City Church
R. L. Faber - 2011, 2015, 2019

Introduction

The Jerusalem church was a city wide church.1 They met in homes2 and in the temple courts (Acts 5:42). The apostles taught them in their homes and they shared meals in their homes. They probably went to the temple to join in the Jewish custom of 9 AM and 3 PM prayers, but in 70 AD the temple was destroyed. The church was quite large, with thousands added in one day (Acts 2:41). Imagine about 50 to 100 home based gatherings... but acting as one church. It is very important that they thought of the Jerusalem church as a single church, because the unbelievers were observing how they acted.1 (Acts 5:13) The Corinthian church is another example of a city wide church. The Corinthians were rebuked for beginning to form groups within the one church. As Paul says it, "...each one of you says, 'I follow Paul,' or 'I follow Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas,' or 'I follow Christ.' (I Cor 1:12)   This rebuke to the Corinthians makes it clear that the splintering into groups was certainly not of Christ! Jesus prays that 'they will be one' in John 17, which seems to be the main issue in these rebukes. We believe the New Testament is teaching us that Christians should relate to one another in a unified way in the expression of church in our cities and towns.

The examples of one church in each city is pretty consistent.

The church of the city

The church of Jerusalem Acts 8:1
The church of Antioch Acts 11:25-26
The church of Corinth 1 Cor 1:2
The church of Ephesus Rev 2:1
The church of Thessalonica 1 Thes 1:1
The church of Caesarea Acts 18:22
The church of Cenchrea Rom 16:1
The church of Laodicea Col 4:16
The church of Pergamos Rev 2:12
The church of Philadelphia Rev 3:7
The church of Sardis Rev 3:1
The church of Smyrna Rev 2:8
The church of Thyatira Rev 2:18

The churches of the region

The churches of Judea Gal 1:22
The churches of Asia 1 Cor 16:19
The churches of Galatia Gal 1:2
The churches of Macedonia 2 Cor 8:1
The churches of Galilee Acts 9:31
The churches of Samaria Acts 9:31
The churches of Syria Acts 15:41
The churches of Cilicia Acts 15:41


REBUKES FROM UNBELIEVERS
I recently overheard a Jewish co-worker talking to another co-worker about how the divisions within the Republican Party reminded him of the divisions of the Christian denominations. Non Christians can be quite insightful in understanding Christian problems!   A Russian co-worker once asked me what "religion" I was and he listed a few "religions" he knew of, "Lutheran, Baptist or Presbyterian." He was so confused by the variety of Christian denominations. They appeared to him like completely different religions! Now to be clear, I am not advocating blind unity with all Christian denominations in town. Rather, I am encouraging us to show unity with all true Christians in town. It is a real shame that we tolerate centuries of Christian denominational division as we do. What is sad is that we are quite comfortable with these divisions. I've read enough Christian leadership books to know we generally feel no guilt about it. It is a rare book that admits to our problem. It has been hundreds of years now and very little is changing. We are calling this situation madness and rebellion to God's Word. We are calling Christians to listen to John 17, where Jesus calls us to live in perfect unity, and consider the situation. Are we willing to take a little risk for Christ or do we prefer the status quo of established organizational divisions within 501(C)(3) Christianity?


THE SCHOLARS AGREE
The early church thought of the church at the city/town level. This is something the scholars will agree with. For example, Alexander Strauch says,

'The phrase "in every city" is another way of saying "in every church." As the New Testament writers consistently record, the local church embraced all believers within a particular city (see Acts 20:17). The New Testament never speaks of churches within a city, only the church. Thus, in each city, that is, each church, Titus was to designate a plurality of elders.' (Biblical Eldership, p227 - Alexander Strauch).
D.A. Carson explains the early church pattern in this 5 minute mp3 audio clip.
D.A. Carson audio clip
We agree with Alexander Strauch, John Frame and Robert Banks and many other scholars who observe the New Testament well.


SMALL GROUPS MEETING IN HOMES
The Jerusalem Church was composed of many home based small groups. Calling them house churches would not quite be right. They thought of the whole town church as their church, and they freely related to any and all they were inclined to meet with. But in spite of the fact that small group church meetings are not popular today, there are surprising connections with early church ways with meeting in homes. The subject of home based meetings is another subject, well explained at NTRF.org, but we will just touch on it thinking from a city church perspective.

One important theme in the New Testament is the many "encourage one another" passages. How do we best encourage one another? Our observation is that meeting in homes works very well for a context of relational living and the early church practiced it. We believe it would work well for us today also. Meeting in homes fits very well with, "each one has a hymn, a lesson..." (1 Cor 14:26).6 Here are a few "encouraging one another" verses.

"encourage one another"1 Thess 5:11
"encourage the fainthearted"1 Thess 5:14
"stir up one another to love"Hebr 10:24-25
"encourage one another daily"Hebr 10:24-25
and others... 

Meeting in homes also works well with the early church's habit of sharing meals, which may be referring to the Lord's Supper in some cases. In Acts 2:46 it says, "They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts."

Many today seem to dislike the idea and say they only met in homes because of persecution. Please read about that at NTRF.org or read Robert Banks, a New Testament scholar to learn more about that theory. We believe the apostles met in homes because it was part of a new more relational way of doing church that they picked up from being with Jesus. Here are a few verses:

"breaking bread in their homes" Acts 2:42,46
"where two or three are gathered" Matt 18:20
"the church in their house" Rom 16:5
"and from house to house" Acts 20:20
"the church in their house" 1 Cor 16:19
"the church in her house" Col 4:15
"the church in your house" Phil 1:2

The habit of meeting in homes appears to be part of the design of the early apostles. Paul's concern for churches "following traditions" is clear in the phrase, "as in all the churches" (1 Cor 14:33) and the warning, If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (1 Cor 14:37-38)

The context includes things related to the order within a church meeting, like "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said." And just prior to this is "When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson,..." and "Let all things be done for building up" (1 Cor 14:26).

Of course we are not saying that the New Testament requires meeting in homes. That would be misunderstanding us. We are just saying that the New Testament records much of the church activity taking place in homes. The trends were away from "Temple meetings" and toward "home meetings." Anyone bothered by meeting in homes, really should have the burden of proof to explain why move back to the temple like way when the New Testament seems to be away from it. Meeting in homes should be "acceptable", "recommended" and "good", rather than "weird" and "strange." The meeting places may have been large rooms owned by the more wealthy members, but whatever the "place", we certainly see encouragement toward "participatory meetings." Meeting in homes seems ideal for sharing a weekly Lord's Supper meal, but there is certainly no requirement to meet in homes. Meeting in homes is probably helpful for the speakers in the participatory meeting experience (1 Cor 14:26-40), but meeting in home is not required. However, is it even "accepted" today?

The main observation here is that the original apostles set patterns for the church and we should carefully observe the teaching and traditions of how the apostles wanted things to happen in the church. Anyone wanting to deviate from the traditions and teaching of the apostles should bear the burden of proof to explain why the apostles did it in an inferior way. We have not read anything nearly convincing by anyone familiar with the arguments of those like NTRF.org, Robert Banks, etc. It seems a bit dangerous to change the way of the apostles when the Holy Spirit says through Paul in 1 Cor 14:37-38, "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized." The whole context is "participatory meetings", with men speaking according to what God has put on their heart, and all the group sharing in hymns, fellowship and a special meal.


LARGE CITY OBJECTIONS
A common objection to a city wide church made of many small groups meeting in homes is the sheer size of our modern large cities and our accepted organized way of doing church. We imagine organizing a city to be a nightmare since we can barely organize our local churches.

The Jerusalem church, however, illustrates how a city wide church would work and it does not appear to be anything like our modern day organized church! They only added "deacons" when they had a problem! And that is for a whole city! In fact, if they had been a little more godly in their sharing (but we are all sinners, we know), they may never have added the deacons (to "wait on tables") (Act 6:2 NIV).

But most modern criticism of city churches goes for the less clear case of the city of Rome. The large city of Rome would seem a very daunting task to organize. But why do we have to read our modern day assumptions into the Biblical story? Why do we have to assume organization like we do today? The main point from the clearer case of Jerusalem (and other churches) is that they "thought of themselves" as one unified city church. In other words, they worked together as best they could.

So the main starting point is that the city church really did not need to organize nearly as much we might seem to think. The larger the city, the less one would really need to bother about what was happening on the other side of the large city. Perhaps, the case of Rome not appearing to be as organized (even though it is the less clear case) is actually a Biblical pattern of not bothering with so much organization.

I was thinking about the city church idea recently, while watching my wife run the Philadelphia Marathon. I began to imagine how a city wide church gathering might be with these 80 thousand people.

My thoughts were;

  1. It may appear difficult and crazy, but it could be fun! (On rare occasions)
  2. The focus of the city church was with home based participatory meetings. (1 Cor 14 style) The Jerusalem church serves as a good example of a large city church with many thousands but there is not much evidence that they gathered as a whole church very often after 70 AD. (The "Temple era" had ended. God was introducing changes in the church... John 4)
  3. Perhaps early church large city gatherings were somewhat proportional to the size of the city, with more frequent whole church gatherings in smaller towns and villages. However, just like the Jerusalem church, they could think of themselves as one church and meet with representative elders quite easily. Perhaps some cities would naturally gather in political sub groups rather than the whole city gatherings. They could still be treating each other as part of the whole city church even if they could not all gather.
  4. The temptation to pick outwardly "charismatic" leaders may often win over following the guidelines of the apostles. (This is always a danger, well recorded in the disciples arguing about who is the greatest.)
  5. In observing the ways of the apostles, we should focus on the clear Biblical principles and cases rather than the less clear. If we see patterns and practices established by the apostles in some cases, we should not focus our resistance on less clear cases (Like Rome). Perhaps if we obediently follow the ways of the apostles with the smaller cities like Jerusalem, God may give us wisdom with the mega cities.
  6. Large city churches should be encouraging and exciting rather than "problems."
  7. The Jerusalem church members only met at the Temple to pray due to Jewish custom, and did not have regular "worship services" or "preaching sermons." The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
  8. Hierarchy in city church leadership is not the New Testament way (Matthew 20:26). The apostles appointed elders in each city, but there was no specialized leadership other than the simple role of "elder", which simply means an "older" man (probably referring to "older in the Lord"). Pastors/Elders who violated guidelines for elders could be confronted by any 2 or 3 men who found the elder to be at fault. Interfering with this godly rebuke would be diotrophan (John 3).
  9. The principle of the city wide view of the church was a demonstration of unity to the unbelieving world. The idea is that Christians would create a kind of alternate city - a spiritual gathering of people who live in peace, love each other, and demonstrate an attractive Gospel. (Titus 2:10)

GOSPEL PRIORITY OBJECTIONS
We fully agree that as Christians we should focus on encouraging one another in the Gospel (Rom 8, Col 3, etc) But the New Testament also has other things that godly churches are to observe (e.g. Revelation churches).

Here are a few things:

  1. Allowing others to speak in the church meeting (1 Cor 14:26-40)
  2. Keeping peace between members (so they appointed godly men, Acts 6)
  3. Shunning the use of titles (Matthew 23:6-12)
  4. Allowing children to participate in the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:17-22 and Matthew 19:14).
Almost every page of the New Testament encourages Christians to live godly and holy, but it is all in the context of the freedom we have in Christ. (Rom 8, Gal 5, Col 3, etc)
We agree with the traditional Christian doctrines that honor God, hold to the "verbal-plenary" views, and generally follow the Reformed-evangelical Biblical interpretations. We are saying, lets not change any of the important things won in the Reformation. Lets keep on reforming our hearts based on what God's word is saying. Lets not get stuck in our own traditions of man that the New Testament warns of (Mark 7:8, Col 2:8).

We think there is a blindness in the modern church that unbelievers can very plainly see. They observe our preaching, but if we totally ignore one another, living in the same location, they see our talk as mere wind. If we bite and devour one another, because we cannot get along in the same church, we may destroy one another (Gal 5). If we totally ignore one another while living in the same location, it is like an argument that has gone to icy silence. What is worse... to scream and shout... or to silently ignore? Both are wrong, but icy silence in a conflict does not resolve anything. The hardest thing is to talk with a peaceful tone while there are existing disagreements. Sometimes we even need to admit that we cannot discuss an issue for the time being because of upset feelings. If we cannot discuss an issue we should get back to the discussion once we have had a cool off time. Some people need more time to formulate words and ideas. Others can more easily pour out a stream of carefully chosen words. But the ability to solve issues instantly is not the important thing. Even the apostles argued "at great length" on occasion (Acts 15:7). Often a hasty solution will have much worse lingering negative side effects. One important thing is to end the silence and begin some kind of dialogue. We must come to the table in an attitude of seeking peace and harmony and desiring the unity Jesus speaks of in John 17... that even unbelievers can see.


THE CORINTHIANS
In some ways we are very much like the Corinthian church. We are rich and spiritually poor even though we are loaded with much knowledge. We are gifted, wealthy and self confident, yet we have many of the same sins that the Corinthians had. From "No Man Left Behind", "for every ten men in the church": 3

  • Nine will have children who leave the church.
  • Five will have a major problem with pornography.
  • Four will get divorced.
  • Only one will have a biblical worldview.

But there is one sin where we have clearly gone farther. The Corinthians had the reputation for tolerating divisions within their city wide church. But we, on the other hand, have actually divided. And for years now, we have continued to maintain our divided denominational groups in spite of the clear teaching of scripture. The Corinthians were just beginning to separate, but we have actually separated into denominations. Instead of following men who promote these divisions, we need to return to the one pastor of the Church, Jesus Christ. We need to put our Christian talk into practice with a little love to the point of recognizing fellow Christians around us as members of our city wide church. When we try to justify our divisions, we are sinning beyond he Corinthians. We may be more refined and smooth in our ways than we realize when we justify our divisions with spiritual reasoning.


THEOLOGICAL DIVISIONS
Denominations are often justified by observing that it is good to strongly hold to particular doctrinal distinctives. To hold ones views strongly, with Biblical understanding, is a good thing. But we can go way too far, as one Bible college puts it, "We are separatists rather than ecumenical"4 It is often maintained that holding clear doctrinal views means there must be differences and therefore divisions to show who is following God's Word (1 Cor 11:19). But it is also very possible to hold to clear doctrinal distinctions and live in harmony with other Bible believing Christians and "churches" in the same city. The real problem is more related to loving our brothers. One of the best ways of hiding our group level sins is to block those who would rebuke us by intimidation, formality or denominational division. One way we break the traditions of the apostles in 1 Corinthians 14 is in how we deny men the opportunity to speak in the church and skip the testing of what is being said. Instead, we continue presenting beautiful things that are sometimes quietly hiding real issues. Often we are hiding our sins with a steady stream speeches that do not allow for any kind of Biblical church life (1 Cor 14 style). The Bible presents the idea of dialogue, correcting and rebuking, along with teaching, but we often exclusively focus on one man's teachings unlike (1 Cor 14, Col 3, etc) The teaching may be very good, but it may be leaving out a few critical ingredients.

We bake our bread;

3/4 cup warm water
1-1/2 tbsp sugar
1 tbsp vegetable shortening
1/2 cup milk
3 cups all-purpose flour, approximately
But if we forget the yeast and salt, it will be flat and not taste so good. The unbelieving observers will notice right away, but if we are used to lousy bread we won't notice how bad it is.

We are acting like the Corinthians when we follow our "Paul" or "Apollos" or "Cephas" leaders who encourage us to separate. Instead of following Christ our attitude of oneness with our nearby brothers will show in how we treat each other. Following Christ will include the overlooking of wrongs at times, and gently confronting at times, and always seeking to be united with those who we know to be Christians despite the "annoying differences." We can hold to our doctrinal views and still meet as Christians in the same city wide church if we truly love each other. Christian love will desire to be united with other brothers in town, which will show the kind of brotherly love that Jesus spoke of in John 17.


TEACH, REBUKE, CORRECT (2 Tim 3:16)
There is a real danger of silencing the godly rebuke in our modern churches today. There is an inclination to label a man "divisive" who is performing a godly rebuke. Jesus was harsh on the Pharasees of his day, but can any man speak against corrupt tendencies in the modern evangelical church without being called "divisive"? Sometimes Amos's words come true

"They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth." (Amos 5:10)
We can easily create a church environment that blocks the godly rebuke. This may be a form of quenching the Spirit (2 Tim 3:16). Think about it... does your church allow the "testing" format of 1 Corinthians 14? Is there an open time for everything to be tested? (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Rather, our modern tendency is to view godly rebukes as just being critical.
Most essentially, a church-dater tends to be critical. We are short on allegiance and quick to find fault in our church. (Why Church Matters - Joshua Harris)
This lack of allegiance to our "churches" may sometimes be the Holy Spirit convicting men not to care about the "professional establishment" often connected with running a modern day church. Wanting to press the point further, Harris compares the church dater to adultery.
As a result, we're fickle and not invested for the long-term, like a lover with a wandering eye, always on the hunt for something better.
Of course there may be some truth to this... in some cases. But our allegiance should be to Christ - lived out in Christian relationships where we are really getting to know one another. The participatory meeting has usually been killed in the modern church. No wonder some are looking for something better. They may actually be looking for encouragement (a good thing) and more Christlike ways in how the church does church (could be fine also).

Harris goes on to describe a church dater...

Take my friend Nathan. He attended two churches on Sundays-- one because he liked their music, the other because he liked the preaching. ... At the first church he'd slip out just before the last song wound down and drive to the other church five minutes away.... I guess you could say Nathan was two timing.5
This paints a completely opposite picture from the freedom we see in the Jerusalem Church. The Jerusalem Christians would say he was still in the same church. But our modern confusion sees Nathan as going to "another church" (5 minutes away). This is completely opposite to the New Testament freedoms we have in Christ. Perhaps it was God's will that Nathan be encouraged this way for this time in his life. But for a modern church pastor, this looks like he's "short on allegiance" and "treating church with a consumer mentality." We should not be so critical of Nathan. (Caveat: Josh knew this guy... perhaps he was a bit wrong in some ways... but aren't we all. Should we not have allowed Nathan to be matured by the good preaching and the music that touched his soul?)


FOLLOWING THE APOSTLES
The Corinthian church was facing divisions (1 Cor 1,3), but they were warned by the Apostle Paul and were rescued at least for a while from the natural sinful tendency to divide. Should we follow the Apostles in this clear warning about divisions in the church (1 Cor 1, 3, 12, Romans 12, Eph 4)?

We have been ignoring the problem for far too long. The Corinthians were being warned about division, but we have done it even with warnings. Who is more guilty?

The apostles lead us to face some facts about our local Christian gatherings. The Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians, leads us to face the fact that our town is split up into groups of Christians that do not interact. They follow different leaders and denominations which shows they do not follow the teaching of John 17, 1 Corithians 1,3,12 and Ephesians 4.

One thing that is pretty clear from reading the New Testament is that the apostles did appoint elders in every town (Titus 1:15). The churches that were set up were city wide churches. They met in private homes for closer fellowship, but they always considered the city wide church to be "the church." This local church was guided in appointing leadership by the missionary-apostles who were instrumental in the spiritual beginnings of the churches. Once the churches were established, we assume the elders, along with the whole church, would have spiritual wisdom to follow scripture in all ways including appointing new elders, in the context of 1 Cor 14 meetings, John 17 ideas, and 1 Cor 1,3, Eph 4 unity concerns.

The power for all the church life activity was entirely of God. The Apostle Paul showed the missionary helpers (like Timothy), how to work day and night to provide for their means to not be a burden on the church and to be an example for all time afterward. So from now on, we have the good example of the Apostle Paul and all who follow in his footsteps of working while doing ministry. The ones most in need of support, as traveling missionary teacher evangelists (apostles), were the very ones showing the local elders (older men) how to work and minister at the same time (Acts 20).


SHARED LEADERSHIP
The churches in each area shared traveling teacher leadership, like Apollos and Paul. Within a city they also shared leadership. The early church had no branding, no fraternity, no names... just the local church of the city. The oneness would make a statement to the world (John 17). The important thing was that they kept Christ as the Chief Pastor/Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4, Ezek 34), and did not allow the natural tendency of men to go its natural way toward hierarchy or divided groups. The other disciples would not allow the most outspoken Peter to think he was in any way greater. They argued about this right up until Jesus was about to die. But as they learned their lessons they actually wanted Peter to speak up at Pentecost. They all knew, Peter included, that he was not the "first among equals." They knew they were all team members. They knew they would die for each other. So of course they could share their homes, their food and their extra things in order to help anyone who had a bad break.

The church leaders were older men. Sometimes they noticed God called out some of the maturest and most godly men to head to farther places to spread the message of the Gospel. They generally stayed within their own language area, but God always had people prepared for his work. Today we sometimes depend on committees or seminary education or second membership voting. In the early church days, even a fisherman with no formal education could be selected by the Holy Spirit for missionary work. When there were difficult decisions to be made they prayed and sometimes cast lots. Today we pray and vote and think we know better. When God called men to missionary work, they were called to a particular work for a particular time as a traveling teacher/evangelist (apostle). According to Paul's idea of the church elder in Acts 20, these men could easily hold a full time job while also being officially responsible for order and sound doctrine in the church.

Neither missionaries nor elder positions came by a career path. They certainly did not go to seminary to prepare for the job. Instead, the Holy Spirit led the church to send certain godly teachers to do a missionary work on occasion (Acts 13).

Elders stayed home, but were certainly busy being senders and helping the poor, besides being spiritual leaders.


PUBLIC SPEAKING
The small group "home sized church" pattern in the early church made for amazingly effective training of young men not used to public speaking. If the house church setting is normative (like the early church), the young men have lots of great opportunity to learn to speak in public. These settings encourage gentle learning without the "public speaking" trauma situations with our large "show" church experiences today. There is a natural progression allowing men to learn to speak little by little. Some people don't get it. But I understand many quiet types when I find out in private conversation how they get intimidated even in small group prayer meetings... let alone large church speaking in order to "encourage one another."

The young men would be encouraged to participate as God led them. All the church met together with older and younger men, older and younger women and children all together for the Lord's Supper, the singing, and open sharing/teaching times. Only the men spoke during certain times meant for edifying the body (1 Cor 14:33-35). Probably all would talk during the fellowship meal time. The women were sensitive enough to become quiet if the subject turned to doctrinal issues or if a tinge of stronger opinion would appear.

The women were often more gifted at speaking than many men, but would honor God by remaining silent during these times so the Gospel would be held in respect. Unbelievers seeing this would notice that this was no ordinary meeting. This was a meeting where the participants respected God more than their own personal feelings. The younger men would have an opportunity to speak that would otherwise be lost to the usually more socially gifted women. Through this God ordained way, the men would be challenged to exercise their voice and begin to lead. Everything they said would be subject to the testing of the other men listening (1 Cor 14). The women would often have more opportunities to share things with other women than in a traditional institutional meeting because of the Lord's Supper home based meeting. This is how the early church met, following the example and direction of the apostles (1 Cor 14).


TRAVELLING MISSIONARIES
The early church leaders would have responsibility for their local city wide gathering of believers. Traveling missionaries (apostles), would be focused on a larger area with inter-city-church concerns trying to strengthen the church where the Gospel was less known or helping the Christians in difficult times. They would bring news of Christians suffering hardship and would sometimes suggest financial assistance. Since there would be no necessary building to care for, these efficient little small group city based churches would usually have enough resources to meet many of the needs that a larger synagogue like church would be unable to help with. They would have the joy of knowing this is pleasing to the Lord and would have great joy in giving.

Sometimes, missionary leaders/teachers/evangelists like Paul and Barnabas, would find that a larger meeting hall would be more effective for reaching out to the unbelieving community.

In these cases they would gather monies from the generous city based churches to help fund an evangelistic outreach by renting a hall. This is what Paul the apostle did at the "hall of Tyrannus" (Acts 19:9). It was sometimes more effective to gather this way rather than to meet outdoors or in homes. They sacrificed a little to rent the hall, but in some cases it was well worth it when there were so many unbelievers hearing the Gospel for the first time. In this Biblical case, it was about two years that the hall was rented (missionary expenses). As soon as everyone had heard the Gospel, and the strain of paying for rent was noticed, they went on to other ministry opportunities. They certainly would not want to meet for church in the building. They loved to meet together in homes for the special weekly Lord's Supper fellowship gathering. They may have met in larger whole church gatherings at times, but their meetings were really home based.


DIFFICULTIES
There are certainly some difficulties in how we relate to some of the early church traditions that we read about in the Bible. For example, what is the modern equivalent of the "apostles"? It would seem quite proud to say, "I am an apostle", unless you are very clear about how you are far inferior and different from the original Apostles. Perhaps this is "missionary", but it is a question.

Another difficulty is the huge mega cities today. How do you meet as a mega city? We would say, "you don't." You meet in a home... or perhaps occasionally you gather in a park on a side of a large city... but this is a question for some.

We don't have answers for all the details of these questions but we do believe that if we seek to follow God ways he will lead us to increasing clarity in areas that are currently not very clear.

For starters, we assume there is Biblical support for churches meeting according to the general political boundaries, yet not being too fussy about those who may live on the edge of a town.

A city is a non religious natural grouping of people. The church attaches to it and claims a role in it and becomes related to the city... for change. This city wide Christian unity can have a significant effect in the evangelisation of the city as Jesus indicates in John 17.

We would encourage anyone reading this to continue following and imitating the Apostles, even if it means keeping these ideas quietly alive and waiting patiently until the right time. We should also be on guard about becoming proud over "how we meet." Rather we should gently try to encourage "separated groups" to join together, with all true Christians in town. Some writers we have read on this subject include, John Frame with his book "Evangelical Reunion", Ian Murray and Watchman Nee, but we are primarily motivated by God's Word.


MISSIONARY WORK
Based on the example of the early Apostles, we would think that at least one kind of missionary work would be to visit non evangelical churches looking for Gospel opportunities. The Apostles visited synagogues regularly on the Sabbath, and met with the brothers on Sunday. It appears the Apostles looked for any gathering of people interested in spiritual discussion, as long as they were welcome. If they were no longer welcome, they would move on. The Holy Spirit was their guide as they entered synagogues every week and regularly looked for opportunities to speak of the Gospel. They did not answer to a missionary board looking for reports. Instead, they were free to follow the leading of the Spirit, and they reported back to the home church at times for mutual encouragement.

Fundamental to all the missionary work and leadership in the local church was male leadership, open discussion, open testing, and having no titles. Missionaries alway started either as leaders called by God to lead a mission trip, or as helpers specifically chosen by the missionary leaders (e.g. Timothy). No one received a salary. Everyone had a job-skill that could be done when things got tight. Every church where traveling missionaries visited would be expected to provide food, clothing and shelter while the visiting missionary team was in town. They would not be expected to move from house to house but they would usually teach from house to house. If the missionary was a founder, they would have extra honor. Sometimes honor would be money as givers felt led. No missionary team would hoard extra money. They would be open about their finances so they could be trusted, but they would need some extra supplies to be able to go for periods in between. Sometimes more wealthy Christians would take special interest in caring for these Christians just like the women who provided a room for Elijah. Leaders would lead... Elders would lead... missionaries would work... but no one had rank (other than the elders in a simple sense). No one dared take on a title... like "Elder Bob"... Matthew 23. Some would do the work of an evangelist/missionary... some would encourage/comfort/edify/rebuke as the "prophets" in 1 Corinthians 14. No one would say "Thus says the Lord" or "God spoke in a vision" (ordinarily), because they would fear God. Those who do have a "burden from the Lord" would be tested carefully (1 John 4:1, 1 Cor 14), and would be aware of God's warnings (Ezek, Zechariah, Isaiah, 1 Cor, Rev).


ELDERS
The primary leaders in the church would be older men who worked at a local job and lived in or near the town. These older wiser men would be the "responsible older men" (elders/overseers/pastors) of the city church, usually right up until the end of their life. The church would have to find the right men and they would look to the example of the Apostles in how they chose the men. Sometimes this might be as simply as "casting lots" when there were doubts, rather than a vote, following the tradition of the apostles. This leaves it more in God's hands than looking at the vote not going your way, and wondering who is against you. Matthias was chosen as the 12 apostle by "casting lots", not by voting.


MEN AND WOMEN CONCERNS
In the early church, the women were very active in serving in ministries of all sorts. Some women ministries, like the ones providing financially for Jesus and the apostles, or some of the women helping the apostle Paul, appear to have been essential to the ministry work, even while they were not serving in the same way as the men. Often some women will be more effective in building up the kingdom than some men. But that is not the point and any arguing about men/women issues shows some defeat. It is a clear lack of spiritual concern to not follow the plain teaching of scripture about this issue. The missionaries (apostles) would be men with women coming along to help. Just as the apostle Paul names some of the ones who helped his ministry the most, like, Phoebe, Priscilla, Mary, and others (Romans 16). A missionary ministry is not a one-man show but a closely connected team that is connected to a healthy church (Antioch in Paul's case).


HONOR
We should show honor to church elders (local leaders) who follow the guidelines set by the apostles. We ought to honor Christian leaders who have a sincere love for the brothers and who work hard in the church, as the Apostle Paul showed in Acts 20. (They worked in the church and also held a job where they worked with their hands). We should honor them with our love and care, but we should be very careful to guard the highest honor for Christ as our Chief Shepherd (senior pastor). We should certainly not dishonor Christ by blatantly disobeying his instructions in Matthew 23 about over use of titles... a wrong kind of honor. Giving gifts of money may be a valid form of honor, but it is only one form, and probably should not be a salary position. (This is our opinion, based on our study of scripture, but we don't want to say this is easy to show why. If your elder body and city church feel different, that is ok) As we understand it, missionaries and missionary focused pastors should be the primary use of funds. This is how we see things from studying the Bible and Paul's missionary focused work. Missionaries also have more need for ongoing support since they are working remotely and cannot as easily hold a job. Paul shows it is possible to hold a job when the support is weak, so it is sometimes a bit of both cases. As a reminder, these are our opinions about the best way to fund the ministry that focuses on missionary efforts. But in our relating to Christians who do not agree with these ideas, we are gentle and will say these are only our opinions. We want to always seek peaceful solutions and allow some compromise in debatable areas to maintain the unity of the work. As we continue to study the scriptures together, we hope for more likemindedness. But we know the current mindset is not as we would like, so we must be very tolerant of other ways of thinking (2 Tim 2:25).


TRANSITIONING LEADERSHIP
There may be some who are open to these ideas (NTRF.org, etc), but need time to transition to this completely different way of thinking. There needs to be allowance for those who have been "modern pastors", but are interested and willing to transition to early church leadership patterns. Some may never be willing, and we should not press these ideas on them if we sense their strong objection. We want to gently suggest and encourage and give them time to think about it. Our primary purpose is not for ourself, but having lived in a missionary context for many years, the scriptures and that experience teaches us to care more about Paul like missionary work than pastor/elder/overseer work at the home base. We think that the 1 Corinthians model of each one has a lession and avoidance of a single person pastor giving all the sermons might be more efficient for missions (Gospel preaching to the nations) and more scriptural for the worship time. But this is just our opinion, we don't think too many will see things as we do.

Some may be interested and willing, but need continued funding until they are more ready for these radical changes. This is understandable. For example, some may want to transition to a traveling teacher role something like Apollos (A traveling teacher-preacher-evangelist-missionary). Some churches could help support this missionary teacher so his gifts could be shared among many churches.

Some "modern pastors" are actually already very much like Apollos. We think this role is very important in New Testament. We just like to see the gifted speaker Apollos type pastor to be more effectively used in more churches by focusing on other churches. The worst thing is to have a gifted Apollos type pastor spend too much time at one assembly where they get too much of a good thing. No, Apollos was meant to travel and help out here and there. (All this is our opinion based on our study of scripture. We don't mean to impose on those who have their mind made up. But we do want to share our ideas with those with an open ear... and consider, if you are willing to hear our views). We observe that the role of a traveling missionary is often mistakenly considered a "pastor." They put themselves in the role of "elder" which we think of as an unpaid role (Acts 20). But if they are really a travelling preaching in the Apollos style, then this role is more consuming and sharable... and does not invade on the 1 Corinthians 14 model of the worship service as much.


TRAVELLING EVANGELIST MISSIONARIES
The Bible seems to present a church of people who relate as brothers and sisters. Jesus was keen on responding to the normal human tendency for hierarchy with encouragement to treat one another on more equal terms (Matt 23:8). There are Biblical roles of "pastor", "teacher", "elder", but according to Matthew 23:8, we should be very careful of these terms. As Barnes says,

The reason which he gave was that he was himself their Master and Teacher, They were on a level; they were to be equal in authority; they were brethren; and they should neither covet nor receive a title which implied either an elevation of one above another, or which appeared to infringe on the absolute right of the Saviour to be their only Teacher and Master.
The apostle Paul says more related to this subject, which we will not go into here, but he does present a clear example of "teachers" becoming evangelists (Acts 13) who became traveling teacher missionaries. And there is an interesting interaction between these missionary teachers and the "elders" of Ephesus in Acts 20. Sometimes the missionary endeavor led to some semi-established structure like the rented "Hall of Tyrannus." How do we relate all these "missionaries", "elders", to the modern day churches today with "Pastors", and "Staff", and "elders"? We will begin with the observation that most churches today appear to be a combination of a ministry like the "Hall of Tyrannus" evangelistic ministry of the "missionary" Paul and the city based house church meetings of the early church. But most will not accept this, and will persist in traditional interpretations, but the apostles set an example that we want to deeply consider.

We believe our churches should encourage the Biblical ministries and be careful with "loaded" Biblical terms like "apostle", "prophet", "evangelist", "pastor/teacher." We believe the main way a church can effectively evangelize is through Christians showing love in a unified in their assemblies. But there will always be those who have special gifts in presenting the Gospel. These days, they seem to be called "Pastors", but continuing to call people by a title is not advisable. There is the function of a "pastor" or "teacher", but no one should be called "Teacher Bob" or "Pastor Bill." Those of us who are not "Pastors" or "Teachers" should focus on ourselves when considering these Matthew 23 ideas. Accepting titles is a real danger. We want to please Christ, yet we can so easily get a big head. Jesus took lowly men (fishermen, tax-collectors) and gave them experience as workers (Matthew 9:37-38), and then gave them authority to go and spread the good news broadly. We are little followers of these same men. We are unworthy servants, not even worthy to be part of God's kingdom, but grateful that God has opened our eyes to his Gospel truth.


THE UNSEEN, SILENT DAMAGE
Modern churches today do not realize the damage being done all around the world by the emphasis on professional pastors and expensive church buildings. Ordinary Christian men are left to sit quietly in pews in opposition to 1 Cor 14. They are encouraged to give to a particular sub-group church ministry or feel guilty. Very often they do not feel much of a connection to the church ministry and are frustrated but they don't know why. Often they get bored. They are just as guilty as they sit idly in the pews. They often like it that way. Life in the U.S.A. is quite pleasant. They are often encouraged by a good sermon, or by reading God's Word, but often do not find ways of sharing their thoughts with others. If they have struggles they are disconnected. If they have encouragements they are silenced by formality. God's way, is highly relational small groups on a grand scale like the first church at Jerusalem which had many small home based groups as part of a large city wide church.

If a city church has large group celebration gatherings, it can be very encouraging and can have evangelistic outreach effects as people notice the unity in the church. The small group should be just a node in a larger interconnected network of whole church. This also provides a broader exposure to gifted teachers rather than hiding a particularly gifted teacher in just one isolated sub-city assembly. Modern house churches are not a fully realized picture of God's way. The proper picture of the church is the excitement of the early Jerusalem church. Even when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD the church was still 100% one city wide church. They did not need a building. They were starting to learn that they were the building (the spiritual temple) (John 4).


CHURCH MEMBERSHIP
The original secular Greek ekklesia had members who could make binding decisions. Today, we have many members who are not allowed to be members in the church. These members and these principles are not given any binding authority in the church because they are considered "outsiders." The problems are complicated. Sometimes believers have a conscience issue with the "oaths" made to 501(C)(3) organizations. Some believe that joining one group within a city wide church would be sectarian (Acts, 1 Cor 1, 3, 12). There are problems because Christians leaders are not following the plain teaching of scripture. When Christians meet to pray, there should be concern for disconnected Christians in town and the issues dividing Christians and the difficult doctrinal differences. If an assembly is making a decision and there is a 50-50 standing on the issue, the worst thing to do is to vote. The issue needs much more prayer, mediation, and discussion around God's word. Christians today are so inclined to just vote, just like secular people solve issues, rather than the Biblical "arguing at great length" with John 17 in mind as the leaders did in the Jerusalem council issue (Acts 15).


MODERN CHURCH
We are modern Christians living in the last days. We like many things about our culture that are different from the early church days. We think women being silent is ridiculous (1 Cor, 1 Tim). We follow our culture instead of trusting God. We could just blame others for our church divisions, but you and I are the ones to blame. We don't need to continually blame each other, but we do need to discuss and clarify the issues. As we discover each other in "Christian Dialogue", and understand God's will, we should be quick to forgive each other and work together.

It would be rather easy to just blame some of these issues on our Christian leaders. But the biggest problem is with us ordinary pew sitting Christians. God's Word shows us truth if we will look for it. Our constant pursuit of earthly desires keeps us dull to God's Word. God wants us to be busy looking into his Word and learning dependence on him. When he is ready he will give us more than we can handle. Trying to solve these issues in our own strength will lead to frustration and failure.

Jesus modeled the Christian church community with a small group of men and women who were to become a pattern for ages to come.

We do injustice to the teaching of the New Testament when we put aside important practices of the church in favor of our modern ways. Meeting in homes, city-wide churches, interactive meetings, full meal Lord's Supper gatherings, following the Bible with the women silent verses... These are clear Biblical examples of early church traditions that we usually ignore.

When the apostles taught in public and from house to house, important patterns were being established.

When Paul worked night and day to provide for his necessities he was setting an important example.

When the apostles lived in believer's homes as they visited new cities and churches, they were setting an example.

When the Macedonians gave almost more than they could afford for the needy or when the widow put in the mite, they were examples for us.

How can we say that all these New Testament traditions are just cultural.

The scriptures say:
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions (paradosis - established practice) even as I have delivered them to you." (1 Cor 11:2 RSV)

We do not realize that as we distort Christianity in some of our teaching and practice, we not only hurt ourselves, but also do damage around the world. Unbelievers have a special ability to detect when we cannot get along. Our denominational disunity is very plain to them. We are dead sure we are right but we are dead wrong in our attitudes.

We are the Christians who have surpassed the Corinthians in our sin of division. We are all part of the same church yet we ignore each other in our towns. Our separate churches in each town is a grand testimony to our sin. And I am just as guilty of this sin as anyone.





RESEARCH
Frank Viola and Robert Banks - locality of the church

FOOTNOTES


1.  The "Church in Jerusalem":   
    Acts 8:1, Acts 11:22, Acts 18:22, Acts 15:4, Acts 15:22, Acts 15:33,
    Acts 11:30, Acts 21:18.

2.  For a while they met in homes and at the Temple. (Acts 5:42) 
    But the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.  
    And Jesus made it clear in John 4, that the Temple era 
    was passing, when he said, "believe me, a time is coming when you 
    will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem." 
    (John 4:21)

3.  No Man Left Behind - Morley, Delk, and Clemmer   
    Page 33.

4.  Baptist Bible College - Doctrinal Distinctives 
    http://www.gobbc.edu/about/our-institution/doctrinal-distinctives (broken link).
    

6.  Just because the 1 Corinthians 14:26 verse speaks of "revelation" and "tongues", 
    do not let that stop you from understanding the more relevant first half of the verse.
    The Holy Spirit may have changed things, with "tongues", and "revelations", but the
    church is still meant to be a church of Christians "encouraging one another."




This website is public domain.