What is Church? Part 2
February 29, 2008 – 11:14 am - By AnthonyEditors Note: This is part 2 of the teaching outline authored by Steve Gregg and presented at the Great Commision School. (Review Part 1) It has been published by permission of the author.
V. I believe that the one mandate of the Christian is to love all who call on the Lord out of a pure heart (John 13:34/II Tim 2:22), not judging one another by extrabiblical criteria (John 7:24). The unity of the whole church is seriously compromised when organizational linking-not love-is treated as an essential to ‘normative Christian fellowship.”
A. It is sin and unloving to impose a single culturally-defined model of ‘normative church life’ upon believers who, apart from that model, are walking in love, victory over sin, service, humility, and abundance of sociable fellowship, simply because they define their ‘church’ affiliation by some other standard than the extrabiblical standard most current in a given culture.
B. Such culturally-established models of ‘church’ may even, occasionally, fit biblical norms less admirably than do some alternative structures.
C. The exact frequency of formal meetings or assemblies is never prescribed in scripture. No one reading the gospels can get the impression that Jesus’ primary focus was the establishing of weekly “meetings” for His disciples! He never said a word about such. He talked about real-life relationships–and little else. Even in Acts, there is no mention of weekly meetings [1] .
D. Nonetheless, such meetings provide one small avenue for communication, corporate prayer, public instruction, worship, etc., and have their place in the believer’s life (Heb 10:25).
E. I believe that the modern-day equivalent of these congregations may be in what are today called ‘churches’ or in homes or in ‘para-church’ meetings. The label on the building, the day or frequency of meeting, and the protocol for the gathering are not dictated by scripture. Therefore, a great deal of latitude must be granted for various organizational ‘norms’ by which various groups and associations of believers define themselves (Rom 14:4-6). To insist that one particular set of extrabiblical norms be imposed as non-negotiable points upon other believers is to be sectarian and carnal.
F. The fruit of love and Christian growth and service should be the biblical standard for recognizing a given association of believers (however non-institutionalized) as viable ‘church.’ Any other standard of definition or judgment exchanges the spiritual model of the body of Christ for an institutional model;
VI. ‘Authority’ and ‘accountability’ are spiritual dynamics inherent in godly relationships, not necessarily dictated by organizational structures (II Cor 1:24/II Cor 10:13-14/Heb 13:7/ Heb 13:17).
A. This is self-evidently true, in addition to being what the Bible teaches. A man may hold an office of ‘authority’ in a ‘church’ without even being saved! Such a man has no actual authority in any spiritual sense over the life of believers. On the other hand, a man holding no organizational office may, by virtue of actual gifting and relationship, possess real authority to speak into the lives of his brothers (Acts 18:26).
B. Institutions (man-made organizations) can only guarantee such ‘rulership’ as the “rulers of the gentiles” possess, of which Jesus said “It shall not be so among you!” (Matt 20:25-26).
C. The Holy Spirit confers spiritual authority and accountability in real-life relationships (I Cor 4:15/II Cor 3:1-2).
D. Accountability of one man to another man or institution is nowhere spoken of in the Bible. The head of every man is Christ. Every man is directly accountable to God (Matt 12:36/Luke 16:2/Rom 14:12/I Cor 11:3/II Cor 5:9-10/Heb 4:13; Heb 13:17/I Pet 3:21; I Pet 4:5). Because of this, none may judge another as to extrabiblical areas of conduct (Rom 14:4, Rom 14:10).
E. We must give account to God for maintaining the integrity of our own individual conscience toward God (Acts 23:1; Acts 24:16/I Tim 1:5, I Tim 19; I Tim 3:9).
1. The testimony of a man’s conscience is the tribunal of final appeal (II Cor 1:12/II Tim 1:3/Heb 13:18), because, if the conscience is overruled (seared, impure), then nothing (including membership in an organized church or submission to organizational rulers) can put a man in right relationship to God (I Tim 4:2/Tit 1:15).
2. This is why Paul’s appeal for credibility was not on the basis of his ‘position of authority,’ nor his “authorization” by other men (he emphatically denies ant such authorization in Galatians 1) but to “every man’s conscience” (II Cor 4:2).
3. It is even proper and acceptable to God that a man suffer persecution for refusing to violate his conscience (I Pet 2:19; I Pet 3:16).
[1] I Cor 16:2 and Acts 20:7 does not mention weekly gatherings of the church, though some have read such into these passages. However, Acts 2:46-47; Acts 5:42; Acts 6:1 and Acts 19:9 speak specifically of daily gatherings.© 2000 The Great Commision School. Published by permission. (view Part 1)
You must be logged in to post a comment.