Robert Fitts, in his book The Church in the House, defines church as the following:

“The Greek word for church, ekklesia, is composed of two word: “ek” meaning “out of,” and “kalleo,” meaning “I call.” The full and simple meaning of “church” according to the original word is, “I call out from.”

Actually, ekklesia carries two concepts: being called out and being assembled together. We cannot experience church until we come together. “When two or three true born-again believers come together in His name, Jesus is in the midst. Jesus in the midst is church! It is a different experience than Jesus within. We cannot experience Jesus in the midst when we are alone. We can only experience Jesus in the midst when we are in company with others—at least one or two others.

But is it a church in the fullest sense of the word? Yes, it is a church in the fullest sense of the word. It is the basic church. You can have more than two or three and it is still a church, but it does not become “more church” because there are more than two or three. It only becomes a bigger church.”

And I do recognize the importance of dogma and doctrines. But there is a presence of strong head knowledge in our culture that prevents us from trusting/submitting ourselves to the Holy Spirit to do God’s work.

It is like you say, one does not live out what we know is truth. But what power do we hold in our gospel if we have no experiences with God. I feel that truly more and more people lack intimate REAL personal experiences. So that when they go out and outreach, there is no weight behind their words. There is no joy in their sharing. No overflowing love that they experience first hand from God when they serve.

A question that came up as I was reading this: Is it sin for a church to not have the full “fivefold” ministry as you described? It seems a little presumptuous to make Ephesians 4:11-12 the definitive list of what consists of a church.

It’s also a fallacy to finger “Western/Chinese” theology as a primary cause of evangelical stagnation. What do you mean by Western/Chinese theology? Is it the theology rediscovered by Luther out of deep struggle with the Roman Catholic church? Is it the theology fought for by Athanasius as he battled the Arian controversy?

More likely, it’s a superficial understanding of theology that causes congregations to take it for granted, leading to complacency and later, apostasy. I feel this in my own life when I intellectually agree with the truth.

I trust that you’re not denying the importance of theology or doctrine, but my primary concern lay in your accusation of Western/Chinese theology.

Thanks again!

Many would also comment that the NT church only works in settings where Christianity is unknown (I personally do not agree). Since, North America is a totally different context where Christianity is widely known, would you still pursue an NT church?

Within Paul’s letters we see that the Church expanded to over four countries in the middle east, probably reaching Asia. The expansion all happened in probably 10 years. If you consider how long it takes our churches to ‘plant’ another church, you’ll find out there’s got to be some other point we’re missing.

We’ve stopped replicating the church. We’ve no longer put our focus in birthing out new churches in order to expand His kingdom. And that probably has a lot to due with western/chinese theology and structure.

Just take it back down to the core, and let it be simply about Jesus.

I mean even the entire Roman empire was won over by the impact of Jesus Christ. Where is the impact in our churches today? The debates in our political races are more interested in war in Iraq then the lives of millions across North America that needs to know Christ. America – “In God we Trust” – really? do they really?