Search
In the previous lesson we saw a general sketch of the church and briefly touched the concept of the church. These, however, are primarily abstract theories regarding the church and are not so definite. In order to know the church in a definite way, it is necessary to make the church concrete and tangible, bringing the church out of the air to the earth. Hence, we need to speak about the expression of the church.
The church has an expression. The church is not something mysterious, abstract, or suspended in the air but is practical. We can touch the church, contact the church, and be in the church. Therefore, the church must have an expression. Without this expression our speaking concerning the church is but empty talk, and people cannot touch it. We may see that the church is not a structure, such as a chapel or gospel hall, nor an organization, such as a denomination or mission. We may also realize that the church is the assembly of the called-out ones, the Body of Christ, and the house of God. Nevertheless, if the church is not practical and concrete, we cannot touch the church, contact the church, and much less be in the church. Because we are still on the earth, the church must have an expression. Without an expression the church means absolutely nothing.
Many people in Christianity have an unscriptural view and understanding of the church. In particular, the seeking ones, who see the desolation and confusion of the church, believe that it is impossible for the church to be on the earth today. They say that the church is spiritual and invisible and that the oneness of the church can be achieved only in heaven in the future. Hence, it is difficult to discuss the matter of the practical church today. They also say that it is sufficient for Christians to preach the gospel in order to save people and help them to be spiritual. This kind of talk is not only extreme but also erroneous. We must bear in mind that the church is not something in the future, something in heaven, or something hidden and invisible. The church is expressed in time and space. It can be touched and contacted on the earth today, and the believers can be in it today. Thus, the church must have an expression today. This matter is important.
The expression of the church is the practicality, reality, concreteness, and substantiality of the church. The church must have an expression in order to be practical, real, concrete, and substantial. Otherwise, the church is nothing but an empty theory, something of the imagination, something abstract, and something suspended in the air. To us, the church must be practical not theoretical, real not imagined, concrete not abstract, and substantial not suspended in the air. For this reason the church must have an expression.
We will briefly cover twelve points regarding the expression of the church.
The Bible clearly shows that the expression of the church is local. Some say in a general and vague way that there is only a universal expression of the church. This is inaccurate. The church was first expressed in the city of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1); it was surely and definitely expressed in a place called Jerusalem. Obviously, to be expressed in Jerusalem is to be expressed in the universe, because Jerusalem is a place in the universe. However, to say that the church is expressed only universally is too general. The universe is vast; if we say that there is only a universal expression of the church, we will not know where to find it. Therefore, if a person does not consider the local expression and says that the expression of the church is only universal, he will cause people to think that the church is remote and elusive. Although this kind of speaking concerning the universal church was popular and prevailing in past decades, by the Lord’s mercy we are seeing that the church is local, having an expression in localities.
We cannot find the expression universal church in the Bible. On the contrary, everywhere in the New Testament we can find local churches, that is, churches appearing in different localities, in locality after locality. For example, there is the church in Jerusalem (v. 1), the church in Antioch (13:1), the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), the church in Ephesus (Rev. 2:1), and the church in Smyrna (v. 8). These examples show that the church has a local aspect; the church is expressed locally. Thus, to emphasize only the universal church is inaccurate.
The boundary of the local expression of the church is the jurisdiction of a community. This jurisdiction can be as large as a city or as small as a town or a village. A city can be the jurisdiction of a community, or a village can be the jurisdiction of a community. The jurisdiction of a community can be a city as large as New York, London, or Tokyo with a population of almost ten million, or it can be a small village with only a few hundred people. At the time of Pentecost the church had an expression in the large city of Jerusalem (Acts 8:1). Jerusalem was the jurisdiction of the community. Later, the church also had an expression in many small cities in Asia (Rev. 1:11). These cities were the jurisdiction of a community. If a person reads carefully through Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation, he will conclude that the church is expressed in the jurisdiction of a community.
On the one hand, the expression of the church takes the jurisdiction of a community as the boundary, and on the other hand, it takes the principle of one church in one locality. There can be only one expression of the church in a local jurisdiction; there definitely cannot be two or more. There can be only one church in one locality. In a small locality there can be only one church; likewise, in a large locality there can be only one church. Although Jerusalem was a city with a large population, there could be only one church in Jerusalem, not two or more. Although the cities in Asia were small and the population was sparse, there was only one church in a locality, and two localities were not combined to form one church. In the Bible there was the church in Jerusalem and the church in Antioch, not the churches in Jerusalem or the churches in Antioch (in Acts 8:1 and 13:1 church is singular in Greek). Hence, the Bible clearly shows that there should be one church in one locality.
However, since a region or a province can include many jurisdictions, the Bible does speak of churches in a region or province. For example, Acts 15:41 refers to the churches in Syria and Cilicia; Galatians 1:2 and 1 Corinthians 16:1 speak of the churches of the province of Galatia; 1 Corinthians 16:19 speaks of the churches of the province of Asia; and 2 Corinthians 8:1 speaks of the churches of the province of Macedonia. All these places were either a region or a province, including many community jurisdictions; therefore, there was more than one church in these regions and provinces. This shows that the expression of the church is local and is according to the principle of one church in one locality.
Since the church is expressed in a locality, it is on the earth and exists today. Hence, as far as space is concerned, the church’s expression is on the earth; as far as time is concerned, this expression exists today. Some say that the church will be expressed in the future and in heaven. This kind of speaking is too far off. We do not need to wait until the future for the church to be expressed, because the church is expressed today. Neither do we need to wait for the church to be expressed in heaven, because the church is expressed on earth today. Yes, the nature of the church is heavenly, but the expression of the church is on the earth. Moreover, this expression is on the earth today. Yes, the nature of the church is eternal, but the expression of the church is in time.
As we have seen earlier, the Bible clearly says that the church in Jerusalem was in Jerusalem and that the church in Antioch was in Antioch. These churches were in localities and in time. Moreover, the Lord Jesus Himself confirmed that the church is something on the earth. Acts 9 records that on the road to Damascus the Lord appeared to Saul, who was persecuting the church, saying, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” (v. 4). In this verse Me is a very great “Me.” Saul could have said to the Lord, “I am on the earth. How can I go up to heaven to persecute You? I have only persecuted Peter, James, Stephen, and others who were with them, but I have never persecuted You.” Yet the Lord said, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” The Lord said this because the church is the Lord’s Body, that is, the Lord Himself. Persecuting the people of the Lord, His church, is persecuting the Lord. The Lord and His church are one. Therefore, the Me in verse 4 does not simply refer to the Lord in heaven but also to His church on the earth. It refers not only to the Lord in eternity but also to His church in time.
The Lord’s word here strongly refutes the general assertion that the expression of the church will be in heaven in the future. These people say that the church on the earth today is a mere formality, and since the genuine church is heavenly, it must be in heaven, eternal, and in the future. The Lord’s word, however, completely refutes this kind of speaking. The Lord fully acknowledged the church in Jerusalem as His Body, Himself. This is the reason the Lord said to Saul, “Why are you persecuting Me?” This clearly shows that although the church is heavenly, the church is expressed on the earth, and although the church is eternal, the church is expressed today.
The local expression of the church is for the universal expression. The church must be expressed locally in order to be expressed universally. It is through the expression in localities that the church is expressed in the universe. Therefore, it is not possible for the church to abandon the boundary of locality. Once the local expression is abandoned, there cannot be a universal expression of the church. Once the local expression of the church is abandoned, the church is but an empty theory. If there were no churches in localities, there would be no church in the universe. We fully agree that the nature of the church is universal and that the church is expressed universally, yet this universal expression is realized through local expressions. Hence, without localities it is simply impossible to have the church.
Although the expression universal church cannot be found in the Bible, it is not unreasonable to refer to the church as being universal. The church referred to in Ephesians 1:22-23 can be called the universal church. However, we must remember that the expression of the universal church is local. Since this expression is local, the church is a local church. Thus, to say that the church is only universal is merely theoretical, and to say that the church is local is practical.
Let me repeat, it is not wrong to call the church in the universe the universal church, but over the past two thousand years no one has ever seen the universal church. If we asked Paul, he would say that the churches were in definite places, such as Ephesus and Antioch. Therefore, to speak of the church as being only universal is to engage in vain talk. In reality, the expression of the church is in localities. The churches spoken of in 1, Acts 15:41 Corinthians 11:16; 16:19; 2 Corinthians 8:1; and Galatians 1:2 and 22 point to the fact that in reality the expression of the church is in localities. Although the church is universal, the church is expressed locally. Since the church is expressed in many localities, the local expressions are called churches.
The church in a locality is the expression of the universal church in that locality. Hence, every local expression of the church is a local church. We must remember, however, that a local church is the expression of the universal church in a locality. The local church represents the universal church and is part of the universal church. Hence, not acknowledging the local churches is the same as not acknowledging the universal church, and not contacting the local churches is the same as not contacting the universal church. This is because a local church is the expression of the universal church in that locality.
Since every local church is the expression of the universal church in that locality, the sum total of the local churches throughout time is the universal church. Individually, there are churches in different localities. In totality, all the local churches in time constitute the universal church.
The local churches are miniatures of the universal church. Every local church is a miniature of the universal church. This is similar to calling young chickens chicks, because they are miniature chickens. Likewise, the expression of the church in a locality is a miniature of the universal church. Even though there is a difference in size between the expression in a local church and the expression in the universal church, in nature and in principle the expression is exactly the same. Therefore, when we contact a local church, we contact the universal church.
The practicality and reality of the universal church are absolutely dependent on the local churches. Without the local churches the universal church is abstract and in the air, an empty theory, something of the imagination, and impossible to practice. For the universal church to be practical and concrete, the local churches are needed. Hence, the local churches are the practicality of the universal church.
In Matthew 16:18 the Lord said, “Upon this rock I will build My church.” The building that the Lord referred to is the building of the universal church. Nevertheless, the carrying out of this building must be through the building of the local churches. In other words, the Lord’s building of the local churches is His building of the universal church. Without building the local churches, it is altogether impossible to build the universal church. Therefore, the building of the universal church is through the local churches. Sadly, some say that it is too narrow and rigid to focus on building the local churches. They do not want to build the local churches because they want to build the church of Christ, the universal church. How can they build the church of Christ without building the local churches? How can they build the universal church apart from the local churches? By building the local church in Jerusalem, were Peter and John not building the church of Christ? By building the various local churches among the Gentiles, was the apostle Paul not building the universal church? To speak of building only the universal church is impractical, empty talk.
The first reference to the church in the New Testament is in Matthew 16:18, where the Lord spoke of building the church. In Matthew 18:15-20 the Lord spoke of the church the second time, speaking concerning the administration of the church. It is obvious that the administration of the church in these verses refers to the administration of the local church. Verses 15 through 17 say, “If your brother sins against you, go, reprove him between you and him alone...But if he does not hear you, take with you one or two more...And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.” It is clear that the church here is the local church. If this were the universal church, where would we go to tell the church? Where is the universal church? God wants us to live in the local church and not wander in the universe. Therefore, if there is no local church, there cannot be any administration of the church. In order to carry out the administration of the church, there must be local churches.
Some advocate rejecting the local churches but keeping the universal church. They say, “Why should there be local churches? Did the Lord not say in Matthew 18:20 that He is in the midst of two or three who are gathered in His name? Does this not indicate that as long as two or three are gathered into the Lord’s name, they are the church?” Although this understanding seems logical, if we examine it, we will find it to be in error. First, they say that the local church is not the church because the church is universal. But then they turn around and say that the church can be as small as two or three people because the gathering of two or three people is the church. Let us read Matthew 18 carefully. “If your brother sins against you, go, reprove him...But if he does not hear you, take with you one or two more” (vv. 15-16). These two or three cannot be the church because verse 17 clearly says that if he refuses to hear these two or three, they should “tell it to the church.” If these two or three were the church, why do they still need to tell it to the church? If there is a church in a locality, two or three believers gathered together cannot be considered as the church by themselves; they are merely two or three members of that local church. If they have a problem that they cannot solve by themselves, they need to bring it to the church. Thus, the two or three who are gathered into the Lord’s name in Matthew 18 are not the church. If they were the church, there would be no need of the local church. This would result in “street churches” and “alley churches.” This is an erroneous understanding. Brothers and sisters, God is truly wise in setting the boundary of locality for the expression of the church. This is because the boundary of locality is the only means of keeping the church from confusion. Today all the confusion in the church is the result of people not stressing and keeping the boundary of locality.
The Lord’s charge that we should tell the church of a problem that we have with a brother and then let the church take care of the problem shows that the administration of the church is in the local church and carried out through the local church. This is the first time the Lord spoke of the administration of the church in the Bible. The Lord spoke not only of the building of the church but also of the administration of the church. The administration of the church is for the building of the church, and the administration of the church is in the local churches and carried out by the local churches. If there were no local church, there would be no administration of the church.
In Titus 1:5 the apostle charges Titus to appoint elders in every city. Acts 14:23 says that the apostles appointed elders in every church. Appointing elders in every city or in every church shows that the administration of the church is in the local church. Where would the elders be appointed if there were no local churches but only the universal church? Where would the elders serve as elders? Where would the administration of the church be carried out? Therefore, for the carrying out of the administration of the universal church, there must be the local churches.
Whether in Acts or the Epistles, all the work of the apostles was carried out in the local churches and for the local churches. The Epistles written by the apostles were addressed to local churches. The Epistles to the Corinthians were written to the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), the Epistles to the Thessalonians were written to the church in Thessalonica (1 Thes. 1:1), and the Epistle to the Ephesians was written to the church in Ephesus. None of the Epistles were written to the universal church. Apparently, the Epistle to the Ephesians addresses the matters of the universal church, but it was sent to saints in Ephesus (Eph. 1:1). This proves that the apostles’ work was altogether in the local churches. Unless their work was in the local churches, there would be no way for them to work in the universal church. To the workers, the universal church is intangible; only the local churches are real.
If there were no local church, the saints would be unable to have a corporate living and a coordinated service. If we live in Taipei but do not live and serve with the brothers and sisters in the church in Taipei, where would we have our church life and service? Could we live and serve in the universal church, which is intangible? Hence, to the believers, the universal church is abstract; only the local churches are real.
Since the local church is the practice and the expression of the universal church, only when a person touches the local church can he touch the universal church. The more we speak concerning the universal church, the more vague and intangible the church will be to us, but once we speak concerning the local church, the church becomes concrete and real to us.
The administration of the local churches is by locality. If the administration of the church is not local and independent, the local nature of the church will be lost. Thus, to preserve and maintain the local nature of the church, the administration must be independent in each locality. Church A should not intervene in the practical affairs of church B; likewise, church B should not intervene in the practical affairs of church A. Although churches in villages and towns may be small, they are still the church in that locality, and other churches can neither intervene nor interfere with their practical affairs. If a local church loses its independence in its administration, it immediately loses its local nature.
Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 reveal that the church in each locality has its own elders. This proves that the administration in a church is independent. Elders oversee and administrate a particular church. If the administration of a local church is not independent, there is no need to appoint elders in every city. It would be sufficient to appoint elders in a central location. However, there is no central location because the expression of the church is in localities. All the local expressions, that is, all the local churches, are equal and have their own elders. Hence, the administration of the local churches is independent in each locality.
Although the administration of the local churches is independent in each locality, the fellowship of the local churches is of the Body and is universal. First Corinthians 10:16 says, “The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?” This indicates that the fellowship of the church is of the Body. It is universal, not local; it is in oneness, not independent. With respect to administration, the local churches are independent, but with respect to fellowship, they are one. If the church in a locality is not one in fellowship with the other local churches, that local church becomes a local sect. Once a local church loses its independence in administration, it loses its local aspect, and once a local church loses the oneness in fellowship, it becomes a local sect. These two aspects are serious. On the one hand, a local church loses its local aspect when its independence in administration is lost; on the other hand, a local church becomes a local sect when it loses the oneness in the universal fellowship. There should be a local aspect, but there should never be local sects. Retaining the local aspect is a great protection to the church, enabling the church to avoid many errors, heresies, and divisions. There have been many problems throughout history because the church lost and abandoned its local nature. At the same time, a church should never become a local sect; fellowship with all the local churches must be maintained. Hence, while the church’s administration is local, the church’s fellowship is universal and of the Body.
God’s arrangement is truly wise and wonderful. Because all the local churches are independent in administration, the local nature of the constitution of the churches is not lost. Moreover, because all the local churches are in one fellowship, the oneness of the Body of Christ is kept, and the churches do not become local sects.
All the local churches live directly before the Lord and are responsible directly to Christ the Head; hence, they should not form a federation or have a head church. Revelation 1:11-20 shows that the seven lampstands, that is, the seven churches, have the Lord Jesus in their midst. They live independently before Christ the Head and are directly responsible to Him. Among these churches there are no so-called federations, head churches, or subsidiary churches.
Some people depict the seven lampstands in Revelation as being seven lamps on one lampstand. This conveys the wrong impression that churches can be united together to form a central church, a central lampstand. However, this is not what Revelation shows. Revelation 1:11 through 13 and 20 speak of seven different lampstands. The lampstand with seven lamps was the golden lampstand in the tabernacle in the Old Testament; this is not the case in the New Testament. The seven lampstands in Revelation 1 are independent and equal, each standing before Christ the Head. Therefore, among the churches there is no higher-level church or lower-level church, no head church or subsidiary churches. The highest church is a local church, and the lowest church is also a local church. Both the highest and lowest church are a local church. No local church is higher than another church, and no local church is lower than another church. In this way the authority of Christ the Head is not usurped or damaged among the local churches. If there were higher-level and lower-level local churches, the lower-level churches would have to obey the commands of the higher-level churches, and the result would usurp the authority of Christ the Head in the local churches.
The administrative independence of the local churches allows the Holy Spirit to move freely among the churches without any hindrance. Sadly, the organization in Christianity today is multi-level, with one level controlling another level, so that there is absolutely no room for the authority of the Head and the moving of the Holy Spirit. This is offensive to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there should never be distinctions, such as federated churches, head churches, higher-level churches, or lower-level churches. The church in Jerusalem was the largest church, but it was not so large that it became the head church among the local churches. Before the Lord the smallest local church is by no means lower than the largest local church. Whether it is the largest local church or the smallest local church, all the local churches are equal before the Lord, being absolutely under the authority of the Head and the control of the Holy Spirit. This gives the Head and the Holy Spirit the absolute ground and authority among the churches.
Although the local churches are independent in administration and are not unified as an organization, they should be the same in their spiritual move and testimony. The action and testimony of the one universal church should be the same in all localities. For the convenience of management, leading, and edification, there is no better way than to have the local churches administrated by locality. However, as far as spiritual living and testimony are concerned, the local churches should all be the same.
First Corinthians was written by the apostle Paul to the church in Corinth, but 1:2 says that it was also written to “all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place.” This is because the commands concerning spiritual living and service contained in this Epistle are to be kept unanimously in all the local churches. All the local churches should be and do what the church in Corinth is and does. What the church in Corinth does, the other local churches should do. This is not a matter of organization; rather, this indicates that all the local churches should be the same in principle, nature, and testimony. Thus, the apostle’s charge to the church in Corinth was also his charge to all the other churches (7:17; 16:1). When a custom is not found in one church, it should not be found in the other churches (11:16; 14:34).
In 1 Thessalonians 2:14 the apostle says, “For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus.” This refers to the persecutions and sufferings they encountered because of their testimony for the Lord. Hence, in the matter of being persecuted for the testimony of the Lord, all the churches should follow the same footsteps and be one; a local church should imitate the pattern of the other churches.
Although each epistle written by the Lord to the seven churches in Revelation was written to a particular local church, at the end of each epistle it says, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). Just as there should not be idols in the church in Thyatira, there should not be idols in the other local churches; just as the church in Pergamos should not follow the teaching of Balaam, the other local churches should not follow the teaching of Balaam. These examples show that the churches should be one in their actions. While the local churches should be separate and independent in administration, they should be one in their fellowship and in their living and actions for the Lord’s testimony. In this way the expression of all the local churches will be balanced, stable, and proper.
