What Are We To Do Without Church?

The church gathering is dead. Long live the church gathering!

In the United Kingdom, we are now legally barred from all gatherings of more than two non-household members for non-essential purposes at any time. The way any of us have met for church our entire life is over – for a period of at least three weeks, more likely spanning months, with some estimates running to 18 months. Whatever the length, the question arises:

What are we to do without church?

A controversial question, perhaps. “The building isn’t the church; the people are the church.” 100% true! (When united in the Second Person of the Trinity by the Third Person according to the election of the First Person, anyway.) But if your church is offering livestream ministry – like mine is – then you almost certainly have a second use of the term “church” to define. Church comes from the New Testament word ekklesia and its Old Testament equivalents – elect, gathered, congregated. There’s a hint in the root words of both “chosen by God” (elect!) and of physically gathered. The congregation of God congregates. It does not establish a telepathic link.

Live streams do not replace this. Live streamed content, or YouTube videos, or podcasts, or blogposts, can be valuable supplements if we are discerning, and they can be real comfort coming from our specific church (what a joy to hear a brother or sister’s voice!). Thank God for them! They are not, however, the same as the gathered worship of the people of God. Why not?

Why did Thomas want to put his fingers into Jesus’ actual wounds before believing the Messiah had risen from the dead? Because Jesus was bodily resurrect. He wasn’t a ghost or spirit. Thomas had heard people had “seen” Jesus – but seeing wasn’t believing. Touch was vital.

Our corporeal, bodily nature is a very important idea in Christian theology. Christians don’t believe in a separable soul and body, as if there was a bit of you that was a soul and bit that was a body – there’s one person. Whatever disruptions happen in death, it’s not a separation of parts, but a change. And this is most obvious when we see Jesus’ plan of salvation – not just death on a cross; not just some part of Him getting past death; but His body rising from the grave, still bearing His wounds, now transformed into the marks our salvation.

This extends to how we connect with each other in the Church. Of course, we are all united with Christ by the Spirit, and therefore with every other Christian who is a member of His Body. That, however, is only a partial connection – we are still in our earthly tents, still bound by the ordinary laws of space. Think of how often Paul speaks of longing to see a person or a church – he longs to see his spiritual son Timothy (2 Timothy 1.4), his faithful flock in Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 2.17-3.313), and even a church he does not know well, that in Rome (Romans 1.11). He is not satisfied by not seeing them – his letters suffice for now, but he knows he can offer more in person.

Indeed, Christians are commanded to meet together – it’s not just a happy bonus. The Epistle to the Hebrews offers the follow advice and command: “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near” (Hebrews 10.24-25). As with Paul, writing letters or sending messages might be good, but it is not enough – Christians should meet to encourage one another in love and good works.

Why? Is it just a quantitative issue – that in-person meeting is much more efficient or significantly more enjoyable? Or is it a qualitative issue – that physical gathering is just different to other kinds of communication (letters, phonecalls, etc)?

The Bible tells us it’s the latter. The distinctive features of the gathered church – as opposed to the individual Christian communing with God – have a necessary bodily component, just like the Resurrection did. Consider the following two examples.

First, let’s look at the Lord’s Supper. Two texts consider it in detail – the story itself of Jesus’ instituting it, in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew/Mark/Luke), and 1 Corinthians. Jesus completes that institution this way: “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom” (Matthew 26.29). Jesus’ physical separation from His disciples – and the lack of the physical elements – meant He could not share this Supper with His disciples. Indeed, united as we are to Christ, when we come to the Lord’s Table together, we do drink of the fruit of the vine – but Christ is both the One God and Resurrect Man, reigning from the heavenly Temple. We labour under physical limitations no longer applicable to Him.

Consider also how Paul begins his discussion of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11.17-34: “When you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you.” The divisions and disagreements of the Corinthians exist when they are physically apart – but they become particularly marring when they gather. Indeed, it poisons their partaking of the Lord’s Supper: “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper you eat” (11.20). Indeed, if they just want to have a nice time, with nice food, he tells them to eat at home before coming (11.21-22)! And the bread and wine of the Supper is different to the ordinary bread and wine you enjoy: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (11.26).

It is the local bread and cup, not a mystical greater bread and cup, that unites – and it is that union that is destroyed by sin in the congregation. When Paul says “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10.17), the “we” refers to that gathered body – it is there that Christians partake of the “cup of blessing” and “bread that we break”, and therefore it is the physical Lord’s Supper which is “a participation in the blood of Christ” (10.16). And so, if you participate without examining yourself properly (11.28), you risk a physical penalty – even illness and death (11.32). There is no virtual Communion with virtual elements and a virtual church. It is those sharing a physical meal together, as Jesus ate the Last Supper and the breakfast on the beach (John 21), that are united by a particular celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

To talk of sin in the gathered congregation brings us to our other example: church discipline. How is a Christian disciplined if they are heinous commandment-breakers or dividers of the body? Does the pastor decide and then ring the sinner? No – the matter is finally decided by the gathered meeting of the church, who come together in one place. We see this in the third stage of Jesus’ teaching on dealing with sin in the church (Matthew 18.17) – where are to take it “to the church”? Well, not by letter – which would have been an option even then. Jesus is talking of a physical action – to go to the gathered church. And Paul touches on the subject twice in his letters to the Corinthians. In his first letter, he gives authoritative instruction on how to deal with a man sleeping with his stepmother – “When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 5.4). It is not enough that Paul has sent the letter – the church leaders are not to enact this on their own. Paul’s “spirit” being present by the letter is not binding – it is the action of the church in their physical gathering. Of a separate incident in the church – of someone who sought to undermine Paul’s teaching – Paul suggests forgiveness (2 Corinthians 2.5-11). However, this is because the church assembly’s punishment so far is sufficient – “For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough” (2.6). How did this majority decide anything? By letter? Presumably not, given the other examples we’ve mentioned above. They met, and agreed what to do by a majority.

Briefly – how does this apply to livestreaming? Is a single livestream group a church meeting? I don’t think so. Undoubtedly people are present in spirit with each other; that is wonderful. But even if are functionally talking “live”, we lack that bodily element that is a core and integral part of the Christian faith – we are, indeed, turning away from the great good of bodily presence in favour of “better ministry” if we look on livestreaming as church. Why does hearing someone else sing make them bodily present to you more than reading a letter from them? Both can be great – neither is the assembly of the church. There is no virtual Lord’s Supper or baptism (water is pretty physical!), there is no virtual church discipline, there is no virtual assembly.

This may seem a hard answer, but it should point us to the blessing of our bodies. We were made as physical creatures by a good God, and these dumpy, creaky bodies are the seeds of our bodily resurrection – where we will worship bodily with God Himself forever. Even the ache of separation from our Christian family is itself a labour pain, part of putting off our mortality and preparing for immortality. The ache is the anticipation of good – amazing! – eternal meal.

Furthermore, we are not entirely separated from our fellow Christians – present in spirit still! – and we may sing with the angels themselves, as Pastor Richard Wurmbrand did in his solitary confinement in Communist Romania. We can find assistance and blessing from virtual resources. But when not assembled at church, we are – to state the obvious – not part of the church assembly.

Two practical questions: What do we (individuals, families) do in the interim? What should church institutions do?

Briefly:

(1)   Individuals and households should still set time aside on the Sabbath to worship, whether using virtual resources or not. (I have a short essay on household worship on this blog.) Whilst “distanced”, worship now happens in the household.

(2)   Church responses must differ depending on timeframe. If “distancing” only lasts four more weeks (widespread early herd immunity, revised estimate of danger, etc), things can continue on an ad hoc basis – as if every household in a church was on a month-long holiday and the building happened to be empty. If this situation persists for, say, 18 months (necessary to wait till vaccine, etc), then it is probably incumbent on churches to reconstitute themselves as a multitude of smaller bodies – to (temporarily?) vote itself out of existence. Members might make a covenant to gather again when the emergency ends, of course. The institution might persist, too – as a parachurch “resource centre”, providing material of particular relevance or comfort to its ex-members (and local community!).

These may, again, seem hard answers – but it is better to be obedient to God than anything else (1 Samuel 15.22). We will receive greater blessing through this time of trial – dealing with loneliness, painfully building new spiritual disciplines, and the rest of it – than we would have otherwise. God desires exactly this from us – this is a great opportunity given to us, not a curse. Embrace it!