Skip to main content

Church: physically gathered and/or spiritual fellowship?

This continues our discussion on the Knox-Robinson model of church.

In my previous post I talked about fellowship and discipline. My second, more general question is: can we use the term “church” to denote the relationships we have with other Christians, even if we’re not meeting with them? I would say yes.

Luke describes Paul, before his conversion, as ravaging the church (singular) by entering houses (plural) to throw people into prison (Acts 8:3). This could refer to Paul breaking into house churches - but if so, why didn't Luke use the plural, churches? Paul himself similarly laments that he used to persecute the church (singular) of God (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Php. 3:6). This at least indicates that Paul can use "church" to refer collectively to God’s people who lived in Jerusalem. Acts 9:31 refers to the church (singular) throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria - which must be synonymous with a spiritual fellowship.

So, I conclude that it's Biblically valid to speak of "belonging" to an earthly church, in the sense of an invisible fellowship with believers, even if we're not in the act of meeting with them - of "doing church". This is not Platonic - in the sense of having some invisible ideal of which the earthly is only an appoximation - but a reality enacted by the Holy Spirit.

That said, the New Testament certainly puts a priority on the local congregation. This focus on local church is indicated in at least four ways.

  1. The city where it meets being named at least indicates it is not a national or regional church (Acts 8:1, 3; 11:22, 26; 13:1; 15:4; 18:22; 20:17, 28; Rom. 16:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 2:1; 8:1; Gal. 1:2; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:1; Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14).
  2. The use of the plural "churches" assumes a multiplicity of localised congregations, not a single universal church (Acts 16:5; Rom. 16:4, 16; 1 Cor. 7:17; 11:16; 14:33, 34; 16:1, 19; 2 Cor. 8:1, 18, 19, 23, 24; 11:28; Gal. 1:2, 22; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4; Rev. 1:4, 11, 20; 2:7, 11, 17, 23, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 22:16).
  3. Personal identification of the patron or matron, whose home the church meets in, focuses on the localised character of the church (Rom. 16:1, 5, 23; Col. 4:15; Phm. 1:2)
  4. The ethical exhortations in the New Testament letters demonstrate that their authors were concerned for relationships within the local gatherings. This comes out strongly in 1 Corinthians, eg: 1 Cor. 6:4; 7:17; 11:18, 22; 14:4, 5, 12, 33-35. An ordered gathering of the church expresses God’s peace (1 Cor. 14:33 – perhaps drawing on Old Testament shalom, wholeness, well-being). This is also the thrust of Eph. 4-6, Col. 3-4, 1 Thess. 4:1-12, and 1 Pet. 2:13ff. The reason elders must manage their own household well is because the church over which they have oversight is the household of God (1 Tim 3:5, 15).

So, I think the Bible affirms the priority of the local fellowship; but that local fellowship is spiritual, not just when we are actually gathered; and, reference my previous post, that fellowship implies accountability and discipline. I guess that makes me a fairly boring, predictable, free-church Presbyterian (*sigh*).

Well, that's my two cents worth. Thoughts, anyone…?

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
Post a Comment
Read more

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...
Post a Comment
Read more