They just weren’t organized enough yet
Have you heard this before? The early Christians did not have buildings and hierarchical leadership and programs because they just weren’t organized enough yet. The suggestion is made that once the early Christians became more organized, they moved out of the infant church stage into a stage in which a more mature and right church existed.
Daniel J. Harrington makes a similar point in The Church According to the New Testament: What the Wisdom and Witness of Early Christianity Teach Us Today (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001). Harrington is a professor of New Testament at Westin Jesuit School of Theology.
While describing “how early Christians worshiped” (his chapter title), Harrington says:
Where did early Christians meet for worship? It seems to have been at the private homes of relatively well-to-do members. The earliest Christians did not have a system of animal or produce sacrifices, as so there was no need for a temple. Nor did they have the membership necessary for erecting separate buildings (“churches”). (49)
So, the reason that the earliest Christians did not erect buildings is that they did not have the membership (and the corresponding financial resource) to build a building.
However, according to Acts 2:41, about 3000 “members” were added to the church in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. (By the way, many people who say that large churches are okay point out that this was the first “mega-church”.) So, were 3000 (plus the original 120) too few members to afford to erect a building? Well, some of these were obviously pilgrims who may have returned to their homes. Perhaps after the festival and after everyone returned home there were far less than 3000 in Jerusalem (oops, but that hurts the argument for “mega-churches”).
Of course, in Acts 4:4, the number of believers had grown to 5000 – seemingly because of the power displayed by the apostles. But, there were apparently still too few “members” to erect a building. In fact, later, we find that some disciples are meeting together in “Mary’s house” for prayer (Acts 12:12).
So, how many “members” would be necessary to erect a special building? Perhaps the problem is not with the number of Christians. Perhaps those early Christians did not want or need a special building to meet in – regardless of the number of Christians in a city. Of course, that would be even harder for us to explain.
(By the way, I enjoy reading Catholic exegesis of the NT Scriptures concerning the church. Why? Because, for the most part, they tell it like it was. They use a simple hermeneutic to explain what Scripture says about the church. But, since most Catholics believe that their later traditions can add to the scriptural understanding of the church, there is no contradiction between the early church and the modern church. However, for modern Protestant exegetes – who believe that Scripture tells us what we need to know about everything, including the church – many have to jump through hoops to make the Scriptures align with modern practices.)
The Church Covenant
I wrote this blog post back in January 2007 (“The Church Covenant“). I realize that church covenants are often “hot button” issues. However, I’m concerned about the way that church covenants are often used today to separate the body of Christ into exclusive, isolated groups. In many churches, believers only consider themselves responsible for caring for those who are part of their “covenanted community”. Yet, in Scripture, being “covenanted” with another believer is never even mentioned. We are members of the same family and thus are responsible for one another. I hope you enjoy this article.
——————————————————————–
The Church Covenant
As a child of God, I am in covenant with God – the New Covenant. This is a covenant that he made with me, that he secures, and that he regulates. He sets the responsibilities and duties for this covenant. He also determines the blessings of this covenant. In ethical terms, this is a “political covenant” as opposed to a “social covenant”.
Our church (that is, the church that our family meets with regularly) also has a covenant. Each person who desires to “join” our church covenants with one another.
Now, church covenants can be a very good thing. Church covenants can remind us of the responsibilities and duties that we have toward one another: responsibilities and duties that are given to all believers by God. In fact, Scripture speaks frequently of these requirements. Most of them include the phrase “one another”: love one another, accept one another, forgive one another, encourage one another, admonish one another, etc.
However, church covenants can have a detrimental effect on believers. Many times church covenants are used to separate the church into exclusive groups.
For example, I was recently asked if I felt that I was responsible for meeting the needs of a believer who was not part of “our church”. (Note, this was not asked by someone who was a part of our church.) I answered, “If God reveals a need to me, and provides the means to meet that need, then I am responsible for meeting that need, whether or not that person is a member of our church.” The other person disagreed with me. Why? Because I was not “covenanted” with the other believer. According to this person, I was only responsible for those with whom I was “covenanted”.
Also, the idea of “covenant” is sometimes suggested as a limit to church discipline. A person is only responsible for “disciplining” a believer if he or she belongs to the same church, i.e. they are covenanted together.
In these two examples, the “church covenant” is used as a means of separating the church into mutually exclusive groups.
However, I cannot find an example in Scripture of one believer being “covenanted” with another believer. Every Christian is in covenant with God, and because of the New Covenant, we have responsibilities, some of which describe how we should relate to other believers. In Scripture, these responsibilities are not limited to certain believers. Yes, I understand that I cannot carry out these responsibilities toward people that I have never met. I am not arguing for that. Instead, I am arguing that we are responsible for how we relate to all believers that God brings across our path, not just those believers with whom we share membership.
I enjoy reading the church covenant with our church. It reminds me of the responsibilities that God has placed on me… but not just toward certain believers… toward all believers.
Pastors and Persecution
No, this post is not about persecuting pastors nor is it about pastors persecuting others. Instead, I am linking to two very good blog posts: one about pastors and one about persecution.
First, my friend Lew at “The Pursuit” in a post called “The List” lays out the “qualifications” for elders from 1 Timothy 3:2-7. If this truly is a list of “qualifications” then who qualifies? According to Lew, very few of the people from the Old or New Testaments “qualifies”. Everyone that I know would drop off the list from the first words: above reproach. Oh, sure, we can explain that one away, but then what good is it? Perhaps this is not a “qualification” list after all? (I’ve talked about this previously in a post called “Qualifications and examples“.)
Second, Lawrence from “Agonizingly Honest Christianity” asks some very good questions in his post called “Agonizing over church membership/fellowship“. You should read this post. He asks if we would be as picky who we would pray with if we were facing persecution and perhaps imminent execution. Would we care how they prayed, or what they emphasized about salvation, or their views on eschatology? Or, would we only care that the person was a brother or sister in Christ? Why is different when we’re not facing persecution? (HT: Lionel)
Local Church in Scripture…
What do you think of when you hear the phrase “local church”?
Do you think of a building on the corner with a steeple? Most believers will admit that this is not a church, but may be a building where a church meets. But, what about the people who meet there?
Is the local church a group of believers who meet regularly at a specific place and at a specific time? Does a regularly meeting define a “local church”? Again, most believers will accept that someone may be part of a “local church” even if that person cannot meet at each regularly scheduled meeting. So, what about membership?
Is the local church defined by a list of names on a membership role? Again, when push comes to shove, most believers agree that a membership list does not define a “local church”. There could be people on the list who are not believers, and perhaps there are people who are part of the local church whose names are not on the list.
So, what is the local church?
Let me ask a few questions about Scripture…
1) When did Paul “join” the church in Jerusalem, or Tarsus, or Antioch, or Corinth, or Ephesus? What about Barnabus, Luke, Timothy, Titus, etc? When did they “join” a particular “local church”? What about Priscilla and Aquila? When did this couple join the church in Corinth or Rome?
2) At what point were these individuals members of one local church or another? When did they consider themselves part of the church in Corinth, or Ephesus, or Thessalonica, or Rome? When did they not consider themselves part of those particular churches?
3) At what point did the particular local churches recognize these individuals as part of their church? When did they not recognize these people as part of their church?
4) Where does Scripture give us an example of a believer moving into an area and then being required to do something to “join” the church in that area? Where does Scripture give us an example of believers covenanting with one another in order to be a local church?
I am not suggesting that “joining” a local church is wrong or bad. It is not unscriptural to have your name on a membership list – it is ascriptural though – that is, not found in scripture. However, if we cannot find this commanded or even described in Scripture, should we make this a necessary step of recognizing someone as a part of the “local church”?
Autonomous individuals…
A few days ago, a good friend of mine acquired a book by Abraham J. Malherbe called Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977). The title of one chapter caught my attention: “House Churches and Their Problems”. This post and the next post will be based on some of the excepts from this chapter.
Malherbe begins by discussing some of the circumstances concerning the first century Roman civilization that contributed to the expansion of the church: road systems, hospitality, and household communities. In particular, he suggests that understanding households in early Christianity is important to understanding both how the gospel spread, and how the early Christians viewed themselves in relation to other Christians.
He begins by explaining that in the first century Roman world, the household included immediate family as well as slaves, freedmen, servants, laborers, and sometimes business associates and tenants. He explains how early Christians viewed themselves as a household:
Converts would join themselves to a household church during its earliest period of growth in a particular locality. The household character of a church would be retained as it became a community with a broader constituency than it originally had. The converts also had demands placed upon them, which heightened the exclusiveness of the group. When they spoke of “outsiders,” early Christians revealed their minority group mind-set. They believed that they had been called to a higher quality of life than could be expected of their society, and they took measures to safeguard it through their communities. The implications of the preaching that called the communities into existence had to be worked out by those communities, which were private, voluntary organizations. This means that early Christians did not see themselves as isolated individuals; and the nature of those communities becomes clearer to us when we see them as household communities. It is striking how often the New Testament deals with issues in relation to the Christian community. [69-70]
In this regard, it is “striking” how few instructions are given to individuals (you [singular], he, or she), and how many instructions are given to groups (we, you [plural], or they). Malherbe suggests that this is one indication that the early Christians saw themselves as part of a family – not simply as individuals – and that they related to one another as members of a household.
While many theologians prefer to study the church using the metaphors of people of God, body of Christ, and temple of the Holy Spirit, I believe that the family metaphor is much more prominent in Scripture. Malherbe’s connection of early Christian communities with the Greco-Roman household reinforces my view. These believers did not see themselves as individuals who all happened to experience the same thing (i.e. salvation). Instead, through God’s work, they recognized that their existence was now defined in a new way: they were brothers and sisters with God as their father. (Note: This family metaphor – if it is a metaphor – is also demonstrated in the language of adoption and in the various family ethical codes which Paul and Peter included in their letters, as well as the titles of “brother”, “sister”, and “children” found throughout Scripture.)
Perhaps we have lost some of the understanding of what it means to be a family because we define “family” in more narrow terms. In modern (western) society, the family is composed of parents and children. Occasionally, an extended family member is added to the nuclear family in a close relationship. However, for the most part, we do not consider other people as part of our family, even if these other people spend large amounts of time with us and even if these other people depend on us for their livelihood. Thus, there may be people who would be included in our family – household – in the first century, but today we exclude these people from our household.
Similarly, since we have narrowly defined family and household as those who are the closest related to us by birth and/or marriage, we miss the implications of other believers being our brothers and sisters, and view it as nothing more than a nice way of saying that we are acquainted with them. Instead, as members of the same household, with God as our father, we are to live with one another just as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves relied upon, cared for, trained, submitted to, and honored one another in the first century. Just as others could be accepted into the household in the first century without regard to a physical (blood) relationship, we are to accept others into our household of faith, offering them the same privileges, rights, and responsibilities as other family members.
Then, in this mutual relationship between brothers and sisters in mutual relation to the Father, the good of the individual and the desire of the individual and the hopes of the inidividual become intertwined with the benefit of the family. This is why Paul tells us to consider others as better than ourselves and to look out for the interest of others instead of our own interests – with Jesus Christ, our elder brother, as the supreme example of how to give up ourselves for the sake of others.
In God’s household, there is no place for the autonomous individual who seeks his own desires and wants his own way without regard for the desires and needs of the family – unless, of course, he is a new member of the family. In that case, the autonomous individual needs more mature brothers and sisters to help him mature as well.
Members of Christ’s body…
“The Body of Christ” is one of the metaphors that Paul uses for the church. Believers are called “members” of Christ’s body. This “member” language is often stretched to include the modern concept of “membership” in a church organization. What does Scripture actually say about believers being “members” of Christ’s body? Let’s start by examining the Scripture passages themselves:
For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. (Romans 12:4-5 ESV)
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free- and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (1 Corinthians 12:12-27 ESV)
Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. (Ephesians 4:25 ESV)
For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. (Ephesians 5:29-30 ESV)
Notice that the word “member” (gk. “μέλος” – “melos“) is also used to indicates parts of a person’s physical body. However, the passages listed above seem to be the only use of “member” to represent a believer’s association with the body of Christ.
What are some things that we can learn about the church from the metaphor of being “members of the body of Christ”?
- We become members of the body through an act of God not because of something that we do or something that we choose.
- We do not choose to be members of the body nor do we choose those with whom we are members.
- We do not choose how we function in the body nor can we tell others how to function in the body.
- We cannot be members of Christ without being members of one another.
- Every member of the body is important; every member of the body is significant; every member of the body is necessary.
- Being a member of the body of Christ has nothing to do with joining a church organization or having “membership” in a church organization.
Can we live as members of Christ’s body and members of one another? We cannot live in this manner if we continually separate ourselves from other members. We cannot live in this manner if we feel that we decide who are members of Christ’s body with us.
What does a non-bishop oversee?
A few weeks ago, I posted a blog called “What does a bishop oversee?” In this post, I suggested that the επίσκοπος (episkopos) / επισκοπÎω (episkopeo) word group, when used in Scripture for Christian leaders, should be translated “looking after people” or “being concerned about people” as opposed to “overseeing an organization”. I followed this blog with an example (a negative example, from my point of view) in a post called “The Church or the Organization?” I was surprised at the response to this blog post (three times the page views and comments of the next most viewed/commented post). I did not originally intend to discuss the church / organization dichotomy. Instead, I was heading in another direction, which began in a post called “Leadership, Obedience, and Authority…” I will continue in the original direction in this post, which is looking at Christian leaders and their function and operation among the church.
In this post, I would like to continue to examine the επίσκοπος (episkopos) / επισκοπÎω (episkopeo) word group. Specifically, what does this word group mean for those who are not elders/bishops? Or, does it apply to non-elders/non-bishops at all?
Apparently, the author of Hebrews believes that this function does apply to all believers. For example, consider this passage:
Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it [from επισκοπÎω] that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. (Hebrews 12:14-16 ESV)
If you need to check the context, read from Hebrews 12:1. It is clear from this context that all believers are in view, and all believers should be “looking carefully” (as the NKJV translates the participle επισκοπÎω in 12:15).
Commenting on the word επισκοπÎω in 12:15, William Lane says in the Word Biblical Commentary:
The call to vigilance expressed in επισκοπουντες [that is, the participle of επισκοπÎω] refers not to some official expression of ministry but rather to the engagement of the community as a whole in the extension of mutual care (cf. 3:12-13; 4:1; 10:24-25). Christian vigilance is the proper response to a peril that poses an imminent threat to the entire community… In view of this very real danger, the members of the house church are urged to vigilant concern for one another. [451-52]
Thus, Lane understands the verb επισκοπÎω to mean “to show vigilant concern”. This is very similar to the definitions that I suggested in my previous post (“What does a bishop oversee?“): “to look after” or “be concerned about”. In this case, it is clear that the object of concern is not an organization, but the people (that is, the church) themselves. Believers are to show concern for other believers so that they do not fail to obtain the grace of God, so that no root of bitterness springs up, and so that they are not sexually immoral or unholy.
If all believers are “to show vigilant concern” for other people, could it not also be that bishops and elders are “to show vigilant concern” for other people (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-2)? Once again, I suggest that this is quite different than “overseeing an organization”; yet, this is the way the verb επισκοπÎω is often presented when it comes to Christian leaders. Perhaps, elders are supposed “to show vigilant concern” for other people not because they are elders, but because they are believers. In fact, they should be more likely “to show vigilant concern” for others because they are supposed to be good examples of what it means to follow Christ and obey Him.
The important thing to realize in Hebrews 12:14-15 is that it is our responsibility to be concerned about one another. This is not only the responsibility of Christian leaders. However, we all realize that there are occasionally hindrances and obstacles that prevent us from showing proper concern for our brothers and sisters in Christ. Sometimes, those hindrances and obstacles are in our lives; sometimes, they are in the lives of others.
What are some of the hindrances or obstacles to showing vigilant concern for other believers? How can we overcome some of these hindrances and obstacles?
Adolf Schlatter on the church…
Adolf Schlatter was an anomaly in late nineteenth and early twentieth century German theological scholarship. Though holding a teaching position at Tübingen, a university well-known for approaching the Bible through higher criticism, Schlatter maintained conservative (evangelical?) beliefs. I have wanted to buy his two volume set The History of the Christ and The Theology of the Apostles for some time. I was finally able to buy them, and I flipped through The Theology of the Apostles looking for Schlatter’s view of the church. There is certainly much more to read, but I found this paragraph very interesting:
Moreover, the public confession of Jesus’ lordship produced in them a union that oriented everyone’s conduct toward the same goal, and the Spirit’s presence invested the community with a thoroughly spiritual dimension. Baptism did not result in a multitude of autonomous congregations but the one church, because baptism called its recipients to the Christ. Likewise, the table around which the community gathered was not the table of a teacher or baptizer or bishop but Christ’s table. By receiving their share in Christ, they simultaneously entered into communion with all other believers. The concept of the church thus took on a universal dimension from the start that remained undiminished, just as the individual local Jewish congregation had always been considered to be part of the one Israel.
According to Schlatter, the universality and the unity of the church was more than an ideal. The church was universal and united because of its shared confession, conduct, goal, baptism, table, and portion in Christ, not to mention the common presence of the Spirit of God.
As I look at that list – a list of items that, according to Schlatter, once brought the church together – I recognize that many, perhaps all, are now used to divide the church instead of unite the church. While the confession (“Jesus is Lord”) was originally intended to separate believers from nonbelievers, we now use expanded confessional statements to separate one group of believers from another group of believers. While the one baptism originally represented death to self and new birth in Christ, baptism is now used to divide the body of Christ into different factions. Similarly, the Lord’s table and even conduct are often used to separate churches instead of uniting them.
Do we recognize that who we are as the church has little (if anything) to do with the things we say or even the things we do? I would suggest (along with Schlatter) that who we are as the church is instead associated with us having received a “share in Christ”. But, that also means that who other people are does not depend on the words they say or the things they do. Instead, those who have received Christ have “simultaneously entered into communion with all other believers” – not because of their actions or a prayer or a confession, but because they now belong to Christ and they now belong to the Father’s family. Certainly, there may be a need for discipleship and teaching people to live as a part of the Father’s family, but we do not have the right nor the authority to dismiss someone from the Father’s family nor to choose to disassociate with someone who Christ has claimed as His own.
Can we know with certainty that someone belongs to Christ? No. But, then again, no one can know with certainty about us either. With the “confession of Jesus’ lordship” (“Jesus is Lord”) someone claims acceptance into the family of God and the presence of the Spirit. As a family, we are then required (yes, I do mean required) to accept that person, to disciple that person, to bear with that person, to love that person, to serve that person, to teach that person, to forgive that person even if (especially if!) that person disagrees with us. We come together in community, but that community is not based on us and our beliefs and our confessions. That community is based solely on our individual and mutual relationships with God through Jesus Christ enabled by the Holy Spirit.
When we separate from someone that we consider a brother or sister in Christ, we are usurping the authority of God. And, when we refuse to hold brothers and sisters accountable to their confession “Jesus is Lord”, then we are ignoring our mutual responsibilities as part of God’s family.
City Church Revisited…
David Rogers at “Love Each Stone” has kicked off a great discussion with a post called “The City Church, a guest post by Paul Grabill“. As the title suggests, the post was actually written by Paul Grabill. Besides discussing the city church idea, they are also discussing APEPT (apostles, prophets, evagelists, pastors, and teachers from Eph. 4:11). I would recommend reading this post and participating in the ongoing discussion in the comments.
However, I also have a question. Is there a “city church” even if the “churches” of an area do not recognize it? Similarly, and perhaps more importantly, do the “one anothers” of Scripture apply only to those who are part of the same church (i.e. membership), or do they apply to any believer that we meet?
Assembling Together 1 – Joining the Church
The first chapter of Watchman Nee’s book Assembling Together (chapter 14 of the Basic Lessons series) is called “Joining the Church”. This is a great chapter with which to begin to understand Nee’s ecclesiology.
The phrase “joining the church” is quite interesting. To Nee, this means something completely different to how I’ve seen this phrase used in contemporary churches in the United States. I think even Nee understands how this phrase is normally used. He says, “We do not like the phrase ‘joining the church,’ but use it temporarily to make the issue clear.” [1] So, what does Nee mean by “joining the church”? He first explains how believers immediately become part of God’s family upon salvation. He then specifies exactly what he means by “joining the church”:
A Christian therefore must join the church. Now this term, “joining the church,” is not a scriptural one. It is borrowed from the world. What we really mean is that no one can be a private Christian. He must be joined to all the children of God. For this reason, he needs to join the church. He cannot claim to be a believer all by himself. He is a Christian only by being subordinate to the others. [9]
Never once in the Bible do we find the phrase “join the church.” It cannot be found in Acts nor is it seen in the epistles. Why? Because no one can join the church… Rather, we are already in the church and therefore are joined to one another. [13]
When, by the mercy of God, a man is convicted of his sin and through the precious blood is redeemed and forgiven and receives new life, he is not only regenerated through resurrection life but is also put into the church by the power of God. It is God who has put him in; thus he already is in the church. [13]
Then why do we persuade you to join the church? We are only borrowing this term for the sake of convenience. You who have believed in the Lord are already in the church, but your brothers and sisters in the church may not know you. [14]
At this point, Nee remains close to Scripture. He is correct that “joining the church” is not a scriptural phrase, and is never commanded or exhorted in Scripture. Instead, we become part of the church when we are “born again” into the family of God. It is true that we may still need to seek out brothers and sisters with which to fellowship, but that is not the same as “joining the church”. Of course, the best place for a new believer to begin to find fellowship with other brothers and sisters is with the person or people who made the gospel available to him or her.
Next, Nee answers the question: which church should I join? Most believers today would probably disagree with his answer. First, Nee explains the rise of different churches and denominations based on time, area, human personalities, or a particular emphasis on one aspect of truth. He then says that all believers in a city form a city-church, and that is the church that a new believer should become part of. In fact, he argues that the only valid biblical definition for “church” (singular) is the city-wide church:
The Bible permits the church to be divided solely on the ground of locality… The smallest church takes a locality as its unity; so does the biggest church. Anything smaller than a locality may not be considered a church, nor can it be so recognized if it is bigger than a locality. [11]
This statement is problematic. Nee examines several passages to demonstrate that the singular “church” is used to represent all the believers in a given city. I do not have a problem with this analysis, except I think he left out a few key passages of Scripture. It is not true that the singular “church” is always used to represent all the believers in a city and that the singular “church” is only used to represent all the believers in a city. Here are a couple of passages that use the singular word for “church”, but may not represent all the believers in a city or the believers of only one city:
But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. (Acts 8:3 ESV)
Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia. (Romans 16:3-5 ESV)
I should also mention that in Acts 9:31, some manuscripts have the singular “church” (while others have the plural “churches”) for the believers in the regions of “Judea, Galilee, and Samaria”. There are also other passages that mention the “church” in someone’s house which may or may not be the entire church of a city.
So, I do agree with Nee that Scripture describes all the believers in a certain city as a “church” (singular). However, it appears that there may be smaller groups within that city-church that are nevertheless called “church” (singular). Similarly, in Acts 8:3, it appears that Saul is persecuting believers over a larger area than a city, but Luke still considers Paul to be persecuting the “church” (singular). The usage of the word “church” is more complicated that Nee makes it out to be.
There is one other point (and a major point, I think) with which I disagree with Nee. He claims that individuals are not the dwelling place of God; only the church is God’s habitation:
In the past God dwelt in a magnificent house, the temple of Solomon. Now He dwells in the church, for today the church is God’s habitation. We, the many, are joined together to be God’s habitation. As individuals, though, we are not so. It takes many of God’s children to be the house of God in the Spirit. [5]
Unfortunately, I do not think that Nee considered enough scriptural evidence. It is true that most of the references to the Spirit dwelling within beleivers occurs in the plural. But, of course, most of Scripture was written to communities of believers to be read to the entire community. It is also true that the Spirit dwells with the community; however, just as Solomon’s temple could not contain God, the community alone does not contain God’s Spirit. There are plenty of references to individual believers being filled with the Spirit of God (i.e. Acts 6:3, 9-10).
Besides these two points of disagreement, this is an excellent chapter. Nee encourages all believers to find other believers with which to fellowship. He especially exhorts new believers that they should not try to live in isolation.
I usually find the last paragraph of one of Nee’s chapters to be very helpful. Sometimes, even when I do not agree with Nee’s arguments, I agree completely with his conclusion in the last paragraph. I agree with much of this first chapter, and I also agree with his last paragraph:
You who are already in Christ should learn to seek the fellowship of the children of God. With this fellowship of the body you may serve God well. If you as young believers can see this light, you will move a step forward in your spiritual path. Thank God for his mercy. [15]
The next chapter in this book is called “Laying On of Hands.”
Review of Watchman Nee’s Assembling Together Series:
1: Chapter 1 – Joining the Church
2: Chapter 2 – Laying on of Hands
3: Chapter 3 – Assembling Together
4: Chapter 4 – Various Meetings
5: Chapters 5 & 6 – The Lord’s Day and Hymn Singing
6: Chapters 7 & 8 – Praise and The Breaking of Bread