Components of the Gathered Saints?
Apr 20
A couple of post ago I asked if there was a blueprint for the Church? In other words is there a certain way the church should meet? Or is there diversity in how the church should meet? There are some who would argue that there is a set way she should meet. Certain location, specific governance, what happens when meeting and things that shouldn’t be allowed things that hinder her from being all Christ has called her to be.
In that post I came to the conclusion that there is no “blueprint” so to say for the local or universal church, that each church can meet how they want, when they want, where they want. But Alan brought up some questions in his previous post that I too have been wondering about, questions that actually caused me to write the previous post and questions that cause me to right this one.
We can’t read the Gospels and get any indication on the church should meet. We get her marching orders, her foundation, we get maybe some of the things she should be doing (greater things will you do, Jesus says) but we would be grasping at straws if we attempt to build any type of how out of the Gospels.
However, in Acts we begin to get a clearer picture, actually my position is that the church does not begin until Pentecost. We have the foundation being laid in the Gospels, but the Church and the revelation of who She is does not begin until the risen Christ ascends and then the Holy Spirit is dispatched to empower the church, guide the church , teach the church, strengthen the church and bring the church into submission to her Head. So the questions being asked by the Apostles in Acts 1 are questions of ignorance not a foundation of some eschatological position.
So as Acts begins to unfold we still have little knowledge on the church. We see them doing things early on like in Acts 2:42, but we still have little knowledge of her really functioning together, or do we? This begins my struggle, because we see very little of the church gathered throughout the first 15 chapters 0r so in Acts. We see them in Acts 2, we see them selecting servants (deacons), we see them praying for Peter’s release, we see them in Antioch before Paul gets there and then we see them prepare to send Paul and Barnabas off, we see them gather to make a huge decision on the Gentiles and the Gospel and then we being to see Paul plant church, come back and strengthen church and then give instructions (if we weave the epistles in the historic narrative of Acts).
So the best option would be to look at the letters and attempt to develop consistent instructions and themes to see how the church should meet. Here is what I see. All of the Pauline epistles accept for four were written to the church, yet it is odd that the letters written to individuals have been used to construct how the church should meet (pastorals?). In each of these letters addressed to the church, leaders are mentioned in passing and decision making, teaching, caring for one another, and doctrine was in the hands of all of those who met together. Each member is held responsible for the edification of his brother not a select few, yet in most of our churches it is the exact opposite. Responsibility is with the whole and never does Paul address leaders separately in his writings, yet everything happens with leaders and flows down in our churches. Meals also seem to be important, important enough for Paul to spend a great deal of time making the Lord’s Supper and a full meal one in the same thing (just saying).
So, there seems to be a pattern. This pattern is, the whole church edifies, the whole church makes decisions, the whole church serves, the whole church instructs and no division between leaders and non-leaders. Just one body functioning together. Oh yeah, I missed one important thing. The familial language is inescapable. None of the churches seem to have rigid organization, I am not saying that this was to be the way it should be until the Groom returns, just what I can clearly see from the text.
So again the church could be described as a tight knit group of family members working together for the good of all. There focus seem to be Jesus and allegiance to Him which builds allegiance to one another in order to reflect His glory to the world they found themselves in.
The question is this does most of our churches look like this and if not why? If so how? And what should we do to fix them if they are not?
Lionel, I love this. Your thoughts on the Pauline epistles vs the “pastorals” is dead on. I think you have the conceptual drawings if not the blueprint there.
I have the same thoughts about pulpit ministry. It does not do anything for me. Meeting in homes for the last 16 months has changed my life. But it is not the home that necessarily makes the difference. It is just a structure. It’s the mutual edification and the challenge of loving, encouraging and honoring one another in the Lord that has changed me.
Certainly going to Alan’s Ecclesiology Seminar last year set a lot of things in motion for me, but it was more than that. It is hard to explain because some would say Alan was preaching from a pulpit. But it was really a time of instruction and discussion not preaching. I think it was apostolic teaching. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
Jack,
Your welcome Sir. And I hope to learn from you guys, I hope bringing Alan to TX is still on the table, maybe we shoot for Sep-Nov timeframe.
Lionel,
I believe that God moves in the corporate setting as well as on the individual level. This is why there is always change. Whether it be at the corporate level or on the individual level.
So to the answers to your questions.
No, I don’t think that many of the church gatherings today would look similar to those in the early church. God deals with all on an individual bases as He sees fit. For He is the potter and we are but the clay. Therefore, there can be no set man made way that is bsolute right, to assemble under. People have different needs, understandings, circumstances, habits, etc at different times and only God knows how to deal with ALL of His clay! (Rom 14:4)
Jack,
I struggled with the format of that conference. I wanted to make it less of a one-way lecture and more of a conversation. That’s why we had lunch together, why I encouraged questions, and why we had the q&a session at the end with other people. But, I still was not completely happy with the format.
Lionel,
I do think there are “components” (if you will) for gathering together with other believers. I don’t think these “components” are specific activities though. Instead, I think they are things like loving one another, considering others as more important, edifying/encouraging/teaching/admonishing/etc one another, serving one another, etc. While some activities encourage these types of “components”, other activities hinder them. But, it’s not just the activities, but also our attitudes and motives and sometimes even the place we’re meeting that can hinder and/or help these “components”.
-Alan
Alan,
I couldn’t agree more on all you stated especially motive and hinderances
Lionel,
Brother, this article is good!
“Family”, is the most instructional analogy in the NT, which, in my opinion, gives a good “model” for a congregation of believers.
For the whole of my long lifetime in the church, I’ve heard this quest for a plan, blueprint, pattern, recipe, etc.
A healthy family is a group of individuals who are NOT carbon copies of each other, and who, as they grow, are encouraged to be loving, caring, individuals contributing to the whole, but also exploring the wider relational community around them, and learning to stand as responsible individuals.
They are, eventually, set free to be the individuals they are. If the family has been healthy Dad and Mum have not made clones of themselves , but the family remains intact.
There simply is no blueprint!
That’s what I see as the whole idea behind the command to “make disciples” . The process of making disciples is like that of parenting, to develop a mature family of individuals, who can eventually repeat the process.
Whilst there are many glimpses and hints in Scripture, there simply is no complete blueprint, apart from, ‘A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
What else was Paul encouraging, ” For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ‘
These days I find myself pouring over 1 Cor. 14:26. In fact, I’m beginning a series this coming Sunday on What is a local church?
T.C.R,
That is one of the verses that commentators agree with but hate to say that it was a mature church.
Jon, I have to admit, that I agree with your position on this one. God isn’t stagnant to one type of structure, worship format, music, dress, and tradition-whether it be churches in homes, or buildings set aside for corporate worship.
Actually, I don’t think God cares about “type of structure, worship format, music, dress, and tradition-whether it be churches in homes, or buildings set aside for corporate worship”, unless those things hinder how his children relate and interact with one another.
-Alan
Alan,
And for some reason usually it does, at least in my experience.
True, but notice that Paul doesn’t forbid this organic expression. Rather, he tells them to everything be done to build up the fellowship. He regulates.
T.C,
I agree, but I think the “mature church” statement may be a strawman.
A “mature church”, that is, a group of more mature believers, would have much less need of structure and organization. They would depend less on leaders.
-Alan