The First Church

I'm pretty sure that Acts 2:42-47 does not serve as a mandate for how to "do church" these days, but it isn't a bad model. I don't see it as a command, but it is commendable. Especially when you look at the core of it.

They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common. (Acts 2:42-44)

Let's examine those pieces, because I think that the principles are good for then and now.

It says, first, that they were "continually devoting" themselves. I sure wish I could see that in our churches today, or, rather, among believers today. "Continually devoting." The adverb is "continually" and the action is "devoting". In the Greek, however, these are one word. The word is προσκαρτερέω -- proskartereō -- and is literally "to adhere to, to be steadfastly attentive to, to give unremitting care to a thing, to continue all the time in a place, to persevere." It is translated as "continually devoting" because one or the other term was not sufficient to get the strength of the devotion across. This is a diligent attention, a serious commitment to remain.

To what were they so devoted? The text lists four things: 1) the apostles' teaching, 2) fellowship, 3) the breaking of bread, and 4) prayer. Now, mind you, there are likely lots of things to which we could be devoted. Look around; you'll find them everywhere. There is politics and homeschooling and social justice and environmental issues. There are even Christian things like missions and outreach. I think, in fact, the early church failed at that part, although God was adding to their numbers daily (Acts 2:47). So these four must be important.

So, where do we find "the apostles' teaching" today? Well, it's very clearly provided, kept, and translated in the Word of God. The New Testament is a large collection of "the apostles' teaching", and the New Testament is clear that a lot of what they taught was from the Old Testament. In other words, if you'd like to mimic the devotion of the early church, start with a serious commitment to read, learn, study, and follow Scripture. I have to be honest. I cannot imagine what the church would look like today if they had this one, serious, continuous commitment of following the teachings of Scripture. Instead, today's Christians barely know what's in their Bibles and most feel like today's "TL/DR" -- too long/didn't read.

Fellowship isn't hard to figure. But let's be careful; it is not found in church attendance. It is found in church involvement. It is found in being a part of a church -- attending, connecting, ministering, involving yourself in it. Now, let's be fair. It doesn't take any special Greek training or cultural examination to see this, right? So why is it that a growing number of Christians are inclined to either attend church without involvement or skip it altogether?

The "breaking of bread", immersed as it is in the center of all these religiously-oriented things, is likely a devotion to the Lord's Supper as opposed to sitting down to a meal together. (That is found down in Acts 2:46.) While we often tend toward Communion as a dry, lifeless thing that we simply walk through quietly and almost without attention, these Christians were continually devoted to it.

Then there is prayer. They were devoted to prayer. They were committed to praying. They didn't have to be told "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17). It was just part of their devotion, part of their commitment, a primary focus. They didn't mouth it. They were continually devoted to it. They were eager to adore God, to confess sin, to thank God for His gifts and grace, to ask for what they desired of Him. This was important and they pursued it diligently.

The results are also given. They shared a sense of awe which, despite today's more tepid use, included both a feeling of reverential respect and a sense of fear or dread. You know, "God is so good ... and, oh my, God is so BIG." There were wonderful things happening. And they were serious about taking care of each other.

Maybe the text does not provide a standard instruction for how we're supposed to "do church", but I think it is an outstanding model. I think, in fact, that a group of believers that operated with that continual devotion to those things would prove to be a miraculous church, a church where God was at work, a church where things would be really happening for the Lord. I think that kind of church would be a problem for the world that is so quick to dismiss church people as hypocrites and fools.

Pillars of the Church

⁷ But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. ⁸ Therefore it says, "When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men." ... ¹¹ And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, ¹² for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; ¹³ until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. ¹⁴ As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; ¹⁵ but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, ¹⁶ from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love (Eph 4:7-8, 11-16).

Interesting passage. To me, this is the clearest explanation there is for the aim and function of the Church. Let's look at it for a moment.

The passage talks about "gifts", and we're well aware of "the gifts of the Spirit". However, this passage on gifts doesn't refer to things like "tongues" and "service". Instead, there are four (or five, depending on how you read it) gifts given by Christ to the Church. These gifts are found in verse 11: "He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers." Some refer to these as "the five-fold ministry". There are apostles. Notice I use a lowercase "a" for that. The role of Apostle (uppercase) refers to the original twelve and Paul. Paul was the last of the Apostles. But we still have apostles (lowercase). An apostle is simply a messenger, a delegate of Christ commissioned by God to bring His message. A prophet is a forth-teller. Thus, the two are messengers of Christ, speaking God's Word. Their roles are slightly different. The apostle, as a commissioned messenger, carries a different level of authority than the prophet. The prophet has the gift of clearly interpreting the Scriptures -- "Thus saith the Lord." Apostles are church planters. Prophets speak the Word. Now, some would argue that the role of apostle is ended, and some would do it convincingly. Certainly the Apostle -- defined as those commissioned directly by Christ, witnesses of the Resurrection, under special inspiration, and given ultimate authority in the Church for doctrine -- is no more. (I mean, there is no one currently who witnessed the Resurrection, right?) But I would argue that the modern apostle is fairly close to the modern "pastor" (although I would also argue that the modern "pastor" is not the same as the biblical one mentioned here). Then there are evangelists, people gifted to go to the uttermost parts of the earth and preach the Gospel. Finally, there are "pastors and teachers". Greek scholars tell me that this term differs from the others in that it seems to be a single concept, a "pastor/teacher", rather than two. This person given by God, then, would shepherd and teach. This person would disciple others.

Given the rest of the passage, these gifts seem to me to be the basic pillars of the Church. Since the primary function of the Church here is "the equipping of the saints", "the building up of the body of Christ", "a mature man", "to grow up in all aspects into Him", "the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love", it would seem that this purpose is built on the structures of these four primary gifts from God. The apostle plants churches and preaches the Word with authority. The prophet expounds the Word from God. The evangelist brings people to Christ. The pastor/teacher disciples fellow believers, "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you." Indeed, I would suggest that each of us fall in at least one of these categories.

Now, I've never heard this anywhere else before, so I'm out on a limb here. However, it seems to me that if you have all four of these primary gifts functioning in your local gathering of believers, you will have a successful church. It will have the truth of the Word preached. It will have the Word with authority and with insight. It will have people being brought to Christ. (That is the function of believers, not the church.) And those in the church will be constantly moving in personal relationships and interactions with other mature believers toward a deeper, more profound maturity. That, to me at least, seems like the ideal, healthy church.

Doing Church -- Living

I've been looking at the question of whether or not we are doing church right here in the 21st century. I started by pointing to the first church from Acts 2. I see scant comparison to today's churches. I looked at biblical church leadership compared to our version. I see large disparities between the biblical prescriptions and what we're doing today. I looked at the biblical purpose of church compared with our general purpose today and found a large gap. It has all made me wonder how far off we really are from having biblical churches.

This next territory is more personal. How are Christians to be living? I connect this to "doing church" because I see the biblical model as "discipleship" or, as the author of Hebrews says it, "Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works" (Heb 10:24).

There appears to be, at least in American Christianity, a largely limited notion of what Christians should be doing. At least from the outside, it looks like we believe that our primary role in life is to point out how bad people are. We seem to think that our purpose is to make a more moral society, to try to conform our world to biblical standards of behavior. We seem, in so many cases, to be trying to make bad people into good people. And, of course, you can understand why. I mean, isn't that what the Bible says we ought to be doing? Oh, wait ... I can't find that in mine. So ... what do I find?

By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:35).

"Yeah, yeah," some of you might say, "leave it to Stan to oversimplify." Maybe. But before we complicate things, let's just start with this, okay?

Since Christ is the one we're following (you know, "Christians"), I would think that Christ would be the one to best define what it means to be a disciple of Christ. Christ Himself gives one and only one genuine hallmark of a disciple: love. Christian living, then, ought to begin and end with "love". Of course this is entirely consistent with the two commandments that form the basis for all moral law -- love God and love your neighbor.

Interestingly, Jesus called this command "a new commandment" (John 13:34). What about this commandment was new? Well, first, the original command was to love "as you love yourself". Jesus said that we are to love one another "as I have loved you". That is a significant difference. But there is another difference. He is clear that the "one another" to whom He refers is the disciples. Now, to be sure, we are to love everyone, including our enemies, but Jesus gives a special command to His disciples: "Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another" (John 13:34). It is that love for the brethren that is the hallmark of a disciple.

In the earlier example of the first church, we see this clear hallmark. "All who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people" (Act 2:44-47). The first church was clearly marked by a genuine, observable, practical love that exceeded the simple "as you love yourself" kind of love. It was sacrificial (you know, like Christ's love). It was personal (like Christ's love). It was observable (like Christ's love). It was selfless (like Christ's love). It was just what Christ said it should be.

So, here I am again at the question stage. Are we, as Christians, living out what Christ said we should be living out? Is the church teaching us to live genuine, Christ-like love for one another? Or are we living comfortable, selfish lives? Based on the perspective most people have of Christians, at least in America, I am sorely afraid that our churches are not molding us into genuine disciples marked by genuine love for one another and our Christians are not nearly as concerned about loving one another as we are about, oh, say, politics, morality, judgmentalism. Now, don't get me wrong. It is abundantly clear, if you read through Acts (the entire New Testament, in fact), that the disciples, as they went about being genuine Christians, did not fail to point out sin where it was -- they did not fail to stand for the truth -- but this was only part of the message they brought. And "making converts", according to Acts 2:47, was God's job. So I ask, are we sure that the Christianity in America to which we've become so accustomed is biblical? If it's not marked first and foremost by a Christ-like love for one another, I suspect we (you and I) have a problem.

Doing Church - Purpose

Sticking with a theme here, I want to examine the question of "Why?" Why are we here? What is the purpose of the church?

If you ask the question or just observe and infer, you'll likely get something along these lines: We're here to spread the Gospel. That, my friends, is largely the entire answer. Every church service has a Gospel invitation. Every sermon has a Gospel aim. The church is there to "proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15). I mean, isn't that commonly understood? Why would you even ask?

Funny thing, but that's not what I find as the biblical function of church. First, nowhere will you find the command "Go into all the world and make converts." It's not in there. We can find "proclaim the gospel" as I indicated above, but "make converts" isn't there. What is "The Great Commission"? "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20). Boiling that down to "make converts" is a serious breach of text. It's not what He commanded. There is "go" (literally, "as you are going"). There is "make disciples". There is baptizing. There is teaching. There is no "make converts". No, no, this Great Commission is a broad command to spend your time wherever you may be bringing people along as genuine followers of Christ, baptizing them and teaching them the whole truth. You may call it "mentoring", but the easiest, biblical concept is "discipleship".

Now, to be completely fair, that is a command to Jesus's disciples. It's an individual command, then, to all who would follow Christ. How does that relate to doing church? Well, according to the Bible, the function of church is to enable individual followers of Christ to be disciples. Where do I get that?

And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love (Eph 4:11-16).

He (Christ) has equipped the church with the tools that we need to ... what? "Equip the saints for the work of ministry." Why? "For building up more converts." No, no, that's not at all right. "For building up the body of Christ." And what is the goal? "Mature manhood." The goal, according to Paul here in Ephesians, is to build up the body of Christ to maturity in love.

Funny thing ... I have rarely found a church who views its primary goal as building believers in maturity. I know of precious few churches who see their primary function as making disciples, of teaching "all that I have commanded you". It just doesn't seem to be a common perspective in most churches of which I'm aware. Some will focus on evangelism. Fewer, but not an insignificant number will focus on "serving the community" -- the "social gospel". Fewer still will focus on preaching the Word, which is really a good thing -- a start on this purpose statement -- but not the whole picture. But I know of extremely few churches who see their purpose as making disciples, building mature believers, "equipping the saints".

So I ask ... are we sure we're doing church right? What we're doing may be good and all that (there's certainly nothing wrong with evangelism, serving the community, or preaching the Word), but is it biblical? Are we doing church like we are intended to?

Doing Church - Leadership

Taking my own suggestion, I want to examine various aspects of "church" that, perhaps, we need to revisit. Are we doing what we're simply comfortable doing, or are we doing what the Bible says to do? I will look here at the concept of leadership.

There is plenty of information in the New Testament to explain what church leadership is supposed to look like. We have two entire passages -- one written to Timothy and the other to Titus -- that details the qualifications for a particular component of church leadership referred to as "elders". It might be called "bishops" in some translations or "overseers" in others, but it's the same thing. We know, for instance, that elders are appointed, not elected. We know that they are males (no matter how hard you work at changing that). They are called to a higher character than your average, everyday Christian, beginning with the concept of "blameless", a high calling indeed. We know that they are to lead by example, and not for personal gain (1 Peter 5:2-3). And we know that there was not a single "elder", but always a group of elders. Oh, yes, there is plenty of information on this particular group.

Funny thing. How many churches do you know that follow this? Elders are elected, not appointed. The qualifications are often mitigated -- "No one can meet those standards, so we'll just try to get close." Often those who serve as elders aren't chosen for their spiritual depth, but for their willingness or, worse, their contributions. In the worst cases, though, some churches ignore this group of people altogether. They claim that their pastor is their "elders". (You see the problem, don't you? "Elders" is plural, but "pastor" is not.)

There is a second group in biblical church leadership. They are typically referred to as deacons. This group first came about in Acts 6 when the numbers of believers were starting to overwhelm the Apostles. Deacons, then, were appointed to serve the needs of the church people. These first men were no slouches. They were "men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom" (Acts 6:3). One of them, in fact, was Stephen who, a chapter later, died for the faith. Paul explains to Timothy what the qualifications should be for deacons in 1 Tim 3:8-13. There is some question about whether or not women may serve in this role, and that's fine, but there is no doubt that deacons form a second tier of church leadership. Another group of servants, the deacons take care of the physical needs of the church while the elders take care of the spiritual needs.

Today, of course, biblical qualifications aren't of much concern. "Warm, willing bodies that can do things around the church" are pretty much all the qualifications required. I mean, seriously, are you really going to suggest that you need to have "men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom" to get the job done? Don't set the standard so high! And, of course, there are other churches that ignore this group entirely as well. Some churches have deacons and no elders. Other churches have elders and no deacons. Neither of these fit the instructions for church leadership.

I have to admit, there is a problem along these lines in my mind with a particular segment of "church" today in America. The "house church" is quite popular, and I see lots of good things there, but a church that consists of maybe a dozen people is not likely to include "elders" and "deacons" without making nearly everyone one or the other. I've never quite understood that particular aspect of the house church concept. I'm just saying.

There is another disconnect between today's churches and the biblical accounts that I've never had cleared up for me. Every church in America today has a pastor. This pastor is the primary leader. These primary leaders vary, I suppose. In some churches he is the "teaching elder". In others there is the "head pastor" along with several other "lesser" pastors. But it's still primarily a singular form of leadership, not a leadership by elders. Now, in the Bible I find only one, single, solitary reference to "pastor". It's in Eph 4:11, and most reputable translators find it to be a basically hyphenated word with the concept that follows it: "Pastor-teacher". There are no Bible colleges, no seminaries, not even anything that resembles "clergy" in the Bible, but we still live with this pastor-leadership concept in nearly every church in the country. Why is that? Where does it come from? Most importantly, is it right?

My question, then, is this. Are we doing church leadership in a biblical manner? Biblical leadership has two tiers, elders and deacons, is constructed of a plurality, has specific qualifications, and is appointed. Each tier has its tasks to do. There is no example in Scripture of a singular leader of a church -- what we call today "pastors". (Of course, you'd be hard pressed to find anything approximating the concept of "the Southern Baptist Convention" or some other denominational structure over a group of churches.) So ... are we doing church leadership in a biblical manner, or is it time to reexamine how we have structured the leadership of our churches?

Doing Church

In Acts 2 we get a picture of what the first church was like:

They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved (Acts 2:42-47).

Now ... think for a moment about your church. What are the similarities? What are the differences? Okay, for me, the similarities are minor and the differences are vast.

Have you ever asked yourself if what you and I know of as "church" is what it is supposed to be? I know. I can find lots of good things about church. I'm not suggesting it's ... bad. But here's the interesting thing to me. Almost nothing that marks "church" to us today can be found in the Bible. In other words, while I'm not saying what we do today is wrong, it does appear that it's not biblical.

What are the components of the first church? They had a specific leadership -- the apostles, men who had been in the company of Christ and discipled by Him. Of course, we don't have that today. Can't have. But we do have what they wrote, so we can have "the apostles' teaching". We just can't have their leadership.

What else made up that first church? Fellowship was listed second. The word is koinonia. It refers to communion, to communicate, to share in common, companionship. It has all of this in mind. This church wasn't a come-and-go affair. You didn't attend church. Oh, no. It was deeply interpersonal. It's interesting, too, that Princeton defines the concept this way: "Christian fellowship or communion with God or with fellow Christians; said in particular of the early Christian community." Why "in particular of the early Christian community" and not today?

The next two components were "the breaking of bread" and "prayer". I stick them together because, in a sense, they are part of "fellowship". If fellowship is "communion", then clearly "the breaking of bread" is part of fellowship, whether it references observing the Lord's Supper or actual eating together. And prayer is a marvelous interpersonal tool. "How can I pray for you?" is a question that any Christian would love to hear.

It's interesting in this first church that "everyone kept feeling a sense of awe". You didn't hear, "Church isn't that relevant to me." No one was looking for new music or trying to adapt it to new arenas. The presence of God was sufficient.

Perhaps the most astounding thing this passage outlines is this: "All those who had believed were together and had all things in common." It was a physical togetherness as they met house to house day by day. It was a doctrinal togetherness as they devoted themselves to the apostles' teachings. It was a financial togetherness as they sold their goods to meet the needs of others in the group. It was a social togetherness as they ate together day by day.

The more I think about it, the less I think it would be tolerated in today's churches. Oh, sure, we'll gather and even listen to the Word. But daily? No, thanks. Twice on Sunday has become too much. Eating meals together? No, thanks. I need my space. And that whole "selling their property and possessions" thing to share with each other is a bit over the top, isn't it? I mean, look, there's no command that we do that, is there?

The passage above lists one interesting comment about this church. It says they were "having favor with all the people". Now, we know that Jesus promised persecution and they got it, so they got both favor and hatred, but it seems to me that the church today, at least in America, only gets one side of that coin, and it's not the favor side. Is it possible that we today in the "enlightened" 21st century are maybe not doing church right? Is it remotely possible that the church to which we've become accustomed is not the church that was originally intended or even most effective? Is it possible that we would do well to reexamine what it means to do church -- from a biblical viewpoint?