The photo below shows people I don’t know. They are doing something that used to be familiar to me, though, and I believe it should be more familiar to many more Christians. These people are having a small-group Bible study.
The photo is found at the top of an article that downplays and denigrates small groups, making bold, tradition-bound assertions. Some of those are about the supposed authority of proper-name churches. Should a mainline group be tacitly permitted to mislead masses of people, even becoming increasingly more misled itself through the years, and still have “Heaven’s authority”? It perturbs my spirit that anyone would write such material. (The word “perturbs” refers to Paul’s documented experience in Athens, and I imagine I feel something like he felt then, or when writing Galatians, which is not at all to say that I think I’m on his level.) Besides deeply upsetting me, this article, to which I will link at the bottom, also gives me some fresh energy to form a new small group that functions more like a house church! (Not to worry, if you’re a supporter of orthodoxy: this enthusiasm is sure to be temporary and will doubtless be quelled by generally depressive hopelessness or cynicism.)
I wrote the above before reading the second and third sections of the article. After reading the whole thing, I’m even more disquieted. I cannot put aside my agitation, but I can try to allow for one or more potentially worthwhile elements. A wholly logical person would deal with this differently. I don’t even care to be wholly logical, but the logical side will play an important role here—with comments adorned by somewhat emotional wordings. The first paragraph under the heading “What Small Groups Lack” actually gives a pretty nice description of small groups, but then the first supposed concern is rather circular:
- Your small group is not a church because it does not possess heaven’s authority.
Why doesn’t a small group count as a church in this writer’s mind? Because it doesn’t have heaven’s authority? And why not? Because it’s not a church in this writer’s mind.
The underpinnings of the entire first section (under the that line) are made of mush. It doesn’t merit a line-by-line critique; I’ll say only that the church is not about wielding power or rendering verdicts or overseeing doctrinal statements or granting citizenship in a kingdom. The church is not about jurisdiction or authority, or synods or dioceses or sessions, or conferences or headquarters, or chiefs or directors, or any other purported holders of power. No Christian group, no matter its size, is above scrutiny; no group, no matter its size, should think of itself as possessing authority. Rather, any group of Christians, no matter the size of the group, should look simply and devotedly to God as the Authority.
Continuing now with the second point:
- Your small group is not a church because it does not administer the ordinances (or at least it shouldn’t).
Jesus gave the church two ordinances: baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Actually, the New Covenant scriptures do not enumerate a checklist of “ordinances” in any such way, and that’s an important side point, but I do affirm that both of those items are highly significant and should be observed.
Admittedly, a missionary to an unreached people group will baptize new converts independent of a local church because no local church exists yet in the unreached area. However, the missionary and the newly baptized disciples can agree to gather in Christ’s name to administer the ordinances and form a local church. Under normal circumstances, however, baptism is a church act.
It’s good that special circumstances are at least acknowledged here. Perhaps the writer would also allow for the Spirit of God to work through Philip with the Ethiopian? I’m reminded of the Christians I knew who said it was OK to do X or Y at a youth retreat, but not when back in the church building. They were conscientious and sincere, but incorrect. The thing was either OK or not OK, regardless of the change in setting. Some circumstances might indeed need discriminating judgment and wise action, for the sake of the weak, or for the sake of Christian harmony, but no one should be under the illusion that something that’s right in one setting it strictly wrong in another.
I affirm that any circumstance in which a new believer is immersed into Christ is an occasion for joy! I remember my own joy, after stressing for months and finally asking a very dear, believing friend about whether she had been immersed. I was overjoyed to find she had been. The circumstances did not matter. The sign on the door did not matter. What mattered was her faith and her submission to the act of being “buried with Christ.” The author continues by individually legislating (not even as a small group!)
If a small group celebrates the Lord’s Supper together, they have begun to function as an earthly embassy of Christ’s heavenly kingdom. They inadvertently and unlawfully commandeer the power of heaven’s keys without the proper jurisdiction to do so. They assume the responsibility to admit or deny someone from the table, a prerogative that belongs to the whole church. An embassy can issue a passport, a group of expatriates cannot.
The above, with its references to “heaven’s keys” and “jurisdiction,” seems to assume a legal kind of sacramental significance of the so-called ordinances. I, on the other hand, affirm the meaningful significance of faith-filled observance of the practice of immersion and communion.
And a small group is now considered “expatriate”? Wow. What a high-and-mighty declaration! Because one meets with a small group, he has left his “country”? Again the writer shows his obsession with power and authority. The expression “unlawfully commandeer the power of heaven’s keys” leads me first to allege issues in the writer’s philosophy. But my concerns are larger: there are likely to be power/control issues for those in leadership roles in any larger church. (The smaller the group, all other things being equal, the less likely that there is a harmful hierarchy, but human brokenness being what it is, control and coercion can be concerns anywhere.)
- Your small group is not a church because it has not been authorized to administer church discipline.
And who, pray tell, do you think is to do any “authorizing” these days? I see little to no direct connection between Matthew 18:15-20 and the present-day authorization to “administer” “church discipline.” The principle is there, and I do believe in the ideas of discipline and withdrawal. (I imagine they could be carried out effectively, although I’ve only seen it done twice that I can recall, and only one was effective.) The problem here is not the principle, but rather, the enforcement authority that takes up residence in hierarchical structures, quite apart from real spiritual leadership that should arise organically.
In Matthew 18:15–20, Jesus taught us how to care for a brother in unrepentant sin. After warning him individually, and then with two or three witnesses, we are to “tell it to the church” (Matt. 18:17).
The author does not define “church” in context here; nor does he account for the chronology, i.e., that the church per se was not established yet. That is a quibble, and I still think the principle is valid, but it merited pointing out.
Your small group probably cares about sound doctrine. Your small group would probably correct a brother ensnared by a false teacher. But what would your small group do with a member that promoted a false gospel and refused correction? Your small group would have to take his case to the church.
Yes, my groups have always cared about “sound doctrine.” And we energetically pursued a serious issue at one point. If someone had stubbornly insisted on continuing in sin, our group would not have included that person anymore. Isn’t that what any church should do? There would have been no need for some higher level of power-wielding based on hierarchy or group size.
You see, a thing is what it is even if its reality is not recognized. No one has to think it’s a church for it to act like a church or be a church. No group needs a sign or a pastor-in-charge or a website. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. . . . Furthermore, if your idea of a duck involves stirrups and tackle, or rebar and concrete, it’s probably not a duck! Put in a different way: if your idea of “church” precludes that a small group could be one, then it’s your concept of church that should change, not the small group’s. (For the record, I don’t think all small groups would or should be considered churches. I’ve probably been in a dozen small groups, and maybe only three would be church-like, or almost so. I only rebel against tradition when it has little basis in fact . . . and/or when it argues against itself, or against what I read in scriptures.)
When the article is considered overall, I think it’s curious that size/number is presumed to translate to status. Bigger means “church”? The familiar “where two or three are gathered” principle was even quoted, but then promptly forgotten, it appears! Who decides how large a church has to be in order to be a church? And does the decider know that number? (I might trust a small group of 7 more than a church of 27 in which there are multiple members of the same extended family in the latter.)
Now . . . the author of the article I’ve been quarreling with is (1) from Utah and is (2) a senior pastor of a church. For both those reasons, it’s understandable that he would be concerned with binding readers to teachings he believes to be sound. Yet he is reaching, overstating, and misstating a good deal.
Now look back at that great picture above. That group looks a whole lot more like a “church” to me than most of the established ones whose doors I’ve darkened lately. (Here, for reference, is the link to the article).
Whatever you think about established, big-name churches, don’t make the mistake of denigrating God’s work in smaller ones without the hallmarks of hierarchy.
Earnestly Speaking 