Note: Since this is a very long post I have created a pdf version that can be downloaded from this link.
Introduction
Another
title for this study could be, “Is church necessary for the
Christian life?” There are many Christians out there who are rightly unsatisfied with, or even hurt by, the way our modern local
churches do things, so they either limit their church involvement to
the bare minimum or they stop attending church altogether. I want to
be careful to define “attending church” as more than just Sunday
services. To “attend church” means to be connected to a local
body of believers in a church assembly and to be involved in the life
of that local church.
Let
me state right now that I am writing this in a spirit of love and
deep concern for my brothers and sisters in the Lord who have sincere
and understandable reasons for not attending church; my heart is open
wide to you. I really do understand where you are coming from and I
genuinely sympathize with you. For a few years, I myself refused to
attend church for several reasons; reasons that were ultimately
emotionally based, illogical, and not biblical. In essence, I detested certain things about church, and I let my feelings and some real
concerns about abuses and excesses of churches (concerns I still
carry with me) override the biblical grounds for church attendance.
Also, I have friends who have been severely wounded by people in
churches and this has caused them many tears and deep bitterness
toward churches in general as they stopped attending church
altogether for years. But, the Lord has been gracious to them and
healed their wounds and even helped them to find local churches where
they are now growing in their faith.
It
is my heartfelt conviction that we must allow believers with real
hurts to heal before they reconsider attending church again, and that
we not try to force them into anything before God has them ready. I
don't want to rush any decisions and I truly want to encourage my
fellow Christians regarding church attendance and involvement rather
than judge them for lack of obedience or coerce them into action
based on guilt or manipulation. However, that being said, some of
this study may cause deep conviction by the Holy Spirit, so please
recognize this as such and please do not dismiss it as me trying to
twist your arm or manipulate you to agree with my view; that is not
my intent. All I ask is that you read this prayerfully with an open
mind and heart and be teachable and willing to make changes if and
when necessary as we seek to understand what Scripture says about the
issue. Also, I invite you to be skeptical and question and examine
everything I write to see if it lines up with the Bible. My heart is
to see the Lord Jesus obeyed and honored in this area by those who
truly do love Him and want to please Him and live according to His
Word, and I want my brothers and sisters in Christ to experience the
blessings that can only come through being involved in a local
church.
Now,
it is necessary to acknowledge that there are situations where
exceptions must be made. Those who are bed ridden in nursing homes
and missionaries who have no other believers locally are obvious
examples. However, these exceptions are merely necessary allowances,
and should not be used as anecdotal evidence. Believers in those
situations are usually incredibly lonely and starving for fellowship
with other believers; their hearts cry out for connection with other
Christians. Likewise, we also cannot use the spiritual level of
maturity in the lives of believers as anecdotal evidence. In every
local church there are both Christians who are carnal and living for
themselves, and there are also Christians who are Spirit-filled and
living according to God's Word. If we are to be fair, we cannot focus
on the negatives and ignore the positives of any given local
assembly. We must recognize that both the carnal as well as the
Spirit-filled exist in local churches. It is simply false,
(non-sequitur, invalid) to say that local churches only produce
carnal believers or that Sunday church services cause believers to
become hypocritical “Sunday Christians.” So the issue is not
whether local church assemblies contain good or bad Christians. The
issue is, what does the Bible say?
Now,
I readily admit and wholeheartedly affirm that the spiritual growth of
a Christian comes primarily
through their own individual and private Bible study and prayer apart
from others. In fact, if a believer is not studying the Bible on their
own they cannot grow spiritually (Josh. 1:8; Ps. 1:2-3; 19:7-11; Ps.
119; 1 Pet. 2:2). I have
written on this
very subject
in the past, and – spoiler alert – this study will end by
stressing the need for personal Bible study. My concern is that there
are explicit biblical admonitions to attend a local church that one
cannot escape as they
study the Bible on their own. To reject/dismiss these admonitions is
simply to disobey. I say this as an objective logical truth, not as a
condemnation or a guilt trip. It's simply the inescapable conclusion
to Scriptural truth.
In
this study I intend to be very skeptical about the subject in order
to guard against making a priori presuppositions (I do not want to
prove myself right or find what I was looking for in the beginning),
yet at the same time I want to be honest and show the truth of
Scripture, even if it's painful. I will also adhere to sound
reasoning/logic and I will be careful to pay attention to historical
& grammatical contexts so that the biblical truth can be rightly
understood and not twisted or watered down. Many online articles
in favor of church attendance take Scripture out of context and/or do not
exegete referenced passages, so they are limited in their
effectiveness and their points are easily dismissed. My goal is to
find out how the early Church practiced its worship services, and
then examine the function and purpose of the local church assembly
according to the Bible.
In
order live biblically, we cannot impose our modern lives, issues, and
understandings onto Scripture. Rather, we must understand Scripture,
as much as possible, as the original recipients would have understood
it and then apply it to our own situations. This is what I will be
seeking and, if I am to be an honest student of Scripture, I must
follow where it leads regardless of my own feelings and issues with
the modern local church.
For
our study, the answers to three questions will be sought with various
sub-points. These three questions fall into three categories:
(1)
History: Where did local churches and their practices come from? (2)
Theology: What is the purpose of the local church and how is it
accomplished? And, (3) Apologetics: What are the biblical reasons why
a Christian must attend a local church? When these questions are
answered they will provide a solid basis to why Christians must
attend a local church. I say must because when we are done it
will be clear that believers are not only admonished to attend
church, but that church involvement (not just Sunday services) is
essential to spiritual growth, albeit in a secondary position
to personal Bible study.
1.
History: Where did local churches and their practices come from?
I
want to be careful to note that in this section we are merely making
observations of history and of Scripture; we are not making
recommendations, nor examining ecclesiology, nor giving reasons for
going to church. I don't want to draw any major conclusions until
after we have surveyed the early Church practices and after we have
seen the New Testament theology of the local church. Some of this
section, actually a lot of this section, may be incredibly boring
(unless you love history) but it is necessary in order to establish
the facts before we move on to examine God's design and purpose for
local churches. Furthermore, most of the verses referenced will
appear again in the succeeding section on theology because they both
establish historical facts and illustrate theological truth.
The
Synagogue
When
the spiritual body of Messiah called “the Church” came into
existence on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) it was made up entirely of
Jews. These Jewish believers were accustomed to doing things a
certain way and this naturally led to the early Church adopting and
adapting many of the practices of the Jewish synagogue. This means
that we have to find out how the Jewish synagogue practiced worship
in order to understand the background to the functions of local
Christian assemblies.
The
term synagogue
is Greek (Gr.
συναγωγή)
and it means “a bringing together” or “a gathering.” The term
is a close relative of ekklesia
(Gr.
ἐκκλησία)
or “Church.” In the NT, the term only meant a gathering of people
(usually Jews), but today it is often used just like the word
“church” in referring to either a place of worship or a religious
group/gathering of people. However, although the words
συναγωγή and ἐκκλησία are similar in meaning and
application, they are never used as synonyms; the NT authors made
sure to consistently distinguish between the Christian Church
(ἐκκλησία) and Jewish synagogue (συναγωγή).
The
origin and beginning of the synagogue is uncertain among scholars,
but what is certain is that it developed its major form during the
period between the Old and New Testaments. By NT times the
synagogue was the common venue for the worship of Yahweh. So common
in fact that the Lord Jesus Himself regularly attended synagogue on
the Sabbath. Luke says, “So [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where He had
been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the
synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read” (Lk. 4:16
emphasis added). Moreover, the NT also records Jesus going into
various synagogues on several other occasions (e.g., Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Lk.
4:31-33; 6:6; John 6:59). It seems that it was His practice to go to
the synagogues and teach on the Sabbath, but during the week He would
teach in someone's house or on a hill/mount. Furthermore, the Apostle
Paul also had the custom of teaching first in the Jewish synagogue
wherever he traveled (e.g., Acts 9:20; 13:5, 14ff; 14:1; 17:1, 17;
18:4, 19).
The
ancient synagogue structures were built to accommodate crowds and
they resembled small temples/basilicas.
 |
| Ancient Jewish Synagogue building ruins (Capernaum) |
By
the 1st Christian cent. the basilica type of building with
its massive and ornamented facade became the standard synagogue
form... the widespread use of the half square and round columns and
elaborate shell niches, both associated with Rom. buildings,
demonstrate how deeply the Graeco-Roman civilization altered the
Jewish mind.
The
synagogue grounds were surrounded by a low wall within where the
synagogue met... often the congregation met out-of-doors although at
other times in private rooms. Usually this room was divided in some
fashion into a sector for men and a separate and lesser room for the
women. In the magnificent Moorish and Italian synagogues this women's
section took the form of a balcony running around three sides of the
room and reached by outer stairs.
In
or about the middle of the blank wall opposite the entrance doors was
the location of the niche or chamber in which the sacred scrolls of
the Torah were kept... In the center, later front, of the hall was an
upraised platform on which the scrolls were placed for reading, the
bema which was also used for the sermon, a sort of explanation of the
text.
The
synagogue was also more than just a place of worship or a
congregation. It was the lifeblood of Jewish society. In the first
century Jewish mind there was no distinction between sacred and
secular; every part of life was under the purview of God and revolved
around obeying and serving Him. In the synagogue building itself,
school was held during the week, legal proceedings took place, and
various other social events and activities took place. Moreover, to
be part of a synagogue meant that you were part of a unified
collective of fellow Jews, and you enjoyed sharing the admiration,
concern, and blessings of the other members. To be “put out of the
synagogue” (e.g., John 9:22) was tantamount to being cast out of
your society, being rejected by your loved ones, and losing all the
benefits of belonging to the synagogue.
As
far as the offices go, each synagogue had elders and rulers who were
in charge of various aspects of operation. The head ruler was in
charge of selecting the Torah passages to be read in the assembly
(cf. Lk. 13:14; Mk. 5:22; Acts 18:8, 17), there were lower officials
who were in charge of general upkeep and some carried out the
corporal punishment of offenders (cf. Lk. 4:20; Matt. 10:17; 23:34),
and there were Rabbis who taught and explained Scripture to the
assembly.
The
Sabbath service of the synagogue went as follows:
- The great Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4ff was recited
- There were prayers throughout
- A selected
portion of the Torah and the Prophets was read
- A speaker would
comment on the portions in a sort of "sermon." This was sometimes done by a visiting Rabbi,
which explains why Jesus, Paul and others were able to attend the
synagogue service and preach to the Jews.
- After the commentary there
was the recitation of selected Psalms
- There was a final benediction
- And “there were undoubtedly
some sung parts which terminated the service.”
These
synagogue features were clearly adopted and adapted by the early
Church and were carried out whenever they would assemble together in
a local congregation to worship the Lord. Since the Church began as
only Jews, they naturally formed their mode of worship after their
synagogue gatherings. As Ryrie puts it, “Unquestioningly, many
practices which the church used had their antecedents in Judaism.”
All
of this data shows that the people of God, whether they be Israel or
the Church, who are living according to God's revealed Word have
always sought out each other and established collective assemblies in
order to support and minister to each other. The difference being
that members of the Jewish synagogue were not very concerned with
outsiders, but members of the Church have always sought to proclaim
the good news and minister to all who are part of their world.
The
early Church
Now
we turn to the data concerning the early Church. As previously
mentioned the word “church” in the NT is most often a translation
of the Greek word ekklesia (Gr. ἐκκλησία)
and it simply means “that which is called out.”
It is used 114 times in the NT and always refers to an assembly–
not necessarily a Christian one; e.g., Acts 7:38; 19:32. The NT
distinguishes between the universal, invisible Church, to which every
Church-age believer in the world exists (i.e., the macro-body of
Christ. e.g., Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18), and the localized assemblies
of believers in various cities. Thus, each local assembly constitutes
its own “called out” group of believers. It is this latter usage
upon which we will make observations, and then find out how the NT
shows the assemblies functioning and practicing their worship and
service to the Lord.
The
first thing that needs to be observed is that the NT records the
existence of numerous local “called out” assemblies and even
names many of them (e.g., Acts 8:1; 9:31; 11:22; 13:1; Rom. 16:1; 1
Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:2; 22, Col 4:16; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess.
1:1; Jas. 2:2; Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). Starting with the first generation of Church-age believers (Acts 1:12-14), Christians have assembled together. And when the Church was born on the Day of Pentecost, the believers were gathered together in a local assembly (Acts 2:1). From the very beginning the Church existed and functioned in a local assembly. Moreover, even before Pentecost, the first local assembly of believers was given a pastor who would shepherd them: Peter (John 21:15-17). As the Church began to grow and spread from Jerusalem through the world, local gatherings became the standard way for Christians to edify and comfort each other (Acts 9:31 NKJV).
The
next thing to observe is that the NT mentions believers being
“together” in local assemblies numerous times (e.g., Acts 2:1,
44; 4:31; 11:26; 12:12; 14:27; 15:6, 20; 20:7-8; 21:22; 1 Cor.
11:17-18, 20, 34; 14:23; Eph. 2:22) and even gives instructions for
these gatherings (1 Cor. 5:4; 11:33; 14:26ff; Heb. 10:25; Jas.
2:1-4). There are also a great many “each other” and “one
another” instructions in Scripture that strongly imply, if not
require, the existence of local assemblies in order to be carried out
(e.g., Matt. 18:16-18; Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 11:33; 12:25; Col. 3:16; 1 Thess. 5:11; Jas. 5:16; 1 Pet. 4:10-11; Rev. 2:4-5, 16, 24-25; 3:2-3, 18).
A
very important observation to make is that the Lord Himself
established local churches through the Apostles wherever they went to
spread the Gospel. Scripture clearly records that “the hand of the
Lord was with them” (Acts 11:21). Moreover, it wasn't good enough
for the Apostles to merely win people to the Lord and then move on,
they also gathered believers into local assemblies; they were church
planters (Acts 14:21-23). The Apostles “appointed elders...in every church [i.e., called-out body], with prayer and fasting” (Acts 14:23 ESV). Thus they were planting local churches, and “the work which they completed” was “the grace of God” (v.26) in the regions where they were evangelizing. And, as will be shown later, an elder's sole function is to oversee a local church. Therefore, by appointing elders in every city, the Apostles were planting local churches in the regions where they spread the Gospel. Furthermore, the Apostles often spent time pastoring a local assembly of believers by teaching and training them in doctrine and practice before they moved on to continue spreading the Gospel. The most obvious example is in Acts 11:19-26. Barnabas was sent to Antioch to minister to the local believers (v.22) and the Lord blessed his effort by adding believers to the assembly (v.24). When Barnabas saw that he needed someone to pastor the local assembly, he found and brought Paul to be the pastor (v.25-26a). Barnabas and Paul stayed for a whole year and taught the believers. Luke adds the comment that “the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” (v.26b). Thus the term “Christian” was coined because of a local assembly of believers. So the Lord was involved in the Church on a local scale. In fact Paul makes it clear that God is the author of peace “in all the churches of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:33 NKJV emphasis added). The Lord worked to bring peace and unity in “all” true local churches.
Another
thing to observe is that nearly all of the NT epistles were written
to specific local church assemblies (not individuals) concerning
their specific issues, and nearly all of the usages of the word “you”
in these epistles are in the plural in the Greek (Gr.
ὑμῖν); which means the writers were nearly always
addressing the specific local church as a group, not any individual
(e.g., 2 Cor. 6:11). Never once is there any rebuke given to
believers for gathering together for church services. It was simply
assumed by the Apostles that a local church assembly was not only the
norm, but the God-ordained venue for exercising worship and spiritual
gifts (e.g., 1 Cor. 3:16-17). If there were anything wrong with
having church services, then we would most certainly find the
Apostles terminating them. Admittedly, this is an argument from
silence. Yet, when we observe the very specific details of the church
services in Paul's first NT epistle to the Corinthians, and the great
lengths he went to in order to correct their improper behavior during
the church services (1 Cor. 11:17-18), one has to wonder why he did
not just tell them to stop gathering together for church services.
With all the severe and sinful problems found within the local
churches, the NT writers never encourage the discontinuing or
abandoning of church services; it was the one thing that they maintained. No matter how bad things were in the NT churches
(especially in Corinth), the Apostles thought local church services
were important enough to correct the errors and abuses rather than to
recommend they terminate gathering for services. In other words, the
fact that the NT writers sought to correct the bad practices that
were happening during church services instead of getting rid of the
services altogether suggests that the services were thought of as a
vital and necessary part of the Christian life.
To
be fair in this study, there are a couple cases in Scripture where an
assembly was nearing termination by God. In the book of Revelation,
Jesus (through John) writes to specific churches in Asia minor (Rev.
1:4) regarding their own specific issues, and He threatens to
terminate two of their assemblies if they do not repent (Rev. 2:5;
3:3). It must be noted that Jesus is writing to correct the issues
before the churches become so bad that they aren't even real
churches anymore. The assembly at Ephesus was in danger of losing its
love for Christ (Rev. 2:4). According to 1 Corinthians 16:22, “If
anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed.”
If the whole Ephesian assembly were to be filled with those who do
not love Christ then, by logical necessity, it means that it would be
an accursed, unsaved assembly. Thus, Jesus would discontinue the
assembly altogether because it would have become a false church. In the
assembly at Sardis, the congregation was mostly dead in sins; meaning
that the overwhelming majority of people were not saved (Rev. 3:1).
This assembly only had “a few names” (Rev. 3:4) who were actually
saved, but if the rest of them would not heed Christ's warnings then
He would come upon them in judgment. In both cases, the issue was not
that it was improper to gather together for services, nor to be
united in an assembly. Rather, the issue was that both churches were
in danger of becoming filled completely with unsaved people and would
therefore no longer be true Christian assemblies at all. What we can
gather from this data is that, as long as there are true believers in
any given local assembly, the Lord will affirm its existence, make
every effort to correct its errors, and bless its work.
We
also need to briefly highlight that Paul's letters to Timothy and
Titus are written to pastors concerning their own specific local
assembly. These letters are written with very specific instructions
on local church government and they are full of exhortations for the
men to be bold in their preaching and to care for the souls of those
in their local congregation. Thus, it would seem that these letters
are completely superfluous and uncalled-for if local church
assemblies were not ordained by God. Since God inspired these
letters, then by canonical necessity local churches must be a
God-ordained pattern for the Christian life. “It is necessary to stress that the NT never countenances the possibility of a believer living his Christian life apart from the context of the local church.”
One more thing to briefly highlight is that there were various sizes of local churches in the NT. When the Church was born on the Day of Pentecost, the first local church in Jerusalem had 120 members (Acts 1:15). God blessed the Jerusalem church so it began to grow large enough to have deacons help with its operation (Acts 6:1-7), and then “the number of disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem” (Acts 6:7). So the Jerusalem church was a big local church. Then there was the local church at Antioch to which Barnabas and Paul ministered. After Barnabas went to Antioch, “a great many people were added to the Lord” (Acts 11:24) and when Paul got there they “assembled with the church and taught a great many people” (Acts 11:26). So the Antioch church was also a very large local body of believers. The varying number of people in the NT churches suggests that the size of a local church does not matter as long as it is functioning according to the NT pattern. God can decide to add or subtract as many or as few believers to a local assembly as He wishes.
Now
we must observe how the early Church functioned. The first thing we
observe in Acts is that the first Christians gathered together in believers' houses (Acts 2:2), at Solomon's portico,
which was a colonnade on the eastern side of the Temple grounds in
Jerusalem (Acts 2:46; 3:11; 5:12), and later, in one case, on school
grounds (Acts 19:9-10). The Church began as a sect of Jews who had
trusted in their true Messiah, eventually separating from the
non-believing Temple/synagogue community. After being forbidden to
preach Jesus (Acts 4:18), and being scattered due to persecution
(Acts 8:1, 4) the believers began to meet together regularly in houses (e.g.,
Acts 5:1-11; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 1:2). As the Church began
to grow and its members shared their lives with each other (Acts
2:44-45; 4:34-35) it became necessary to designate deacons who would
distribute the goods that were given (Acts 6:1-6) and elders to
oversee each local church (Acts 14:23). James also records the
existence of the office of elder (Jas. 5:14), while Paul spends much
time dealing with qualifications for deacons and elders (1 Tim.
3:1-13; Tit. 1:7-9). Also, as noted earlier, the believers were intentionally gathered together in local assemblies for the worship and service of the Lord (e.g., Acts 11:19-26). Finally, the NT local churches exercised church discipline and excommunication (e.g., Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1-5).
 |
| Ancient Jewish house |
Because
the early church assemblies most often met in houses, we need to be
careful to look at the houses of the day and how they were
constructed so that we don't impose our modern understanding of
“house” onto Scripture. Our modern idea of a house only vaguely
resembles the way houses were constructed during NT times.
Jewish
houses were actually what we would consider small communes of several
dwelling places built usually with two levels, and they commonly had
a courtyard in the middle. As sons began to marry, more dwelling
places were added around the courtyard or as part of an outlying
room/wall to accommodate the new family. The upstairs of houses were
used for bedrooms, dining rooms (e.g., Mk. 14:13-15) and meeting
places (e.g., Acts 1:13). The roof of a house was flat, had steps
leading up to it, and was used for leisure (e.g., 2 Sam. 11:2). The
roof level could easily be used for making announcements to those in
the courtyard below, or for gathering to hear someone speak below in
the courtyard. So the common Jewish house was actually a commune of
dwelling places in which small families of a larger family lived
together (e.g., John 14:2-3).
 |
| Ancient Greco-Roman house |
Greco-Roman
houses were much like Jewish houses except that the roofs were
inaccessible and sloped, and therefore not used for any purpose other
than shelter. The houses were great in size, there were many rooms
and two levels all built around an open courtyard. Each Greek house
of the day had women's quarters called the gynaikonitis (Gr.
γυναικωνῖτις) where the women, including mothers,
daughters, and female slaves worked and slept. There were also rooms
for cooking, bathing, schooling, and a special section/room called
the andron (Gr. ἀνδρων) which was a lounge,
often rather large, wherein the men gathered together to drink wine
and discuss the issues of life.
All this information shows that when the early Church met together in houses, there was plenty of room for an assembly, even a moderately-sized one, to gather together and hold meetings, especially in the courtyards. When Paul opens his letter to Philemon he mentions that he is also
writing “to the church in your house” (Philem. 1:2). In the letter
Paul is interceding for Philemon's slave Onesimus. If Philemon could
afford a slave then he must have owned a house and property large
enough both for Onesimus to work in and to provide living quarters
for him. Moreover, the church in his house was none other than the
Colossian church (Philem. 1:2, 10 cf. Col. 4:9, 17). Due to the many
group exhortations given to the Colossians (e.g., husbands, wives,
fathers, children, masters, slaves. Col. 3:18-22; 4:1) it is clear
that Philemon must have had a house large enough to hold a large
assembly of believers.
I want to be careful to briefly point out again that there were at least three different venues in the NT where the churches met: at Solomon's porch (Acts 5:12), in the school building of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9-10) and in the homes of believers (Col. 4:15). This seems to indicate that the meeting place of local churches was not an important issue in the minds of the early Church. As long as they could gather together regularly it didn't matter what the venue was. So we today should allow some flexibility on the meeting places of local churches; they don't have to be in any certain venue.
So
the early Church believers met together regularly in various venues,
they shared their lives with each other, and they had offices for the
organization and functioning of the assembly. But can we get more
specific about when they gathered together and what happened during
their gatherings? Most definitely! What we observe from Scripture is
that, at the beginning, the early Church believers met together “day
by day” (Acts 2:46), but eventually they developed localized
assemblies which carried out synagogue-like services once a week
(Acts 20:7). Here from Scripture are several observations about these
early church services:
The
churches met on Sunday: "The Lord's day" (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10)
The
Apostles' doctrine was taught (Acts 2:42)
A
pastor preached the Word (e.g., 2 Tim. 4:2)
There
was prayer (Acts 2:42; 12:12)
Offerings
were given as people were led by God to give (1 Cor. 16:2)
Psalms,
hymns and spiritual songs were sung (Col. 3:16)
Meals
were shared (Acts 2:42)
Spiritual
gifts were exercised (1 Cor. 14:26)
The
Lord's supper was observed (1 Cor. 11:20-26)
All
of these features were the common practices of the NT church
services, and these features have been constant throughout all of church history up to today. But the NT local church members were not just “Sunday
Christians” (i.e., hypocrites). The early local church assemblies
were just like the Jewish synagogue in that there was no distinction
between sacred and secular; every part of life was under the purview
of the Lord Jesus and revolved around obeying and serving Him. In
addition to the weekly services, the local assemblies also served and
supported each other outside of the services (Acts 4:34-35; 9:36,
39). Moreover, the early believers also preached the Gospel door to
door (Acts 5:42). As real believers gathered together to support,
encourage and comfort each other, they exhibited lives outside of
their local assemblies that were exemplary and glorifying to Christ.
Thus, when a local church assembly functioned properly, it encouraged
unity, purity and good works in every arena of life.
Just
a few years after the close of the canon of Scripture in A.D.
95, Justin Martyr (A.D. 110–165) confirmed that these details
of early church practices were indeed common, and also shows that
from the earliest time local assemblies have gathered together for
church services:
On
the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country
gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the
writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then,
when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and
exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise
together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended,
bread and wine and water
are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and
thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent,
saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation
of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are
absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do,
and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is
deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and
those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and
those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in
a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on
which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on
which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made
the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the
dead.
So
now let's answer the question of History: Where did local churches
and their practices come from? We can say that local churches came
from God as He worked through the Apostles to establish them, and
many of the practices were adapted from the Jewish synagogue. The NT local church pattern looked like this:
NT Local Church Pattern
|
What mattered
|
What did not matter
|
|
|
|
As a final note on this section I want to make it abundantly clear that for the early Church, Sunday services were just a small part of local church life. Putting all these observations together, a local church in the NT must be defined as a distinct called-out group of unified believers in a specific region or city who ministered to/with each other and gathered together on various occasions, including regular Sunday services, for fellowship and edification. We must affirm all parts of that definition in order to properly view NT local churches; anything less is unbiblical. And it is imperative that we keep this definition in mind throughout the rest of this study, and that we do not think of a local church as a building or an institution/establishment.
All the
above data are merely observations about what happened in the
early Church, and they form a very distinct and clear NT pattern for
how Spirit-filled, Spirit-led local assemblies functioned. But just
because they did it that way back then doesn't necessarily mean that
is the way we should do it now, right? To answer this question, we
will now turn to how and why God designed local
churches to be a vital part of the Christian life. If being part of a
local church is an essential part of the Christian life then there
better be good reasons!
2.
Theology: What is the purpose of the local church and how is it
accomplished?
In
this section I want to look at God's purpose for the local church,
and then to see how God has designed and equipped all believers to function properly only when in the context of a local
church, not in isolation. This part is where we take the observations, look at some essential passages about the local church, and synthesize everything into a theology of the local church. But first we need to deal with the
highly controversial Bible passage on the subject.
The assembling together in Hebrews 10:24-25
Warning: this part is going to be technical and detailed, but it is necessary in order to be precise and comprehensive when dealing with a passage this controversial.
“Let
us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not
forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of
some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the
Day approaching.”
The biggest question we need to answer is, “what qualifies as 'assembling ourselves together'”? Is “assembling together” general enough that it can be fulfilled by two or three believers being together in any random setting? Or is there something very specific in mind? There are several different interpretations of this passage, but the overwhelming majority view it as not forsaking attending church services. But is the majority correct? The biggest hurdle to jump when dealing with exegesis is observation. The different interpretations arise from focusing on one aspect of the passage instead of taking the complete data into consideration. In order to be an honest student, I am going to throw out every interpretation, including my own, and just go through the passage and make observations before coming to any conclusions or interpretations. I want to allow the context and the grammar to tell me what is going on in the mind of the author.
Observations
This passage actually begins in verse 19 and goes through verse 25, and it flows out of a context dealing with the perfection of Christ as the Great High Priest (9:1-10:18). The passage that we come to is what believers should do in response to the truth of Christ being our perfect High Priest. Because of the perfect work of Christ as High Priest, believers should respond in three ways: First, we should draw near (to somewhere that is not explicitly defined) (10:22); second, we should hold fast to the confession of our hope (10:23); and third, we should consider one another in order to stir up love and good works (10:24-25). The first two responses are directed inward, while the final response is outward, directed toward others. This is the greater context in which the passage is situated, so this should be our control. Are you with me so far? Notice that I am not engaging in interpretation yet. This is purely observation.
Now as we come to 10:24 the first thing to observe is that the main verb, “let us consider one another,” is in the subjunctive mood in the Greek. This means that it is making an indirect command by instructing us on propriety. It is saying that we should do something, not necessarily that we must. The proper, correct response is to consider one another. Therefore, to not consider one another is the improper, wrong response. The Greek term for “consider” (Gr. κατανοῶμεν) means “to bring to mind, to think on, to take note of” and it is a verb in the active voice; which means believers are the ones performing the action. Also, the verb is in the present tense, which means that believers should currently be considering each other. Now observe that the purpose or goal of considering one another is “to stir up love and good works.” In the Greek, “stir up” (Gr. παροξυσμὸν) means to irritate; i.e., to irritate each other to love and good works. It has the idea of provoking or stimulating someone from inaction to action.
And here we are at 10:25, the controversial part; and this is where things will get very technical, so hang on. There are two verb participles that connect to the main verb in verse 24. The first participle is, “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,” and the second is “exhorting one another.” These participles modify the main verb and they are prescriptive. In other words, they tell us the manner in which the main verb is to be performed. When we put the main verb and its participles together, it means that the way believers consider one another is by not forsaking the assembling of ourselves and by exhorting one another. This then is the proper manner by which we consider one another in order to stir up love and good works.
The first way in which believers consider each other is where the debate lies. The phrase “not forsaking” is clear enough. The Greek word (Gr. ἐγκαταλείποντες) means “to leave behind, to abandon” and it is in the customary present tense: i.e., don't be currently in a state of having customarily abandoned the assembling of ourselves together. Also, note that this is given in the negative, not the positive; don't abandon. It is used 9 other times in Scripture and it always refers to the removal of someone from one place to another while leaving something behind (Matt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34; Acts 2:27, 31; Rom. 9:29; 2 Cor. 4:9; 2 Tim 4:10, 16; Heb. 13:5). Even in secular Greek writings (e.g., Hesiod, Thucydides) it always refers to a person leaving an entity that exists in reality, and never refers to leaving or abandoning an idea.
At last we turn to the one phrase that is so debated: “the assembling of ourselves together.” First we need to observe that the Greek word for “assembling together” used here is ἐπισυναγωγή and it is a noun. It is defined as “a gathering,” “being gathered together,” “assembling together,” and “a gathering together in one place.” It has the idea of a complete collection or compilation. It is used only one other time in the NT and in that usage it refers to the entire, universal Church being in a gathering to meet the Lord in the air at the rapture (2 Thess. 2:1). Also, the Septuagint version of the non-canonical, apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees uses the term to refer to all of Israel being gathered in one place (2 Macc. 2:7).
The noun's counterpart, ἐπισυνάγω, is a verb and it is used 8 times in the NT (Matt. 23:37 – 2x; 24:31; Mk. 1:33; 13:27; Lk. 12:1; 13:34; 17:37). The verb form has a very interesting naunce and means “to collect and bring to one place” or “to gather together.” The NT uses it to speak of Jesus gathering all the “children” of Jerusalem together (Matt. 23:37; Lk.13:34), of the angels gathering all of the elect (Matt. 24:31; Mk. 13:27), of a whole city gathering at a house (Mk. 1:33); of whole multitudes gathering to hear Jesus teach (Lk. 12:1), and of all the birds of judgment gathering to feast upon the dead bodies of the unsaved (Lk. 17:37). So, after observing how the verb form is used, we can see that it carries the sense of a complete group that is gathering in one place for a very specific reason.
In both the noun and the verb usages, the words are always and only used to refer to the assembling/gathering of a specific, complete group with a definite purpose, and it is never used to refer to a gathering of only two or three people. This word in Hebrews 10:25 then must refer to a specific, complete group that is gathered together in one place for a definite purpose. Moreover, the noun is actually a verbal noun, which means it is an entity that is created because of an action; i.e., a collection, a gathering together of parts, an assembling, a compilation. Furthermore, the definite article (“the”) is used here, which denotes specificity; it is the specific complete collection, the specific complete gathering together of parts, the specific complete assembling, the specific complete compilation.
Now we need to see that the word “ourselves” here in the Greek (Gr. ἑαυτῶν) is a genitive reflexive third person plural pronoun. Huh? It is in the third person plural, so it would be translated “themselves” if it were not reflexive. But since it is reflexive, it reflects back to those who are admonished to “consider one another.” And since the author to the Hebrews includes himself in this admonition, it is translated as “ourselves.” The genitive case, means that “ourselves” belongs to “the assembling together.” So what is in the assembling is ourselves.
The phrase “as is the manner of some” is pretty easy. The word “manner” (Gr. ἔθος) means “custom or habit.” And, “of some” (Gr. τισίν) is indefinite and refers to anyone who is customarily abandoning the assembling together; someone who is in a present state of having customarily abandoned the assembling.
The rest of the verse is inconsequential to the relevance of this study, but we need to be complete so we'll briefly go over it. The second verb participle is “but exhorting one another,” and it is the second way in which believers should be considering one another (v. 24). It carries the idea of coming alongside and encouraging one another, and it is also in the present tense; be currently exhorting one another. The next part of the verse, “and so much the more,” is just a comparative to exhort one another in greater quantity. “As you see the Day approaching” is present tense indicative with a second person plural, which means it describes something that was currently happening; you all are currently watching the day getting closer. “The day” is not explicitly defined.
After noting all of these observations, let's reconstruct the passage so that it contains all the grammatical nuances: ([for context] the last of the three proper, correct responses to the perfections of our High Priest is that) we should currently actively be considering, thinking on, taking note of one another for the purpose of irritating, provoking, stimulating love and good works, and this must be done by us doing the action of not habitually abandoning the specific complete collection, gathering together, assembly, compilation of all constituent parts of us (who should be considering one another) who are participating into one place, as some are in the current habit of doing, and (to be considering one another) we must also currently be encouraging one another, and we should be doing this much more as you all are currently looking at the specific day approaching.
Interpretation
So how do we interpret this? We need to consider both the grammar and the history in order to be faithful to the author's intent. I'm going to focus primarily on the phrase “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,” because it is the part in controversy, but I will make note of the surrounding phrases when they are relevant.
(A) Grammar. It seems that the author is very concerned with making sure that this assembling together continues to happen because he situates it in the middle of two negative actions; namely “not forsaking” and “as is the manner of some.” So some people were in fact currently abandoning the assembling together and the author wanted to make sure that his audience would not behave the same way, because it is improper and therefore wrong. Remember that “not forsaking” is given in the negative instead of the positive. In other words, it does not say that believers must merely continue to assemble together (although it is surely inferred). Rather it means that believers must not stop. This assumes that the believers are currently involved in the assembling together.
Now, whatever the assembling together is, it is created by those who should be considering one another, and only those who should be (i.e., believers). The ones who are actively considering are the ones participating in the gathering. Thus, those who are not part of the assembling together are not considering one another. Moreover, those who are not considering by not assembling are also not responding in the correct, proper manner. They are behaving wrongly and improperly.
This assembling together also carries the idea of it being a complete collection of parts. So each part that is assembling together is someone who is considering one another, and the collection then is that of all the parts of them. So the author is talking about a complete collection of believers who are currently considering one another. The inference here is that the individual parts who are gathering together are related to each other in a more than superficial way; they have something in common, they are connected to each other as part of a distinct set, and when they are together they form a complete collection. Moreover, the fact that believers exhort each other in order to irritate “love and good works” supports this inference. This irritating kind of exhortation requires a level of intimacy and trust that only exists between believers who are connected in a special way. This negates any interpretation that says any two or three random believers can fulfill the admonition. It also negates any interpretation that sees it as a counseling session, since the sessions are not mutual exhortation. It has to be believers who make up a complete, specific group with each other and who have a special closeness and trust between them; each believer has a specific, definite role that they play in this tight-knit collection.
Also, note that the term for “assembling together” carries the idea of being gathered together in one place. So this complete collection of believers who are united to each other are gathered together in one place. Furthermore, remember that, since the author uses the definite article (“the”), this isn't just a random gathering together. It is a specific complete gathering together of believers who are part of a collection. This negates any interpretation that says as long as believers get together on any random occasion they can fulfill this admonition. What is required here is that the assembling together must be in a specific place and at a specific time. This implies either a reoccurring time or a continuous time. It is a specific assembling together that happens recurringly or continually.
Notice also that the word used for “not forsaking” always refers to a person leaving something behind in reality. This inference means that it is not speaking of leaving an idea, rather it is speaking of leaving an entity; namely the physical collection of believers. This then negates the interpretation of “the assembling” being the doctrine of either the rapture or the Second Coming, because they are metaphysical doctrines (ideas) that do not have substance in reality. This is also supported by the fact those who are forsaking are not included in the assembling together, while at the rapture and Second Coming all believers are participants.
So if it doesn't mean forsaking any random believers, or any random gathering, or a counseling session, or the rapture/Second Coming, then what valid options are we left with? Well, since every believer is part of the universal Church (i.e., the macro-body of Christ), it cannot be referring to becoming part of the Church. This is supported by the fact that some were in the habit of leaving the assembling. Furthermore, if this admonition were to not forsake becoming a part of the universal Church (salvation), then it would negate the admonition to consider others. This also negates any interpretation that “the assembling” is the act of creating a local church. For how can someone leave something that is not yet extant? Since the genesis of a local church contains no already extant believers, then no one can forsake or abandon it. Lastly, it cannot be primarily referring to leaving a local church body because a local church body is not continually gathered together in one place at one time; although it can refer to it in a secondary sense, since the members are in one region. The only other possible option is that of believers who have a special closeness and trust assembling together in a corporate body at a specific recurring time and at a specific place.
(B) History. We must remember that the audience of the writer was Jewish. And since the author had just spent much time talking about Jesus being the High Priest of believers, we should view the passage in that light. Remember, this is our control that we observed earlier. So, does Jesus being the Great High Priest who opened the Holy of Holies for believers shine any light on “the assembling of ourselves together?” Yes. According to the OT, once a year, on the Day of Atonement, all Israel would assemble together at one place (i.e., the tabernacle, later the Temple) in a “holy convocation” while the high priest went into the Holy of Holies to make offerings for the assembly (Ex. 30:10; Lev. 16; 23:26-32; cf. Heb. 9:7). If any Jew forsook the assembly, they would be cut off from their people and destroyed (Lev. 23:29-30). This historical context would seem to indicate that the author had a sacred assembly in mind wherein all the participants were gathered together in one place to focus on the atonement being made by the high priest.
When we remember the historical context of the early churches and how they assembled together like a synagogue on a specified day of the week to have church services wherein they commemorated Christ's atoning work (i.e., the Lord's Supper), we can see that this gathering together is the only one that best fits the description of “assembling ourselves together.” It fits all of the grammatical and historical considerations perfectly, and no consideration contradicts or negates this interpretation. Therefore, taking into account the grammar, the history and the context, this passage can only be referring to the assembling together of a local body of believers for church services. Any other interpretation just doesn't fit and is therefore unbiblical. The conclusion then is actually more than just going to local church services. The author to the Hebrews is giving us a very clear admonition to be part of a local church body and to not forsake being part of its church services. Those who do customarily forsake the assembling are behaving wrongly and improperly. Therefore, the last of the three proper responses to the perfection and work of Jesus as our High Priest is that believers should be part of a local church body and part of its services.
But
what about Jesus saying that, “where two or three are gathered in
My name, I am there in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20)? Doesn't
this verse mean that any two or three believers gathered together
creates a church? Well, no. In its proper context, this verse is not
referring to the ontology of a church, nor is it primarily referring
to the omnipresence of the Lord; it is referring to the immediacy of
Jesus being on the side of (supporting) those who are exercising
church discipline. The immediacy of His presence in this case is for
one specific purpose; discipline. If we put the verse back into its
proper context where it belongs (Matt. 18:15-20), it is clear that
the “two or three” mentioned do not and cannot constitute a
distinct local church by themselves; rather they are part of a larger
church assembly (Matt. 18:17). If this were not the case, then there
would be no need for church discipline up to the point of
excommunication, and Jesus' words would be utter nonsense. In other
words, because Jesus is teaching how to exercise church discipline,
there must be a local church assembly in order for someone to be disciplined by it. If there were no local church then no one could be
disciplined up to the point of excommunication. Therefore, Jesus must have had a greater local church in mind to which the sinning brother and the “two or three” gathered in Christ's name belong.
God's
purpose for the local church
Is
there a reason why God created local church assemblies through the
Apostles? Interestingly, His purpose for creating local assemblies is
not to win unbelievers to Christ, nor is it to minister to
unbelievers, and it's not even primarily to worship God in church
services; these are natural results of what happens when a local
church fulfills its intended purpose. God's intended purpose for the local church is actually for believers to lovingly build up/edify each other in the faith (Eph. 4:16). He intends it to be a setting wherein believers can worship Him together (Col. 3:16), wherein they can serve each other in love (Gal. 5:13), wherein they can bear the burdens of one another (Gal. 6:2), and wherein they can build up, comfort and exhort each other in the faith (1 Cor. 14:3). What we see in Acts is that through the meetings/services of
local churches, done in the proper manner, the Christian is
emboldened to go out into the world and live a pure, obedient life of
good works (Acts 4:32-33). This is God's intended purpose for local
church assemblies, and He has not left believers unequipped to carry
out this purpose.
God
equips the Church to accomplish its purpose
Because
God intends the local church assembly to be a setting wherein believers
can lovingly build each other up in their faith, He equips each and
every believer with abilities that are not only able to accomplish
the task, but also intended to be used for that very reason. These
abilities are called “spiritual gifts.” Along with the
spiritual gifts God installed and ordained offices –
positions of authority/service – within the local church whose sole
function is to facilitate operations of the assembly.
It
is not my purpose to deal with the definitions of each spiritual
gift, nor is it my purpose to deal with the issue of sign-gift
continuance, but I do want to list the gifts that the NT describes:
Spiritual
Gifts in the NT
|
Non-sign
gifts
|
Sign
gifts
|
Pastor
(Eph. 4:11)
Teaching
(Rom 12:7)
Evangelism
(Eph. 4:11)
Prophecy (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:10; Eph. 4:11)
Administration
(Rom. 12:8)
Serving
(Rom. 12:7)
Faith
(1 Cor. 12:9)
Exhortation
(Rom. 12:8)
Discernment
(1 Cor. 12:10)
Wisdom
and knowledge (1 Cor. 12:8)
Showing
mercy (Rom. 12:8)
- Giving
(Rom. 12:8)
|
|
Paul
makes it unmistakably clear that these gifts are given for one
purpose; to build up the church:
“To
each is given the manifestation of the Spirit [i.e., spiritual gift]
for the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7)
“But
God has so composed the body [i.e., the church]... that there may be
no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care
for one another” (1 Cor. 12:24-25)
“So
with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit
[i.e., spiritual gifts], strive to excel in building up the church”
(1 Cor. 14:12)
“When
you come together...Let all things be done for building up” (1 Cor.
14:26)
“For
you can all prophesy [i.e., preach] one by one, so that all may learn
and all be encouraged” (1 Cor. 14:31)
“And
to each one of us grace [i.e., a spiritual gift] was given... for the
equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of
the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:7, 12)
And
Peter gives the result of what happens when the Church fulfills it's
purpose: God is glorified!
“As
each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good
stewards of God’s varied grace... in order that in everything God
may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and
dominion forever and ever. Amen” (1 Pet. 4:10-11)
Putting
these spiritual-gift-passages together we can conclude that God gives
“each” believer “a manifestation of the Spirit” (a spiritual
gift) so that “the members may have the same care for one another.”
When believers “come together” in an assembly – each having a
spiritual gift – they are to “use it to serve one another” so
that “all may learn and be encouraged” and that “all things be
done for building up” the church. The ultimate result of this
building up is that “in everything God may be glorified.” God
designed and equipped the local church to be a body of believers who edify each other
for His glory.
In
one of the above verses, Peter makes a very important comment with
clear implications. He says, “As each has received a gift, use it
to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied
grace” (1 Pet. 4:10 emphasis added). Peter implies that if we
believers are not using our gifts to edify and serve one another then
we are not being good stewards of the spiritual gifts (i.e., “God's
varied grace”). If we are to be good stewards of the spiritual
gifts God has given us then we must use them to serve and edify the
brethren. God has given us a responsibility to use our spiritual
gifts, and His intended setting for their use is in the context of a
local church body, as will be explained below.
God-ordained
local church offices
In
addition to spiritual gifts, God has ordained offices of authority
and service to facilitate local church procedures, and these
offices can only exist and function in a local assembly. Apart
from a local assembly, these offices are unnecessary and purposeless.
These offices are called “elders” (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:4ff;
16:4; 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:5; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1),
“overseers” (or “bishops” Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1; Tit. 1:7),
and “deacons” (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8). Every single usage of
these terms in the NT is tied to a local church and always refers to
someone in a distinct position within the local church. There is some
uncertainty about whether “deaconess” is an office, since the one
and only time the word is used is ambiguous (Rom. 16:1). There is
also some uncertainty about whether the offices of elder and overseer
are one and the same. It is not my intention to deal with these
issues, but it does seem that elders and overseers have the same
function; to oversee a local
assembly by keeping things organized (1 Tim. 3:4-5), by teaching the
Word (1 Tim. 3:2b) and by exhorting those under their care (Tit.
1:9). When the Apostles were planting churches and the Lord was
working with them, they “appointed elders in every church” (Acts
14:23). This shows that God has indeed ordained elders in the local
church.
The Greek word for “deacon” (Gr.
διάκονος) means servant
or waiter
(as in waiting tables, e.g., Acts 6:2). Thus, the deacons function as
servants who specifically serve their local church (1 Tim. 3:10, 13).
Both elders and deacons were ordained by the laying on of hands (Acts
6:6; 1 Tim. 5:22), and Paul gives very specific qualifications for
overseers and deacons that must be met if the local church is to
thrive, so these offices are vitally important.
If
we are to be good students of the NT, then we must take special note
of the office of elder as held by those who have the spiritual gift
of “pastor” (e.g., James, Timothy, Titus). The Greek word for
pastor (Gr.
ποιμήν) means shepherd.
So what we are talking about here is a man in the office of elder who
is spiritually gifted to shepherd a flock. There must be a flock, or
assembly,
in order for a shepherd to be able to exercise his gift. This
special gift/office of pastor/elder is ordained by the laying on of
hands by the elders (1 Tim. 4:14). Therefore, God has gifted some men
to lead a local assembly of believers. This means that God
must
provide local assemblies so that these men can hold
their office and use their gift. This elder/shepherd role must be
important to God since He inspired three epistles to encourage and
instruct; 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. As mentioned much earlier,
these epistles are utterly pointless and do not belong in the NT if
local churches are not truly essential to the Christian life.
We
should also highlight that Paul says to the Thessalonian church, “We
ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over
you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in
love because of their work” (1 Thess. 5:12-13). The offices of
elder and pastor are the only ones that can fit the description of
“those who...are over you [the Thessalonian church] in the Lord and
admonish you.” Therefore, although all believers are equal, elders
and pastors who are personally over us ought to be respected and
honored for sake of their position. How can the believer honor and
respect those who are over them if they refuse to submit to their
authority? To truly respect and honor those who personally admonish
us, we must put ourselves under their authority. This request of Paul
is totally meaningless unless local churches exist who have elders
and pastors to which believers are submitted.
At
this point you may be thinking, 'okay so local churches are supposed
to exist and God is involved in them, but that doesn't mean I have to
be part of one.' Please allow me to give a natural progression based
on this discussion about spiritual gifts: If you are a believer then
you have been given a spiritual gift. If you have a spiritual gift
then you must use it. If you must use it then you must use it to
edify a local assembly. If you must use your spiritual gift to edify
a local assembly then you need to be a part of a local assembly;
which means you must attend and be involved in a local church. If you
are involved in a local church and using your spiritual gift to edify
the believers in the church then you are bringing glory to God. Now,
you may see that there is a step in this progression that at this
point the logic does not necessitate (though it is still a valid
option), namely that you must use your gift to edify a local assembly,
and you would be correct if it were not for the following truth of
Scripture to which we now turn.
The
Church is a body: God's design for the function of the believer
The
question now becomes, 'can't I just use my spiritual gifting to
minister to believers outside of a local assembly?' Aside from the
fact that some gifts – such as pastor, administration,
interpretation of tongues – cannot be exercised apart from a local
assembly, the answer is both 'yes' and 'no.' 'Yes,' in that some
gifts such as evangelism, showing mercy and serving truly can be used
both inside and outside of a local assembly. But the answer is also
'no' in that in order for these gifts to function properly they need
to be attached to a local body of believers (1 Cor. 12:12). And God
has indeed ordained local bodies of Christ as microcosms of the
macro-body of Christ (see 1 Cor. 12:27. This verse will be explained
momentarily). It makes perfect sense that God has created localized
microcosm bodies since each body part is necessary for a believer to
function properly, and also since each believer cannot actually
access the macro-body of Christ. In other words, for a believer to be
able to both minister to and receive ministry from the macro-body of
Christ, then it is necessary that the believer be physically present
with every single part of the entire Church; and this is just not
possible since the macro-body is spread over the entire globe. To
highlight the absurdity: one ear would be in Canada while the nose is
in Australia and the hands are in Italy; on the actual, practical
level this is most assuredly a severed, dismembered body. So God
created local churches to be microcosms of the macro-body of Christ
so that all the body parts will be present and accounted for, collected/gathered together, and so
that they will be able to function together as a body should. This is
the most important point of this entire study: If you are a Christian
then you are body part of the body of Christ and you need to be
attached to other Christians in a local microcosm body. God designed
you as a body part that must be attached to a local body; not
detached (1 Cor. 12:18). Since God designed you that way, then you
function properly in your Christian life when you are attached to a
local church. The opposite is also true; if you are not attached to a
local church body, then you cannot function the way God designed and
intends for you to function in your Christian life.
Since
this is the most important point I feel I must belabor it by giving a
short overview of 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, highlighting the need to be
part of a local body. To begin, it must be duly noted that Paul is
referring to the universal Church (the macro-body) when he makes the
analogy of the body, so he's not necessarily referring to local
churches. The prior (12:4-11) and post (12:28ff) context is speaking
about spiritual gifts and Paul's point is that the gifts were given
for the common good and for edification of the Church (1 Cor. 12:7
cf. 14:12). Since different spiritual gifts were given to the Church
for its edification, this means that the gifts must be together in a
collective in order for them to function properly. This naturally
leads to the analogy of a body, since “the body is one and yet has
many members” (1 Cor. 12:12). This point is then stressed by Paul
(1 Cor. 12:14, 20) but with two different foci. Moreover, by using
“we” in verse 13 (cf. v.23-24), Paul switches the referent to
persons instead of gifts when speaking of the body; indicating that
each spiritual gift is an interdependent component of the individual
believer. Without the person, the gift cannot edify the body. And
without the gift, the person is not part of the body.
In
his opening point of “the body is not one member, but many” (1
Cor. 12:14-18), Paul focuses on the believer who feels left out,
nonessential, and insignificant because of his or her place in the
body. This believer feels as though they are not even a part of the
body at all (1 Cor. 12:15-16). But Paul encourages and reassures this
believer of two things: First, that each part of the body is needed
and therefore this believer is truly an essential and important part
of the body (1 Cor. 12:17). And second, that God, in His wisdom, is
the one who put them in the place where they are because He knew they
were the best person to be in that place (1 Cor. 12:18). This
believer should not give up on their local church since God needs
them there to do what only they are equipped to do. This should
forever embolden the believer to use their spiritual gift because God
is the one who personally took interest in them and has given them a
special responsibility that is tailor made for them, extremely
important in God's eyes, and crucial to the life of the body.
The
second point Paul focuses on (1 Cor. 12:19-24) is that believers who
feel superior to others must realize they cannot function without the
others. This believer feels that he/she does not need the rest of the
body but can function on his/her own. The attitude of this
self-centered believer is, “I have no need of you (1 Cor. 12:21). I
can live the Christian life on my own, without you.” This believer
refuses to concern themselves with the believers of an assembly and
is puffed up about their spiritual gift. If they could have things
their own way, they'd disconnect themselves from the body/assembly
altogether and use their spiritual gift apart from the body. But Paul says they “cannot” (v.21a) and that the
other members who “seem to be weaker are necessary” (1
Cor. 12:22. emphasis added). Can you imagine a severed eye trying to
clean itself without a hand, or a severed head trying to walk
somewhere without any feet (v.21)? No, all the members of the body
need to be connected together in order to function properly. The hand
helping the eye stay clean emphasizes accountability; accountability
you can only get/provide by being connected to a local body of
believers (cf. Jas. 5:16). The head needing the feet to get from one
place to another speaks of an
interdependent cooperation in the Lord's work; the head of theology
needing the feet of action to put the knowledge to practical use in
the real world (cf. Eph. 4:11-12). Scripture here shows that the
believer can only get/give this accountability and cooperation by
being connected to a local body.
Paul then shows how some parts of the body are thought of as special and are therefore to be treated with care (1 Cor. 12:23-24a), and then restates that God has designed each part of the body for the purpose of honor (1 Cor. 12:24b) and mutual care (1 Cor. 12:25). This is so that there “be no schism” (v.25b) in the body. In other words, God wants the body to be wholly united. Each member cannot function properly without the others, and neither can the whole body function properly without all of the individual parts. When the body is united together it functions properly so “that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together” (1 Cor. 12:25b-26). There is a special connection and care that believers have with each other when they are united in a local body because all the body parts are together.
Now,
as I mentioned earlier, in this passage Paul is indeed speaking of
the universal macro-body up until verse 26. But then Paul makes a
crucial, all-important point in verse 27: “Now you are
Christ's body and individually members of it” (1 Cor. 12:27 NASB
emphasis added). It is extremely important that we take note of the switch in
personal pronouns here. Paul using “we” and “our” in 12:13,
23 & 24 is including himself as part of the body. But here in
12:27 Paul using the plural “you” (Gr. ὑμεῖς)
excludes himself from the body to which he refers. Since Paul
was part of the universal, macro-body, this can only mean that the
Corinthian church constituted its own microcosm body of Christ. This is significant because Paul was the one who founded the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 4:14-15), so one would think he would include himself, but he doesn't. Moreover, most English translations read “you are the body of Christ,” but the lack of the definite article in the Greek allows for the phrase to read “you are a body of Christ” (which is why the NASB translates it as, “you are Christ's body”). All
of this indicates that each true local church is in fact a microcosm
of the body of Christ with all the body parts in place. So everything Paul said about the macro-body also applies to its microcosms, since his whole point is that the individual members of the Corinthian church are supposed to be attached to (not separated from) each other to make up a complete, united body.
The
ramifications of this on the applicational level are clear: If you
are saved then God has designed you with a gift for a certain
ministry in a local body and He has that ministry prepared for you in
a local body somewhere. Please allow me once more to emphatically
stress this most important point of our entire study: Scripture is
clear that every single believer in Christ absolutely must not live
his/her life apart from a local body (Heb. 10:24-25). This means more
than going to Sunday services. It is a total involvement in the lives
of other believers in a local assembly (Acts 4:32-35). Not only is
living disconnected from a local body detrimental to the believer's
own spiritual health and that of others – since both are then
mutually missing crucial parts needed for proper function –, it is
also to utterly scorn God's design for his/her life; it is to be a
bad steward of his/her spiritual gift and it is to disobey the Lord. If you are saved then God has designed you to be part of a microcosm body in order to function properly because you need to be attached to all the other parts; it is who you are in
Christ. Therefore, you and I must
be part of a local church body in order to properly function
according to God's design. We cannot escape this reality.
As
a final point to consider in dealing with the body of Christ, we must
recognize that Paul stresses agape love immediately following this
discussion on the body, and one of the things he says about agape
love is that it “does not seek its own” (1 Cor. 13:5 cf. 10:24).
If we refuse to be a part of a local body, are we not then seeking
our own? Paul says that we have local bodies so that together we can
“have the same care for one another” (1 Cor. 12:25). Therefore,
if we are refusing to be a part of a local body then we must soberly
reevaluate our love and care for our brethren. Do I truly love and
care for my heavenly brothers and sisters if I refuse to be a part of
a local body with them?
The
carnal Corinthian church: Christ's black sheep
At
this point you may be thinking (as I often do), 'but I truly
understand and feel that all the spiritual gifts are equal and I
really do know how important it is to be connected to other believers
and I do feel like I love the brethren, but local churches have
become so bad that I just can't go anywhere near them.' Well, let me
introduce you to a local church in the NT that was so rotten that it
makes most of our modern local churches look pristine: the church at
Corinth. The church at Corinth is the ugly black sheep of Christ's
body and their problems were severe to the extreme; so severe that God was actually killing some of its members in discipline (1
Cor. 11:30)!
The
Corinthian church existed in a culture that was steeped in
polytheistic paganism. Strabo, circa 2 B.C., said that a
visit to Corinth was “not for every man” due to the city's obsession with sexual worship. Corinth had the
world-famous temple of the goddess Aphrodite with 1000 prostitute-priestesses which made the city extremely wealthy; in fact, the city
was the world epicenter of Greco-Roman culture. The city was also one of the largest trade centers in the ancient world and it celebrated many, many pagan festivals. Moreover, Athens was a neighboring city
and it had schools of secular philosophy (such as the relativistic,
hedonistic Epicurean school) that surely influenced the Corinthian
mindset. So the culture of the Corinthians was extremely sinful and,
as one studies the culture in detail, it is obvious that the
Corinthian church had allowed the mindset and practices of their
culture to seep into their assembly; they had not fully severed their
connection to their old lives.
As
we go through Paul's first NT Corinthian letter we can see the major
problems of this local church. The first problem of the Corinthian
church that Paul dealt with is that of their reliance upon various
worldly philosophies which fostered sectarianism (chapters 1-3 cf.
11:18-19), which is just a fancy word that means there were cliques
in the church. This is due to their former pagan practice of
following one philosopher's teaching (e.g., Neoplatonists, Stoics,
Epicureans. Acts 17:18). The next problem in the epistle is that the
Corinthians were spurning the authority and care of the Apostles
(chapter 4). The most blatant sin of the Corinthians was that of
sexual immorality. There was an individual in the church who had “his
father's wife” (chapter 5), and there were others who were
fornicating with prostitutes (chapter 6:12-20). The Corinthians were
also wrongfully suing each other (chapter 6:1-11), and they had major
issues with marriage (chapter 7). Paul deals with the Corinthians'
abuse of Christian liberty in relation to personal conscience
(chapters 8-10), and then (of all things) the dress of women not
portraying their submission to men (chapter 11:1-16). Moving along,
the Corinthian church was defiling the Lord's Supper with their
gluttony and drunkenness (chapter 11:17-34). Intriguingly, it was for
this reason that God was disciplining some of the church members by
ending their earthly lives (1 Cor. 11:30). (We will return to the
subject of the Lord's Supper later because it is vitally important)
Paul then deals with the abuses of the Corinthian church in the way
they used their spiritual gifts (chapters 12-14). Some of them had
brought their old pagan version of tongues into the church and were
actually cursing Jesus unknowingly (1 Cor. 12:3), and their church
services were one big mess of everyone trying to preach/speak in
tongues/sing to the congregation at the same time (1 Cor.
14:26)! The final problem Paul deals with is that of heresy (chapter
15). Because of the Greek philosophy that matter is evil (dualism),
some of the Corinthians were actually saying “that there is no
resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15:12), which necessitates that
“Christ is not risen” (1 Cor. 15:13-19); and His resurrection is
one of the two core essentials of eternal life, His death being the
other.
Paul
told the Corinthian church that they were so “carnal” that he
“could not speak to [them] as spiritual people” (1 Cor. 3:1, 3);
he sardonically implicates that they are arrogant (1 Cor. 4:8, 10)
and then explicitly states it, twice (1 Cor. 4:18; 5:2); he warns
them that he will visit them in discipline if they don't clean up
their act (1 Cor. 4:19-21; 11:34); he excoriates and scathingly
rebukes them for allowing sexual immorality in the assembly (1 Cor.
5:2, 6); he says that they are shameful because they “wrong and
cheat” the brethren (1 Cor. 6:5, 8); he says that they are “already
an utter failure” (1 Cor. 6:7); he says that some of them have
sinned “against [their] own body” because of sexual immorality (1
Cor. 6:18); he says they have sinned “against the brethren” and
“against Christ” by abusing their liberty (1 Cor. 8:12); he says
that they were provoking the Lord to jealousy (1 Cor. 10:22); he says
that the women were dressing shamefully and improperly (1 Cor. 11:6,
13) and that women were behaving shamefully during the services (1
Cor. 14:34-35); he says he “cannot praise” them because their
behavior in the Lord's Supper was unworthy (1 Cor. 11:17, 22, 27);
and finally he says that those in their church who reject the
doctrine of the resurrection are “fools” (Gr. ἄφρων,
literally, “mindless.” It is used to speak of marble
statues [i.e., a blockhead]”)(1 Cor. 15:36).
Yet,
for all their sinful wrongdoings and problems, and for all Paul's
severe words against them, they were still “the church of God which
is at Corinth... sanctified in Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2). It is for this
reason that God, through Paul, sought to correct their problems, both
inside and outside of their services, rather than to terminate their
assembly and abandon them altogether (cf. Phil. 1:6). The Corinthian
church truly did belong to Christ. Paul says that they are his
brethren (1 Cor. 1:10), his beloved children (1 Cor. 4:14), that he
thanks God for them (1 Cor. 1:4), and then he praises them for
following his traditions (1 Cor. 11:2). He says they “call on the
name of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2); he says that they have been
“called” by God (1 Cor. 1:26); he says they are “in Christ
Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:30); he says God was the one Who caused their
spiritual growth (1 Cor. 3:6-7); he says they are, “God's field,
God's building” (1 Cor. 3:9); he says they are “God's temple,”
that “God's Spirit dwells in [them],” and that “if anyone
destroys [them], God will destroy him” (1 Cor. 3:16-17); he says
they “belong to Christ” (1 Cor. 3:23); he says that they are a
microcosm of Christ's body (1 Cor. 12:27); he says they are standing
in the Gospel and that they “are saved” (1 Cor. 15:1-2); he says
that they do the Lord's work (1 Cor. 15:58); he says that they are
slaves of Christ who were “bought with a price” (1 Cor. 7:22-23);
and finally he says that they were “washed,” “sanctified,”
and “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 6:11). It
cannot be clearer that the Corinthian church was indeed an assembly
of true believers, albeit with exceedingly great problems. God's
commitment to the Corinthian church magnifies His love and patience
toward His wayward children. If God would allow a Christian
church this bad to exist at all, and even make the effort to correct
its rampant sinfulness, then the church must have been tender in the
heart of God and important to Him that it continue to exist.
Now we absolutely must emphasize that the commands given to the Corinthian
church were indeed obeyed, and the church believers did truly repent.
In 2 Corinthians 7:8-11 Paul says,
For
even if I made you grieve with my letter, I do not regret it—
though I did regret it, for I see that that letter grieved you,
though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were
grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a
godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief
produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. For see what
earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what
eagerness to clear yourselves.
When
the Corinthians proved the genuineness of their salvation by
repenting and cleaning up their act it brought great joy to Paul. He
says, “I have great pride in you; I am filled with comfort... I am
overflowing with joy” (2 Cor. 7:4). What can we gather from this? First, that God will never allow believers to remain carnal. He will discipline
them all the way to physical death if necessary (1 Cor. 5:5; 11:29-30
cf. Heb. 12:5-11; 1 John 5:16) and He will bring other believers into
their lives who will call them to repent (2 Cor. 7:8). And second, that not even the God-ordained NT pattern/form of local church life was exempt from being corrupted by carnal believers. Therefore, any pattern/form of local church life, even the biblical one, is susceptible to corruption when carnal believers are involved.
God's commitment to the Corinthian church, and by extension all local churches, needs to be strongly stressed by underscoring one of the above statements made by Paul. Paul told the Corinthian church, “You [a local body of believers] are a temple of God... If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are” (1 Cor. 3:16-17). God is united to local churches in such an intimate way that they are fully separated [i.e., holy] unto Him. For anyone to propagate a teaching that local churches should disband or terminate their services or that members should detach themselves from their local church body is to attempt to destroy the holy temple of God. Thus, those who promote privatization of the Christian life into isolation away from local church life are in danger of being destroyed by God (cf. Rom. 16:17-18, 20; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). God is infinitely serious and determined about the well-being of His local churches because each and every one belongs to Him (1 Cor. 3:23).
What
God hates
I
want to raise an issue at this point because I think it's extremely
important. I don't want to give the impression that God is okay with
sinful churches. When we see how bad the Corinthian church was and
yet God still continued to allow it to exist and even corrected its
sins and errors, we may tend to think that God was keeping Himself
from becoming emotionally involved as He faithfully dealt with their
problems. But God actually has infinitely strong emotions about their
sins. God hates believers gathering together with fleshly,
self-serving, God-ignoring lives. In Amos 5:21-24 God makes His
feelings clear:
“I
hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn
assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain
offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your
fattened animals, I will not look upon them. Take away from me the
noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen.
But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an
ever-flowing stream.”
Although
this passage is speaking to Israel and not the Church, it does
illustrate that God wants believers to assemble together in
“righteousness.” Notice that, although God tells Israel to “take
away” their sinful praises (v.23), He does not tell them to
stop assembling or to stop observing the feasts or to stop bringing
the offerings. This is because He had previously ordained the
assemblies (convocations), feasts and offerings (see Lev. 23) but not
the praises. In order to correct the sin God calls for repentance
(v.24), not for terminating the assemblies, even though He hates
their sinful worship. Each believer's task is to make sure he/she has
a life that is pleasing to the Lord (1 Thess. 4:1) and as they become
more Christlike they will grow to better understand the heart of God.
When we better understand the heart of God we will rightfully feel
the same hatred toward sinful, insincere worship. The feelings you
and I have about the wretched state of the modern Church are the same
feelings God has, but His feelings are infinitely stronger.
Nevertheless, God has still ordained local churches and intends for
them to assemble and function according to His Word. Furthermore, no
matter how strong our feelings may be, and no matter how carnal the
modern Church has become, we cannot justify refusing to follow the clear admonition of Hebrews 10:24-25. As a side note, this same principle
applies to all areas of life: When God requires something of
us, we must obey regardless of our feelings.
The
Lord's Supper
The
Lord's Supper is one of the ordinances for the Church (Baptism being the other major ordinance); which means that Jesus Himself commanded that it be done. Yeshua
(Jesus' actual name) instituted it during a Passover Seder and,
although it is not within the scope of our study, it would greatly
benefit the student of Scripture to study the Jewish Seder to see how
it typifies the Gospel. For our purposes we want to see that this
ordinance was intended to be done in an assembly, not in isolation.
There are various views concerning how often the Lord's Supper is to
be observed since Scripture is not definite about the timing, so
there is some flexibility. But one thing is clear: the NT never
sees the Lord's Supper being done by individual Christians in
isolation – it is always a local group of believers. In fact, the
NT strongly implies that it is intended to be observed with other
believers in a microcosm body of Christ.
One
reason why observing the Lord's Supper while in an assembly is
strongly implied is Paul statement that, when the Lord's Supper is
observed, believers “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”
(1 Cor. 11:26). “The verb 'proclaim' found here (καταγγέλλειν)
is used elsewhere in the NT of heralding the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:14),
and of making known one's faith (Rom. 1:8). Hence it would
seem that its action is directed manward rather than Godward.” If the act of observing the Lord's Supper is to be a manward
proclamation of Christ's atoning death, and if the believer partakes
of this ordinance in isolation, to whom is he/she then proclaiming?
This inference necessitates the presence of others. Therefore, the
Lord's Supper is intended to be done in the presence of others.
Another
reason is because it was one of the main reasons why the
early Church gathered together for Sunday services. Paul rebukingly
says to the Corinthians, “when you meet together, it is not to eat
the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20 NASB). His words, written to
expose the mockery that the Corinthians had made the Lord's Supper,
actually assume that the local church was supposed to be observing
the real Lord's Supper, but that they were not. And since the Lord's
Supper was observed “when [they] meet together,” it shows that it
was indeed the common practice to observe it in a local church
assembly. Once again, Justin Martyr corroborates this by saying, “And
when the president has given thanks, and all the people have
expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to
each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with
water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who
are absent they carry away a portion” It was so important that every member of a local body partake
together that the deacons took a portion to those in the local body
who were not able to attend that week.
One
last reason why observing the Lord's Supper while in a local church
assembly is strongly implied is found in Paul's comments in 1
Corinthians 10:16-17. He says, “The cup of blessing which we bless,
is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we
break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though
many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one
bread.” The Greek word for communion, “koinonia” (Gr.
κοινωνία), and the Greek grammar (the genitive case)
of this passage make the comment even stronger.
Paul
is saying 'The cup of blessing is it not (does it not represent) the
fellowship which is brought about by the blood of Christ? The bread
which we break, is it not the fellowship brought about by the body of
Christ?' The Lord's Supper, then, is understood to witness to the
fact that Christians belong to a special family which includes the
Son and the Father (1 John 1:3) and is marked by unity and love. It
is a communion which required the death of Christ to create, and
which is so close that it is as though believers were one body: 'For
we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers
of that one bread' (1 Cor. 10:17).
This
meaning of the text makes it all the more necessary that the Lord's
Supper be observed while believers are gathered together in a local
assembly, a body, a family. How can a believer partake of something
that is supposed to be a time of fellowship with other believers
while in isolation? The simple answer is that he/she cannot. The
Lord's Supper, then, is supposed to be a fellowship between believers
and God, which can only be accomplished in the presence of a body of
believers.
So
why does Paul say, “if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home” (1
Cor. 11:34)? In the NT churches, the Lord's Supper was observed after
a shared meal called the “Love Feast” (Jude 1:12). This is
important to note because in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul deals with both
the Lord's Supper and the Love Feast. When Paul says, “if anyone is
hungry, let him eat at home,” he is speaking of the Love Feast, not
the Lord's Supper; Paul would never put this restriction on an
ordinance of the Lord. This restriction actually indicates
that the Lord's Supper is the part that was supposed to be celebrated
in a local gathering. The reason he says to eat at home is so that
when they partake of the Lord's Supper during the church service they
won't have gluttonously binged and become drunk in the Love Feast
(like they did in their secular symposiums and conviviums) and
therefore partake of the following Lord's Supper in an unworthy
manner.
Church discipline
I want to return to the subject of church discipline and excommunication at this point because now we will be able to see its intended purpose and its severity more clearly. As we saw earlier, excommunication can only work in the context of a local church. However, it is far more than just kicking someone out of an assembly. The sinning brother has become an unhealthy/diseased part of the local microcosm body and they are affecting the health of the entire body. In many cases (as in my own case) a brother or sister who is living with some personal sinful action or attitude or agenda will quietly remove themselves from the body because being near the healthy parts convicts them of their own disease. They see it as preferable to be apart from the healthy parts where they can justify themselves rather than to remain with them. If this is the case, then God will discipline them privately until they are healthy again and willing to return to the body or until He terminates their earthly lives and brings them home to heaven where they can't sin anymore. However, there are cases where there is a known sin that is left unchecked and the unhealthy/sinning brother or sister refuses to repent and wishes to stay connected to the body. In this case, the sinning brother must be confronted by the healthy members of the local body. First, the unhealthy/sinning brother must be confronted by the person who knows of the disease/sin and has been offended (Matt. 18:15), then by two or three others (Matt. 18:16), and then, if they still do not repent, by the whole local church (Matt. 18:17a). But then, if the unhealthy/sinning brother will not listen to the whole assembly, they are to be excommunicated (Matt. 18:17b). The confrontations are in reality the healthy body parts attempting to care for and heal the diseased part, but excommunication is actually cutting it off from the body entirely. As the diseased part begins to die from lack of nourishment from the body, the sin is then seen as it truly is: fatal. This should lead to true and final repentance or else the physical (but not spiritual) death of the unrepentant believer is imminent. The loss of fellowship with the other members, especially in the Lord's Supper, then increases the pain. This is exactly what happened in the Corinthian church. The man who had his father's wife was cut off from his local body and realized the reality of sin's deadliness (1 Cor. 5:4-5), but he truly repented and was to be reattached to his local church body since he was now disease free (2 Cor. 2:6-11).
So why is this so important? This entire process of discipline cannot happen unless the sinning brother and the others involved are connected to each other in a local body. But it is even more serious. Believers who refuse to attend church and are detached from a local body are in two very dangerous positions. First, if they come into contact with another believer they have no way of knowing if this brother/sister has been excommunicated and therefore they may unintentionally support and nourish an unrepentant diseased, cut off body part; they don't know that they should treat him/her like “a heathen and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17). And secondly, they have no healthy parts to compare themselves to in order to know whether they themselves are diseased, and are therefore in very real danger of withering away from lack of nourishment from a local body and the fellowship of the Lord's Supper. They are numb to their own state of health.
Consider the NT pattern
After
examining the theology of the local church it ought to be clear that
any problems do not lie with the form/mode in which it functions. In
other words, the act of a local church assembly gathering together
for worship services once a week is not the cause of the problems in
the Church. But one may say, 'going to church once a week is not good
enough for spiritual growth,' and I totally agree! The error here is
that the question assumes that weekly services are intended to be a
replacement for personal Bible study. But this assumption is
completely unwarranted. Furthermore, it also wrongly imposes our own
modern mindset of a distinction between sacred and secular onto the
NT pattern of local church function. In other words, we tend to view
weekly church services as a sacred time while the rest of the week is
secular time. Yet, what we see in the NT is that this was never the
case for the Church. God never intended for church services to be the
only time we engage in sacred activity. Because of believers
scattering due to persecution and the busyness of life, the early
Church simply scheduled a focused time once a week in order to
observe the Lord's Supper and edify each other through worship and
the exercise of spiritual gifts, while the rest of the week they
continued to minister to each other and to the unsaved world. The
reason they chose Sunday for church services is because it is the
Lord's day; the day that Jesus rose from the dead. Every
day is to be sacred in the life of a believer and there ought to be
no category of 'secular' in his or her life. Believers must seek to
live according to the Bible at all times, not just Sunday. And the
Bible does indeed contain clear patterns for local church gatherings
and functions. If we claim to live biblically, yet ignore or dismiss
the biblical patterns for local churches, then we must seriously
reevaluate our claim. Ryrie has an excellent discussion regarding how
much we should adhere to the biblical patterns of church life. His
personal conclusion, to which I wholeheartedly agree, is that, “we
should attempt to follow as many details as possible of the old
patterns for church life as they are revealed in the New Testament.
Otherwise there is no satisfactory answer as to why the patterns are
there. And since they are there, I want to use them today.”
So
now let's answer the question of Theology: What is the purpose of the
local church and how is it accomplished? The purpose of the local
church is to edify a called out body of believers, and it is
accomplished through each believer using the spiritual gifts God gave
them for that specific purpose. The spiritual gifts must be used in
the context of the local church if each believer in the body of
Christ is to function properly and be a good steward.
3.
Apologetics: What are the biblical reasons why a Christian must
attend a local church?
Based
on all of the previous discussion in this study we can now put
together thirty-five (yes 35) reasons from Scripture in favor of going to church and its necessity, and then deal with and answer thirteen (that's 13) common objections. I want to beware of giving irrelevant reasons like, 'going to church every Sunday develops good habits' or 'local churches help society.' Those types of reasons are actually based on pragmatism and therefore do not follow necessarily. The thirteen objections I answer will mostly be the major ones that I have personally struggled with (and sometimes still do), so the answers given are the ones I would use for myself. I will try to be sensitive in dealing with the
objections because I know how close they are to the heart and I
understand that there may be deep personal scars involved with the
objections.
35 reasons why local churches are necessary for Christians
These
35 reasons are more fully explained in the previous sections so to
read them without the previous information is not recommended. To get
the full affect of these reasons, all of the previous information is
necessary. There are several other reasons from Scripture that could
be pointed out but these are sufficient. Furthermore, some of these
conclusions will not necessarily be that believers should be part of
a local church body (though many will); but all of them will show
that local church bodies must exist, that they are important to God
and that He is involved in them. Since all of these reasons must be
taken together, they cumulatively form a thoroughly convincing case
for the necessity of the Christian being part of a local church.
I feel it necessary to remind us again of the definition of a local church according to Scripture so that the usage of “local church” in these reasons won't be misunderstood as a building or a name or an organization/institution but will be understood as a group of Christians: A local church must be defined as a distinct called-out group of unified believers (a body) in a specific region or city who minister to/with each other by using their spiritual gifts, and who gather together on various occasions, including regular Sunday services, for fellowship and edification. It is crucial that we keep this definition in mind as we examine these reasons.
Jesus
attended the church of His day
According
to Luke 4:16 Jesus regularly attended synagogue on the Sabbath. If
it was important for Jesus to attend the church of His day, then it
ought to be important for every believer since we are to “walk
just as He walked” (1 John 2:6).
Most
of the NT epistles were written to local churches
Inspired
Scripture is written to specific local churches concerning their
specific issues. Since God inspired these instructions to local
churches, it indicates that He has a special interest in local
churches. Since God takes interest in local churches, believers
should take interest.
The
existence of local “called out” assemblies shows that God
ordained local churches
Because
the Greek term ekklesia means “that which is called out,”
and because the term is applied to local assemblies (e.g., Gal. 1:2;
1 Cor. 14:33), it must be
concluded that local churches are in fact “called out” by God
and thus God-ordained.
Some
of the many “one another” and “each other” instructions
require a local assembly
In
order for these instructions to be carried out there must be a local
church assembly to which the believer belongs (e.g.,
Matt. 18:16-18; Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 11:33; 12:25; Col. 3:16; 1 Thess. 5:11; Jas. 5:16; 1 Pet. 4:10-11; Rev. 2:4-5, 16, 24-25;
3:2-3, 18). Therefore, if the believer does not belong to a local
church he/she cannot follow these instructions as intended.
The
Lord Himself established local churches through the Apostles
When
the Apostles planted churches “the hand of the Lord was with them”
(Acts 11:21), indicating that He was involved in setting up local
churches. If He was involved then they must be important and
necessary, for God never does anything without a purpose. If the
Lord established them then we should be part of them.
The
Apostles spent time pastoring local assemblies
The
fact that it was important for the Apostles to spend time building
up local churches shows that local churches are important for the
Christian (e.g., Acts 11:26; 19:9-10; 20:31). If local churches are
important for Christians then they should be part of one in order to
provide care and assistance.
The
Lord blessed the efforts of church planters
When Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders...in every church [i.e., called-out body], with prayer and fasting” (Acts 14:23) on their first missionary journey, they were planting churches. And “the work which they completed” was “the grace of God” (Acts 14:26). This shows that the work of local church planters along with their planted churches are the grace of God.
God
is the Author of peace in all the churches
Since
God is the Author of peace “in all the churches
of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:33) it can be concluded that He
is involved in local churches. And since He is involved in all true
local churches, then all true local churches are important.
No
rebuke is ever given in Scripture for gathering together
Although
an argument from silence, this disallows anyone a Scriptural basis
for saying that believers are to be rebuked for assembling in local
churches or that it is wrong. If someone is to say so, then they can
only use anecdotal evidence from outside Scripture; the burden of
proof is on the accuser, and they have none. Since no rebuke is
given, it is reasonable to conclude that God approves of local
churches, even if He strongly hates any bad practices within them.
No
commandment to terminate local assemblies is ever given in Scripture
This
is the same as the last point but with added force. There is not a
single example of God ever terminating a true Christian church.
Moreover, nothing in Scripture even remotely resembles the act or
command of God terminating a real assembly of believers. The safe
thing to do is to assume that local assemblies are necessary for
Christians, otherwise God would have terminated them.
Paul's
letters to Timothy and Titus require God's involvement in local
churches
Because
of the detailed instructions and requirements dealing specifically
with local church issues, these epistles only have meaning and
application if local churches and their pastors exist, thus
indicating that local churches are necessary. Furthermore, because
God inspired instructive letters to pastors concerning local church
issues, it shows that God has involved Himself in local church life.
God
admonishes believers to not forsake the local church
The
clear admonition of Scripture is that
believers not forsake the local church body (Heb. 10:24-25). The
verse goes on to prescribe “exhorting each other”; meaning that
church is where believers exhort each other in order to irritate each other to love and good works. This irritating kind of exhortation infers a level of
intimacy and trust that only exists between believers who are
connected with each other in a local body. Therefore, this prescription carries with it the assumption that believers have been connected
together as a local body. Let me give two logical syllogisms in
order to show the inescapable truth of Scripture.
Premise
1: God's admonitions should be followed
Premise
2: God admonishes believers to not forsake the local church
Conclusion:
Believers should not forsake the local church
Premise
1: It is wrong and improper to not follow God's admonitions
Premise
2: God admonishes believers to not forsake the local church
Conclusion: The believer who forsakes the local church is behaving wrongly and improperly
Church
discipline and excommunication requires a local church
The
instructions the Lord gave for church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20)
can only work in the context of a local church assembly. Without
local churches, Christ's instructions cannot be followed and are
pointless.
God's
intended purpose for local churches is for edification
The
reason that local churches exist is for the edification of the
believer (Eph. 4:16). Since this is God's intended purpose, local
churches are necessary to carry out the purpose.
God
gave Spiritual gifts to edify local church bodies
Because God intended the church to be edified he gifted every believer with spiritual abilities solely to accomplish His intent (1 Cor. 12:7, 24-25; 14:12, 26, 31; Eph. 4:7, 12). Therefore we must use our spiritual gifts to build up a local church body.
Some
spiritual gifts can only be exercised in a local church body
Gifts such as pastor, administration, and interpretation of tongues are only able to be used in a local church assembly and cannot be used outside of one at all. Because they can only be exercised in a local church assembly, local church assemblies must exist and be important. And any believer who has one of these types of gifts must be part of a local church.
The
believer's spiritual gift must be used in a local church in order to
be a good steward
Peter
says that believers are to be good stewards of the spiritual gifts
God has given (1 Pet. 4:10). If we are to be good stewards we must
exercise them in the manner and setting which God intended; a local
church.
God
gave local churches offices to facilitate their operations
In
order for local churches to operate properly, God ordained the
offices of elder/overseer and deacon. These offices have no purpose
without a local church, therefore local churches are necessary.
The
God-ordained job of an elder/overseer is to oversee a local church
The
sole function of an elder/overseer is to care for a local assembly
and facilitate its operations. Without a local church this job
cannot be done, so there must be local churches.
The
God-ordained job of a deacon is to serve a local church
The
sole function of a deacon is to serve a specific local church so
that operations can be maintained and members can be served. Without
a local church this job cannot be done, so there must be local
churches.
A
pastor/elder can only live out their calling in a local church
God
gave pastor/elders for the purpose of shepherding a local “flock.”
Since it is the job of the pastor/elder to care for an assembly, it
is necessary that believers go to church so that this gifted
shepherd can minister to them. Without a local body of believers the
pastor/elder cannot exercise his calling.
God
provides local churches for pastor/elders to exercise their calling
In
order for pastor/elders to live up to their calling in life, God
must provide them with local churches to shepherd. This same
principle applies to every believer. God has provided the context of
the local church for each believer to exercise their spiritual
gifting.
God
has ordained local churches as microcosms of the macro-body of
Christ
Each
local church is a God-ordained microcosm body of Christ (1 Cor.
12:27) and the microcosm body can only exist if there are believers
assembling together. Therefore believers ought to assemble together
in a God-ordained local body.
Every
believer must be connected to a local microcosm body
As
a believer, you are a body part that needs to be connected with the
rest of the body parts to make up a whole body. And since local
churches are microcosm bodies, you need to be connected to a local
church.
God
designed believers to be part of local churches
When
you became a believer, God designed you to be part of a local church
body. Since it was God's design, you must not reject the design but
must live according to it by being part of a local church body.
The
believer cannot function properly without being connected to a local
church body
This
is very important. A Christian has been designed to function
properly only when using their spiritual gift as part of a local
church body. Since the believer can only function properly when
connected to a local body, then they must be connected to a local
church, not separated.
- The body of Christ cannot function properly unless all parts are connected
If the Christian cannot function properly when disconnected from a local microcosm body, it is much more detrimental to our local churches when they are missing essential parts needed in order to function properly. For the good of Christ's body, every believer must be connected to a local church.
The
believer can only get/give accountability and cooperation by being
part of a local church
There
is a certain accountability and an interdependent cooperation that
only exists between the members of a local church body. Since these
features are necessary to the Christian life, every believer needs
to be part of a local church.
God
desires for local churches to be whole bodies
Since
“God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He
pleased” (1 Cor. 12:18), it means He desires for the body parts to
be connected together in a unified local body. Since this is God's
desire we must seek to fulfill it by being part of a local church
body. Otherwise we aren't seeking to please Him.
There
is a special connection and care among believers in a local church
body
First Corinthians 12:25-26 shows that the members of a local body “should
have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all
the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the
members rejoice with it.” This special connection is only possible
when the believer is part of a local church body, and God intends
for each believer to give/receive this care and connection.
Therefore each believer should be part of a local church body.
Love
seeks to edify other believers in a united local body
Paul
states that love seeks the benefit of other believers, not its own
(1 Cor. 13:5; cf. 10:24). If we refuse to be connected to other
believers in a local church body to edify others, then we are not
showing them true agape love. In order to fully show agape love we
must be serving as part of a local church body.
The
carnal Corinthian church was cared for by God
If
God would allow a Christian church this bad to exist, and correct
its rampant sinfulness, then the church must have been tender in the
heart of God and important to Him that they continue to exist. If
God has planted a church in a city, no matter how bad it is, He sees
it as vital to the life of the believer and He will correct
its problems since He is faithful to all that is His.
The
Lord's Supper is a fellowship that only properly works in a local
church assembly
The
Lord's Supper is an ordinance that is supposed to be a time of
fellowship between believers and God. Therefore, the only time and
place that this fellowship can be rightly accomplished is when
believers are gathered together in a local body.
- The believer who does not attend church may unknowingly support an excommunicated believer
Since the believer who does not attend church is not connected to any local body, they have no way of knowing whether or not believers who come into their lives are under church discipline. Because of this, they may unintentionally nourish the unrepentant believer in their sinfulness.
- The believer who does not attend church may become numb to their own spiritual health
Because the believer who is detached from a local body has no healthy body to compare themselves to, they are in a dangerous position of becoming numb to their own spiritual health.
13 objections to attending church
Now,
I'd like to give answers to some of the most common objections to
attending local churches. Most of these are my own personal
objections that I had when I refused to go to church, so I will
answer them as if I were answering myself, being sensitive to any
scars that may be involved. In nearly every case, the objector throws
the baby out with the bathwater.
Answer:
I completely agree! There really are people in church who are only
religious on Sundays and do not live according to the Bible. But
hypocrites also exist outside the church; all fallen people will
exhibit some level of hypocrisy, believer and unbeliever alike.
Moreover, if the hypocrites are truly saved people then they are
accountable to God alone for their failings, not to you or me (Rom.
14:4), and God will not allow them to stay that way (Heb. 12:6).
Also, think about this: The best place for hypocrites to be is in
church where they can hear the Word preached and be convicted of
their hypocrisy. Moreover, alongside the hypocrites, we must also
agree that there are honest and sincere Christians in churches who
do seek to live biblical lives. To focus only on the hypocrites is
to blind yourself to those who are filled with the Spirit and
walking with the Lord in truth and in love; those whose spiritual
gifts are functioning properly and can be used by God to minister
to you and others. Furthermore, if God is willing to be patient
with carnal believers such as those in the Corinthian church, and
even admonish them to live rightly, so should we. I must remind us
again that there are also local churches that have a majority of
Spirit-filled believers who are sincerely trying to live according
to God's Word, and these are the kinds of churches that ought to be
attended.
Objection
#2: Because of authoritarian, sexual, and political abuses by some
church leaders I can't justify going to church.
Answer:
You don't have to go to a church that has leaders like that.
Churches with leaders like that are not following the Bible. The
biblical qualifications for church leadership require the man of
God to be above reproach and to have holy character (1 Tim.
3:1-13). While there are certainly churches that have leaders who
abuse their authority and do not live up to their high calling,
they aren't the only churches out there. There are local churches
out there that have God-ordained pastors and leaders (Eph. 4:11-15)
who do not abuse their power, who have holy character, and who are
genuinely seeking to serve the Lord by humbly shepherding a local
assembly.
Objection
#3: Church services are just an excuse to get people's money.
Answer:
You don't have to go to a church that's like that. While it is true
that local churches do need money in order to survive and function,
there are no commandments in the NT about giving specific amounts.
Rather the NT directs believers to give only as they are led by God
(2 Cor. 8-9). Any churches that are money-hungry are not adhering
to the biblical principles of giving. But they aren't the only
churches out there. There are churches out there that do not ask
for money and do not pass offering plates, that rely solely on
the provision of the Lord as He moves people's hearts to give (like
my church).
Objection
#4: Churches are full of legalistic Pharisees.
Answer:
You don't have to go to a church that's like that. Galatians was
written to combat this very problem. However, we must be careful
that we don't confuse genuine, Holy Spirit calls to holy living,
with man-made rules for acceptance into an assembly. If you are
convicted by the Holy Spirit to make specific changes in a certain
area of your life, then you may want to be careful to heed the
conviction and obey. God does indeed call us to set limits on
ourselves in order to live holy lives (e.g., Rom. 13:14; 1 Pet.
2:16). But He also does not want us forcing our own personal limits
upon others (e.g., Rom. 14:3b), nor does He want us to live lives
of asceticism in order to grow spiritually (Col. 2:20-23).
Christians are called to be free.
Objection
#5: Churches only care about getting an emotional high from God, but
no effort is made to care for people or to live pure lives (cf. Jas.
1:27).
Answer:
You don't have to go to a church that's like that. This is the
opposite of the last objection. It is a great shame that so many
churches are built around felt-needs and cater to the desires of
carnal Christians, all in the name of God. But those churches are
not the only churches out there. There are many churches who are
involved in their community helping to share God's Word and His
love; and there are churches out there whose members are genuinely
trying to live pure lives in order to please God. However, it must
be agreed that God does want believers to be happy and fulfilled
in Him alone (Ps. 16:11), not from what they can get from Him. So
there is a sense in which it is okay for believers to reach great
emotional heights of joy and love with God. Yet, we cannot ignore
nor dismiss the fact that Christians are called to obey.
Objection
#6: All the various doctrinal differences between churches show that
they can't get things straight.
Answer:
The fact that there are differences is actually nothing to be
bothered by. What matters is that you study the Bible for yourself
to know what doctrines are true and why they are. There are some
fundamental, non-negotiable doctrines you should know, such as the
Trinity; the total deity and total humanity of Jesus; all humans
are completely fallen, sinful and guilty before God; salvation is
by grace through faith alone – apart from works; etc. After you
get your fundamentals down, find a church that believes similarly
and one where you can attend and fellowship with other believers.
The truth is that among truly born-again believers there is
agreement on 100 percent of the fundamental doctrines, and about
80-90 percent of all other doctrine. This minor difference in no
way affects the real familial bond between every believer. All
believers can fellowship with each other and gain great levels of
closeness and trust regardless of their minor disagreements. My
church is a great example. We have continuationists and
cessationists, Arminians and Calvinists, amillennialists and
premillennialists, yet we all agree on the fundamental truths of
Scripture. We are a close group of people who pray for and support
each other, and we are involved in each other's lives. Minor
doctrinal disagreements are no reason to refuse to attend church.
Objection
#7: The way churches operate is troublesome.
Answer:
What would be included here would be things like: the size of a church, the type of building a church meets in, whether signing a doctrinal statement or becoming an official church member is required in order to serve, the type of clothing the members wear, whether a church is part of a denomination, whether the church service includes passing an offering plate, whether a church has a band, whether the church is KJV-only, how often the church observes the Lord's Supper, etc. Honestly, these are very shallow reasons for not
attending church. The only things listed above that have potential
danger would be denominationalism and KJV-onlyism since they could
lead to sectarianism. The truth of the matter is this; these types
of issues are really just mere personal preferences. The NT is
silent on these matters so it neither condones nor condemns them.
Because of this, there is much room for flexibility and we can
neither condone nor condemn churches for doing things differently
than we would like as long as they are truly seeking to operate
according to the Bible. There are plenty of churches out there so
chances are you can find one that preaches the Word and whose
members are trying to live according to Scripture. You don't have
to go to a church that does things in ways you don't prefer.
Furthermore you could always change your preferences in order to be
part of a local church body. The main issue to look for in a church
is if it teaches sound doctrine and if its members are obedient to
the Word. All of these other issues are peripheral and should not
be used as reasons to reject all local churches.
Objection
#11: What about verses that say I'm “complete in Christ” (Col. 2:10) , that I don't have to worship God in any specific place (John 4:20-23), and that I “have no need that anyone should teach [me]”(1 John 2:27)?
Answer: This is my favorite objection because it is the strongest. The other objections are superficial and logically non-sequitur, but this one is actually theologically based and so requires more thorough examination. It may seem that I have implied that because believers need to be connected to a local church body they are therefore incomplete in their blessedness or lacking something from their eternal life; but this is surely not the case. The difference lies between possession and function, as will be explained below. But first, we need to see that there really are several wonderful verses that teach that the believer is complete in Christ, that all their needs are provided for, and that God is working in their lives to mature them; verses like John 4:21-23; Romans 8:32; Ephesians 1:3; Philippians 1:6; 2:13; 4:13; Colossians 2:10; 2 Peter 1:3; and 1 John 2:27. These verses carry much weight and provide great strength and encouragement to Christians, but are we sure we are not restricting their meaning or taking them out of context? Let's look at each of these verses.
Romans 8:32, Ephesians 1:3 and 2 Peter 1:3 teach that God graciously gives the believer “all things” and “every spiritual blessing” needed for life and godliness; so he/she possesses everything they need. The local church is not excluded but could certainly be included in the “all things” and “every spiritual blessing” that God freely gives to believers. To say that God's blessings do not include local churches is to restrict the meaning with no textual warrant to do so.
Philippians 1:6 and 2:13 speak of God working in the believer to bring them to maturity. God could definitely (and often does) work through the local church to mature the believer. So we cannot restrict the meaning here either. Philippians 4:13 teaches that the believer can “do all things through Christ who strengthens” them. The context of the verse is about being able to live poorly and richly, so it has no actual reference to Christian maturity other than as a peripheral effect. It is about the Lord strengthening the believer to handle both poverty and riches. If we are to be good Bible students we cannot take this verse out of its context and apply it wrongly to mean more than it does.
Now we turn to John 4:20-23. Because Jesus says, “the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father...[but] true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth,” this passage is often used to say that believers do not need to worship in any particular building once a week because now we can worship God anywhere at any time “in spirit and in truth.” It only makes sense since “God does not dwell in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24 cf. 7:48). Amen! This is absolutely true! But to say that believers cannot or should not also worship with each other together in a local body inside a building once a week is to restrict the meaning of the passage. It is entirely possible, even essential, to worship both individually and corporately, both inside and outside of a local church building. Furthermore, we don't attend church only to worship God. The local church is where believers are united in a microcosm body of Christ, and each believer (body part) uses their spiritual gifting to edify the body. Worshiping together with other believers is merely one aspect of local church life.
That brings us to Colossians 2:10 which says, “you are complete in Him [Christ].” The epistle to the Colossian church was written to combat a pre-Gnostic heresy that had infiltrated the church, which taught that the believer's salvation is incomplete in Christ alone. The context of this verse is regarding philosophical assent as a means to gain the fullness of salvation (Col. 2:4-9). When Paul says “you are complete in Him” he is referring to Christians being saved completely, and that nothing else is needed in order to gain salvation. Paul is referring to the position of the believer before God; if they are in Christ then they are fully saved. Therefore, this verse has no reference to whether the believer needs to attend church. And even if the interpretation that being “complete in Him” does include the ability to grow spiritually on one's own (although that would be imposed onto the context), the difference would then lie between possession and function, which we will look at after the final verse.
The final verse, 1 John 2:27, is seemingly the most blatant of all, saying, “But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie— just as it has taught you, abide in him.” On the surface and out of context, this verse does seem to imply that believers do not need to go to church to receive teaching from any pastor or teacher. The first problem with this interpretation is that it contradicts God giving pastors and teachers to the church whose gift it is to teach other believers. It is complete idiocy for God to gift pastors and teachers to teach believers if there is no need for believers to be taught. Secondly, this interpretation takes the verse out of its historical and grammatical context. The historical background of 1st John is that John was writing to combat very early Gnosticism, just like Paul in Colossians. One of the teachings of Gnosticism is that trusting in the death and resurrection of Jesus is a good start but there is more knowledge that one needs in order to complete their salvation. Once this extra mystical knowledge is added to the mind, salvation becomes complete as the believer gains the fullness of knowledge. According to the historical context of the verse, what John is saying is that believers don't need any extra teaching concerning everything related to salvation because the saving knowledge/information they already have is sufficient and complete. Because the anointing (i.e., the Holy Spirit. cf. 2 Cor. 1:21-22) has already taught them everything they need to know about salvation in Christ, there is no more information to be taught (1 John 2:20). And since they have already been taught that the content of the Gospel alone is sufficient for salvation, they were to “abide in him [Jesus]” alone. And the grammatical context fully agrees. In 2:18 John says “many antichrists have come” and in 2:26 John says he is writing “concerning those who try to deceive you.” Therefore, the ones who are doing the teaching in verse 27 are not true believers but they are false teaching antichrists, by whom we have no need to be taught in order to be saved. Believers need to be taught by true, Spirit-filled pastors and teachers, not by false teachers and antichrists. And, even if the interpretation that believers do not need any teaching is somehow true, it does not exclude the need to be part of a local church body in order to properly use our spiritual gifts to edify each other. Local churches are where all of the spiritual gifts are to function, not just teaching.
So, in their proper contexts and without any unwarranted restrictions, none of these verses actually exclude local churches from being a real part of the Christian's process of maturity. Moreover, none of these passages conflict with the fact that God has designed each believer to function properly only when they are part of a local microcosm body of Christ. Here is where we need to see the difference between possession and function. I want to be careful to say that it is indeed possible for the believer, who possesses all things for life and godliness, to function without being part of a local church; but they won't function properly, they create a schism in Christ's body, and if they do it willfully then it is bad stewardship of their spiritual gifting. One of the “all things pertaining to life and godliness” that God has given believers is certainly the local church because the local church microcosm body is where believers edify each other to maturity by using their spiritual gifts. So maybe one of the problems of the Church today is that some believers are not part of a local church body where they are needed to edify others.
The individual believer possesses everything they need, but each believer is part of the body of Christ. And the body of Christ has a schism if the believer is not a part of a local microcosm body. And when the body of Christ has a schism, each and every believer does not function properly, even though they do indeed possess everything. Let me give another example that may help our understanding. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (emphasis added). In order for the man of God to be “complete” and “equipped for every good work” he needs Scripture, right? But isn't he already complete in his salvation as the man of God? What's going on in this passage is the difference between possession and development. The believer possesses access to Scripture, but he/she needs to have a continual intake of it in order to develop maturity, to be “complete.” In the same way, the believer has been given the local church in order to be connected to a microcosm body of Christ, and they need to be part of one in order to function properly.
A final consideration
Did you notice in the objections how I emphasized that not every local church is the same? We cannot generalize all churches based on some that are not functioning according to biblical principles. We cannot credulously say that the Church has become a corrupt institution/organization/establishment/system and then reject all local churches; that is a fallacy in reasoning – it is illogical. Each true local church is its own called-out microcosm body of Christ and must be taken on its own individual merits. And many local churches today are indeed functioning according to the God-ordained pattern of Scripture.
After dealing with these objections, I want to say, as lovingly as possible, that there is really no good reason to refuse to ever attend any local church anywhere. Could the real reason why we don't want to go to church be that we simply want things our own way and do not want to submit to anyone's authority (e.g., elders and pastors), and/or that we know deep down in our hearts that there is some sin or attitude in our lives that we don't want to be convicted of or confronted by, and/or that there is some erroneous view or agenda we are holding onto that we know is wrong and don't want to have challenged? This was the actual cause of my own refusal, and all of my objections were merely smoke-screens that I put up in order to hide my selfish, sinful, unsubmissive attitude and character. All of us who have objections to local churches need to critically search and evaluate our own hearts to see if maybe the issue isn't really just our own pride and sin. And if it is, then sincere repentance is necessary since God, out of His infinite love and kindness, has given us local churches for our edification and spiritual wellbeing.
Conclusion
To
conclude let me summarize what we've learned, and then finish by
identifying the core problem of our modern churches. Before
summarizing, please allow me to open my own heart to you about a
related issue. Recently I have been disillusioned by my own local
church and have been contemplating attending a different church. I
have met other Christians who feel this way about their own churches,
so they jump from church to church and never seem satisfied with one
enough to stay put. After realizing my place in my church I have
decided to stick with my local church and encourage my fellow
believers to grow in their faith. Rather than abandon them, I want to
see them grow and I am willing to patiently serve them in order to
help accomplish this goal until God moves me on.
Summary
To
summarize what we've learned, throughout this study I have tried to
implicitly highlight the sovereign hand of God in local church life,
but let me be explicit about it now: God is the one who planted local churches; God is the one who created local microcosm bodies of the macro-body of Christ; God is the one who designed all believers to function properly only when part of a local church body; God is the one who gives spiritual gifts to believers to edify local church bodies; God is the one who ordained local church offices to facilitate operations; God is the one who gave specific instructions to local churches; God is the one who added numbers to local churches; God is the one who authors peace in all true local churches; God is the one who admonishes believers to not forsake attending church; and God is the one who will destroy those who try to dismantle a local church that He has planted.
To
put the most important points of our study in a single sentence: God
created and designed local churches to be microcosm bodies of the
universal Church, He equipped believers with spiritual gifts and
offices that were intended to exist in a local body, and believers
must use them as God intended if we are to be good stewards over them and if we are to function properly since God admonishes us not to forsake attending church.
If
there is still any question in your mind at this point please let me
give some advice that I give myself by asking a simple question: If
you are unsure about whether you will be in disobedience if you don't
attend church then what is the safest thing to do to ensure that you
aren't? The safest thing to do would be to attend church. In order
for you and me to justify not attending church we have to soundly
refute the biblical theology of the local church, we have to refute
all of the reasons and all of the answers to the objections in this
study, and then we have to provide biblical reasons why we
should not. And because I cannot see any other conclusion that does
not twist Scripture or dismiss it on irrelevant or fallacious grounds, I believe
that it is true that God created the local church to be an essential
part of the life of every believer, and that He designed every
believer to be a necessary part of the local church; therefore every
believer must attend church.
What's
wrong with today's churches
To
finish our study, I'd like to see if we can pinpoint exactly what the
core problem is with our modern churches. Believers today have the
same Holy Spirit, the same types of church services, the same church
offices, the same spiritual giftedness, the same church commandments,
instructions, and admonitions, the same power and the same potential
for effectiveness. So what's wrong? There are good reasons like, our
individualistic society promoting a do-it-yourself mentality that
then leads to an isolationist mindset, our wrong distinction between
sacred and secular that fosters segregating time for God and time for
self, and our fleshly desires being gratified so much that they
overpower the Spirit. The world we live in today is made for living
for ourselves and for getting as much satisfaction out of life as
possible, so we view church as a kind of institutionalized commodity
rather than a living body of believers; it is something we go to, not
something we are part of. This then causes us to see church as
something that must satisfy some need/desire in order to be relevant.
So the problem then is that our churches are full of worldly
believers going to an institution expecting to be satisfied. This is
a very real issue but I don't think the true problem lies in the fact
that worldliness has entered the church; this is just a result of the
true problem. I believe that the fundamental problem of the Church
today is a lack of personal, individual Bible study and meditation
(Ps. 1:2-3). The most crucial thing that needs to happen in order for
a local church body to function properly is that its individual
members must do their own personal Bible study. And in today's
churches, individual believers are not doing this like they should,
which causes them to be carnal instead of Spirit-filled. Therefore, the real problem is not with local churches, rather the real problem is with individual believers. So the
churches are full of carnal believers who do not study the Bible nor
meditate on it. But not just any subject of Bible study will suffice
(as great as they all are); specifically theology proper, or
the study of God Himself is what is desperately needed. Half a
century ago, A.W. Tozer placed his finger precisely on the exact
point of failure of the Church:
The
low view of God entertained almost universally among Christians is
the cause of a hundred lesser evils everywhere among us. A whole new
philosophy of the Christian life has resulted from this one basic
error in our religious thinking.
With
our loss of the sense of majesty has come the further loss of
religious awe and consciousness of the divine Presence. We have lost
our spirit of worship and our ability to withdraw inwardly to meet
God in adoring silence. Modern Christianity is simply not producing
the kind of Christian who can appreciate or experience the life in
the Spirit. The words, “Be still, and know that I am God,” mean
next to nothing to the self-confident, bustling worshipper in this
middle period of the twentieth century.
This
loss of the concept of majesty has come just when the forces of
religion are making dramatic gains and the churches are more
prosperous than at any time within the past several hundred years.
But the alarming thing is that our gains are mostly external and our
losses wholly internal; and since it is the quality of our religion
that is affected by internal conditions, it may be that our supposed
gains are but losses spread over a wider field.
The
only way to recoup our spiritual losses is to go back to the cause of
them and make such corrections as the truth warrants. The decline of
the knowledge of the holy has brought on our troubles. A rediscovery
of the majesty of God will go a long way toward curing them. It is
impossible to keep our moral practices sound and our inward attitudes
right while our idea of God is erroneous or inadequate. If we would
bring back spiritual power to our lives, we must begin to think of
God more nearly as He is.
And when individual believers have lost the high view of God it affects the whole Church.
Perverted
notions about God soon rot the religion in which they appear. The
long career of Israel demonstrates this clearly enough, and the
history of the Church confirms it. So necessary to the Church is a
lofty concept of God that when that concept in any measure declines,
the Church with her worship and her moral standards declines along
with it. The first step down for any church is taken when it
surrenders its high opinion of God.
Before
the Christian Church goes into eclipse anywhere there must first be a
corrupting of her simple basic theology. She simply gets a wrong
answer to the question, “What is God like?” and goes on from
there. Though she may continue to cling to a sound nominal creed, her
practical working creed has become false. The masses of her adherents
come to believe that God is different from what He actually is; and
that is heresy of the most insidious and deadly kind.
The
heaviest obligation lying upon the Christian Church today is to
purify and elevate her concept of God until it is once more worthy of
Him - and of her. In all her prayers and labors this should have
first place. We do the greatest service to the next generation of
Christians by passing on to them undimmed and undiminished that noble
concept of God which we received from our Hebrew and Christian
fathers of generations past. This will prove of greater value to them
than anything that art or science can devise.
In
order for the Christian to grow, they must be studying Scripture on
their own, and the most fruitful subject of all Scripture is the
study of God Himself. Nothing changes the heart and compels obedience more than beholding
the Person of God. As Spurgeon put it, “The highest science, the
loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can ever engage
the attention of a child of God, is the name, the nature, the person,
the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he
calls his Father.” As we continually behold and meditate on the majesty of our God on
the pages of Scripture and lose all thought of ourselves in the
blazing light of His glory, our minds and hearts are purged of the
self-serving, hedonistic dross that keeps us from truly understanding
His love, and we are then filled and overflow with the Spirit (2 Cor.
3:18). When we understand the breadth and length and height and depth
of God's love and care for us, it compels our obedience and service
out of pure, loving, Spirit-filled gratitude. As we are compelled to
obey and serve, we will seek to edify others so they can better
behold the Almighty, Holy God of all comfort and love. As we seek to
edify others, we must consider each other to stir up love and good
works by connecting ourselves with other believers in a local body
where we can properly use our spiritual gifting to edify our heavenly
brothers and sisters the way that God designed and the way that He
desires.
Let
us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not
forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of
some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the
Day approaching (Heb. 10:24-25)
Bibliography
Enns,
Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Moody Press. Chicago,
Illinois. 1989
Orr,
James. gen. ed. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. 1983
Ryrie,
Charles. Basic Theology. SP Publications. USA. 1986
Strong,
James. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
Zondervan. Grand Rapids. Michigan. 2001
Tenney,
Merrill C. gen. ed. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the
Bible. Zondervan. Grand Rapids. 1976
Tozer,
A.W., The Knowledge of the Holy. Copyright 1961. Public Domain
Wallace, Daniel B.. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan. Grand Rapids. 1996
Young,
Robert. Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible. Lutterworth
Press. London, England. 1971
Bible
versions used: NKJV, ESV, NASB
FOOTNOTES:
Notice the contrast between the branch that does not bear fruit and the branch that does. On a grapevine, there are small branches near the roots of the vine called "suckers" (see image above) which are actually foreign plants that attach themselves to the vine. These cannot bear fruit since they aren't naturally from the vine. These need to be removed from the vine so that they don't take away any nourishment from the canes (i.e, the true branches). Then there's the bull cane (not pictured), which is a cane that sprouts so vigorously and quickly that it actually sucks a vast amount of nourishment from the other canes while not producing any fruit of its own. Bull canes are not healthy for the rest of the grapevine because they can disfigure the cordon and the branches. Suckers and bull canes are equivalent to the seed that fell on the stony ground in the parable of the soils (Matt. 13:5-6, 20-21) and they must be removed completely for the health of the branches. They are professing "Christians" who are actually unsaved and are merely using Christianity for their own selfish purposes. The Father removes these false branches for the health of the true branches (1 John 2:19).
Second, pruning actually wounds the branch so that it bleeds. "Wound" and "bleed" are real terms that vinedressers use. A freshly cut branch is commonly said to be "crying" because of how much watery sap it drips. Some even spray out sap for a moment before turning into a slow weep. Being pruned is a painful albeit necessary experience for the health of all true believers (cf. Deut. 32:39). But take heart! Pruning is best done by hand rather than by machine. As Dr. McGee put it, "You remember that the Lord Jesus said (as recorded in John 15) that He is the vine, we are the branches, and the Father prunes the branches. That hurts to be trimmed like that! But, as the old Scotch divine said, the Father is never so close to the branches as when He is trimming them."[1] The vinedresser must focus on each branch and hold them carefully in his tender hand when he is pruning them. There is comfort in the thought of the Father's tender nearness during this painful process.
