After you read this, please tell us what you think. Just click on FEEDBACK.
The following is a discussion between Robert Banks and myself concerning the question of "the local ground" of the New Testament church. (Robert is a New Testament scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary.) Near the end of our exchange, Robert suggested that I make the substance of our talk available to a wider audience. Accordingly, we trust that those who read this discussion may find it profitable.
Frank A. Viola
July 30, 1996
Date: 06/25/96 From: (Frank Viola) To: (Rob Banks) Dear Robert: I am curious to know what your thoughts are regarding Watchman Nee's teaching concerning the local ground of the church, i.e. "one locality, one church." Thanks. -Frank
Date: 96-06-26 00:20:18 EDT From: (Rob Banks) To: (Frank Viola) Dear Frank, This brief response will not do justice to the issue, but perhaps it will give you a sense of my own thinking about there being only one local church in a city. Let me say up-front that I believe Christians in one place should seek opportunity to mix with one another, meet in a larger group or groups where possible for fellowship with God and one another, and collaborate in ministry. I take that for granted, and in any city in which I have lived have worked hard to network with a wide range of Christians and work in conjunction with them. The strength in Watchman Nee's view is that there are some places in scripture where the word church is used in the singular in connection with a city. Since 'ekklesia' meant assembly, it means that all the Christians in that city met together. In Corinth and elsewhere they also met as home churches, but then came together in Gaius' house as the 'whole church'. Its weakness is that this does not appear to have taken place everywhere. For example, Paul never talks about the 'church' in Rome, only the saints. The reason for that presumably is that Rome was too large a city for all the Christians to meet together in one location. A century later, Justin Martyr mentions that this was the case in his time. This problem is reduplicated in a place like Sydney from where I came originally. How do Christians in a city of over 4,000,000 people meet together in one place? The problem is exacerbated in LA. Even if you break the latter down into its 26 component cities, with 17,000,000 in the greater LA basin the logistics are still horrendous. Those who hold Watchman Nee's view don't translate the word 'ekklesia' by gathering, but that is what the Greek word meant at the time, that's primarily how Paul uses it, and NT scholars across the denominational board now generally agree this is the case. So where do we go from there? Is this any help? Rob
Date: 06/27/96 From: (Frank Viola) To: (Rob Banks) Dear brother Rob, I want to thank you for answering my questions. You are the first person I've met that has been willing to work through this issue with me. I've found most to ignore it feeling it too technical; others have given it careless approval. Still others have taken Nee's teaching and misapplied it by militantly campaigning to put the various denominations back together through a federation of sorts. Accordingly, I appreciate your dialogue and challenging comments. At the outset, I do have a response to your comments, but covet your feedback. Hence, if what I say is out of harmony with modern Biblical scholarship or the Biblical text itself, please state so. This will be tremendously appreciated. I've come to agree with Nee's _general_ understanding, but desire to be corrected if I am mistaken. >The strength in Watchman Nee's view is that there are some places in >scripture where the word church is used in the singular in connection >with a city. It seems to me that this usage is quite consistent: THE CHURCH OF (THE CITY) The church of Antioch (of Syria) Acts 11:25-26 The church of Caesarea Acts 18:22 The church of Cenchrea Rom. 16:1 The church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1:2 The church of Ephesus Rev. 2:1 The church of Jerusalem Acts 8:1 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 Thessalonica 1 Thes. 1:1 The church of Thyatira Rev. 2:18 THE CHURCHES OF (THE REGION) The churches of Asia 1 Cor. 16:19 The churches of Cilicia Acts 15:41 The churches of the Gentiles Rom. 16:4 The churches of Galatia 1 Cor. 14:33 The churches of Galilee Acts 9:31 The churches of Judea Gal. 1:22 The churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. 8:1 The churches of Samaria Acts 9:31 The churches of Syria Acts 15:41 >Its weakness is that this does not appear to have taken place >everywhere. For example, Paul never talks about the 'church' in Rome, >only the saints. The reason for that presumably is that Rome was too >large a city for all the Christians to meet together in one location. >A century later, Justin Martyr mentions that this was the case in his >time. Do you recall what Justin said and in what work this is found? >This problem is reduplicated in a place like Sydney from where I came >originally. How do Christians in a city of over 4,000,000 people meet >together in one place? The problem is exacerbated in LA. Even if you >break the latter down into its 26 component cities, with 17,000,000 in >the greater LA basin the logistics are still horrendous. >Those who hold Watchman Nee's view don't translate the word 'ekklesia' >by gathering, but that is what the Greek word meant at the time, >that's primarily how Paul uses it, and NT scholars across the >denominational board now generally agree this is the case. How do you understand this in relation to the _church_ of Jerusalem, which seemingly included thousands of believers? >So where do we go from there? Is this any help? Your observations are valid. Albeit, what they suggest to me is not that the principle of _one church, one locality_ is invalid. Rather, it suggests that _the definition_ of a locality is not to be made technical or turned into a legal method of sorts. On the one hand, I think that if we disregard the Biblical example that the boundary of the local church is the locality, we invite division into the church. What basis, for example, would prevent house churches from separating over doctrinal differences, worship style, and ministry emphasis? I know of several house churches who presently meet in the same community, but see themselves as independent of one another for they don't see eye to eye on doctrine and emphasis. While they do "hold hands over the fence", they are really divided in my opinion. If, then, we understand that because we live close together, we must meet together (or are part of the same local church), then it preserves the unity of the Body and forces us to work out our differences. On the other hand, if we become too technical with the definition of locality, we will become unduly legalistic, or idealistic, or even unrealistic (as you've pointed out). It is my observation that Nee, along with his co-worker Stephen Kaung, did not make locality a legalistic doctrine (regrettably, Witness Lee did). Instead, Nee stressed the _principle_ of locality. That is, the local church includes all of the believers in Christ living in a specific locality. Consequently, the only Scriptural grounds we have for not gathering together as a church is that we are just too far apart to meet together. To me, this understanding preserves the practical expression of the oneness of the Body as well as does justice to the many references that link the church (singular) with a given city and the churches (plural) with the region or province. I believe that if all of the house churches today would see this principle, then those that meet within a few blocks of one another would not regard themselves to be "separate" churches. Instead, they would gather together as one church if they were small enough, despite their differences of worship-style, doctrinal emphasis, etc. Or, they would see themselves as part of the same church and would recognize that their leadership was one. Is this not what we have before us in the book of Acts with respect to the church at Jerusalem? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that there were literally thousands of believers who made up the church of Jerusalem. It seems reasonable to assume that they met in separate homes (Acts 2:46). Yet, they recognized themselves to be one church -- the church at Jerusalem. Hence, they took the same name (Acts 11:22), shared the same leadership (Acts 16:4), and occasionally met as a whole when necessary (Acts 15:30). Ought this not be the pattern for us today? Is not the Lord recovering the proper _basis_ of the local church with respect to the testimony of its oneness as well as the _simplicity and mutuality_ of its meetings? Again, I may be wrong, so please correct me. Getting back to Nee's notion of locality, Nee defines scriptural cities as "places of convenient size for people to live together in a certain measure of safety and sociability." his is quite loose. He goes on to contextualize the notion of "city" by saying: "Questions will naturally arise concerning large cities such as London. Do they reckon one "unity-locality" or more than one? London is clearly not a "city" in the scriptural sense of the term, and it cannot be regarded as a unit. Even people living in London talk about going "into the city" or "into town," which reveals the fact that London and the city are not synonymous. The political and postal authorities, as well as the man on the street, regard London as more than one unit. They divide it respectively into boroughs and postal districts. What they regard as an administrative unit, we may well regard as a church unit. As to country places which would not technically be termed "cities", they may also be regarded as "unit-localities." It is said of our Lord, when on earth, that He went into the "cities and villages" (Luke 13:22), from which we see that country-places, as well as towns, are considered to be separate units" (_Rethinking the Work_, pg. 90,91).
I would agree with Nee here. In my view, then, large cities like New York and Atlanta would not correspond to local-units in the Biblical sense. But the smaller "communities" within each city would. Therefore, while I, with you, stress the importance of the house as the Biblical setting for close-knit relationships, intimate fellowship, and a functioning priesthood, I am afraid that if we make the house the unit of the local church rather than the locality, we will inadvertently be breaking the unity of the Body of Christ.
It is my understanding that the church of Corinth met in the house of Gaius when it was small (and young). However, when it grew larger, I imagine that they followed the Jerusalem model (unless of course they divided into sects). I understand the same to be true with the churches that met in the homes of Nymphas, Priscilla and Aquila, and Philemon (that is, they included all of the believers in the locality at the time, which represented small numbers due to their relative youth). If you have knowledge to the contrary, please provide it. I look forward to your response. Thank you again.
Yours in His grace,
-Frank
Date: 96-06-29 20:57:28 EDT
From: (Rob
Banks)
To: (Frank Viola)
Frank,
I don't think our views are that much apart. I'm grateful for the clarification of Watchman Nee's position. I hadn't seen his redefining city as locality. That makes quite a difference. By the way, his book 'The Normal Christian Church Life' was one of the key influences upon my first thinking about the church. In addition let me say:
1. Like you, I believe that the basic unit is not the individual house church but the cluster of house churches - what Paul in one place calls 'the whole church' - in a particular locality. That is the way the independent house churches we belonged to in Canberra operated, and we are seeking to do the same here. They met together regularly, though not weekly, and they had a common pastoral meeting. Twice a year we also came together with people belonging to house churches in denominational congregations, or with clusters of house churches in another part of the city or in the rural community around it.
2. I am still puzzled by the fact that, though generally in the NT church in the singular refers to a city and in the plural to a region, in some cases there is only a reference to the 'saints' etc. in a city, e.g. Romans [Rom 1:7] and, if written to Rome [Heb 1:1] Colossae [Col 1:1] Philippi [Phil 1:1] and, by Paul at least, Ephesus [Eph 1:1] and, though I would not make too much of this, in other cases church in the plural is not used of the Christians in a region, e.g. Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia Bithynia [1 Pet 1:1]. It is just possible that these other usages are simply alternative descriptions, but at least this should make us a little wary of being too cut and dried on our usage or the implications we draw from it.
3. The question of locality over city is complicated by the reference to the church in Jerusalem. In the first century this was a large city with, if I recall correctly, between half and one million inhabitants, and many sub-districts. However, we do know how the believers all managed to gather regularly - at least serially - because they met in the [spacious forecourts of the] temple on a regular basis (Acts 2:46). This would appear to make Jerusalem a special case, for there was nowhere comparable in other cities. There were temples, to be sure, but only pagan ones, so the Christians could not meet there, and the local arena would have been too large and probably dangerous. Unapproved meetings over a certain size were politically suspect: the Roman emperors and local magistrates were very jumpy about that sort of thing (cf. even the secular gathering in Acts 19:39-40)!
4. The references to the church in a particular place included all the Christians. So, with respect to present-day practice, we are not just talking about the house churches in a particular locality having regular fellowship but all the believers. Given the size and diversity of the Christian population in many localities this presents quite a challenge. It's not insuperable: all the Christians in Canberra were invited once a year to an Australia Day (compare your Independence Day) public worship in the main park in the city. (In fact, at those kinds of events we always had the highest participation rate of any group, thus demonstrating how unsectarian we were.) But how would this work out more regularly?
5. The issue of locality is complicated further by the coming of the automobile, Previously it was defined by its being an administrative unit within which people could associate easily because they were in reasonable walking distance of one another. The coming of the car has stretched locality to include where you can drive to within a reasonable time, and so families, friends, colleagues and fellow believers can and do get together outside the conventional physical boundaries. This is what sociologists call "the new neighborhood". We have kept coming up against this in our home churching: no matter how much we tried to keep house churches local, people from elsewhere in the city were brought by, or wanted to join with members they had links with, in that group and it was difficult to insist they should meet with others with whom they had no relationship in their own neighborhood, at least initially and especially if they were seekers.
Well, I don't know where all this leaves the issue, but these are some of the thoughts that run around my head as I seek to understand the nature of the church in the context of both the biblical witness and modern life. Let me know if you have any further light?
Rob
Date: 07/01/96
From: (Frank
Viola)
To: (Rob Banks)
Robert,
My fear is that if one takes the "house" to be the basic unit of the church, it will break the unity of the Body of Christ. Let me give you a simple example. Suppose that Bill, who is a part of the cluster of house churches that you spoke of, differs with the rest of the brethren on a given matter. He then "neglects to hear the church" (Mt. 18:17) and starts a "church in his house" just down the block from the house-church that he had formerly met with. Some others follow him. They do not join themselves with the "cluster" that they were formerly identified with but see themselves as a separate church.
To my mind, Bill's "house" church has become a shelter for divisiveness (it is based upon the same principle as denominationalism in my mind). Hence, when one takes the "house" as the basic unit, rather than the locality, each house is viewed as independent from the other Christians in the locality. As a result, these kinds of "houses-churches" become disguised sects. Would you not agree?
Now, this leads me to several significant questions that relate to your definition of ekklesia, i.e., a gathering:
1) In the above scenario, Bill is "gathering" with other believers in his home. Consequently, could they rightfully be called a church? People gather in "sects" all the time. Yet, are not sects and churches mutually exclusive in God's thought? If so, then does not the ekklesia bring with it some additional element above and beyond a mere gathering.... does it not also include the _basis_ of the meeting (a la Nee's term _ground_) as well? I'm sure you've thought this through and would like to understand your view on it.
2) In this connection, I'm wondering if the use of the term "house- church" is really in harmony with the Biblical notion of the church. I realize that the church is connected with someone's house 4x in the N.T. But, is there any strong reason for us to reject the notion that when the N.T. speaks of the church in so and so's house, it refers to the church in the locality at the present time (like that of Gaius and Corinth)?
For instance, is there anything that would discount the idea that: the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla was the church in Rome (Rom. 16:3-5)? the church of Ephesus was the church in their house when they had lived in that locality (1 Cor. 16:19)? the church in the house of Nymphas was the church in Laodicea? the church in the house of Philemon was the church of Colosse? Along this line, could not Paul's greeting to the various folks in Romans 16 simply be an example of giving individual attention to specific brethren in the church that met in the home of Aquila and Priscilla, i.e., the church of Rome?
I think the fact that he greets Aquila and Priscilla individually as well as the church in their house, of which they are a part, suggests that perhaps Paul could greet the church as a whole as well as individuals within the church, no? At present, I'm _inclined_ to believe this for it meshes nicely with the consistent use of the ekklesia with the locality. I also think it can be argued from the context. However, I am open for correction here.
3) In your thinking, the church of Jerusalem is only the church of Jerusalem when all the believers in Jerusalem gather into one place, correct? Would you then disagree with the view that holds that in God's eyes, the believers living in the locality of Jerusalem belong to the same church even at times when they are not meeting together? Along this line, if ekklesia always refers to a present gathering, how do you understand 1 Corinthians 14:23, which says, ... "if the whole church come together in one place." Does not the language necessitate that there exists a vessel called _the church of Corinth_ even before it comes together?
>That is the way the independent house churches we belonged to in Canberra operated, and we are seeking to do the same here. They met together regularly, though not weekly, and they had a common pastoral meeting. Twice a year we also came together with people belonging to house churches in denominational congregations, or with clusters of house churches in another part of the city or in the rural community around it. <
I think this is in harmony with N.T. practice as long as these "cluster groups" realize that they are one in life with all the other believers in the community. Would you not agree? Hence, if a brother in Christ from the Baptist church down the street and one from the Pentecostal church around the corner wanted to join the cluster, they would be whole-heartedly received, no?
>2. I am still puzzled by the fact that, though generally in the NT church in the singular refers to a city and in the plural to a region, in some cases there is only a reference to the 'saints' etc. in a city, e.g. Romans [Rom 1:7] and, if written to Rome [Heb 1:1] Colossae [Col 1:1] Philippi [Phil 1:1] and, by Paul at least, Ephesus [Eph 1:1] and, though I would not make too much of this, in other cases church in the plural is not used of the Christians in a region, e.g. It is just possible that these other usages are simply alternative descriptions, but at least this should make us a little wary of being too cut and dried on our usage or the implications we draw from it. <
I see your point. I don't have much of a problem with understanding that this is simply an alternative rendering, however. Simply because in the case of Ephesus, for instance, we know that John and Luke recognized that there was only one church in this city (Acts 20:17, Rev. 2). It can be inferred that Paul also recognized one church in Ephesus as well (Acts 20:28 - "church" is used in the singular). On the other hand, to go along with your observation, there is one reference that seems to truly contract the "one church, one locality" idea.
Some manuscripts use the singular form for "church" in Acts 9:31. I have gone with Nee on this one and opted for the plural, for it seems to mesh with the consistent usage of the word in the context of the entire Scripture. Albeit, since I am not a Greek scholar, I would be interested in hearing your opinion on the weight of manuscript authority as well other considerations, i.e. context, etc.
>3. The question of locality over city is complicated by the reference to the church in Jerusalem. In the first century this was a large city with, if I recall correctly, between half and one million inhabitants, and many sub-districts. However, we do know how the believers all managed to gather regularly - at least serially - because they met in the [spacious forecourts of the] temple on a regular basis (Acts 2:46). <
How many folks would this hold -- seeing that there were probably well over 8,000 believers in Jerusalem. Do you see this as the place where the believers met for their council in Acts 15?
>This would appear to make Jerusalem a special case, for there was nowhere comparable in other cities. There were temples, to be sure, but only pagan ones, so the Christians could not meet there, and the local arena would have been too large and probably dangerous. <
If Jerusalem was a special case, then wouldn't it stand to reason that somewhere in the N.T. we would read about the churches (plural) in a given locality? Could it be that these other fellowships did find a common meeting place despite the dangers of persecution, or do you think they all were small enough to meet in a single home (the Christians in Jerusalem being uncommonly large)?
>4. The references to the church in a particular place included all the Christians. So, with respect to present-day practice, we are not just talking about the house churches in a particular locality having regular fellowship but all the believers.<
Yes. This is true. Albeit, as you know, most Christians today are content to remain in their sects. Hence, it seems to me that if one day all believers living in each locality were to repent and leave their man-made divisions, then following a Jerusalem model at the community or city level (depending on the proximity) would be God's ideal. It would protect the unity of the Church and best express the oneness of the Body in a practical way.
Unbelievers would no longer say, "what kind of church do you belong to" for Christ would no longer be divided. All Christians would belong to the same church, practically, and as our Lord said, "the world would know that the Father has sent me" (Jn. 17). However, I have no such optimism regarding the state of the church. Instead, I go along with what both Nee and T. Austin-Sparks taught about the representative company. That is, while the outward state of the church is not in accordance with God's original thought, the Lord has raised up (and is raising up) a remnant of believers all throughout the world who are returning to the New Testament basis of the local assembly.
In my community, for instance, a small group of believers meet in a single home. We, however, do not see ourselves as being "the church" in the city. Instead, we gather around Christ and representatively include all of our brethren who live near us, even though they have refused to have fellowship with us and are content to remain in their denominations. While I do believe that the ekklesia is a literal assembly, I am also reminded of the fact that in God's thought, each local assembly is represented by a single lampstand (Rev. 1-3).
Hence, I think that when God looks at Brandon, for instance, He sees all the Christians in the community as being a part of this lampstand. Sadly, however, we have divided ourselves from one another. The practical implication of this is that we have our arms wide open to all the brethren in our community and seek fellowship with them. When we break bread, we remember that we are joined with all of our brethren in the community in spirit even though we are disjoined by the flesh. We meet this way, therefore, not only to recover the kind of meeting that is envisioned in the N.T., but also because we cannot join the man-made sects which we believe have divided the Body. My fear is that if we do not hold to the _principle_ of "one church, one locality" (not the letter of it), we will inadvertently open the door for further sectarianism in the Body.
Yet, if I realize that the only reason why I cannot meet with another brother is because he lives too far away from me, the unity of the Body will be preserved. Does that make any sense or am I off-base somewhere?
>5. The issue of locality is complicated further by the coming of the automobile, Previously it was defined by its being an administrative unit within which people could associate easily because they were in reasonable walking distance of one another. The coming of the car has stretched locality to include where you can drive to within a reasonable time, and so families, friends, colleagues and fellow believers can and do get together outside the conventional physical boundaries. This is what sociologists call "the new neighborhood". We have kept coming up against this in our home churching: no matter how much we tried to keep house churches local, people from elsewhere in the city were brought by, or wanted to join with members they had links with, in that group and it was difficult to insist they should meet with others with whom they had no relationship in their own neighborhood, at least initially and especially if they were seekers.<
Yes, I've had the same problem. We have a sister who lives in Lakeland (45 minutes away from us) who meets with us. I don't see a problem with it at this point, because at this time, there is no church that is meeting on non-sectarian ground in her community. However, when God does raise up such a church in her locale, we all agree that she should meet with them (her included). Yet, if and when this happens, and things get tough there, it will be much easier on her flesh to leave them and join us again. In my mind, this is the crucial test that determines whether or not we are willing to bear the cross to guard the unity of the Body (a la Eph. 4:1-4), or drift toward sectarian lines.
Despite my weakness in articulating these things clearly, I do feel there is something to grasp in this matter of locality. I do think that if we approach it practically rather than idealistically, we can get somewhere. It's kind of like the principle of consensus. We often hear people say, "it is impossible"... "what if this happens and what about that"... "it can't possibly work, too idealistic."
Yet, if these folks would just begin to practice it within their own context, they would see differently. In like manner, if we put aside the problem of defining a locality and the difficulty with large meetings and just hold to the principle where we are, surely we can see that the existence of 7 _independent_ and _unconnected_ "churches" standing within 1 mile from each other breaks Biblical principle, no? And while most of these "churches" will probably be unwilling to leave their sectarian ground, we can embrace them in our hearts every time we meet, fiercely refusing to divide from them and receiving all whom Christ has received. In any event, if I have said anything above that is in need of correction, please don't hold back... for I sincerely covet such.
In addition, I am extremely grateful to you for taking the time to dialogue with me about this. As you can see, this is something that is close to my heart. The Lord open my eyes if I am mistaken.
In closing, I have one question. You made mention Justin Martyr's quote about the city of Rome being too large for all the believers to meet together in one place. In the First Apology, 67, it appears that he says the opposite: "And 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...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..." The Anti-Nicene Fathers, T&T Clark/Eerdmans (Vol 1; pg. 186). Am I reading him wrong? Perhaps you can help.
Peace be with you,
-Frank
Date: 96-07-04 12:31:54 EDT
From: (Rob
Banks)
To: (Frank Viola)
G'day Frank,
Your example of how "Bill' could break up the unity of the body rightly underlines the need to make the cluster of home churches, not independent home church, the basic unit. In response to your questions:
1). Yes, being a group of God's people involves more than 'gathering'. My point was simply that the word ekklesia in the NT basically means 'gathering', 'meeting', 'assembly': the writers fill out the meaning of what kind of gathering in other ways - with metaphors, descriptions, instructions etc. We are the ones who have poured most of that into the word ekklesia itself. So long as we know we've done that, and are therefore using it in a more theologically loaded way than the biblical writers, I don't have too much of a problem. It's just that there are other ways of doing it than making the word 'church' do all the work.
Look at what Paul has to do in as simple a matter as addressing some of his letters (e.g. to the Thessalonians). He can't just send it to the ekklesia 'in Thessalonica' because there are other ekklesias in the city - religious as well as political; he can't even just say the ekklesia 'in God', as the Jews also had a gathering there; so he has to add 'and the Lord Jesus Christ'. That nails it down! The 'postman' would know which letter-box to put it in, so to speak. But I'm in complete agreement with your basic point - we have to specify the ground of the ekklesia, but biblically I think we can do it through other ways than using the word 'church' as a criterion, WE can do that if we wish, but now that Buddhists , Humanists and all sorts of other groups are employing the word to describe themselves (often in order to gain respectability or get tax breaks), we're getting back into a 1st century situation where the word was fairly common currency, and this may increase the need to find other ways of talking about these things.
2. In some cases the church in someone's home could be the church in the city, but to me it seems doubtful in others. For example, in Romans 16, it would be strange to understand verse 5 this way, that is, to greet the church in the house and then start all over again and start greeting people individually. Grammatically it is very awkward and not the way you would normally it. As well, various groups or networks of people are referred to following verse 5, and some have argued that these met in other homes for corporate worship. We can't be sure, but it is a possibility.
Certainly by the time you add up all the people Paul mentions - nearly thirty individuals plus several references to people's households or to the people with them or to the church they meet with, and this doesn't even begin to include children or visitors or those who just dropped in, this is a sizeable gathering. And presumably, since he had never visited the city, there would be more people he didn't know than those he did, so we're talking about a large gathering indeed. This begins to look too much for a single home: it would certainly be a big squeeze and restrict the amount of sharing of gifts, mutual care and accountability that seem part and parcel of church.
With regard to Colossians 4:15, the language would be even more awkward, for he would be asking the church he is addressing to greet itself, which it doesn't need to do since it would have already done it. Unless no one was talking to one another, but there is no hint of that! Most readers naturally, and I think rightly, take it to be a reference to a particular group. I wonder whether you're not trying to push the texts into a mold here that they won't easily fit.
3. No, I do think that the believers in a locality remain the church when they are not meeting, but that is because they still belong to the 'heavenly' church of all those gathered around Christ, not because the word has a wider meaning than gathering at the local level. Alongside the many references to earthly, time and space bound, physical gathering, I find many others to heavenly, non-time and space-bound, spiritual gathering. This is especially the case in Colossians (Col 1:8, 24) and has its basis is statements about our being risen with Christ and our life hidden with Christ in God (Col 3:1, 3).
It is also very clear in Ephesians where it is says that are already seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Eph 2:5-6) - this reminds me of Watchman Nee's profound little book 'Sit, Walk, Stand' - and comes to expression in a number of passages (Eph 1:22-23) and also underlies other statements (Eph 4:12). These passages are generally understood of the universal church, but surely they speak of the heavenly church in which we are all members. It is this heavenly church that is manifested in time and space in the variety of earthly churches in which we meet. So, the Christians in Jerusalem are still members of that 'heavenly Jerusalem' (Gal 4:25-27) - though not the only members of it - when they are mot physically meeting together. The same usage crops up outside Paul (cf. Heb 12:27). Does this make any sense.
As for the reference to 'the whole church' in 1 Cor 14:23, I understand that behind lies the fact that normally several home churches meet in different parts of the city - perhaps some in Chloe's house (1 Cor 1:11), some with Stephanus (1 Cor 16:19) etc.
On other points: Agreed, the believers belonging to a particular cluster of home churches should see themselves as one in life with other Christians in the community. In our case, there was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between these two. In a couple of cases we even had local pastors belonging to our groups. The reference in Acts 9:31 is most likely singular. Though the Western and Byzantine manuscripts have it in the singular, this is not as strong evidence as that provided in the bulk of manuscripts.
Also, the Western text does elsewhere occasionally have a reading that is harmonious with other readings, and that is precisely what is probably happening here, for ekklesia is generally used in the plural in such a context. So I'm afraid we just have to live with this 'inconsistency' - it's one of the rough edges one occasionally comes up with in the bible. But then life is full of rough edges, including the spiritual life, so perhaps there is a broader consistency here. My suspicion is that Luke is probably using the word here in a more generic sense, that is, wherever people met together in these three regions, it experienced peace. But I can't prove that.
The Temple was large and could accommodate thousands pf people at one time. But my guess is, as I hinted, that believers were not necessarily all there at exactly the same time, but came serially, overlapping with one another so that there was constantly a gathering of Christians, much as what happens in a Greek Orthodox service today. I had never thought of the council in Jerusalem taking place in the temple forecourts, more likely in the kind of place where the disciples gathered when the Holy Spirit came upon them. In general I think that the problem of size did not yet emerge for most of the references to the church are to its very early days.
(It's interesting to compare this with the early days of the Baptist movement in England, which also met in homes. It took a generation in most cases for these groups to have to think about getting a larger building, either because they grew only steadily not in a rush, or because they kept multiplying and finding other spaces in which to meet. Now and again they would get together as a larger group but could do that outside as well as inside, like many Christians in Mainland China today. Maybe just here and there early Christians did the same.)
I wish we knew more about all this and certainly don't claim to have all the answers. The only two things I would add to your reflections on the relationship between believers belonging to the church in the home and those in denominational churches are (1) for me the remnant is present in the latter as well. Not only because I know of churches in the home within some denominational churches, but of other believers in them who experience some of what that is about in a more limited or in other ways. And (2), for me there is still a problem in defining locality. What are its boundaries - my neighborhood, my ward, my suburb, my incorporated city, as far as my car takes me in an equivalent time to how much I'd normally walk? This is a lot more complex today.
But the basic point I still agree with - within a reasonable proximity (however that is defined) all the believers ought to recognize their oneness in Christ in some way from time to time. I don't think it is biblically required of us all to meet together every week, though it is required of me to meet every week with a group of those believers in a community were, to paraphrase Dumas, it is a case of "all for one and one for all", or as Trueblood called it, an "unlimited" rather than "limited' liability company of God's people where each is contributing with, concerned for, and accountable to the others.
I'd better stop. I agree with you about approaching the issue of locality practically. As with your example from consensus, hardly anyone believes it's possible till they seriously try it, and then they find it works, though perhaps in more complex or subtle ways at points than they had appreciated. I am also firmly committed to truth emerging out of the open sharing of convictions, and questions, that we have, just as we are doing. I am certainly learning from this exchange.
PS About Justin Martyr: I would read it differently. I don't think it's saying that all who lived in a city came together in one place, otherwise we would have to interpret the next phrase as everyone who lived in the country came together in one place. Given the size of the region where Justin lived, that would require quite some traveling. What we have here, I suggest, is another generic usage, ie, all believers, whether they live in cities or in rural areas, meet together in consort with other believers around the apostolic and prophetic scriptures. Certainly that's the way most people have understood the passage. But then I don't suppose Justin is that normative for us anyway.
Best wishes,
Rob
Date: 07/05/96
From: (Frank
Viola)
To: (Rob Banks)
Dear brother Robert,
Thank you for your comprehensive response. Very helpful and stimulating. I've numbered my questions to make it easier for you to respond.
1. How do we define what the N.T. envisions as a local expression of the Body of Christ? And what are the necessary elements, or _the ground_, that would distinguish "a church" from a sect or an organization that poses to be a Biblical church?
2. Nee explains the Col. 4 passage in a different way in his book FURTHER TALKS ON THE CHURCH LIFE. If you've never read it, I could send you a copy of the pertinent pages where he expounds his view on this point (as well as that of Romans 16). His explanation makes sense to me, but I'm not dogmatic about it for it can be read in alternative ways. I would like to hear your thoughts on it. Would you like me to send it?
3. I like your definition of the heavenly church. But I'm still having a hard time with the notion that holds that the church of a given locality is only the church when it meets together. For instance, you said: "I do think that the believers in a locality remain the church when they are not meeting, but that is because they still belong to the 'heavenly' church of all those gathered around Christ, not because the word has a wider meaning than gathering at the local level." If this is true, then it would follow that a person could not rightfully say "I belong to the church of Jerusalem" unless they were presently meeting with the believers in Jerusalem at the time they made the statement.
Thus on Sunday when this person was gathered with the other believers in the locality, they could say this. But on Monday evening, when they were home eating dinner with their family, they could not. Correct? Yet, when I read the text, it seems that the elders of the church of Jerusalem and the elders of the church of Ephesus are static. That is, they were elders of their localities even at times when they were not meeting with all of the believers in the locality. For instance, we see that they were called together as _the elders of the church_ without the church gathered (Acts. 20).
It seems to me, therefore, that their sphere of responsibility was in operation even at times when the church was not assembled. Hence, James could tell the believers to "call for the elders of the church" (assuming they were home sick). If this is the case, does it not suggest that church in the locality is still connected locally in God's eyes by virtue of the _common government_ in it, even at specific times when each member is not gathered together?
Further, doesn't this mesh with what Revelation points out, i.e., each church in the locality stands as a single lampstand in God's eyes which can be removed, even if, it seems, the church goes on meeting together? Not sure I'm being clear here, but I'm searching for clarity on the notion that a local church is only a church _when_ it is assembled. I wonder, then, that when God looks at my community, if He sees one lampstand with a common government, but He sees it as divided and broken. Or, does he see each church, denomination, and home fellowship as separate churches? Please correct me if I'm mistaken in any of this.
4. This brings me to another question about the functional sphere of the elders. Do you believe that elders only have functional authority within their own sphere (i.e., the church where they meet) or do you feel that an elder who lives and meets in Ephesus has equal authority in the church of Antioch if he were to visit them?
5. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your mind the believers that meet in Stephanus' house would be rightfully termed _the church_ that meets in Stephanus' house. And when they all come together in Gaius' house, they are the _the church_ at Corinth. If both are the church, doesn't that blur the notion that the house church is not the basic unit?
6. Could it also be that Luke still has _the church in Jerusalem_ in view, but is simply expressing the fact it had just been scattered in these different regions (see Acts 8:1)? For example, suppose that a great persecution hit _the cluster_ that you spoke of in Australia and consequently scattered the cluster into 3 different regions. Would it be uncommon, then, for me to say "and then _the cluster_ throughout [the 3 regions] enjoyed peace". Paraphrased it would be: "and then the cluster that had spread throughout these 3 regions enjoyed peace."
I realize that this somewhat takes away from the thought that _church_ always means a specific gathering, but do you think that it is possible that Luke is simply referring to what it was in retrospect and describing where it is in the present?
7. Do you think that the entire company of Christians in Jerusalem, literally _the whole church_, was present at the council or an overlapping of them as you suggest?
We agree about 'the remnant' concept. Some of God's choicest vessels have been in the denominations, serving as a light to them while in them. Notwithstanding, I can't help but see the limitations that the _system_ opposes upon that which reflects God's fullest thought for His church. I suspect you'ld agree.
I think we agree in that it is the spiritual _principle_ regarding the practical expression of the oneness of the church that God is seeking recover, not the mere _letter_ of it.
8. Do you believe that the _denominational system_ (and not necessarily the people within it) inherently divides the local church, even though the leadership may say "we are one with all the Christians in our community." Is this not merely holding hands over the fence?
Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying now.
9. Three technical questions:
a. Regarding the spelling, Is it _ecclesia_ or _ekklesia_?
b. given that ekklesia means assembly, does it also carry the idea of _called out ones_ in the New Testament? Please explain.
c. some have argued that ekklesia literally means a _civic_ assembly. I suppose such people are drawing from the classical Greek usage and carrying it over to the N.T. usage. Such individuals have argued that we shouldn't use the word church anymore, but instead, _citizen's judiciary_ or something like it. Where do you stand on this?
10. Finally, a more practical question. I have seen many house churches dissolve over time. In a workshop you and your wife gave back in 1986 (_starting the church from scratch_ at Gordon-Conwell Seminary), I remember you saying that given the right encouragement, a small group of believers can truly be built together and do some wonderful things for the kingdom. Can you share a little bit about what constitutes _right encouragement_? And do you still feel this way? Feel free to respond whenever you have the time :)
Peace be with you,
-Frank
Date: 96-07-13 13:21:45 EDT
From: (Rob
Banks)
To: (Frank Viola)
Dear Frank,
In answer to your questions:
1. Defining what the NT envisions as a local church could be answered at length or more briefly. Since there's already a substantive discussion under way on-line about this, let me give my shorthand response. A church would need to be built on a group of people who have accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ in a certain place, recognise that they depend on and must care for one another as an intentional family under God, and have the leading of the Spirit that that they are to be a church.
Discerning the latter would involve finding out what other believers were around in their locality already churching together, whether they were doing that in ways generally consonant with or obviously open to what we see in the NT, and working out with God's help whether to simply join them outright, commence a home church that would meet regularly with them as a larger group, or commence a church in the home that would gradually multiply and develop its own wider cluster. I know there's a lot more to be said than that, but you get the drift. How would I differentiate between such a body and a sect or organization?
A sect would not bother to find out about other believers, or not think there were any or, if they found any, would not associate with them. An organization posing as a church could be a para-church that doesn't understand the difference between the two, or a group of believers who believe that church is basically about having a gospel service every week with no opportunity for its members to edify one another.
2. I would be interested in seeing what Nee has to say about the reference to the churches in Colossians 4. I do not have his Further Talks on the Church Life, so if you could sens me a copy of the relevant pages I would appreciate it.
3. A person could say 'I belong to the church at Jerusalem' when they are not meeting with it, just as I can say I'm a member of a reading group or of a particular committee when they are not in session. Though the reading group or planning committee only operates as a unit when it meets, that doesn't mean that people who belong to it don't have on going responsibilities to it or even to one another in-between.
For example, reading or planning continues to go on outside the meeting by individual members, or sub-groups, or people call each other up on the phone, or have a cup of coffee together, or pray for one another etc. They remain united by their common involvement while they are apart. This is exactly the case with the example you give, of those who are elders, in a place like Ephesus for example. The work of eldering goes on outside the meeting, as a flow-on from the meeting, for the sake of those who are constituted a body of Christ's people by meeting, so that their future meeting will be more whole, mature and Christ-like etc. I think my point becomes clear if we simply substitute the word meeting or gathering everywhere the word church occurs in the NT.
All that you want to say about church I want to say too, it's just that as I see it the NT doesn't use the word church to say it, but other terms. I think the difference between us is only a semantic, not theological, one. In fact, I think it's OK to use the word church more broadly than I am suggesting so long as we understand what we are doing, that we are using it a little differently to the way it appears in the NT and that we don't draw any unbiblical implications from it. One helpful way this is often done is to use the language of the 'church gathered' and 'church scattered'. That's fair enough, I think.
The problem comes when a denomination - which confuses itself and everyone else by calling itself a church when it is in fact an association or network of churches - starts talking about, for example, 'the church's role in industry' or a local church starts talking about 'the church's role in local elections'. It's not the denomination or the congregation that has a role in such matters, but the individual members, or groups of them together who think alike, or groups made up of members of different churches in the locality or workplace concerned. Otherwise what we end up with is a confusion of categories.
All over the place there are christians either (i) not thinking they have a responsibility in the workplace or civic affairs because that is the job of the christians institutions they belong to - whether denominations or congregations or (ii) if they think they do have a responsibility, each denominational or congregational group seeks to fulfill it in their own separate way in competition with one another rather than looking for ways they might combine to do so across denominational or congregational lines. They could use the word church in relation to these workplace or civic concerns if it is the language of the heavenly not local church that they have in mind. For when I am working in my firm or engaged in civic activity in my city, even though I am not churching with my local group, I am still part of the heavenly church. That never stops meeting and since I am part of it I am always in that meeting, even as I go about my business or politics here on earth.
Outside of our church meetings, it's helpful for me to think about that heavenly church being my primary church connection, because then I'm forced to look beyond my responsibility to the fellow-members of my congregation who are in the proximity or share similar interests, for other believers with whom I might also talk, pray and strategize about such things. In other words, thinking this way overcomes the tendency to be sectarian on the one hand, or turn the church or denomination into an economic or political organization on the other. Well, I don't know how much sense this makes to you, but it certainly clarifies a whole lot of issues for me.
4. I've always thought that elders only have functional authority in their own sphere. They always seem attached to a locality. This does not seem to be the case with itinerant apostles, prophets, teachers, though even there, as in Romans 1:8-13, where an apostle comes to a field they haven't visited before, where the church already exists, it seems, following Paul's example here, that they should not waltz in assuming all kinds of authority but in a more modest and mutually affirming way.
5. The NT uses the word church both of the church in the home and the whole church. Except when a church is getting off the ground in a place and these two are one and the same - for until it multiplies the church in the home is the whole church in that place - I assume that every believer met regularly in a smaller and larger gathering of believers, the second made up of people from various 'home churches' in the locality. This is the way we have fellowshipped/worshipped for nearly thirty years now.
So, according to the NT, church is a two-dimensional or stereoscopic, affair. It's not enough for me to think that I need only meet with 'the church in the house' I belong to, nor is it enough for me to meet only with the larger group of believers. It's just like with the family, or like the way it used to be with families: I belong to s smaller, more nuclear, group, but I should also be gathering regularly with the extended family who live round about. In previous generations many extended families did this by gathering weekly for lunch on a Sunday.
6. Yes, it could be that Luke still has the church in Jerusalem in view and, if so, it would be a biblical example - the only biblical example - of the 'church gathered'/'church scattered' terminology. I don't think this would necessarily take us far away from the notion of church as gathering for, as you say, it's from the perspective of the up-to-now regularly gathering church of Jerusalem that Luke would be speaking, and perhaps too he harbored the hope that once the persecution was over things would return to normal and both smaller and larger gatherings of the church in Jerusalem would be able to continue.
7. My impression is that the council was a meeting of the apostles and elders (Acts 15:6), since they are the only ones mentioned at the beginning of the story. Then the whole church (Acts 15.22) came into it at a second stage, when the apostles and elders shared the findings of the council with believers as they gathered serially in the temple (or even, though I think this less likely, through the elders of the various homes in which they met. In consultation with the whole church, the best strategy for implementing the decision was worked out. It's a pity Luke is rather cryptic here.
8. I think wherever a denomination imposes a condition on christians meeting together that goes beyond the basic parameters of the gospel, it does inherently divide the body. So the moment a denomination - or single congregation for that matter - says 'you can't fully be one of us unless, say, you're a dispensationalist, someone who speaks in tongues, confirmed by a bishop, believes in government through a presbytery', or whatever, a false step has been taken. It's one thing for different churches to meet in different localities, for that is a matter of geography: it's another for different churches to meet because of secondary differences in belief or practice.
(Of course it's another matter if they don't believe in something really basic, like the existence of God, the sacrificial death of Christ, or the presence of the Holy Spirit). Naturally enough, I don't have a problem with different 'churches in the home' meeting in the one locality so long as they are linked to one another in a cluster so that they are also a whole church in that place.
9. On usage:
a. the Greek uses a 'k' in ekklesia, but in English we tend to use 'c'. So either is fine, and both are employed, the first more by biblical scholars, the second more by theologians and church workers.
b. while linguistically ekklesia has its roots in ek=out and kaleo=call, hence 'called-out' ones, the word had not had that sense for some in inter-testamentary or early christian times. There, as the Greek grammarians point out it means an assembly, and NT scholars now generally agree that this is the way the word is used in the NT as well. It's not difficult to see how this meaning developed from the earlier one, for a gathering is a group of people who have been called out from their normal activities to be together. In the NT period, the emphasis is upon the 'being together' rather than the 'calling from', which is why those who stress the latter as decisive for its meaning are off target.
c. ekklesia is used in writings contemporary with the NT of a whole range of assemblies, not just civic ones. The word has a very broad usage, and can be used of any group of people coming together intentionally for some purpose.
10. I don't know that I can say anything worthwhile in a short space about 'right encouragement' in relation to the long-term functioning of a house church. All I know is that where such groups are in relation to one another and seek each other's welfare in regular and practical ways - for example, through regular pastoral meetings and exercising hospitality to one another, and where a few people model and encourage this in various ways - just as Paul and his colleagues did, mainly through letters from a distance but on occasion through visits - house churches can last, grow, and multiply in ways that benefit their members, other believers in the city, and the wider community in which they live.
I think I am talking here about the kind of thing that happens in a healthy family, that is, helping to create a culture of affirmation and mutual concern within which all members can grow and give themselves to others. Well, more than enough said. Although what we have been discussing is not of interest to most, would it worth informing the moderators about our dialogue and, if you still have a copy of it all, offering it (slightly edited perhaps) to be in a file that people can download who are interested in this sort of thing? What do you think? And, if you're agreeable and have the materials, would you be willing to organize it?
Shalom,
Rob
Date: 07/13/96
From: (Frank
Viola)
To: (Rob Banks)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. A few comments and a couple brief questions follow:
I think our views are very close. Most of it is semantics. There may also be an _emphasis_ distinction as well. Your primary burden seems to lie on the importance of the corporate/spiritual dynamic that occurs in the small group setting, while my primary burden rests upon the importance of the proper basis of the church gathering, the holding to the oneness of the Body and the avoidance of sectarianism.
Yet, I think we both agree with and support both emphases.
I liked what you said about 'eldering.' It harmonizes with 2 Cor. 10 where Paul talks about being limited to one's own sphere or field.
When you have your cluster meetings (when the whole church gathers), is it essentially the same in nature as the regular house church meetings, or is it more formal? Is it, as it were, still an _open_ meeting or are there more restrictions placed upon who can speak as is done in the traditional churches that have cell groups?
It is rather amazing, however, that a group of 10,000 believers plus (assuming the whole church is literal) could come to a real consensus over such a hot topic. I imagine the brethren allowed themselves to be easily persuaded by the spiritual weight the apostles/elders had. Of course, we are not told _how_ it occured specifically nor how _long_ it took.
How do you view those churches that are non-denominational, seem to not reject any believer on the basis of secondary issues if they wish to join _them_, but they really aren't interested in having anything to do with the house churches near them?
Feel free to correspond at your convenience. You've been a real help and an encouragement! God willing, the Lord will bring our paths together to fellowship and wrestle over the things that concern His church face to face.
Yours in the costly but glorious quest,
Frank
Date: 96-07-19 09:36:10 EDT
From: (Rob
Banks)
To: (Frank Viola)
Dear Frank,
Received your post and the extract from Nee.
1. The interpretation Nee offers of Pauline references to the church in the home is original. I have not come across it anywhere else. I understand, and agree with what he is wanting to safeguard, ie maintaining the unity of the church in a locality. But there seems to me another way of doing consistent with the evidence.
If Paul sees the church in the home as a microcosm of the church in the locality - in the same way as the church in the locality is a microcosm of the heavenly church - the problem is overcome. That way it is not improper to have more than one unit in a city referred to as a church, for the church in someone's house is then simply a manifestation of the whole church in that place, not something in competition with it. (An analogy here would be the way Paul refers to the local church as the temple of the Holy Spirit and yet to individual Christians as temples of the Holy Spirit or, on the human level, of the way we refer to our wider or extended group of relatives as well as our own immediate spouse and children as a family). There are two reasons why I prefer this way of understanding the texts.
First, it fits better with the meaning of the word 'church' at that time. If it basically means 'gathering', there is no reason why it cannot be used of more than one entity in a given locality, provided the organic unity of these is affirmed, and given expression through their regular meetings as a larger group together. Paul does this by stressing that there is only one body of Christ, not several, in each place, and by endorsing or encouraging the coming together of the whole church in a particular city. Luke certainly feels free to call even a secular meeting 'church' in Acts 19, for the word is simply describing a group in action.
Second, it is a more natural reading of the texts. In Romans 16, for example, the most straightforward explanation of the greetings is that Paul is singling out people he knows from the wider group of saints whom he has addressed in Romans 1 because he has a special relationship with the couple who founded it and probably knows more of the people in their group than in others. That is the way any other commentator I have come across reads it, and also, in my experience, the way ordinary people coming fresh to text instinctively understand it.
Similarly in Colossians 4 Paul singles out a certain person and group in Laodicaea for special mention. We often do this kind of thing ourselves and in doing so are not dividing the person or group mentioned off from others but simply focusing more closely upon them within the wider group of people. In any case, the word 'and' in v.15 suggests something additional to the 'brothers in Laodicaea', not simply a repetition of the greeting.
(By the way, the form of the name Nympha indicates that this person is not a man, as Nee suggests, but a woman. Indeed it is interesting, isn't it, how central a role women played in these churches, as indicated by the references not only to Nympha here but to Priscilla and Aquila - with Priscilla named first - in Romans 16, to the same couple - this time with their names reversed - in 1 Corinthians 16, and to Philemon and Apphia in the letter to the former). So once again, I am wanting to affirm the unity of the church in a given place as you and Watchman Nee wish to do, but am led by the text to a different way of doing it.
2. You ask about the character of our combined meetings. Although, because of larger numbers, these cannot operate in exactly the same way as the smaller house church gatherings, in principle that still happens. This makes them quite different from the more traditional church meeting. For example, although every individual may not contribute publicly to what goes on each time we meet, it is certainly open for any person to do so. And, of course, as we share together the Lord's Supper - for us always in the context of a full meal - everyone, including the children, is engaging in christian fellowship with others, sharing what has been happening in their lives, taking an interest in other's concerns, needs and hopes, and generally encouraging and strengthening one another in the Lord.
What tends to happen in the time of singing, praying, learning etc, is either that several people from each group are actively involved, or each group as a whole takes responsibility for a particular part of the meeting so that everyone is involved corporately in what is taking place. These gatherings generally go on for several hours, for half-a-day, or for a whole evening, so there is plenty of opportunity for participation. Also, once there are more than 4 or 5 groups in a cluster we begin a second one, so that the numbers do not grow too large and everything becomes too formal or only a few can contribute.
3. I am far from dogmatic that the believers referred to in Acts 2 were not always together at the same time in the Temple each day. It just seems likely to me that this was the case. For example, Luke's reference to - and explanation for - Peter and John going up to the Temple one day at three o'clock sounds as if this was not always their normal practice. One could also surmise that the different responsibilities people had throughout the day would make it awkward for everyone to be always present at the same time. This would fit with the way services at the Temple were arranged, making it possible for people to go at different times, rather like services at a Cathedral today. But I would not want to insist on this: it's not something I would want to argue about.
4. I would view non-denominational churches that in principle are open to all believers but in fact do not look for ways of expressing this as still tending to be sectarian in practice. Surely we have to intentionally 'go out to' others, not just 'be open to' others. We'd be in agreement on this, I think.
Rob
Date: 07/23/96
From: (Frank Viola)
To:
(Rob Banks)
Sorry it has taken me awhile to respond; things have been insane around here lately.
I appreciate your reasoning here and what followed. I would agree with the provision that each "church" in the home _saw itself_ as connected to all the other believers in the locality _administratively_ and _functionally_ (not just _spiritually_, as is the case with the heavenly church) opposed to being an independent and autonomous unit functionally and governmentally.
It seems to me that administration is tied to the locality and not to the house nor the region. In addition, I believe that the churches in the homes must see themselves as one with all their brethren in the community despite the fact that many of them may have no interest in meeting with them.
For this reason, I think Nee is correct in stressing "the ground" of our meeting, i.e., that it be in accordance with the Biblical pattern of one church per locality. While I would not have a problem using "the church" to refer to the believers in a house in the sense in which you suggest (for it doesn't violate the principle of oneness and I do agree that it is a more natural way of reading some of those texts), I still wonder if using it this way doesn't give the _distinct impression_ that the church in the house is an independent unit. I also wonder if this is not the reason why the church in the house is only mentioned 4x opposed to the countless times it is tied to the locality (assuming that Nee's interpretation is in fact incomplete)?
In any event, I think we fundamentally agree about what constitutes a local church. What is more, would you not agree that when we discuss "the church in the house", we should make clear what we mean by that (when we are able) so that we don't give the wrong impression? I have met many people in "the house church movement", as it were, who paid no attention to geography. Their main reasons for leaving a church or joining another one was purely on the basis of their present needs, and the tendency to see each house church as an independent unit is quite common. Hence, my burden is for the preservation of the oneness of the Body as well as the recovery of the N.T. church model.
I also feel that the unity that many clergy are seeking to express today is an inadequate one that often turns into a situation where the _good_ becomes the enemy of the _best_. In my area, there are a number of "pastors" from different denominations who come to pray together. Sounds nice, but they do not welcome any non-clergy to their meetings, even though they may be shepherds in the Lord's eyes. And they sure aren't interested in seeing their churches as one church (and dropping the distinctive names) where they each have equal functional authority. In addition, outside of maybe doing a few mutual events together (among churches) on occasion, they are still locked into their denominations.
I've gotten a lot of heat for this, but I tend to believe that a group can be sectarian in spirit, and not sectarian in ground (a non-denominational house church for example) and sectarian in ground, yet not necessarily sectarian in spirit (most Episcopal churches for instance). It seems to me that denominations are build upon sectarian ground, even though the folks may be open to other brethren.
Best,
Frank
Date: 96-07-27 12:26:29 EDT
From: (Rob
Banks)
To: (Frank Viola)
Dear Frank,
Again, thanks for your response.
On the fewer references to house churches rather than churches in the locality, I think it is just a subset of the way Paul mostly refers to Christians as a group, e.g., the saints, and less often mentions individuals. That is, he knew some people well and others only generally: in a similar way he had a closer relationship with and often stayed over a period of time with some people who had churches in their homes (his co-workers Priscilla and Aquila) and therefore knew people in their group more than other house groups in the locality.
Rob