We all may have our own opinions about the church, what it is and what it should be like. What really matters is not so much what you or I think, but what does God think? What does His Word say? Brothers and sisters, we need open minds and hearts and "hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches." Just because we have always done things a certain way, does not make it right. We had better be careful to follow the Lord rather than the traditions of men. There is so much inertia and all people resist change. The Roman Catholic still sees nothing wrong with his church. Neither does the average evangelical. Remember, these institutions tend to change and mold us. They have made us what we are today. But are we on track?

It should be clear to anyone reading the New Testament, that the early Christians did not "go to church". They were the church. The Jewish temple was replaced because the church, that is, the people are the Temple of God - a corporate dwelling place. The early church meeting was not something people attended but what they were - a life they shared with one another. It was not dominated by a sermon, or by a single person. Bible teaching was one aspect, but not the central purpose. The early church had nothing in common with the present institution. It was a big family, a dynamic body life, a sharing, loving community where everyone participated as equals:

"And let us consider ONE ANOTHER to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some is; but EXHORTING ONE ANOTHER and so much the more as you see the day approaching (Hebrews 10:24-25)

"How is it then brethren, when you assemble, EVERY ONE has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. (I Corinthians 14:26)

"Speaking to ONE ANOTHER in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs and making melody in your heart to the Lord (Ephesians 5:19)

"Let the Word of Christ dwell richly within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing ONE ANOTHER with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Colossians 3:16)

Mutuality

The key characteristic of the early church was mutuality - EVERY ONE participated in the building up of the other. Except for special occasions, the meeting was a corporate experience. It was not dominated by a professional, clergy, or a special music group and worship leader. Each believer brought something to the meeting and was given the freedom to share it with others through his own spiritual gift. A sermon was not the left. There was no bulletin listing the "order of worship". Instead, the Spirit of God was in utter control moving freely through every member of the Body. The phrase "one another" is used 60 times in the New Testament. They were actively involved in building up one another. This is far different than the so-called lay ministries available today - ushering, singing in the Choir, cleaning the "sanctuary", or flipping transparencies. The early church was a corporate organism - the body of Christ - not an organization.

So was the Early Church following tradition? If they were, they would have met in temples as the Jews had done. There was a conflict with the Judaizers who would have patterned the church after the Jews, but Jesus and the apostles continually fought against them. Jesus was not establishing another religion, but a vertical and horizontal relationship between Himself, the individual Christian and the corporate body. The church is described in organic terms and if a building - a living one. It was distinguished because it was full of people who were in fellowship with Jesus and that was the only glue that held the church together - a common life. For nearly 300 hundred years, the Church met predominately in homes.

There were two forces at work - the Judaizers which would have made them a Jewish sect, worshipping in Synagogues, and the modernists, the Greeks and Romans who also worshipped in "holy" temples. From Constantine onward, the Church moved into buildings and the professional clergy took over most of the meaningful "spiritual" function. By contrast, the early church relied entirely on the spiritual life of the individual members. If they had a living, vibrant relationship with the Lord, the meetings were rich expressions of their experience. If not, the meetings would die.

In contrast, the early church met mainly in homes (Acts 2:46, 8:3; Romans 16:3,5; I Corinthians 16:19, Col 4:15, Philemon 1:2, II John 10, etc.). If there is a New Testament form, it is the house church. The Church is referred to as the family and household of God. Talk about community, they lived it. The home is the natural setting for "one anothering", for fellowship, for communal meals. Galatians 6:10 refers to those of the "household of Faith". Ephesians 2:19 says we are "of God's household". Hebrews 3:15 talks of "the household of God, which is the church of the living God." Yet the contemporary view of the church is the "sanctuary", the Building. The Jews had buildings for corporate worship (synagogues) and so did the pagans (shrines and temples). Both taught that they were sanctified places for Divine worship. Not so with Christianity. The Early Church met in the simplicity of the home. It may have been natural for them to have buildings, but they didn't, and that isn't just because of persecutions, because the major persecutions didn't really get underway until the third century. God wanted his people for a dwelling place! He didn't want them worship in a "holy sanctuary" they would "think" was His dwelling place.

The Early Church knew nothing of 501c3 tax exempt organizations, of a paid professional staff, a special clergy caste elevated above the others in official positions. The leaders of the church were just one of the brethren. The gifts of ministry for the Body came from within - not recruited in national searches. The leadership and all of the functions were indigenous. The apostles endorsed those who were already elders. Leadership was in terms of function, not position. They were "servant leaders" who led by example and nurtured and protected out of love. New Testament pastors and elders did not operate like CEOs presiding over some spiritual enterprise. They did not brainstorm with consultants on how to raise money for building programs and develop growth strategies. Leadership was to empower the saints to do the work of the ministry (Ephesians 4:11-16) and protect the saints from deception and error (Titus 1:7-14) - not to "lord" it over them or create a passive dependence.

As Al Dager points out,

"the New Testament Church, devoid of a professional clergy class, dependent upon Scripture and the Holy Spirit to guide a plurality of leadership among godly men, is in the process of rebirth." (Media Spotlight, Vol. 17, no.2, pg. 8). He goes on to say, "This does not set well with religious people - especially religious leaders - who enjoy the preeminence among their flocks. Criticism will abound, based upon the "unscholarly" elements in eldership - men who bear no initials after their names, who do not go by the name "reverend," " bishop," or "most right reverend." (ibid., pg. 8)

He continues to observe that the religious establishment is not likely to acknowledge the spiritual leadership of "uncredentialed" men:

"The name of the game for the religious establishment is control and self-glorification." (ibid., p. 8)

There is little respect for the laity who must depend on the clergy to protect and feed them.

We will come back to this theme, but again, the most important thing is what God really wants as revealed in His Word. We are all entitled to our own "stupid" opinions, but the only opinion that counts is His.

The Church in History

After 2,000 years, few people can agree on a definition for the church. Is the church a building, a place to go to worship? Is it a non-profit corporation that you can give tax free dollars to? Is a "para-church" organization a church? How many people does it take to constitute a church? Is it a church if it meets in a school? in the woods? in the home? Is it a church if there is no pastor? Is it a church if it doesn't have a name? So what is the church? I don't want to insult your intelligence with this, but many people are very confused on this issue

The answer seems so obvious to many of us, but it is an extremely important question, because as we move to implement the concept of "underground churches," we will be attacked - not so much because the concept of the "house church" is unbiblical, but because such a concept is a threat to today's compromised church - the very idolatrous institution which the Bible says we must "come out of." One self-serving pastor said there could be no such thing as a "house church" unless it had the five fold ministries. So what of the churches meeting in homes in the New Testament. What of the hundreds of thousands of house churches in China. Does every one have a complete set of the five fold ministries? How absurd! Some say a church can only be ordained by an apostle. So where are the apostles? Again, not only how absurd but how dangerous for those self-appointed apostles that wield their power!

Theoretically, we know the church is not a building or an organization. The church is people - a "called out" people who are born of the Spirit; the Body of Christ. The universal church includes all saints all over the world for the past nearly 2,000 years. It is easy to define the universal church, but what about the local church? The problem arises because the church is expressed in many different ways in different cultures, times in history and parts of the world. Although we would like to have a uniform model that we can all agree on, it has never been that easy. The church has had many shapes and forms. I think all we can say is that the church is a community of believers. It can take on many forms.

We may like to think we can separate ourselves from the world and our culture, but we can't. Many early Jews couldn't shake their background and prejudices. The early Christians were affected by their surrounding culture - as has the church down through history even to this present day. The church reflects the culture and subculture of which it is a part. There is a very different expression in the US as compared to the expression the church takes in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, India or China. There is a different expression if the society is open or closed. There is another expression if it is traditional or non-traditional.

The church has always, for better or for worse, consisted of the "called out ones" but it also reflects the times and culture in which it exists. It has picked up a lot of baggage along the way. Given the sinful nature of man, I would say that the church has not only evolved through time but it has gotten further and further away from what God really intended the Church to be. Some things that were done for very good reasons and to meet specific needs at a specific time and in a certain culture became institutionalized and often even rationalized as if given by God and His Word. Some things are purely cultural but we elevate them to God-given canon.

Two thousand years ago God abolished priests and buildings. The Bible tells is we are all kings and priests and we are His temple, His dwelling place. But man has a natural tendency to turn what God intended into a form, completely losing the substance. Man is inherently religious - wanting to please and worship a far off, awesome God. Just like the nation of Israel, demanded a king instead of accepting God Himself as their authority, God gave them one - Saul, and he was a disaster. It wasn't long before the church brought back the full-time priest. The Catholic Church formalized man's religion, but has no substance. Throughout history, there is the tendency in man to "worship" in buildings, have a professional class (pastors, priests, etc.). It didn't take long before man followed his "religious" tendencies.

Although the institution has had many forms, the Lord has always had his true church - that golden thread that goes down through history - which is so eloquently chronicled in classics such as Miller's Church History. But the real church, those washed in the blood of the Lamb, who really knew the Lord, often existed in spite of rather than because of the institution of the "Church." We are told in Revelation 17 that the Harlot Church sitting on the "seven hills" (of Rome) and her daughters are responsible for the blood of more martyred saints than anything else. (Revelation 17:3-9) So let's look briefly at the church's history.

The Early Church - The Jewish Problem

The earliest church consisted almost exclusively of Jews who continued to meet in their synagogues. As we examine the Book of Acts and the Epistles, we see that the Jewish branch was culture and tradition bound. It was even forbidden for a Jewish Christian to meet a gentile Christian. The gospel was exclusively a Jewish effort up to Acts 11. Then Peter saw a vision and went to Cornelius' house in Cesearia to preach the gospel for the first time to the gentiles - and they received the Spirit just as the Jews had at Pentecost.

Acts is full of strife between those who would go to the gentiles (Paul, Barnabus and company) and the original apostles and Jewish Christians. There are many examples and the book of Galatians is about the effort of Jewish Christians to impose their traditions on gentile Christians. Galatian Christians were being enslaved to Jewish traditions. Paul pointed out that Jewish traditions were just as bad as pagan traditions. Their disputes were not over doctrine but culture and tradition. Above all, Paul urged the Christians to find their freedom in Christ. In Colossians, Paul warns against following rules and regulations:

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ" (Col.2:8).

In the end, the apostles wisely decided to let the Jewish Christians go one way and the gentile Christians another - better to keep them separate than contaminate the gentile church with Jewish tradition. In Galatians 2, Paul describes a meeting with Peter, James, John, Titus and himself in Jerusalem dealing with the growing tension between the two groups of believers. (Gal 2:1-11) They decided that one group should go to the Jews and the other to the uncircumcision (verse 10).

The "early church" was not building bound. Nor was it a one man show. It was alive. It was a corporate living entity. Everyone had a gift and everyone participated. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers were gifts to the church for the building up of the saints (Eph 4:11-12). They were gifts to the church to function for the building up of the Body, not offices or positions, and not for their own self-edification and power. The "early church" grew spontaneously. Although the early Jewish Christians met in synagogues for a while (and that was a problem in terms of getting them free from Judaism), for the most part they met in homes (Matt. 8:14-16, 26:8, 5:42, 8:3, 10:24-27, 16:40, Romans 16:3, I Cor. 16:40, Col 4:5, and Phil 1-2 to name just a few). They ate together, broke bread together and lived together. The church grew like wildfire without the benefit of seminary trained leaders, Bible Schools, building programs or formal mission programs.

Imagine the chaos of the early church meeting. It may have not been that spectacular, people not all that eloquent, the music not all that great, but it worked. There were no spectators, only participants. Everyone shared, encouraged, wept, prayed, fellowshipped and ate together. Eph. 5:19 tells us they were -

"speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord"

And 1 Cor. 14:26 says:

"When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification."

The early church was a participatory church. It was energetic, dynamic and everyone in it had laid their life on the line just to belong.

The early church was persecuted - first, Jews persecuting Christians and later Romans persecuting both. The Romans in the earliest history considered the Christians to be a Jewish sect and pretty much left them alone. The first major persecutions broke out in 64 AD by Nero. Christians were considered dangerous, politically disloyal, seditious. To join them meant certain death. The real persecutions did not get seriously underway until the third century.

The Book of Acts and other Epistles tell us the early church was struggling to keep out Jewish tradition, Greek thinking and pagan religion. As the first century drew to a close, the church was concerned with error, preserving the gospel and keeping the unity. Once the spontaneity is gone, organization is the only way to hold it together. History teaches that forms often follow function, and that once the forms are created, they become like concrete and live on, acquiring a life of their own even when the original functions are gone. The professionals began to take "power." The precedent came from the Jewish and the gentile side. Both were accustomed to a professional caste of priests.

The Post New Testament Church

Very early in the second century, church hierarchy appeared within the local body, bishops (elders) and deacons. The word "hierarchy" means "rule by priests." Ignatius was concerned with order and that the laity be subject to the deacons, the deacons to the presbyters and the presbyters to the bishop (elder) and the bishop to Christ (Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraneans as quoted by Earl Radmacher in What the Church Is All About , Chicago: Moody Press, l972, p 36) The bishop appointed deacons and presbyter as officers of the church. Only a bishop could administer sacraments. It wasn't long before there was a hierarchy of bishops - from the local body, to the city, and region and finally to Rome. To their credit, it should be pointed out that a lot of this was done because they were trying to protect the church from heresies. But in practice, it separated the average person from a personal relationship with the Lord or any meaningful opportunity to minister. The dynamic "body life" of the early church gave way to the organization.

By the end of the second century, the clergy was recognized as having exclusive rights to the ministry. The laity was conquered. Revelation 2 records the letters to the four churches in Asia. These are generally considered to represent historical periods. The first church at Ephesus is contending for the faith against false teachers but they have already "lost their first love" but "hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans". Scholars believe the Nicolaitans were a group that among other things, promoted church hierarchy. The word, Nicoliatian in Greek means subdue or conquer the laity. So the earliest church hated the idea of hierarchy, of having a priestly class because the believers were all to be priests. The second church in Smyrna is suffering tremendous persecution and is encouraged to just hang in to death. By the time we get to the third, the church in Pergamus, mixture is starting to get into the church. "Some among you who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans" (verse 2:15). By the time we get to the Church of Thyatira, the full blown expression of the Roman Catholic Church and the clergy has total control in a mixed religion with people "who hold the deep things of Satan" (Rev. 2:24)

By the beginning of the third century, power was completely consolidated in the clergy. The concept of "the church", which is "Catholic and one, is not cut or divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another." (Radmacher, ibid., p. 42) The average believer was completely stripped of power and became subject to the church structure and institution. The believer was not allowed to read, let alone interpret the Word. True evangelism and growth ceased. In AD 313, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, allowing Christianity to surface. Persecution ended. The church was legalized and brought out of the home, the catacomb and the forest glen, and into church buildings. In fact, people were required to meet in buildings. This brought the church out of the informal atmosphere of the small meeting into the formal setting of the big meeting. The laity became dutiful spectators. The church leaders, committed to building an earthly kingdom, also got involved in government. Thus began the Dark Ages. The church became a world wide political and religious institution. The great councils met and forged doctrinal unity (e.g. the Nicene Creed) and forced organizational unity through the hierarchy of the church. The Catholic Church was a master at absorbing pagan religions which were continually integrated into "Christian" tradition.

The Reformation

Up to the time of the reformation, the church consolidated its power until there was hardly any dividing line between the church and state. The church hierarchy ruled with an iron fist. When the Protestant Reformation began, there were four primary movements: Lutheran, Calvinism, Anabaptist and Anglican. Each recovered some lost truth, but three of the four became state churches, and all continued to define the church in terms of people meeting in a building, having to receive sacraments and instruction from clergy. The reformers recovered the "priesthood of the believer" in the sense that salvation was a personal matter and the Bible was accessible to the individual believer. But the Protestant churches continued to reserve the most important activity for the clergy. The laity was still relegated to the role of passive participant. The believer has been bound by the clergy class to this day, with only a few exceptions such as the Brethren.

While the Reformation recovered the "priesthood of believers" in the sense of having a relationship with Him, it failed to restore the corporate body life of the church that allows all believers to actually function as priests. " Joseph Higginbotham and Paul Patton write:

"Every year on 'Reformation Sunday' it is urgently proclaimed that the Reformation won the battle for the priesthood of the believer. The wish is certainly the father of the thought, but we are still talking wishes, not facts. The very congregations who hear the proclamation deny by their polity, their congregational life, and even by their architecture the truth they claim to embody...Our words betray our Reformation Sunday victory celebrations. The battle is not one; we do not yet occupy the ground where the priesthood of believers is fact. (Searching Together; Vol. 13:2).

God bless all of you!