This article has been circulating around conservative-evangelical circles in the last couple of weeks. I’m not sure whether or not there is a serious issue anywhere with anyone really thinking that their home group/life group is a church. So first of all, I would be intrigued as to what prompted the article. It looks like it is linked to a larger book on what a church is, so I presume it fits into the arguments the author will make there. It also looks to come out of the 9 Marks stable, associated with Mark Dever and Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington. I know that there are strong views among those linked to 9 Marks about what constitutes a church and how that church should meet. For example, the line from within 9 Marks seems to be that a church is a single assembly or gathering to hear God’s Word, sing praise and share the sacraments (communion and baptism) together. This rules out multiple service or multi-site congregations.
So, it is possible that the author is concerned to rule out alternatives to the single gathering. For example, a trend in the late 20th century was towards cell church structures where the focus was on the cell or small group as the primary gathering of a church with these cells coming together for larger celebrations. Perhaps the aim is to rule this out. Alternatively, there may be a pastoral concern for people who might be tempted to skip a Sunday gathering and argue that they do go to church because they are part of a small group.
In any case, as I read the article, I have to admit that I didn’t find the arguments particularly thought through or persuasive. Let’s deal with them in turn. “Your small group …does not possess Heaven’s authority.” You may be wondering what is meant by this cryptic language, Well, Matthew Amadi goes on to explain by reference to Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:15-20. In those passages, Jesus talks about “the keys of the kingdom”. First these, and authority to bind and loose are given to Peter after Jesus describes him, or more properly, his testimony, as the rock on which he will build his church. Then in the second reading, Jesus tells those in dispute to attempt to resolve it between themselves, failing that to bring in witnesses and as a last resort to take it to the church. Jesus commands this because, once again, whatever is loosed and bound by the disciples here on earth is considered so in Heaven and this is because
“f two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them!”
Arnadi seems to be treating both these instances as referring to the local church being given this specific authority to “bind and loose.” The problem is that this isn’t what Jesus says. In the first example, his focus is in Peter rather than the Church and if he does refer to The Church there, it is to the whole, worldwide church throughout history not one example of a local congregation. In the second example, it is true again that there is a link to the church so that one may assume that a local church does have that authority but that authority arises out of there being the twos and threes with Jesus present in it. Jesus is simply stating that the twos and threes can agree in his name and I would suggest that this extends to any godly agreement between brothers and sisters.
The other two examples of red herrings link to the real reason as to why a small group is not a church. Matthew Anardi’s second argument is that small groups don’t or shouldn’t administer the sacraments. The question here is “why not.” There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that you can’t do either in a small group context, no commands forbidding it and narrative examples that seem to align with it.
Finally, a small group, he argues, cannot administer church discipline. The thing is that it could. If it did and especially if it were also sharing the Lord’s Supper and doing baptisms, then it would cease to be a mere small group and would be a church. However, generally speaking, apart from with some radical movements, the majority of those attending a small group and the church leaders who set it up don’t tend to think of it as a church. There is however, nothing to stop people beginning to think of this or that small group as a church.
The point is that your small group is probably not a church because nobody probably intended it to be such. This means that they won’t have planned in for the group to provide for everything that a church is expected to provide and this includes that within a small group, there are unlikely to be the opportunities to serve and use your gifts fully.
So, a couple of reflections. First, there seems to be a temptation to create clever theological arguments at the moment, usually for things that we don’t need clever theological arguments for. I don’t think this is helpful because it weakens the confidence of believers in the plain meaning of Scripture.
Secondly, we cannot just impose our own agendas onto things. Whilst I’m not sure that the specific issue with small groups is a big one, I think that the more general tempration exists to take specific things, events etc and make them into something more or something different to what was and is intended.
Thirdly, in terms of the specific issue here. There may be people within the church who for a season find that the small group is the only place and time where they can engage with other believers for fellowship, prayer and teaching. For that reason, I don’t want to get hung up over questions about whether or not the small group is “a church”. What I want to do is to recognise that this might be the best and only way to enable some people to be integrated into the body. However, that is often not likely to be the ideal and so I would discourage people from taking this grace and settling for it. Don’t settle for one small, narrow aspect of being part of the church.
Faithroots 