The New Testament Is Plural (Us) Not Singular (Me)
by Jon Zens
As folks listen to local and media Bible teachers, most miss the fact that Christ’s body is missing from their use of the New Testament. More often than not the approach taken is individualistic – “how can Christ help me live the Christian life?” However, the NT was not written to individuals but to groups of believing people in various cities and regions. This does not come across in English translations for the most part because the word “you” in the Greek can be singular or plural. For example, the “you” in “Christ in you, the hope of glory,” is plural, and has in view the Body of Christ.
Think about it. The NT letters were sent to ekklesias (assemblies) – “when you come together as an ekklesia.” Even the letter sent to an individual – Philemon – still has a corporate (body) dimension to it – “to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the ekklesia in your house.”
This is the crucial missing element in the bulk of today’s Bible teaching. The Lord intended the life of Christ to be lived out among the disciples in community, not in isolation. Consider how upside-down we are in our practice. The NT has at least 58 “one-another’s” that are meaningless without the reality of close, deep local relationships. The call to be longsuffering and forbearing with others implies day-to-day involvement that simply cannot take place by seeing people a few hours a week at controlled religious meetings.
But where do we put the emphasis in what people call “church”? It pretty much revolves around “the pastor.” He is the one with the ordination, the school training, the vision, and the sermons. Without a “pastor” people would generally conclude that you don’t have a church yet. No church is seen as complete unless it has a “pastor.” If a “pastor” leaves a church, then you have to quick find another one.
What have we done? We have elevated that for which there is not a shred of evidence in the NT – that there must be a “pastor” to lead the church – and by doing this most church structures then suppress the life of Jesus coming to expression through the 58 “one-another’s” that are clearly in the NT.
Since the “one-another” perspectives are pushed into the background, the “pastor” must then spend a lot of his time helping the flock live the Christian life as individuals.
In the NT we see the life of Christ in each believer come to expression as they gather in an open meeting and edify each other (1 Cor.14:26). The NT knows nothing of “worship services.” In the gatherings of the early church there was no one, or no group, “up-front” leading the time together. It was a body meeting led by the Holy Spirit to be an expression of Jesus Christ.
But what have we done? We bring individuals together who haven’t seen each other since last Sunday to sing a few songs, put some money in a plate, listen to a pastoral prayer, hear a sermon, and go home to their roast in the oven and afternoon football. “Church services” climax with the sermon and perhaps an altar call. People can go through what is ordained in a church bulletin, and not have an ounce of loving commitment to anyone. Families can be sitting in the pews week after week that are about to explode or end in divorce and their needs fall through the cracks of church machinery. Oversimplification? I think you know in your heart that the essence of what I’m describing is reality for most people in “church.”
The early church came together in a way in which all the parts could be an expression of Christ on earth. For the most part we now come to “church” to see one person function and hear a sermon that is supposed to help us live better lives in a fallen world. Can you see the disconnect? The former is Christ flowing like living water out of his people in a life of interdependence; the latter is institutional and fosters dependence on one part – “the pastor.”
Consider the matter of repentance. Generally this subject is approached individualistically – “What do I need to repent of in my Christian life?” But in Christ’s words to the ekklesias in Revelation 2-3 we see that he called the whole body of believers in a city to repent of various sins. This is we-repentance not me-repentance. When have you ever heard of a body of believers repenting for anything?
This illustrates how we have completely missed the fundamental body dimension of the NT. One of the key reasons why the “us” has been replaced by “me” is because of all the human traditions that have buried the living Christ and exalted “churchy” stuff.
Indeed, the ekklesia consists of unique individuals. But in the Lord’s building of his ekklesia these individuals only find meaningful existence together, not apart. He wills for his vine-life to be fruitful in each and every branch, for the health and growth of the whole plant.
Our life is just a vapor. Are we going to expend our energies oiling religious machines or pursuing life – “Christ in us the hope of glory.”
(For further reflection on this theme and related ones see the author’s A Church Building Every ½ Mile: What Makes American Christianity Tick?)
Good post — thanks!
Our fellowship tries to set expectations about gathering as a spiritual body for mutual ministry versus an audience of individuals cherry picking from sermons. The “Gatherings” page on our website (hyperlinked to my name on this post) sketches this out.
Excellent article, brother Jon! Loved it so much that we translated it to Swedish and published it on our soon-to-be publishing house’s website. If you understand Swedish you can read it here:
I can hear many of my pastor friends decrying, “Not in my church!” Frank, thank you for allowing Jon to share this here. This is an incredible and vital insight into the NT and life of the church.
Since I am a long time follower of your blog and have read all of your books, I find it interesting the difference between comments made by Pastors versus those who are not. I am a Pastor and have been for over 20 years in both the institutional church (from Methodist to Non-denominational/Charismatic) and organic church meeting in a house (calling ourselves a house church seems for us to place the emphasis on the wrong thing; where we gather.) That said, I find many pastor’s comments on your blog to be thankful and encouraged with your compassion and insight into the burdens of their roll in the institutional church; whereras on the other hand, those who are not pastors, seem to be more quick to criticize someone questioning the form of church and functions of leadership they have followed all their lives.
Maybe just me, but I am greatful for what you continue to share with us. Blessings!
I appreciate this article. I’d like to Press It to my blog, but it appears you’ve removed that capability from the options.
One question I have as a believer is, Is it okay to remain a part of the “institutional” church, knowing it is an “institutional” church, grieving and praying and working towards the goal of the organic substance within it to be released? I find Jesus’ ministry an interesting parallel to this idea in that He went to the religious of His day preaching repentance and the kingdom of God. I wonder is this needed for those still remaining in the institutional church, or do we just need to abandon ship and start anew? As much as I desire to find that blossoming plant freed from her shell in my community, I have yet to discover it. Your concepts of leadership of and pluralistic expression of the Body of Christ strike a major chord with my experience as an non-seminaried Bible teacher. Am I being heroic or just foolishly idealistic? Sometimes I wonder.
Shane: we’ve never removed any features. I’m not even familiar with “press it.” You can provide a link to the blog post as there are instructions/permissions at the end of ever post in bright red.
No one can answer your question of “is it okay to remain part of ….” That question is between you, your conscience, and your Lord. To be more educated on the issues, I’d recommend PAGAN CHRISTIANITY and REIMAGINING CHURCH. We do talk about what happens when one stays and tries to change the system, and some advice on “how to leave” in those cases where someone ends up doing that.
Since my christianity is more plural than individual, my live of prayer is different. I use a lot of time “us” and not most of the time “me” like before. My prayer are “plural” (for exemple: Father: Lead US in a deeply understanding of Christ) I understood we are a body, what I ask for me, I prefer pray it for us, all the body. I really feel that is a blessing for my spiritual live…
raised some excellent points – and another article could be written on how this system is not only disaster for the church body, but also the pastor who has all the pressure on him – to know everyone’s name, to deliver fresh sermons each week. Its no wonder pastors end up in scandal – they can’t handle it.
Charlie: The work of God has a lot of pressure attached to it, no matter what form it takes. No servant of God is immune from these pressures. But you are correct in that the pressures put on the modern pastor are largely unwarranted namely because the pastorate in its modern form is not a biblical office. Jesus has never asked one man or woman to do what the modern pastoral office requires. George Barna and I cover this very issue at length in Chapter 5 of PAGAN CHRISTIANITY. The response from scores of pastors to that chapter has been surprisingly encouraging as many of them resonate with what was said and have admitted to their own frustrations from and doubts about the office: http://frankviola.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/pastors-weigh-in-on-pagan-christianity/
Zens and I both love pastors and understand their frustrations. There really is a better way.
Brother Frank
I have read several of your books and it always gives me an impression somehow that you are putting a house church in opposition towards institutional church by speaking and teaching against all the mistakes that institutional church does.
In this article I have noticed same doing by attacking pastor’s like you want to wipe out from the church the ministry of the pastor you speak about the problems but very little about the solution though this may be just impression that I got reading your books.
They are several verses that I would want for you to explain to me.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
1Ti 2:7 whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
Here these two verses the clear say that church needs preachers in original the word preacher
kērussō
kay-roos’-so
Of uncertain affinity; to herald (as a public crier), especially divine truth (the gospel): – preach (-er), proclaim, publish.
That is I believe not just the role of evangelist, is also a role of the pastor who has to be a teacher, and how He can teach if not in the church (group of people who believe in Christ and gather together) and a role of Apostle for sure.
Love to hear your point of view on how you explain this.
My english is not so good, I am Albanian from Kosova, but I hope you got what I wanted to say
Hi Skender: I’m not sure which books you’ve read of mine, but I would make two points to clarify misunderstanding:
1) I don’t endorse “house church.” I endorse the “organic expression of the church,” something very different. I explain the difference in REIMAGINING CHURCH, PAGAN CHRISTIANITY, on my podcast, and numerous times on this blog,
2) PAGAN CHRISTIANITY is the book that deconstructs. There’s not a plea of “wiping out” anyone though. But it does CHALLENGE the modern pastoral office in light of Scripture and church history. The build-up, constructive, practical-SOLUTIONS part is found in REIMAGINING CHURCH, FROM ETERNITY TO HERE, and very specifically in FINDING ORGANIC CHURCH.
It’s a mistake to read one or two of my books alone. They are meant to be read as a series. http://www.ReimaginingChurch.org – for they all tell a full story together.
I hope that helps.
Thanks, Jon, for this excellent article. I’ve often said, in preaching, how nasty the English language is. It isolates and takes us from our brothers and sisters, as does so much of the security seeking in the middle class dominated USA. A relationship with Jesus, as it has been said, is always personal but never private. How can we love God who we have seen if we don’t love, in our action, our brothers and sisters who we do see–and not often enough. Media consumption keeps us isolated too, though I don’t think the same is true necessarily with media like this, that can, in some ways, keep us connected with one another even when we are far apart physically. On the other hand, the fact that I’m chatting with you here on line is keeping me from visiting with my neighbor across the street or in the living room. Oh, Lord, guide us as we humbly find ways to serve and love you and one another in this 2011 world.
Very, very well said. Bravo!
Beautiful, timely stuff.
I love that scholar Jon Zens, he is so important to the Ekklesia.
I am involved in a lengthy dialogue right now on George Barna’s Blog. This plurality wisdom is central to the debate for the reason for the crisis of confidence in the church. Pastor’s are fighting to maintain the singular clergy status quo running the local assembly.
I’m glad you shared this good stuff, it is useful to the dialogue.
As always Jon, like a surgeons knife to the diseased organ, your bold way of articulating what my heart weeps over makes me yearn for that intimate kingdom life. Thank you and god bless you.