ONE SIZE FITS ALL

By their actions, in most cases the church believes that one size fits all. You want to start up a new branch of the church in some town so you rent a public building, you meet on Sunday morning, you sing some songs, you listen to someone preach and you have communion once a week, or once a month. During the week you meet in someone’s home for bible study and to sing a few mores songs and maybe do a bit of praying.

I have not been to a church that does anything different. I have no doubt that there are some who do things differently but they must be in the minority. In my particular denomination, you can probably count them on one hand.

When you have grown a bit, mainly with people moving from other churches and you have a bit more to your programme, you then try and find a ‘pastor’ from somewhere else to run the church and pay him for the privilege.

What is wrong with this model from a biblical perspective?

First, in the New Testament it was always the apostle who went out and established the new church, not a pastor. The advantage of this is that you had a person who was committed to building the church, not just maintaining the status quo as most pastors do.

Second, the apostle was in charge for however long it was necessary and when it wasn’t a team of elders chosen from within the fellowship were appointed to be responsible for the oversight of the fellowship. The advantage of this is that there was diversity in ministry and eldership and it prevented one man controlling everyone.

Third, the ministry of the fellowship was the responsibility of everyone in that fellowship, not a chosen few who were paid for the privilege. It was known as the priesthood of all believers. The advantage of this is that the body grew as the scripture says by every joint that supplies. Not by the one joint that is paid for the privilege.

Fourth, they met in homes so everything they did was very personal, friendly, warm, and caring. The advantage of this was the fact that no one was excluded and you were not judged by who you were or what job you did. At the same time it made sure that everyone had something to eat and everyone had the opportunity to bless and edify the other members of the body of Christ.

With such fluidity and involvement in the church of the New Testament, it doesn’t take much to work out that there was always something happening. It doesn’t take much to work out that each home where they met was not a carbon copy of the next. In each home, because there were different needs and gifting, each one had to operate differently to be relevant.

The church today seems unable to comprehend such a concept as most people will argue for formalised religion in public buildings rather than family orientated sharing in homes.

However, the writing is on the wall for those who ignore the obvious as I have been told that up to 1 million Christians a year are leaving the institutionalised church in the USA for a more authentic expression of faith in homes under lay leadership.

In other words, they prefer God’s design in the scriptures than the failed exercise of modern day cultural tradition in formal religion where the general consensus is that the church is irrelevant to society.

You can be another statistic or you can be part of a bible centred expression of the church that will change lives and communities. The choice is yours.