Some years ago, an elderly relative visited our church. She was a churchgoer herself—of a rather traditional kind. Afterwards, I asked her whether she had enjoyed church that morning—at which point, she looked straight at me and said with characteristic bluntness, “This is not a real church”.
Perhaps it was the lack of a prayer book service, the fact that we didn’t celebrate Holy Communion on that particular morning, the absence of organ music, or the general want of a quiet, ‘churchy’ atmosphere about the place. Not wishing to upset or offend my relative any further (and all the comments that sprang to mind at the time would certainly have done so), I didn’t pursue the subject. But it did give me pause afterwards. In one sense, it was quite true: many of the elements that a previous generation would have closely associated with ‘real church’ had been stripped away or changed beyond recognition in our congregational gatherings. Had we stripped away too much? Or, to think about it the other way, how much can you strip away and still have a real church? If we were to apply Ockham’s Razor to church, what would be left standing?
Let’s try this thought experiment: can we assume that the churches of the New Testament were real Christian churches, lacking nothing essential? If so, what could we ‘lop off’ our current practice of church life and still have a genuine Christian assembly (or ‘church’)?
Let’s mention the obvious ones first: no special religious buildings, no denominations, no territorial bishops, overseers or presbyteries responsible for a group of congregations, no committees, no constitutions, no weekly bulletin sheet, no announcements and no hymnbooks. So far, so easy. I’m not saying that these things are necessarily wrong or bad; they are just clearly not of the essence of what the church really is or what it needs to function well, since the New Testament had a perfectly complete experience of church without (as far as we know) any of them. And thus it would be very possible today to have a full and complete experience of Christian church, in which nothing is lacking, without any of these things.
Let’s press a little further. What else is absent in the New Testament church that we might start to regard as a little more essential? We don’t find evidence of set prayers and orders of liturgy, for a start. There is also no evidence of the word or concept of ‘worship’ being applied to what New Testament Christians did in their gatherings. It is shocking, I know, but there are no worship services in the New Testament. In fact, there weren’t any ‘churches’ either—by which I mean that there wasn’t a special religious or Christian word used to describe Christian gatherings. They were not a new species of religious thing called a ‘church’; they were just ‘gatherings’ or ‘assemblies’, but Christian ones.
We also find no example or imperative for Sunday being the ‘right’ day on which we should meet, or any other day, for that matter. We know they met regularly, but in what configuration and frequency we aren’t sure. In fact, we struggle to find any distinction between a regular large gathering of the congregation (what we would call the Sunday Service) and any smaller gatherings that may or may not have taken place (what we would call ‘home Bible study groups’). We find no formal system of church membership, nor any set procedure or system for the structuring of leadership and governance within the congregation. (Certainly, New Testament Christians belonged to or were ‘members of’ particular congregations, and these congregations were led and governed; I am simply saying that we know next to nothing about the structures, procedures and practices of membership and leadership. So a particular model of membership or leadership—whether it be the Anglican, Presbyterian or Baptist models—is not of the essence of church.)
Let me make sure I am not misunderstood: I am not for a minute suggesting that we attempt to recreate a complete, working model of a New Testament church—as if we have to meet in houses because they did, or that we can’t use microphones or drum kits because they didn’t, or that it’s impossible to have formal systems of government and membership simply because we don’t know exactly how they organized these things. This is not an exercise in primitivism; it’s a thought experiment. How much could we whittle back and still have a completely normal, properly-functioning New Testament church? Or, putting it the other way, how many extra-biblical details, structures and practices have established themselves in our minds as being of the essence of ‘church’?
Well, here’s what Ockham’s Razor has reduced us to: we could have a group of Christian people (of any size), with a qualified elder or overseer (or more than one, appointed or elected, we care not how), meeting in the name and presence of Christ in any location, at any time of day, on any day of the week, with any frequency (so long as it was regular and often), at which time they spoke and heard God’s word together (through Bible reading, preaching/teaching, prophetic encouragement, etc.), and responded in prayer and thanksgiving, with the result that God is glorified in Christ and the people edified.
You might want to describe this ‘cut down’ New Testament church a little differently, or add extra things. But here’s the point: what things do you currently regard as of the absolute essence of church—things without which you could not imagine church being ‘real church’—things that, in fact, are accidental, traditional or cultural details that could be otherwise? And could any of these things be changed if the times, seasons, purposes and circumstances of your fellowship suggested that they should be?
Has Occam’s Razor gone far enough?
Are elders of the being or the well being of the church?
Tony
thanks for this – it makes me wonder what non-essentials I’m committed to
on cutting it down a little – I think its hard to justify ‘preaching’ surviving your razor (& interesting that it is placed so high by others eg Mark 1 of the 9 Marks is Expositional Preaching)
on adding extra things – maybe singing (Colossians 3.17) and the Lords Supper (1 Cor 11.23) should make the list
Michael
Interesting post Tony!
I would have thought there would be food, a fellowship meal, not organsied liturgical communion, but at least a meal?
Cheers,
Chris
ps I am glad Mark is writing again and sending stuff here, it was good to be directed to this site…
thanks Tony
if I hear what you are saying
there is
revelation – Christ and his word
relationships – the people of God
response – prayer and thanksgiving
I think I would include Praise in the response (what MK referes to as singing Col 3, 1 Peter 2) , and wonder if one of the criticisms we have recieved is that there is not enough of a verticle dimension in our meetings ,ie we need to remember we meet with God as he speaks in his word, and to declare his praise (to others AND him)- what we muddle headed types call corporate worship.
also with MK, preaching as we know it – the extended monologue – would that make the cut whilst keeping proclamation?
good point Hefin – elders as essential? -all for them but can we be a church without them? seems very must like ” where the elder/ bishop is there is the church”.
looking fwd to more on this
Given that church tradition is nearly unanimous in including baptism and the Lord’s Supper as “core” principles of the church, I wonder if you might provide a more explicit explanation as to why you omit them. And if you include the “sacraments” (for lack of a better word) as a central practice of the church (in the same way that oral gospel proclamation is), then it would seem that this would lead also to a slightly more formal view of membership than you imply.
Thanks for the comments, one and all.
Yes, I was very tempted to include a fellowship meal in the name of Christ as one of those essentials, but there is such a breadth of opinion even among evangelicals on the precise nature and significance of the meal, and so little to go on (in the NT I mean) that I chickened out. Forgive my cowardice!
Ditto with baptism, only more so.
Hefin, would it be all right to say that some form of leadership or oversight is necessary but not sufficient? That is, all congregations should have leaders, but leaders are not the essence of what makes it a Christian congregation (contra Cyprian).
Singing? Well I think of that under the category of speech (super-charged speech). I don’t want to equate singing just with ‘response’, because it is also a way to teach each other. So when I say ‘speak/hear God’s together and respond in prayer and thanksgiving’, assume that singing is a natural part of both.
Geoff, that’s a huge discussion (about the relationship of sacraments to membership). All I will say in this instance is that while some form of Christian meal seems to be a normal part of NT congregational life, and people were also clearly baptized in the NT, I can’t see an imperative (or an indicative) for using the two as a means by which membership is fenced. Doesn’t mean that this approach is wrong (my good friends at 9Marks would be quick to argue the toss I’m sure), but just that as far as our congregational gatherings are concerned we would struggle to establish these as ‘core principles’ or sine qua nons just from the NT.
I wonder if the thought experiment leads us to a rather reductive account – asking what is the minimum I can get away with and still call it ‘church’. Trouble is, though the minimum might describe the ‘essence’ of the church, the minimum requires more in order to be what it is – as faith requires works…
There is potentially another problem with the ‘lopping’ method, too. Starting with what it meant for the NT church to be church is a dubious way of asking a theological question because it doesn’t reckon with the intervening 2000 years. That is, for us today to be ‘the church’ we have to reckon with what the church has been over the course of its history. It fails to reckon with the way in which the churches since the earliest days have received the NT and realised it in their common life. If we claim to be heirs of the magisterial reformation – and NOT anabaptists -then we cannot read the NT unhistorically in this way. Much of what Tony lops off, you can find in the very earliest accounts of the church – sacraments, ordered services (and the NT does contain credal/formulaic statements that point to structured patterns of coporate worship), offices of ministry, use of the word ‘worship’, etc. That is not to say that these accounts are absolutely authoritative over and against the NT, but they are not nothing either.
I am sorry you chickened out about the Lord’s Supper. There is far more on the Lord’s Supper to go on in the NT than we have for women’s ministry, and we have no problem being definite about that!
Thanks for this essay and for the comments. I’ve experienced church in various places and ways, sometimes without most of the optional externals. Church at times has been on Wednesday noon or with no music or at a nursing home with no formal membership.
Yet I’m reminded of a haunting question Tim Yancey asked in a Christianity Today column years ago: What would an organization be like that looked like a church, but wasn’t?
In changing situations, we’re free to eliminate all of the cultural add-ons to church, but if we keep the name and the add-ons, while removing one or more of the essentials, we’ve lost church. I love a somewhat traditional worship service with sturdy preaching, majestic music, a beautiful building, on Sunday morning…but it would be possible to have all of those and miss church—or to have none of those, but to have church.
Thanks, Tony. Provocative post. Chester and Timmis have greatly contributed in this area with their recent book Total Church (which The Briefing recently discussed).
Admittedly my personal church history (longtime previous member of Bethlehem Baptist under Piper [to whom I’m deeply grateful!], and alumni of Reformed Theological Seminary) has created a paradigm that I’ve been forced to more carefully consider if it’s simply biblical. Your post (and much of MM’s resources in general) only aid this reconsideration and recalibration of my understanding of church structure and life. Thank you!
I hope this discussion hasn’t closed down as I finally get round to posting my comment/question.
I’d be interested to hear Tony’s, and others’, views on preaching/the extended monologue as part of New Testament church life, which Michael and Shane refer to.
We know the first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2 v. 42) and Paul at least seems to have practised extended monologue when gathered with other believers – the famous incident with Eutychus in Acts 20 comes to mind!
So is preaching in the sense most of us understand and experience it an essential ingredient of church? And to what extent is our answer to that question shaped by the fact that the apostles are no longer with us? Given that this makes our circumstances very different from those of the New Testament churches, is preaching as extended monologue essential even if it was not the invariable practice then, so that church in the 21st century remains “the pillar and foundation of the truth”?
More questions – and I suspect at least one edition of The Briefing might be required to begin to formulate a response, but all comments would be most welcome.
I’m all for formal leadership/elders too, and I think the (attainable) ideal in the NT is of a church with recognised eldership. But since the issue of essence was raised I want to qualify the idea that eldership is of the essence of church. As for ‘necessary’ but not ‘sufficient’, I’d deny that elders are ‘necessary’ for the being of the church but they are in fact ‘sufficient’ – since a body of elders, biblically defined, would itself constitute a church (albeit a very odd church), but there could be a church without elders. Anyway I think I’m in serious danger of a skewering on that hair I just split…
What I’m denying are variants of “where the bishop is there is the church”, where old bishop is replaced by new ‘leadership team’/presbyters/eldership.
Tony, would it be fair to conclude that the essence of ‘church’ is the Spirit of Christ.
So, when people gather, it is Christ’s body if the Spirit of Christ is dwelling in the gathered people. Christ’s presence by his Spirit is the essence of church.
Of course, the presence of the Spirit of Christ in people will mean the word of God is listened to and obeyed and people will pray by the Spirit. And they will encourage and rebuke one another so that each keeps persevering, doing good, remembering the hope of eternal life.
That is, the Spirit of Christ, dwelling in each believer, is the essence of church and why the word of the Spirit (scriptures) is central.
Tony: Great stimulative thoughts. Perhaps the “razor” was a trifle too sharp. Remembering the Lord in the breaking of bread (regardless of form/frequency) seems central to the N.T. church. Keeps the cross and thus the gospel central and resists 21st century “down grade”.
Tony,
I think it would be helpful to distinguish between practices common to church now that are unhelpful or detract from what is essential from a careful reading of the NT and practices that may be helpful in given contexts. For example, formal liturgy may be very helpful in reaching some people and edifying some people with the gospel. However, I would contend that the use of the word ‘worship’ or the term ‘corporate worship’ might actually be unhelpful altogether when used of Christian assembly. A I always liked the fact that the orginal Anglican formal liturgies were not called ‘The book of worship’ but ‘the book of common prayer’.
(This is a contentious matter, I know, and godly men like David Peterson argue cogently and passionately for the use of these terms; but I am far from convinced).
Hi Michael,
Being ‘reductive’ isn’t always bad, as any contestant on The Biggest Loser will testify. Perhaps we could call it a ‘church weight loss journey’?
In any case, I hope I made it clear that the aim was not to create ‘minimalist church’ Pharisee-style, but to lead us to scrutinize our current assumptions, practices and traditions from a new angle.
However, I can’t say that I liked this sentence of yours very much: “Starting with what it meant for the NT church to be church is a dubious way of asking a theological question because it doesn’t reckon with the intervening 2000 years.”
Surely the NT is precisely where we should start (and eventually end) our theological questions. That doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t reckon with how churches ever since have ‘realised it in their common life’; nor does it mean that we can escape being who we are as the products of a particular history and community. But the only way for us to understand, evaluate and reform who we are, and all that has happened, is by returning to the NT time and again. There is no other final criterion or authority. ‘Earliness’ won’t do: just ask the Galatians.
Philip, I think this where your comment is very helpful. Some practices will fit well with the unchanging NT teaching, and others not—and this will usually be contextual, and will often change over time.
TP
Tony, are you arguing for what is know as the regulative principle as opposed to the normative principle -or some kind of hybrid middle way “contextualized” regulative principle , or do I have category confusion.
OK – fair enough, the ‘starting with’ language was infelicitous. What I am trying to say (I think!) is that we do not try to understand the church – of all doctrines – in a vacuum, as if nothing has occured between then and now (on which I think we agree). Even as we accept the authority of scripture to start, frame and end the discussion, we do not do so (if we are Calvin’s heirs, and Luther’s) as if nothing has occured between then and now. The lopping method of framing a doctrine seems kinda odd in this context, no?
Yes indeed. I was only starting the discussion, not suggesting that it was completed. (So perhaps it’s my turn to say that ‘lopping off’ wasn’t the most felicitous phrase.)
Perhaps the next step, since we’re talking church and Scripture and Reformation, is to talk about the regulative/normative principle (following Shane’s suggestion). I’ve been wanting to write something on this for a while—leave it with me.
Tony and other brethren,
Thank you for this discussion. I must confess to feeling several senses of deja vu as this was the issue young applicants for entry to Moore College were asked to discuss on a two day selection conference (no half hour chats in the sixties!)
Why only go back to NT? Wasn’t Sinai “the church’s first day?” as a great song by the great Tony P puts it?
Michael’s right about the dangers of reductionism and implying the last 2000 years matters little, but it works the other way, too, surely?
We have to remember that the early church didn’t arise in a vaccuum; no doubt Jewish and Gentile Christians brought in elements they thought necessary for their time together, for good or ill. We are never told that the early church services met some sort of ideal, and indeed there are indications that they met the ideal about as often as we do!
What necessity hasn’t really been covered in the comments? Organisation, the sharing of administrative burdens: who will make sure the widows are all fed? So I would suggest that church is fundamentally an organised body of Christians which meets regularly to proclaim, ponder and apply God’s Word.
But why do I keep thinking about how many of my denomination it takes to change a light bulb…?
Such a reduction is a welcomed thought, but is no mere thought experiment. It has been conducted through the assemblies of the Brethren movement. A major lesson to be learned from Brethren history is that the priesthood of all believers must be freely exercised in love and understood by all, or traditionalism will set in and dogmatism will inevitably prevail. The temptation to `lord it over’ others is real and powerful. So there must be a delineation between authority in exercising gifts of teaching and authority in any other matter not in scripture. This delineation must be expressed in attitudes, language and decision making processes. Without separating human authority from scriptural authority, leaders will be imposing their own will over others in many contexts; the actual behaviour could seem totally reasonable and loving, but none the less is abuse of power because no such authority is given to elders/pastors/teachers.
How can this `hypothetical’ church avoid an unscriptural dependence on human authority and instead uphold a right view of priesthood and so rightly use their individual gifts? By personally receiving teaching from the Holy Spirit, in the word of God, and applying this afresh themselves in love; only by getting real with God ourselves can we have a real church.