The Separation of Church and Churches
In the tabernacle of the congregation without the vail, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the LORD: it shall be a statute for ever unto their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel. Ex. 27:21The phrase "tabernacle of the congregation" is used numerous times throughout the Pentateuch to describe the design, order, and servicing of the tent of meeting wherein resided the brazen altar, the laver, the candlesticks, table of shewbread, altar of incense and the ark of the covenant. It is not described as merely "the tabernacle," but the "tabernacle of the congregation."
The Hebrew mowadah (congregation) carries the meaning of an assembly being convened for a specific purpose, i.e. a place of meeting. This term is often interchanged or coupled with edah, or assembly. The New Testament utilizes ekklesia (church) instead of congregation, and assembly is only used twice: once to describe the heavenly gathering of saints (Heb. 12:23 - paneguris, mass meeting), and once to delineate the gathered earthly community for worship (James 2:2 - sunagoge, assemblage, synagogue). As in the dual use of church and churches, the synagogue bore the meaning of both the location and the local religious community (c.f. Matt. 6:2; Mark 1:21; Acts 9:2; Rev. 2:9, 3:9).
However, the dual use of church and churches is not so clearly identified with an edifice so much as a location. (I've had to learn to not refer to a building as the "church" -- especially when speaking with my children. We don't go to church; we are the church.) The Old Testament "tabernacle of the congregation" was needed due to the sacrificial economy around which the Israelite community was based. The New Testament has an eternal sacrifice in Christ, and therefore, it's gathering fulfills a modified and/or different role.
The New Testament community meets for worship, teaching, and sacrament, but the edifice is not a part of the liturgy. The Old Testament tabernacle had redemptive meaning in its symbolic elements and furniture. No such items are necessary in the New Testament gatherings. In fact, the emphasis in the New Testament is upon the "people" as a redeemed community of priests. The place of meeting becomes meaningless. We should therefore strive to always revisit and rethink the Biblical idea of the church. It's our only tool to war against the ever expanding institutionalism growing up around us.
Church and Churches
Churches would often refer to regions as in the "churches of the Gentiles" (Rom. 16:4), the "churches of Christ" (v. 16), the "churches of the saints" (1 Cor. 14:33), the "churches of Asia" (1 Cor. 16:19), the "churches of Macedonia" (2 Cor. 8:1), the "churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:22), the "churches of Judea" (v.22), etc.
Yet, we often see the singular descriptive "church" used for smaller, localized areas as in the "church in Jerusalem" (Acts 11:22), the "church at Cenchrea" (Rom. 16:1), the "church in Priscilla and Aquila's house" (v. 5), the "church at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2), the "church in Nympha's house" (Col. 4:15), the "church of the Laodiceans" (v. 16), the "church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 2:1), the "church in Philemon's house" (Phil. 2), and the seven churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and the aforementioned Laodicea (Rev. 2:1-3:14).
You'll notice that Asia, Macedonia, Judea, and Galatia are regions while Corinth, Jerusalem, Thessalonica, and Ephesus are actual cities. You might think of it in terms of a North American state as compared to its capitol. I can speak of the "churches of California," or I can address the "church at Sacramento."
The Edifice
None of these descriptions, however, speak of a tabernacle, sanctuary, or edifice. As mentioned above, many churches were meeting in homes. For example, Romans 16:1 mentions the "church at Cenchrea." Cenchrea was a community within the larger municipality of Corinth. Paul made his way there during his second missionary journey after spending 18 months at Corinth. Cenchrea was on of two ports at Corinth and was located on the eastern harbor. Therefore, Paul could speak of the "church at Cenchrea" as well as the "church at Corinth." Both of these communities were part of the larger region of Achaia. Together they would constitute the "churches of Achaia."
Also in Romans 16 is Paul's mention of his good friends and co-workers, Priscilla and Aquila, that were residents of Corinth along with the "church that is in their house" (v. 5). Paul wrote Romans roughly 5-6 years after founding the church at Corinth. If he was still referring to the church meeting in the house of Priscilla and Aquila, there is every reason to suppose that the larger community addressed in his letters to the Corinthians were likely meeting in homes throughout the municipality of Corinth.
This may be the allusion Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 14:23, "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place...", and in 11:20, "When ye come together therefore into one place..." It's difficult to imagine there were too many buildings like that of Solomon's Portico (c.f. Acts 3:11, 5:12) that could facilitate large groups of people. We often have the impression, based upon modern churches, that the church at Corinth was fairly large and met in one central location. This is probably not the case. It is also unlikely that the church community was large in contemporary terms.
For example, the limitation of prophecy and tongue speaking to two or three participants (1 Cor. 14:27, 29) would hardly be an adequate percentage to a gathering of 500-1,000. However, three prophets speaking amongst a community of less than 100 makes more sense. Either way, the gathered assembly would be both large enough and public enough for unbelievers to wander in (v. 23).
Church Growth
It was considered miraculous when God added three thousand souls to the church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41). There is no evidence that any similar examples of mass conversions took place. Instances of conversions that provided apostolic access to a city were more likely to be like that of Cornelius' house (Acts 10) where the clear indication is that Peter considered that outpouring in Caesarea to be congruent to the outpouring on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 11:15). The only difference being that instead of a city-wide outpouring of the Holy Spirit, this outpouring was concentrated on the house of Cornelius.
There is no real evidence to suggest that church growth in those times was any faster or slower than our own times. Therefore, if Paul wrote to the Corinthian church only 5-6 years after starting the church in a single home -- and that home church still existed -- it's hard to imagine the Corinthian church would number in the thousands by the time Paul wrote his letter.
Organic and Apostolic
This type of ecclesiology lends support to the necessity for the traveling apostolic ministers so frequent in the first century. The organic and dispersed nature of the church required a flexible and moving network of leaders and ministers to care and equip the growing body of believers. This is a stark contrast to the heavy institutionalism of the modern church where denominational boards, sessions, and diocese are static entities with little organic or spiritual attachment to the constituency of believers they serve. This has also served to prolong and aggravate the process of preparing ministers and elders for the planting of churches or the outreach of missions.
Institutionalism is often the obstruction of spiritual growth. The modern church in America especially lacks the mobility and effectiveness of the early puritan and awakening movements. Today, there are great theological minds wrapped up in the ivory towers of academia. There are great leaders tied up in the administration of buildings, facilities, and personnel that make up the cares of the modern denomination. And the families that comprise the church are investing a good portion of their time and money perpetuating the institutional church. To make matters worse, the contemporary Christianity has all but lost its identity as a community of faith and become an electoral bloc.
I would enjoy seeing some of these scholars take to the mission trail for the spread of the gospel. One such example is the good Dr. David Black, a well-known Greek professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He's the epitome of a Biblical theologian. He focuses on his family, he lives as an agrarian, he supports decentralized home churches, defends the Constitution, and often travels to Ethiopia to minister to the Christians in that country. Oh yea, and he teaches a bunch of young American seminary students how to read Greek!
Go thou and do likewise.
