Lest someone conclude that my view of “church” or the local organizations eliminates local fellowship, let me quickly propose that the fellowship of individual units are much more involved in the daily affairs of life than any membership in an organization. The early saints were much more involved in each other’s lives and their homes took center stage for the hosting of brothers and sisters. Still, the interaction of fellow Christians in the first century would make the average professed Christian very uncomfortable.
The greatest difficulty in persuading brethren away from the institutional concepts is not the biblical support but the involvement of brothers and sisters in daily life. Today, we are much more autonomous, independent families that will openly embrace the fellowship of father and mother or children and grandchildren. If we loosed those boundaries to include our brothers and sisters in Christ, the same family meals, entertainment and activities would include many more people sharing life in the home. While boundaries should still exist that protect the sanctity of each home and marriage, many families have set the boundaries so strictly that fellow-Christians who are not in the immediate family are treated as “guests, rather than family members. The institutional church has replaced this family fellowship and places limits on what we share and how much of our time we will give. Consequently, there are appointed times for worship, study, and prayer that are tied to each religious service of the local institutions. When fellowship is shared outside their appointed meetings, it has to be arranged and planned because it is not a natural way of life.
Ironically, it is common to have someone object to my teaching against the church and institutionalism on the grounds that it avoids the interaction of brethren. I think you see that it elevates involvement to a point where most would feel uncomfortable. American Christians have activities neatly packaged and organized to include work time, leisure time, family time, entertainment time, and church time. There may be other sections of our day segmented according to our likes and needs. Yet, church time is set by very rigid limits of time and rules of engagement. For a preacher to preach too long or the song leader to add too many songs in an orderly worship service is uncomfortable. After services, we may visit in the foyer, go eat together at the local restaurant or perhaps meet in a home. If we choose to have any interaction with other Christians, this is the time to do it. Of course, some would squeeze a mid-week Bible study or worship service during the week. What is taboo is showing up at one’s home, and especially making an unannounced visit. Sharing a meal is not routine and to plan it requires a sacrifice of time and money. To be constant in the word and sharing spiritual pursuits are often discouraged as if such fellowship is too much religion.
Granted, our culture makes biblical the biblical fellowship of saints difficult to implement. However, it is the one authored by God for our edification and protection. The Devil continues to have his way as long as we allow him to equate the fellowship of the saints to a place and time under the work of an organization.
In conclusion, therefore, we propose that the ekklesia is a spiritual gathering or a collection of saved individuals who are gathered or collected into one body by God (Acts 2:47) and known only by him (2 Tim. 2:19). We can see only the fruit borne in individual lives and decide whether we shall share and participate in the harvest and give to others the right hands of fellowship. This is the choice of every disciple and must be decided by each individual, not by the decision-makers of a corporate body. Using the figure of a body to describe the called-out, we should see the body of Christ not as an organization but as a living organism, individually bound together by mutual love toward the Lord and each other.