Modern Day Church--What’s That?

What would the ideal church look like on this side of eternity? This is a very challenging and involved, but necessary question. Its necessity lies in the reality that our response presumably has a direct impact on the church’s efficacy and representation of Christ. In other words, what we believe will ultimately determine and presuppose our demonstration. Its challenge and complexity lies in the extensiveness of the components and doctrines that characterize the local church and the variety of opinions concerning them. As a result, this question has been asked several times over the years with several different answers proposed as a result. Even though we get a biblical glimpse of the early church from the New Testament which should help provide a standard to apply, the answer to this question most assuredly differs depending on who is answering it. Moreover, in America, let alone the world, there is a pronounced diversity (and disagreement) among local churches ranging from just about every conceivable aspect of ecclesiology from spiritual gifting to church structure. Questions then emerge, such as which type of local church has it right, or is the closest to being right? Accordingly, it becomes important for all of those who follow Christ to do some research in order to properly formulate what the ideal church should look like. Of course, this formulation needs to be Spirit-led, biblically-based and theologically-responsible. It is therefore with the upmost humility that I provide the following depiction of the ideal church. Although this composition does not provide the occasion to be totally exhaustive in my view of the ideal local church, it will, however, cover the aspects that I think should be stand out and be made prominent in such a church.

Foundation of an Ideal Church
The most important characteristic for an ideal church to have on this side of eternity is an unmovable foundation built upon, and an unwavering devotion to, Jesus Christ. Edmund Clowney wisely notes in his book, The Church, “the great mark of the church is in the message it proclaims: the gospel of salvation from sin and eternal death through the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life.”[1] After all, the church in its universal form is the body of Christ and His bride whom He purchased (i.e., 1 Cor. 12:27; Acts 20:28). Additionally, the local church is merely an expression of the universal church and thus, it only makes sense for it to share the same dedication and fervor for proclaiming Christ. Therefore, if a church’s devotion to Christ wavers or fails to glorify Him and proclaim the Gospel, the church essentially ceases to be a church. There is no church without Jesus Christ. Likewise, Paul tells the Corinthian church that unless they hold fast to the Gospel, that they have believed in vain (1 Cor. 15: 1-4). An ideal church would be faithful to the message of Christ, proclaiming His name consistently and truthfully.

Balance in an Ideal Church 
The second characteristic that I believe is imperative for an ideal local church to have is a healthy balance of being both an organism and an organization. The church is an organism because it is an “individual form of life…a body made up of organs…of other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.”[2] The Bible makes it clear that the church “lives as an organism” and “shows the organic life of Christ’s body”[3] (Eph. 4:12; 5:30; Romans 12:4-8). In other words, the church is His active representation on earth, made up of believers, and not just focused around a physical building that houses a sanctuary. However, the Bible also teaches that the church is an organization. Professor Nebeker notes that the church often cooperated “systematically [in order] to conduct business.”[4] This is shown, for example, in the way the early church was aware of church attendance (e.g., Acts 2:41), had spiritual offices (Acts 14:23), met regularly (Heb, 10:25), and took on financial collections (Romans 15:26).[5] An organization is how many people today seem to view the church. Many view it as a business establishment solely, and readily forget that it is also a growing and living organism. The ideal church would clearly be both with the understanding that the church is called to be both.

Dealing with Diversity in an Ideal Church
This next characteristic is one that I have yet to see applied correctly. An ideal church will not only be able to handle diversity, but will thrive on it. In fact, diversity within a local church, for an ideal church, will be one of its greatest strengths as opposed to one of its major points of division (as in some modern churches). Even the early church struggled with diversity as it was comprised of Jews and Gentiles. Paul rebuked Gentiles in Galatians 5 for confining themselves to constraints of Hebraic law-keeping instead of the freedom of the Gospel (i.e., circumcision) and even rebukes Peter for his treatment of the Gentiles with Jews present (Gal. 2:11-16). The early church’s difficulties make us aware of issues that commonly arise with a substantially diverse membership, but also highlight the biblical truth that every church member is equal and deserves to be treated that way – despite culture, race, or ethnicity. Honestly we have the same issues today. We often look down on those who are different from us, and often demand that those who are different from us change to become more like us (this includes those who dress different, worship different, talk different, etc…). However, an ideal church will make the most out of these cultural and racial differences. Instead of splitting over our diversity, which is common today, we should learn how to use it for good. Many of the churches in the New Testament (i.e., the Church of Rome) were comprised of Jews and Gentiles, who had to learn how to get along.

Additionally, many churches today seem to be geared only to effectively minister to one particular age group or culture within their membership. The ideal church would be able to appeal to all of its members, no matter what age, ethnicity or race. It would have something to offer to all of its members, and would adjust accordingly if necessary. Of course, this is not to say that the church should compromise its message in order to reach more people, but rather should adapt to the current cultural expressions (in reason) in order to effectively reach people with the uncompromised Gospel truth. Clowney notes that “the ideal of cultural diversity within the church means that we learn from one another, and appreciate the rich variety of human lifestyles. Unity in Christ does not suppress cultural expression.”[6] Too often the church attempts to suppress one cultural expression in favor of another. It is true that the Bible does not seem to mention children’s church, youth group, or any other separate ministry aimed at a particular culture or age group. However, these ministries come about presumably because of the church’s recognition of the lack of representation and expression of certain cultural and age groups within our main service and ministry. Ultimately, the ideal church will learn to incorporate the diversity of its members into its daily and normal operations. Clowney sums this point up well stating that “the church does not fabricate an international super-culture. It is called to penetrate and preserve the cultures of the world so that all peoples may hear and heed to the good news of Christ’s kingdom.”[7]

Leadership and Structure in an Ideal Church
Next, the ideal church will not have a distinction between laity and clergy. As many scholars have noted, the Bible makes no such distinction. There should be no Christ followers on the bench, but everyone should be on the court participating. The New Testament presents a church in which everyone is involved in the church’s operations. The ideal church would not be comprised of a few that actually run the operations of the church, along with others who simply come to hear a sermon on Sunday, but rather a participating body of believers. However, the New Testament does mention some who take leadership roles in the church.

In dealing with leadership and structure, the ideal church would be lead by a plurality of spiritually-lead elders because this seems to be “preeminent pattern of church government”[8] in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 14:23;15:2; 20:17, 28; 21:18; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:5; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1). Not only is this plurality of elders both biblically and historically supported, but it seems to have pragmatic benefits as well. Church historian M. James Sawyer notes that “churches that have a pastor as an authority above others have a disproportionately high number of moral failures at the top level of leadership.”[9] Additionally, Daniel Wallace notes that “by having several leaders, the church is more able to take on the personality of Christ rather than the idiosyncrasies of any one man.”[10] The number of elders most likely depends on the size of the congregation or the amount of people that the elders are to serve. It also seems that with a significantly-sized congregation, the church should also have deacons who help lead the church along with the elders by attending to the needs of the people (e.g., Acts 6:1-6 and Titus 1:5 show that not all of the early local churches had deacons). Likewise, Daniel Wallace states that “if [elders] get distracted from devoting themselves to prayer and the word, they need deacons.”[11]

Next, these leaders of the ideal local church will lead the flock with biblically-based authority that is characterized by servant leadership (or sacrificial servanthood). They will serve the ones they have authority over instead of “lording over them” (Matt. 20:25; 23:11). They will be marked by maturity in their Christian walk, disciplined lives, and clear communication of the Gospel.[12] Furthermore, the ideal church will not only respect the authority of the elders, but will also understand that the congregation itself, in a sense, has authority. In the early church, the congregation exercised authority by collecting money (2 Cor. 8-9), administering the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 1:20-26), selecting elders and deacons (Acts 6:3-6), and even exercising church discipline (Matt 16:19).[13] The elders, on the other hand, were shown to rule (2 Tim.5:17), settle doctrinal disputes (Acts 15), establish churches, and appoint leaders (Titus 1:5).[14] In certain situations, of course, the elders must be led by the Holy Spirit on deciding whether or not to involve the entire congregation in the decision making process.

It seems apparent that the early church frequently fellowshipped in houses as well as the temple. This is clear in Act 2, where the church spent “much time” in the temple but also went house to house. Thus, I believe that the ideal church would also do both. This is not only biblical but pragmatic. The house fellowships can break down the church in smaller more manageable and sociable groupings in which an elder would be the head of his own house fellowship. Also, it is a way to involve those who are less fortunate and physically (or emotionally) unable to come to the church building. However, the meetings held in the temple or church building would be beneficial because it allows the entire church to be present, and in fellowship with all others.

Lastly, (but not least) another critically important aspect to consider when dealing with church structure and leadership is the ideal church’s willful appreciation of their women, as equals, not second-class citizens. Whether women are allowed to be deacons (or elders if that is one’s persuasion) is an issue solely dependent on one’s interpretation of the qualification for such roles in the Pastoral Epistles. However, regardless of one’s theological viewpoint, women are to be active, valued and honored in whatever role or position they take up.

Service in an Ideal Church
Clowney mentions that the service of the church is threefold: to serve [God] directly in worship; to serve the saints in nurture; and to serve the world in witness.[15] The living out of and devotion to these three characteristics will markedly define the ideal church. Under the umbrella of christocentrism, these will be the main focus areas of the ideal church.

In worship, an ideal church will first and foremost be committed to the proclaiming of the Gospel. Whether this happens in a sermon or during table talk is not important. The church also will be open to different forms of worship (singing, dancing, rapping) as long as they are authentic forms of worship and give glory to God. The ideal church should also be devoted to prayer - communicating with the Triune God whenever possible, in the good times and the bad. Also, if the miraculous gifts are used during the worship service, they will be used in strict accordance with Paul’s instructions in his epistles (i.e., Corinthians). In dealing with the ordinances, the local church will faithfully practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Biblically, baptism seems as if it should be restricted to believers. Remembering the Lord’s death on the cross should be a frequent occurrence in a worship service; but also it seems as if this remembrance should not be restricted to bread and wine, but any time when brothers and sisters in Christ break bread with one another.

In serving the saints, the ideal local church will be devoted to the needs of every single member (the house meeting setup should make this feasible). The church will provide necessary resources to promote the maturity and growth of the entire congregation. There will be intimate (and perhaps not so intimate) fellowshipping and gatherings that take place often, because fellowship is a key component of spiritual growth and development. Although unthinkable in American culture, the ideal church would be remarkably similar to the early church in Acts 2 who shared possessions and treated each other as family. In addition to fellowshipping among fellow members, the ideal church would also fellowship with other local churches in the area for the glory of God. This will help the church not to be isolated from others, but rather to learn and appreciate other churches.

In serving the world in witness, the ideal local church will serve and aid its immediate community. Since the churches primary goal and mission is to make disciples (Matt. 28:16-20). Therefore, the church should always be a sharing witness of Jesus Christ to everyone inside and outside of it. The church should be visible to outsiders as a respectable and morally upheld group of people who love to serve others. Thus the church would be involved in activities that help people (e.g., visiting nursing homes, hospitals, feeding people). There will be no lacking of serving the outside world in an ideal local church. This should in no way be secondary, but rather a major emphasis of the church – to share the truth of the Gospel and serving the world.

Conclusion
Truthfully, although far from being exhaustive, my model of the ideal church is a representation that I hope is biblically-based and theologically sound. As with most things involving theology, my model will constantly be under revision as I grow, learn, and mature in the faith. I simply pray that the church, as Christ’s body, will learn how to ideally model His character more on more accurately on this side of eternity.

[1] Taken from Edmund Clowney’s The Church, p.103
[2] Taken from Gary Nebeker’s “The Church and Last Things” class notes, p. 7.
[3] Taken from Edmund Clowney’s The Church, p. 202
[4] Taken from Gary Nebeker’s “The Church and Last Things” class notes, p. 9.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Taken from Edmund Clowney’s The Church, p. 164
[7] Ibid, p. 175
[8] Taken from Gary Nebeker’s “The Church and Last Things” class notes, p. 41.
[9] Quoted from Daniel Wallace’s “Who Should Run the Church? A Case for the Plurality of Elders.”
[10] Ibid.
[11] Taken from Daniel Wallace’s “Deacons and the Leadership of the Church.”
[12] Taken from Gary Nebeker’s “The Church and Last Things” class notes, p. 44-45.
[13] Ibid, pg. 42-43.
[14] Taken from Sid Litke’s “Survey of Biblical Doctrine: The Church,” p.5, Biblical Studies Press, 1988.
[15] Taken from Edmund Clowney’s The Church, p. 117