The trans-congregational church
In a recent study concern community development in the New Testament, I came across an article called “The Trans-Congregational Church in the New Testament” by Jefrey Kloha (Concordia Journal 34 no 3, July 2008, 172-190).
In this article, Kloha suggests that the term “ekklesia” was used for local congregations that generally met in houses, and more generally for the church-at-large – the heavenly assembly – the “universal church” – the una sancta. But, Kloha says there is a third usage of the term “ekklesia” in the New Testament, which he calls “the trans-congregational church”. He says this “trans-congregational church” consisted of “several (or many) local congregations conceived of corporately”. (173)
Kloha suggests several examples of “the trans-congregational church” in the New Testament. For example, he says that the “church in Jerusalem” could not have met in one place – even the temple courts – so, they must have met in many locations. However, they were considered a single “church”. Also, Kloha says the singular use of “ekklesia” in Acts 9:31 indicates that the individual congregations of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria were considered one church. (Yes, he does discuss the plural variant in this passage, albeit briefly.)
Also, Kloha suggests that the trans-congregational church is demonstrated in the relationships between churches. For example, there is a close connection between the church of Jerusalem and the church of Antioch. Kloha recalls that Paul told the church in Collosae to read his letter to the Laodiceans, and vice versa, indicating a relational connection between the congregations – or multiple congregations – in each city. Paul recognizes the relationships between the various churches in Rome as well (Romans 16).
I think that Kloha has pointed out something that may be missing among the church today. The church has become so exclusive and independent that we often miss the fact that we are united with other brothers and sisters in Christ as well – not only with the ones that meet with us from day-to-day or week-to-week. Kloha offers this concern at the end of his article as well:
By ignoring the NT understanding of the trans-congregational nature of the church we have weakened the bonds of fellowship, mutual concern and support, and unity in doctrine and practice which should inform and indeed define our life together as church. By turning again to the New Testament we might sharpen our understanding of church and apply that understanding to our structure. (191)
I think Kloha has inadvertently (or perhaps intentionally) pointed to one of the problem – structure. Many churches have structured themselves in a way that precludes trans-congregational relationships.
In the life of our community, we have seen this in action. We often encourage our brothers and sisters to meet with other churches. In fact, our elders have met with other churches. Of course, we have to explain that we are not unhappy with our church, nor are we interested in “joining” their church. We simply want to build relationships with other brothers and sisters in Christ.
When we talk about the possibility of other “church members” or leadership meeting with us to further build relationships, this seems strange and odd to them – like they would be unfaithful to their church or their pastor.
Our view of church has become so exclusive and structured that we have a hard time recognizing our relationship to those in “other churches”. So, I agree with Kloha that we have (for the most part) lost this idea of “the trans-congregational church”.
What do you think? Is it important for believers to have “trans-congregational” relationships? Why or why not?
Minimalist Definition of the Church
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “Minimalist Definition of the Church“. Have you thought much about the essence of the church? What makes a group of people a church? This was the question that I was starting to think about with this post.
————————————————-
Minimalist Definition of the Church
As I have studied (and continue to study) ecclesiology (the study of the church), I’ve noticed that there are two ways to define the church. The first method of defining the church is one that I’ll call an “extensive” definition. This method develops a definition that describes what the church should be, how the church should act, and what differentiates one “church” from another “church”. Thus, in this type of definition, you will find items such as the proper understanding of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, various teachings concerning leadership within the church, and activities carried out by the church such as teaching and mission.
My primary concern with an “extensive” definition is that it goes beyond what a “definition” is. For example, let’s say that a definition of the church says something like this: The church is … operating through democratic process… Since “operating through democratic process” is part of the definition, then this definition suggests that any group that does not operate as a democracy is not a church. If, on the other hand, people agree that a church can operate as other than a democracy, the definition given does little to help us understand what actually defines a church.
As John Hammett suggests in Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, this type of definition blurs “health” with “essence”. A “healthy” church may operate in a certain way, but this does not help us determine the “essence” of the church. I am putting “health” and “essence” in quotations, because, as far as I can tell, very few have tried to define what falls into “health” and what falls into “essence”. But, this is exactly my desire. I want to know what defines the “essence” of the church, such that if the “essence” is present, then a church is present. If the “essence” is not present, then the church is not present. Anything beyond this does not belong to a definition of the church, although other criteria could be used to define a “healthy” church, with at least as many definitions of “healthy” as there are denominations, etc.
The other type of definition, and the one that I prefer, is often called a “minimalist” definition. A “minimalist” definition only includes those attributes that are necessary for the existence of the church. Several “minimalist” definitions have been suggested throughout history. Here are a few “minimalist” definitions that I have been able to find:
- The church is any group indwelled by the Spirit of God.
- The church is any group that has been changed by the gospel.
- The church is any group that rightly proclaims the gospel and rightly administers the sacraments.
- The church is any group that has been gathered by the Spirit in the name of Jesus.
I like some of these definitions, especially the ones that remove the existence of the church from the activities of men.
What are the dangers of using an “extensive” definition of the church? What are the advantages?
What are the dangers of using a “minimalist” definition of the church? What are the advantages?
What’s in a seminar name?
As I’ve mentioned previously, I’m taking part in a seminar called “Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology” (also see my post “A Relational Seminar” and the seminar flyer). But, why are we calling this seminar “Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology”? In this post, I’m going to take apart the name of the seminar, moving from the last word to the first word.
Ecclesiology
Ecclesiology is simply a technical term for the study of the church and things related to the church. When we talk about “ecclesiology”, we’re talking about how we think about the church. We’re not talking about a specific church or even specific practices or beliefs, per se. Although specifics will always come into any discussion about the church, we must begin by defining how we want to think about the church in the first place.
Also, when we talk about “ecclesiology”, we need to remember that we are talking about people – the people of God – Jesus’ followers – those indwelled by the Holy Spirit. While these people will organize, the organizations themselves are not the church. The church is the people.
Biblical
There are many ways to think about the church (“ecclesiology”). We can think about the church historically, traditionally, or culturally, for example. Our goal is to form our ecclesiology from Scripture (that is, a “biblical ecclesiology”). Thus, we want Scripture to help us form our thoughts and understandings of the church. This is very difficult, because when we think about “church”, automatically several categories, descriptions, concepts, and patterns come to mind. This is not bad – in fact, it is natural. However, we want to make sure that we allow Scripture to shape our understanding of the church, and not let our understanding of the church (or someone else’s understanding of the church) shape Scripture.
If we look at the overarching picture of the church in Scripture, we see that the church is primarily described and defined as a family. We are adopted by God and are thus his children. We are part of God’s household (family). We are brothers and sisters in Christ. These terms are more than images; they speak to our reality. The church in Scripture is a family.
Developing
It is not our goal to tell people how to “do church” or even how to “be church”. Why? Because the church is the people of God – the family of God. As the people change, the church will change. This change in people could occur as people move into and out of a region, or as people mature in Christ, or as people enter different stages of life, or as people are converted and become part of the church. Thus, while Scripture will help us think about church (that is, our “biblical ecclesiology”), applying many of the concepts will depend on the particular people involved at any one time.
Since the people change, our applications may change as well. However, we must make sure that our applications and practices do not negate who we are as God’s family. Instead, our applications and practices should reinforce who we are as God’s family.
So, there is a reason and meaning behind the seminar name “Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology”. It will be our goal to help one another think about the church in scriptural terms as God’s family. Once we begin to think about ourselves as family, then we can begin to ask questions about what we should do, how we should do them, why we should them, and who should do different things. All of these applications and practices should build on our understanding of ourselves as God’s family.
The Function of Congregations in the NT
I’ve enjoyed the parts of I. Howard Marshall’s New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004) that I’ve had the opportunity to read. Recently, I read his chapter called “The Theology of the Pauline Letters”. This section in particular caught my attention:
From these considerations we can understand the functions that Paul ascribes to the congregation.
First, if the congregation is the place of God’s presence, then God is active in it. Here Paul develops his idea of the spiritual gifts or charismata that are manifested in the congregation through the various activities of the Spirit in different individuals… The purpose of these activities is so that the members of the congregation may work for their common good and thus promote the edification of the church, that is, the maturing of its members in their faith, love and hope. The congregation thus becomes the kind of community that God wishes his people to be, characterized by having the same aims and mutual concern for one another, since they seek to please God and their brothers and sisters rather than selfishly pleasing themselves.
Second, as the place where God is present and active, the congregation acts as a witness to the world of the divine reality (cf. 1 Cor 14:22-25).
Third, the congregation is the place where prayer and praise are made to God. Although these activities are scarcely mentioned in Paul’s descriptions of congregational practices, nevertheless the calls to pray in his letters indicates that this was a significant aspect of the meeting…
Fourth, the congregational meeting was held in a domestic setting in which the sharing of a meal was natural. From 1 Corinthians we learn that the meal was intended to be stamped by the fact that at its heart was a sharing of bread and a cup that symbolized the dying of Christ for his people and his sacrificial inauguration of the new covenant… The sharing together symbolized the fact that all believers belong to the one body and thus was a means of expressing the unity of believers with one another, no matter what their racial and social backgrounds…
In this context it is unnecessary to go into details about the organization of the congregations. We have seen that for Paul the Spirit is active in the different ministries performed by the members and that in principle each and every believer can contribute in this way and indeed is under obligation to exercise the gifts and functions conferred by the Spirit. (456-457)
In this book – and this passage – Marshall’s purpose is to explain what he finds in Scripture. Thus, it is a descriptive task. He is describing the church as he finds it in Scripture, not as he finds it today, nor as he thinks is practical, nor as he believes it should look in today’s cultures.
If I look at Marshall’s four-fold descriptions of congregations in the New Testament, I see only one of those (#3 – prayer and praise) consistently practiced by churches today. The other 3 are primarily assigned to the religious professionals hired by churches and not considered to be the “obligation” of “each and every believer”.
Furthermore, while examining Paul’s descriptions, Marshall says that Paul finds it unnecessary to go into details about organization. Yet, it seems that today churches spend much of their time, energy, and resources on organization.
Regardless of what we think the church should look like today or how we think the church should act or function today, I think its clear from Marshall’s descriptions that we’ve strayed far from how the church looked and functioned in the New Testament. We all have to decide for ourselves if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
Promoting the Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology Seminar
Dave Black is promoting the Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology Seminar on his blog (see his post from Thursday, January 22 at 10:42 am). I wrote about this seminar several days ago in a post called “Upcoming Seminar: Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology“, and I’ve uploaded a flyer for the seminar here.
This is what he says about the seminar:
Here are 5 reasons to attend the Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology Conference on March 21 at Bethel Hill Baptist Church.
1) I will not be speaking.
2) No one will try to sell you a package or a system (or even a book!).
3) You will not be asked to jump on a bandwagon.
4) No one will say, “This is the way to do church.”
5) You will never be asked to copy the “success” of someone else.
If you’re a pastor thinking that this conference will give you the “solution” to your church troubles, you will be more miserable if you attend. One of the greatest fallacies of modern evangelicalism is the notion that we can copy someone else’s “success.” The sole purpose of this conference is to get on our knees and on our faces and ask the Holy Spirit to give us the right solutions to our needs.
One other thought. We have been told that Christianity is rocket science. We have been told that only specialists can understand it. We have been told that is it very complicated. It isn’t. It’s really very simple — so simple it will shock us. I believe that Alan has some important insights into all of this. But I can guarantee that there will be no hype, just a humble, soft-spoken man who will share from his experience how the Lord Jesus is building His church in Wake Forest, NC. And I am really looking forward to being challenged to get on my knees and on my face and ask the Lord Jesus how He wants to build His church in Bethel Hill, NC.
Wow… he has high expectations. But, in reality, I do also… and not because I’m speaking. I’ve found that when people start thinking about the church outside of the traditional, organizational, institutional, and hierachical formats, great things happen! I’m very excited to hear what other people say during this seminar.
The Interconnected Church
Almost two years ago, I wrote a post called “The Interconnected Church“. In that post, I compared the church as we see it in the New Testament to blogging communities. Instead of having isolated groups of people, we see much more interaction and interconnection. I still think this is a good analogy. What do you think?
—————————————————–
There is a list of blogs that I frequent on the right side of this web page (now on the left). If I go to most of those blogs, they will also include a list of blogs that the author visits regularly. If you navigate through those links, you will find other lists of blogs. And the cycle continues indefinitely… well, not indefinitely, but for many, many links.
There are a few people (a few more now) who frequent my blog. They interact with me through comments. I occasionally visit other blogs and interact with them through comments.
Could it be that this is a metaphor for the church in the New Testament?
Consider a believer in the New Testament. Let’s call him Joe. Joe knows several other believers. He interacts with them through normal relationships: family relationships, neighborhood relationships, work relationships, civic relationships, etc. Since these people are believers, they also gather regularly. Now, they may not all gather together at the same time. Perhaps some gather regularly at Joe’s house. Others gather regularly at Sally’s house. Joe occasionally meets with those at Sally’s house because he knows most of the people there. Also gathering at Sally’s house is the Smith family. They do not gather with the people at Joe’s house regularly, because the Smith family does not know them well. However, since they love Joe, and want to interact with him more, they will meet at his house on occasion. Meanwhile, once in a while, Joe will meet with another group with the Smith family. In this way, the interconnectivity is strengthened and grows.
In this scenario, there is interconnectivity among the church based on relationships. There is the church in Joe’s house, and the church in Sally’s house, and a few other churches; but they all recognize that they are the church in their city – because of the interconnectivity of relationships. They also recognize that they are somehow connected to groups outside their city, also through the interconnectivity of relationships.
If this is a valid view of the church in the New Testament, then could we be missing something today? Usually, when we talk about churches being connected to one another, we speak in terms of leadership networks, associations, etc. In other words, those in leadership from one church are connected to those in leadership from another church. This connection is not based on natural relationships, but on associations intentionally created to make connections. Meanwhile, many people in each church (specifically, those not in leadership) may find that they have very little connections with those outside their group, even with other churches with whom their leaders “associate”. Why? Because instead of being interconnected, the churches consider themselves mutually exclusive.
Are there any scriptural indications that an interconnected view of the church is valid, or that this view is not valid? What are some problems that might be caused by taking this view of the church?
Keep it Simple Stupid
Almost everyone has heard of the K.I.S.S. principle: “Keep it simple, stupid”. Of course, we only apply it to those things that appear to us to be more complicated than they should be.
But, have you thought about how the K.I.S.S. principle can be applied to theology? Think about it. For the most part, when it comes to God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church, etc. Scripture usually uses very simple analogies and examples. Sure, there are a few difficult and complex issues, but most of the “hard parts” deal with living out the simplicity, not with complex items.
For example, instead of defining God, Scripture simply speaks of him as creator, protector, provider, king, father, etc. And what about Jesus? He is savior, master, shepherd. The Holy Spirit is helper, teacher, guide. And the church? The church (a word which itself is a simple designator for an assembly of people) is family, followers, beloved, brothers and sisters.
But, instead of attempting the hard work of living according to this simple designators, we tend to analyze, classify, define, and make complex. Of course, if we spend all of our times making things complex, then we feel like we’re doing something important. If we right books and articles and even blog posts analyzing and classifying, then perhaps we don’t actually have to live it.
In fact, the earliest formulated creeds were quite simple: “I believe in God the father, the maker of heave and earth.” But, two thousand years later, we’re not satisfied with simple statements like this. We must define exactly what it means for God to be father and creator. And, if someone doesn’t agree with our analysis or definition – even if they agree with the simple statements of Scripture – then we label them as a heretic. (It’s a good thing we don’t burn or drown heretics today, or there would only be a few people still living.)
Think about the amazing complexities that Christians have attached to the simple concept of “salvation”. It is no longer enough to recognize that Jesus is savior – that he has rescued us from our own sinfulness and eternal punishment – now we have to agree on the hows, whys, whens, etc. If someone doesn’t agree with all of our complexities, then we question their salvation.
Why can we not “Keep it simple, stupid?” Perhaps, if we learned to keep it simple, we would learn just how difficult it is to live the new life of salvation. Of course, if we ever did this – if we ever actually tried to live the simple life – then we would have to learn to listen to the Spirit instead of relying on our own complex analyses and definitions.
Old Testament Structures and the Church
Last December, I wrote a post called “Old Testament Structures and the Church“. Many modern church practices are justified from Old Testament practices. Notice what I said: these practices are justified from the Old Testament. I do not think they originally arose from a study of the OT. Instead, I think they were brought into the church from the cultural context of the time, and then justified by the OT. But, is it valid to justify new covenant age practices from the old covenant era? I don’t think so.
———————————————-
Old Testament Structures and the Church
Often, when I’m talking to people about church structures and organizations, they usually point me to Old Testament structure to defend hierarchies, authorities, buildings, positions, etc. After a discussion with Lew from “The Pursuit” and his Question of the Week #17, I’ve been thinking about the trend of associating Old Testament priests, temples, tithes, etc. to New Testament practices.
The conversations tend to go something like this (in a condensed form, of course):
Person #1: “The pastor has authority over the local church.”
Me: “I can’t find anything in Scripture that gives the pastors authority over anyone.”
Person #1: “Well, you have to go back to the priest system of the Old Testament.”
Person #2: “You should give tithes to the local church.”
Me: “I can’t find any teaching in Scripture that tells us to give money to a local church.”
Person #2: “Well, you have to go back to the tithe system of the Old Testament.”
Person #3: “You need someone trained in music to lead your worship.”
Me: “I’m sorry but I don’t see that in Scripture. Nor do I see music called worship.”
Person #3: “Well, you have to go back to the Levites of the Old Testament.”
Person #4: “Why are you not saving money to build a church (meaning, ‘church building’).”
Me: “I don’t see a requirement for having a church building in the new testament.”
Person #4: “Well, you have to go back to the temple in the Old Testament.”
Here’s my concern: I don’t see the New Testament authors making these connections. Instead, I see the New Testament writers calling all believers “priests” (Rom 15:16; 1 Pet 2:5,9; Rev 1:6; Heb 10:19-22 – notice the resemblance to the sanctification of priests). But, pastors/elders/overseers are never specifically referred to as “priests”.
Once again, all believers are taught to share generously with those who are in need, with those who are travelling away from home in order to proclaim the gospel, and with those who teach and lead them well (Acts 2:45; 4:34-35; James 2:15-16; Gal 6:6; 1 Thess 5:12-13; 1 Tim 5:17; 3 John 3-6). But, I do not see the New Testament authors comparing this to the tithe of the Old Testament, nor requiring a tithe to be given to the “local church”.
Similarly, all believers are encouraged to exhort one another with songs, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; 1 Cor 14:26). However, I don’t see where training, practice, or even talent is a prerequisite for this singing (although, it does seem that being filled with the Spirit is a prerequisite). Also, I can’t find any connection between singing in the New Testament and the Levites of the Old Testament.
Finally, I also see that all followers of Jesus Christ are compared to the “temple” (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). But, as far as I can tell, “temple” is never associated with a designated meeting place for Christians.
So, where did this contemporary practices come from? When did we start going back to the Old Testament to find systems of organization and leadership and finances? When did the Book of Nehemiah start teaching how to have a successful church building campaign? The exact details of how and when and why these interpretations of the Old Testament filtered into the church continue to be debated among church historians today. I think they all started when the church ceased to be the people of God and started to become an institution. In order to justify the institution, the leaders had to go back to the Old Testament system – the very system that the author of Hebrews calls a “shadow” of the reality that we have in Jesus Christ.
Response to Frank Viola
On Monday, I posted a list of questions that I asked Frank Viola, along with his answers. Today, I want to respond to his answers (see my post “In Conversation with Frank Viola“).
First, I appreciate Frank’s detailed description about how he started writing about the church. Frank said that his investigation of things related to the church was triggered by his experience with a group of Christians that met in a home. This is extremely important, because some suggest that the idea of “organic church” is idealistic, that is, it doesn’t work in practice. Actually, the idea is very practical – and it does work – but, it doesn’t work in the same way that the traditional church structure works. I think this is why some people believe that an organic community of believers would never work. It does take a different way of thinking about church, leadership, service, teaching, relationship, and many other concepts.
My own investigation of things related to the church began in a different way, and we’ve only been experiencing organic community within the last few years. It is difficult to shift patterns of thought even within an organic group. Some have “left” our group because they perceive a lack of structure, or organization, or leadership, or vision, or whatever you want to call it. I’ve also heard from some of them that they are having a hard time developing real relationships in the traditional churches that they’ve started attending. Why? Like I’ve said before, traditional organizations and structures tend to hinder relationships.
This gets to the next point. I appreciate that Frank discussed the differences between “organic”, “house”, “missional”, “emerging” churches. Its good to think about the distinctions in those terms and to ensure that you’re using the terms correctly. I also appreciate this statement that Frank made: “Some house churches are organic, while others are not. And some organic churches use buildings.” (He made this statement in response to question #12, but it fits nicely here in this continuing conversation.) Like Frank has told me before, “organic” is not a matter of meeting location, but a matter of life within a group of believers.
I wish that Frank had responded a little more concerning the “difficulties” related to organic church life (that is, in question #3). While I believe that meeting without the structures and organizations found in the traditional, institutional church is scriptural, freeing, and beneficial, there are difficulties that accompany this type of organic community. As Frank said, “As I’ve said many times, organic church life is a wedding of glory and gore.” He suggested that churches can receive help from extra-local (apostolic?) workers. That is great when a worker is around, but what about in the every-day life of the community? What kinds of difficulties do those within organic communities face that those within institutional churches do not face? How should they deal with those difficulties?
I agree completely that the church is a family – a literal family. As Frank said, “That’s not ‘positional truth.’ It’s quite real.” There are huge implications for a community that sees itself as a literal family, and not as a figurative family. Of course, this is the type of relationship that the Spirit produces among believers. We can examine our relationships – are we living as family with one another – to recognize to what extent we are allowing the Spirit to move us and change us into a real family, or to what extent we are hindering the Spirit’s work among the community.
Finally, I want to respond to Frank’s discussion of the role of the “scholar” among the church. I agree. (Well, not with the part about them being tied up and their mouths wrapped in duct tape.) While Scripture helps us as believers, the life of the church does not come from Scripture or from history or from tradition. The life of the church comes from the shared, divine life that we have in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. When scholars only offer knowledge, then that knowledge is “dead knowledge”, as Frank calls it. Or, as Paul said, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” There is much, much, much more to the life of the church than information about the Bible or about the first century world. And, as Frank said, education is not synonymous with spiritual growth or maturity.
Scholars, in this case, are like all believers. We all have to learn how to live with one another, learning from one another, teaching one another, edifying one another, growing in maturity with one another. No one – neither pastors, nor scholars, not even Greek professors – can stand alone. We are interdependent – both dependent upon one another and dependent upon the Spirit of God. I think that a scholar can be very valuable to the life of the church. Of course, I also think that every believer can be (and should be!) very valuable to the life of the church.
Now, as for the negative critique: 1) Frank is completely wrong about ice cream. While Oreo cookie ice cream is good, it is not even close to Moose Tracks! 2) A soft drink should always be referred to as a “coke”, regardless of the flavor. 3) Since Auburn is not playing (well, since they didn’t actually play all year long), I don’t care who wins the BCS Bowl Game between Florida and Oklahoma. While these are important differences, I think I can forgive Frank and accept him as a brother in Christ.
Upcoming Interview with Frank Viola
A few months ago, I received a review copy of Frank Viola’s latest book Reimagining Church. I finally published my review of that book almost two weeks ago in a post called “Reimagining Church“.
While I was reading the book and working on the review, I talked with Frank a few times on Facebook. I was able to ask him a few questions about the book, and he explained some things that he said in more detail. He also told me about an upcoming book that should be very interesting.
In the course of those conversations, I asked Frank if I could interview him for my blog, and he agreed. So, I sent him some questions, which he answered and returned to me.
On Monday, I will post my “interview” of Frank Viola. I tried to ask questions that were slightly different than the ones he is normally asked. Some of the questions deal the nature of “organic church”, while others deal with practical issues surrounding church meetings. Finally, I ask a few questions that are unrelated to the topic of the church and his book so that we can get to know him better as a person and a brother in Christ.
I hope you enjoy our “conversation”. Either Wednesday or Thursday, I also plan to publish my responses to Frank’s answers. I hope this turns into a very encouraging and informative “dialog”.