Integration or impact? Often, when we talk about local church models in the circles I move in, there are two main options to pick from, either small and informal or large and institutional… and usually each model has very little appreciation for the other. Put another way, church styles appear to run the extremes: from intimate yet often ingrown, or impactful but often impersonal. Sadly, there seems to be an inevitable disconnect when it comes to how we do contemporary church today. However, do these two seemingly opposing characteristics of local church have to be juxtaposed? This is an issue that I have been wrestling with on a very personal level. However, the more time I spend studying the book of Acts, the more I see God’s expectation that brings both of these essential church dynamics into divine balance. In fact, this almost unbelievable balance was being experienced among the church in Jerusalem as the rule rather than the exception. I say, “almost unbelievable” because these contrasting characteristics of integration and impact that were both found in the Jerusalem church do not naturally coexist. When taking a serious look at these apparently incompatible characteristics of a local church, I must ask myself, “How did this first church intentionally share life together without becoming either segregated from the world around them or so institutional that they lost their internal intimacy as a Christian community?” It often seems like local churches today lean more heavily on one of these two traits to the exclusion of the other – “Internally integrated or externally impactful; what will it be?” Once again, do these two options have to be mutually exclusive? Does the local church have to be either impactful yet corporate or integrated and in-grown? Or could there be a harmonious and biblical middle ground where these two essential elements of local church could meet? Answers to these questions are found in the recorded actions of the earliest local church – the church at Jerusalem. These unique church characteristics are found specifically in Acts 2:44-46 (and really throughout the first 8 chapters of Acts). First, let’s take a look at what the author, Luke, highlights about the internal integration of life among the infant Jerusalem church:
“Now all the believers were together and held all things in common. They sold their possessions and property and distributed the proceeds to all, as any had need. Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple, and broke bread from house to house. They ate their food with joyful and sincere hearts,” (2:44-46).
“Now the entire group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common.” (4:32).
“For there was not a needy person among them because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of what was sold,and laid them at the apostles’ feet. This was then distributed to each person as any had need.” (4:34-35).
Now notice the contrasted characteristic of external impact that is also mentioned in following verses,
“…praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. Every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.” (2:47).
“But many of those who heard the message believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.” (4:4).
“Believers were added to the Lord in increasing numbers—multitudes of both men and women.” (5:14).
“Every day in the temple, and in various homes, they continued teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.” (5:42).
“So the word of God spread, the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly in number, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith.” (6:7).
“Now those who had been scattered went about proclaiming the good news of the word.” (8:4).
Again, at first glance, it would appear these two qualities, integration and impact, which characterized the Jerusalem church, would have come into fierce conflict. It has been my experience among many of today’s local churches that, often, we easily fall into one of two church form “ditches.” On the one hand, a local church may be laser-focused on great impact upon its secular community, featuring larger numbers in attendance Sunday morning, bigger buildings, more cutting-edge programs and active engagement with local and global ministries. However, on the other hand, another local church may place a much higher value on shared life among the few; a holistic organism instead of a corporate institution; intimacy through trusted accountability and encouragement; quality over quantity. These two ways of doing church would seem to be mutually exclusive when gazing at the broad landscape of churches today. However, it is very important to remember that neither one of these models of church has anything exclusively good or intrinsically evil about it. Both can simply be cultural or pragmatic expressions of local church. In fact, we see evidence of both attributes in the Jerusalem church of Acts. Yet, both left to themselves have the subtle danger of becoming a sub-par substitute for the Sacred Source that must unite these two qualities of a healthy church. I believe this divine balance should characterize every model of contemporary local church, just as they experienced in Jerusalem long ago. But what is this essential “Source” that is so easily missed by many churches today? What has jumped off the page at me is the Jerusalem church’s fervent preoccupation with Jesus and His identity from the very beginning. “Jesus?”, you may ask. “Really, Josh? That sure seems like a Sunday School answer if you ask me.” And you would be right. But often the most essential answers in Scripture are the most obvious and yet the most easily missed. I see at least three key elements to this kind of “preoccupation with Jesus” through the lens of the Jerusalem church that every modern local church should emulate… Christ was their exclusive aim (A.I.M.).
“A”: Awareness. It was startling to me as I combed through the details of healthy church expression from Acts 2-8, that the Jerusalem church was incredibly aware of Jesus Christ’s personal identity – Who He was and what He was known for. This acknowledgment of Jesus’ essential character was highlighted by the author Luke’s frequent use of the word “name” in reference to Jesus Himself. In fact, I counted 16 times that the Greek noun Onoma is used either implicitly or explicitly in connection with Jesus Christ’s personal identity. This observation helped me draw a very important conclusion from this biblical text. The early church appears to only know who they were - a brand-new spiritual community - as much as they knew who Jesus Christ was to them as Son of God, Savior, Messiah and their Source of life. Thus, as a timeless principle, Jesus’ identity must also be central to who we are, what we do and even how we do it as local churches today. Otherwise, we run the risk of replacing Christ with His community. Miss this vital element of awareness and we miss the whole point of doing church in the first place – our mission of preoccupation with and proclamation of Christ Jesus!
“I”: Identification. The young church in Jerusalem was intimately aware of Jesus Christ’s identity. But also, they took the next bold step. They identified with Him individually and collectively for the sake of entering this new church community. You see, repentance through baptism was a very natural yet intentional and subsequent step to belief in Jesus throughout the book of Acts (2:37-38, 41, 47; 8:12-13; 18:8; 19:1-5; 22:16). For a Jewish believer, specifically, water baptism was an outward sign of disassociation from their corrupt Jewish community (2:36-41; 3:13-20, 26), who crucified their rightful King and now radical identification with Jesus and His church (2:41-47; 4:32-35; 5:14; 6:7). This new community was drastically different than their former Jewish community. They would soon be made up of Jew, Hellenist (6:2), Samaritan (8:12) and Gentile (8:35-40), all in union with Jesus and choosing together as the church to identify with Him alone. So also, the church today should be challenged by this element of preoccupation with Jesus. How quick are we, as His community, to associate with Jesus as our one true life source? Do we intentionally identify with Jesus first and most in life or do we share that intimate space with other counterfeit identities who replace Jesus as our only life source? Could we be guilty at times of even idolizing our church model as our choice “comfort zone” over the One we are called to actually model our lives after, Jesus Himself?
“M”: Mutuality. Finally, the church at Jerusalem was dedicated to mutually helping and not hindering one another to be preoccupied with Jesus Christ above all else. Here are two passages that spoke to me about this very point. As mentioned before, 2:47 states that these believers were, “47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. Every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.” Similarly in 4:33 Luke writes, “33 With great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on all of them.” In the surrounding contexts of both of these verses, it is clear that this abundance of life was intentionally shared among the body (2:46; 4:32a), resulting in service to one another (2:44-45; 4:32b, 34-35) and flowing into the community around them (2:41, 47b; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7). Why? Because these believers were exclusively preoccupied with the Lord. What is also very transparent from these texts is that the way the church interacted among its members enhanced the church’s preoccupation with Christ and thus its effective integration of community life and impact on society. The people of this local church were the secret weapon and not the place or the pattern in which they met. In fact, Luke writes that the Jerusalem church was specifically experiencing and expressing grace to one another, “…and enjoying the favor (charis) of all the people…and great grace (charis) was on all of them”, respectively. Beautifully, this characteristic of a gracious community was the very sign that the church was a healthy organism – effectively growing inside and then going out intentionally. The importance of the mutual benefit that each member received from one another cannot be overemphasized. It should come as no surprise that the people make or break the local church’s mission of being effective and relevant disciple-makers of Jesus. So, do our church communities today help or hinder us in being preoccupied with Jesus Christ? Do we encourage and keep each other accountable to our greatest task at hand: to experience and express Jesus – all that He is and does to make us more like Himself? This has been a very simple, yet thought-provoking and convicting question for me, to say the least.
Fellow Free Grace believers, how are we doing when it comes to being the Church? No matter our model, are we individually inspiring our local church communities to be more consumed with Jesus and the grace He daily provides within His Body and for the world? Or are we preoccupied with other good yet supplemental things like when, where or how we meet as local churches? For those of us who have embraced the depths of God’s grace, how much more privileged and responsible are we to apply the timeless function of God’s grace to and through our local church families? We, of all believers, should allow the grace of Jesus to lead us in the charge towards intimately integrating our lives together and bringing powerful impact to the world around us. And this powerful balance is only possible as a result of churches preoccupied with our one Source of life here and now – Jesus.
