) For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you, (10) always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you. (11) For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established; (12) that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine.
Paul addresses the mission of the faith which is wide…then narrows his view as a member of the body where he intends to impart some spiritual gift as well as be established by the other members in the body never discussing an organizational concern. So, I think the pattern for understanding the church can be extended to other bodies, and should be less organizationally motivated and more mission motivated. The Apostle proves this in all the churches of which he is a part. Yet this does not mitigate the distinction and command to appoint leaders in all the churches, of which Peter points out in similar fashion as He is an elder … he explains ……
1 Peter 5:1-3 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, (2) shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; (3) nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.
Peter understood that he was working shoulder to shoulder with God’s appointed men in Christ’s church,…exhorting them (his fellow elders) to shepherd locally, this is the pattern or principle…as many qualified men lead the local assembly, albeit fluid because the mission is advancing. So Peter,…even while claiming to be an elder did not bring himself in front of the others that were leading and advancing the mission of Christ’s command.
I believe that if we understand the mission that Christ has taught us,..we are less apt to be caught up with being confirmed to an organization by vote, yet as we confess Christ and are motivated to His mission we are very aware of the church (called out ones) to whom we are edifying (His local body). In other words, we can never edify an organization, we can only edify individuals who are functioning as members one of another. That is why you can edify the church at large as you explained earlier, and submit to those that lead you on the local level as well. There really is not as much a distinction as some try to force.
An example is while I travel on occasion, I always call ahead to other Pastors and ask them to put me to work when I arrive. I rarely just show up and sit down and soak in a message and then leave to pass judgment on the delivery. The Pauline principle is to serve, giving and receiving edification from those in the church. This principle/pattern is foreign to most churches today.
This is a good topic to discuss….and I’ll probably have more to say later on.
Thanks for letting me ramble.
Blessings,
Chris
I understand the Bible to be vague concerning church polity, not that it avoids it, but it seems intentionally muddied. I agree that ideally churches should be recognized as they were in the Bible, that there is one church in a particular town (the universal church). However, I hold to a theology of denominationalism that sees their existance as a protection from one concentrated authority. I mean that though our denominations are not ideal, they are the result of an ecclesiastical “confusing of the tongues” if you will that is intended – I beleive by God – to protect.
The great beauty to me in the different denominations is that it seems that each exhibit a unique and very special quality. Just as races are known for certain things, so too are denominations. Presbyterians are mostly known for a profound love for the soveriegnty of God. Baptists are known as people of the book – a great love for the Bible. The Weslyan churches for Holiness, and the penticosticles love the mainifestations and work of the Holy Spirit. I think they reflect in part some wonderful apsect of the whole. I just can’t wait until we get to heaven and it will all be put together again, just as will the races!
Chris:
What would be a typical example of “calling other pastors and asking them to put your to work?” I’ve visited other churches from time to time such as when my wife and I visit family members in other cities. My wife and I have visited the church my niece attends in the Seattle Washington area. In my case, I have no idea who the pastor is, so if I was following you model how would I call him first and “ask to be put to work”.
Roger Simpson
Aaron,
Thanks for your comment. I have heard somewhere that Count Zinzendorf held a view very similar to that which you have articulated here. But so far, I haven’t been able to locate the quote.
I agree that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him, including the sin of denominational divisions. However, in light of passages like John 17:20-23 and 1 Corinthians 3, I believe we must continually be on guard against a denominational or sectarian spirit.
I am still hopeful for new light about how to put in practice the unity that Jesus desired for His Body, without at the same time exposing it to the abuses of hierarchical tyranny.
Isn’t it about time for you to put all your notes and studies on this together into a book (or has it already been done?)
Dave,
Are you trying to tell me this is so long it’s more like a book than a blog post?
David, I like your city church concept. The big question, as you say, is how to define the relationship between the house churches and the larger city church. How do you resolve the inevitable differences without causing splits?
In practice, I suspect the result would be a bunch of highly autonomous house churches that cooperate with each other in certain larger projects – which is not much different than the current model of independent neighborhood churches that belong to a local association.
Patrick,
One place where the city church concept has worked for years is Xenos Christian Fellowship in Columbus. See: http://www.xenos.org/aboutxenos/organization.htm
THis is definitely not a SBC group but it does provide a “proof of concept” for a house church fellowship.
rick
Patrick & Rick,
Just in case someone misunderstands what I am talking about here, I should probably clear up a little more just what I mean by “city church.” I am not referring to a subset of the totality of believers and local congregations within a city. I am talking about the Body of Christ, embracing everyone who is a true, born again, disciple of Jesus.
I am not opposed to the existence of subsets of believers within the “city church,” within the nationwide church, or within the worldwide church. Our current denominations and church networks are all subsets of either a “city church,” a nationwide church, or a worldwide church.
Neither do I think it is likely that any organization will be equivalent to either a “city church,” a nationwide church, or a worldwide church. As long as there are true disciples who are outside the scope of that organization, and residing in a particular city, nation, or the world, that organization does not truly fulfill the biblical role of the city church, et al.
I do believe that certain organizations, such as ministerial fellowships, local or regional evangelical councils, etc. may help to further the cause of the city church, nationwide church, or worldwide church. But they are not one and the same. And, I am also leery of most ecumenical organizations, such as the National Council of Churches, or the WCC, who sacrifice essential Bible doctrine on the altar of false unity.
Xenos Christian Fellowship, as far as I can tell, looks like it is a fine organization, and appears to be a doing a good job at uniting a certain subset of the “city church” in Columbus for ministry purposes. I commend them for that. But, that is not exactly what I am referring to when I talk about the “city church.”
Also, I am generally supportive of “house churches” and “house church networks.” However, I do not believe that the “city church” is composed only of “house churches.” In NT times, it appears it was composed almost entirely, if not entirely, by believers who met in “house churches.” But nowadays, there are many, many believers, and local congregations, whom I would consider to be a part of the “city church” in their locality, who do not ever meet with other believers in homes, or even share the same ecclesiological philosophy of most “house church” advocates.
What they do share, though, is a common saving relationship with the Lord Jesus, and a common commitment to what some have called “Level 1″ doctrines in the “theological triage” model.
I should probably clarify a bit further.
My statement above—”Our current denominations and church networks are all subsets of either a ‘city church,’ a nationwide church, or a worldwide church”—would probably be better stated as follows:
“There is a good deal of overlap between our current denominations and church networks and the various ‘city churches,’ nationwide churches, and the worldwide church.”
I am aware there is a lot of chaff mixed in with our denominations and church networks, much of which will not be revealed until the last day, when the Lord separates between the sheep and the goats.
In a very real way, the composition of the true “city church” is never totally evident this side of the Lord’s return. This does not mean, however, we should just ignore or neglect the reality of the “city church.” We should constantly work towards promoting a greater recognition of the “city church” and preserving its unity. This, as I understand it, means developing more personal relationships with the fellow members of the “city church” in our community, and carrying out all of the “one another” admonitions of the NT to the degree possible with them.
Brother David,
It would be refreshing to be able to enter a city and ask anyone in the city,…. where do the Christians meet and then someone would point you in many different directions where worship and edification was known to those fellowships where everyone knew their leaders and teachers.
Instead, we are conditioned to give out a different answer….more like…don’t go there or don’t go here because it might not fit your background or style. I had the head of the deacons in another church the last year tell me that there was a guy in his church that had just given his life to Christ, but he might not be able to fit in with the people at his church. He asked me if he could send him our way. That is indicative of the type of church society that exists in many cities.
We do need a return to the pattern we saw at Pentecost.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Yes, indeed. That captures very well the spirit behind what I am talking about.
Chris said rather wistfully:
It would be refreshing to be able to enter a city and ask anyone in the city,…. where do the Christians meet and then someone would point you in many different directions where worship and edification was known to those fellowships where everyone knew their leaders and teachers.
Prior to the Protestant Reformation, this was the norm. Are you sure we want to go back?
rick
Chris,
In downtown Madrid, there is a ministry called “Kilómetro Cero,” which, as I understand it, was started by a couple of Assembly of God missionaries. Among other things, they regularly do street preaching on one of the main squares, and pedestrian thoroughfares, of Madrid. They invite believers from all of the evangelical churches of Madrid (and outside) to join them, and many do. Whenever someone in the audience expresses an interest in the gospel, those who are participating in the evangelistic activities for that evening are instructed to show them a list of evangelical congregations in the city that embraces many different denominations (including Baptist churches
), and help them find a church close to where they live.
I believe these dear brothers are also a good example of the spirit behind the concept of the “city church.”
Rick,
I am very thankful for the Protestant Reformation, and I would not want to go back to pre-reformation days. However, I think that with everything we gained in the Reformation, there were certain things we lost.
Maybe I am too naive and idealistic, but something inside me can’t help but envisioning a biblical “best of both worlds.”
Brother Roger,
I am sorry I have just now read your post…..
You asked….
“What would be a typical example of “calling other pastors and asking them to put your to work?” I’ve visited other churches from time to time such as when my wife and I visit family members in other cities. My wife and I have visited the church my niece attends in the Seattle Washington area. In my case, I have no idea who the pastor is, so if I was following you model how would I call him first and “ask to be put to work”.
First of all, it can be helpful to know the men that minister in the city, but not required. It also could be that there are Pastors you may have met along your path in ministry or were introduced to by other church members….or you can easily do some research and find out about the churches that are near your destination. All of the above is a lot of fun.
I experienced this with WesInTex (Wes Massey). We met in the blog world (he’s in Texas, I’m in Tennessee) and realized we would be ending up at a conference in Louisville. Almost a year later, I realized I would be going past Coahoma, TX on my way to Snyder and Wes is the Pastor at FBC Coahoma. So, I called him and told him I would be coming his way and to “put me to work”. It was his call…but I was eager to teach, share and disciple according to his needs. So he responded and I taught a great group of adults on Wednesday concerning the “Attributes of God”. His church was a great blessing to me, and I hope we all learned something together through the Spirit.
I always make it a habit to contact some Pastor if I am in a city for any length of time. Some of their reactions are priceless….but most of the time it yields a great deal of fruit and unity of the Spirit is realized.
Those are just a couple of simple ways to have some fun….
Now, there are those Pastors that will hold things tight to the vest and use every excuse in the world to not have you teach…. Or what I find more often,…is that those Pastors have nothing for other teachers to do, and are not prepared to answer the question.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Rick,
Yes, by all means,….I would love to go back prior to the Protestant Reformation….even further back though, say first century. That would be exciting!
Blessings,
Chris
David!
What a delight to discover your blog and your understanding of the local church (and your wrestling with it). Forgive me for dragging out an explanation using restaurants to respond to some of your questions.
To the extent you will liken a “leader” as a worker in a buffet style restaurant, then yes, everyone should be served by at least one servant. The chefs cook up a variety of meals and set them in reach of diners; they make sure the offerings are full and hot (or cold, but not lukewarm). The waiters see that those in their section have what they need in order to enjoy the meal and the company of their friends. More workers are better: one to look after drinks, another food, another to clear the table, etc. and all able to back up the other if they get busy elsewhere.
These restauranting services are best done by a plurality, no matter the restaurant size in the city. And, the ratio of workers to diners needs to be fairly high if good service is to be given. Of course, a plurality of waiters provides waitering for the waiters when they dine. That plurality can come from the same restaurant in which they serve together, or from one nearby.
In the restaurant, the diners must work as well. They are not passive, but active. They go get their plates and silverware, they select and carry their food, they help each other during the meal, returning to the buffet, getting desserts, getting a napkin, etc.
No one goes to a new restaurant for every meal. We return again and again to favorite restaurants where we know we will receive good care, where the workers have built trusted relationships. With experience, over time, the waiters, chefs, busboys, maitre de, all become trusted friends. You eat there regularly, but not exclusively. While the glue is relationships and trust, not parish, yet geography–proximity–plays a role. The closer you are to the restaurant, the more frequently and easily you can share a meal there with other nearby friends.
Waitering is not a hierarchy of positional authority, but the role of trusted servants, where that trust has been built by good dining experiences over time.
Eating at these restaurants is not the purpose of living, but the means to restore strength to go out and do the work, to care for others in all the ways others in the city need care.
Art,
Welcome to sbc IMPACT! and thanks for your thoughtful comment on my post.
The restaurant metaphor is very interesting. So far, it seems to me to make sense at every level. I am going to have to “chew on this” some more.
You really have given me quite a bit to mull over here. Thanks.