One Assembly?

Jonathan Leeman’s One Assembly: Rethinking the Multisite & Multiservice Church Models could equally be subtitled: ‘Rebuking the Multisite & Multiservice Church Models’. He doesn’t pull any punches and repeatedly asserts that claims to meet as ‘one church in two locations’ or to be ‘one church with three service times’ fly contrary to a biblical definition of church and so a) are simply false, b) distort the proper, healthy dynamics of church and c) are ‘picking a fight with Jesus’.

Important points Leeman makes well

1. Physical gathering of God’s people under live preaching of God’s word is hugely important.
2. Some models of multi-site or multi-service can put too much focus on one star preacher.
3. We need ‘gospel growth’ (not just ‘my church’ growth) and should work with other churches across our city to plant and revitalise.

The big thing underlying Leeman’s concern

What Leeman fears is a shift of authority from congregation to pastor-elders. Leeman’s ecclesiology is anchored on Matt 18:19 – the church is a congregation physically gathering to “agree” on things together. Whether that verse is saying all he says it is saying is debatable.

Questions about Leeman’s logic

1. Why can’t the church meet in smaller subgroups most weeks and then a few times a year come together as a whole to worship and enjoy the Lord’s Supper? (As D. Greer argues)
2. What does ‘all the members’ mean? Is 86% of the membership in attendance fine but 50% not? Is Jesus not present at the gathering of half of the church?

Questions about Leeman’s exegesis

Leeman won’t convince everyone on his handling of:

1. Acts 2 – can we be sure that the gathered thousands in the Temple precinct was ‘the Jerusalem church’ and the gatherings in homes were not church?
2. Acts 6:2 – should better be translated as “multitude” – a crowded mass of people filling the space – not necessarily the “full number” of disciples in Jerusalem.
3. Acts 9:31 – may be an ‘iterative singular’ – one gospel proclamation iterated – but isn’t that what a multi-service church is doing?
4. 1 Cor. 14:23 – the word “whole” there must mean something.

Questions about Leeman’s categories

1. Is Leeman in danger of the ‘technical term’ fallacy (see Carson, Exegetical Fallacies) – seeking to make all instances of ekklesia conform to one restricted meaning: “assembly”?
2. If there is only the local church assembly and the heavenly eschatological assembly (the Knox-Robinson and Peter O’Brien view) and no such thing as the ‘church militant’ (all believers currently alive), what do we do with 1 Cor 12:28 or Gal 1:13 or Phil 3:6?

A wider definition of church?

1. Without wanting to fall foul of the etymological ‘root fallacy’, there does seem to be warrant for connecting ekklesia not only with assembly but also the idea of being ‘called out’. The assembly is the gathering which is summoned. The church are the ‘summoned-out people’ – called out from the darkness to gather around the marvellous light of Christ.
2. Leeman is working in a different context to us in the UK. His main problem is where to put all the Christians. Our issue is more the missional question of how you make room for all the Quiet Revival seekers turning up at church (1 Cor 14:24).
3. At the end of the book, Leeman concedes that there is such a thing as an ‘irregular church’. In particular Leeman recognises that a mother church may ‘incubate’ a plant and the transition to two independent churches (separate eldership, finances, governance) could take years.

That final recognition seems to open a sensible way forward – that a new church plant incubates under the wing of an existing church – there is a year or two to see if it ‘takes’ and gets gospel traction in the new area and if so it moves to disentangle and stand on its own feet. If it doesn’t work then it can be easily reabsorbed back into the mother church. That could mean we actually try more (and multiply more churches) than if we expect 100% independency from day one.

Full length (6 page) review