Is a multi-site church biblical?

I. In each city the believers formed one Church. Thus there was "the Church of God which is at Corinth," and the "Church of the Thessalonians," each a single assembly of all the believers in its own city, a sample, so to speak, of the oneness of Christ in that place, and responsible for maintaining that oneness visible to the world. The promise of Christ's presence held good in each of these local gatherings. If but two or three believers were assembled in his name, He was in their midst. If the city were large, and the believers numerous, there might be several places of meeting, but those assembling at these different places would all constitute one Church. The numerous places would no more infringe the Scripture principle of the oneness of the local assembly than the various local assemblies in different cities infringed the principle of the oneness of the body.

There were few or perhaps no great buildings in which the saints then congregated exclusively. Unity was maintained all the more strikingly in the Spirit's power, because they might meet in ever so many rooms or halls of a city. They were one body, not in idea or in a mere outward appearance, but in blessed truth, living reality, and holy practice. He who was a member of Christ was a member everywhere according to the place grace gave him in the one body, the church; and this was carefully insisted on alike as privilege and duty. Never do we hear of assemblies in a city, no matter what the extent of the city, or the number of the saints therein, or consequently of the meeting-places for convenience' sake. It is the church in Jerusalem, in Ephesus, etc., whether they met together in one company or in ten. Coming together (ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ) supposes unity of purpose: the place might or might not be one, as has been proved fully. Even if they met in several quarters for convenience, ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ would still be true. So long as they acted in faith of the Lord's presence in their midst, it was the local expression of "one body and one Spirit." "Into one place" limits the gathering unduly and might be quite false as a fact. "Together" is the true thought, which leaves the fact open according to circumstances, but always as maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, if the Lord and the word of His grace be honoured. It was "for the same purpose."

320 What were churches or assemblies? These were local. The apostle could say, "To the church of God which is at Corinth." It represented the whole unity of the body in that place. "Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." Two bodies of Christ, even in one place, representatively there could not be. In Galatia, which was a large province, we read the churches of Galatia. So in Thessalonica, a city of Macedonia, we have the assembly of the Thessalonians. So in the seven churches; so John writes to the assembly. So everywhere there was God's assembly in any given place which could be distinctly addressed as such. In Acts 20 he calls for the elders of the assembly. There were several appointed by the Holy Ghost to be overseers of God's flock. Hence Titus was left in Crete to ordain them in every city. We have (Acts 11:22) the assembly which was in Jerusalem, though it was exceedingly numerous; in Acts 13 the assembly that was at Antioch. So Paul (Acts 14:21-23) returns to Lystra, Derbe, and Iconium, and chooses for them elders in every assembly. All scripture clearly shews there was one assembly in a place, which was God's assembly.

Again, there never was more than one church in one city. Thus a letter is addressed, "To the church of God which is at Corinth." Again, so completely does the idea prevail of saints in each city being one, that when Paul left Titus in Crete, it was that he might ordain elders in every city (observe, not in every church); yet when Paul, in Acts 20, sends from Miletus to Ephesus, he calls "the elders of the church;" that is, the elders of the church were the elders in the city, or vice versa, the elders in the city were the elders of the church. There was but one in every city. The elders were to take heed to themselves, "and to all the flock" (Acts 20:28). They were to "feed the church of God."

None can deny a plurality of gifted men, five of high rank in full service of Christ, and this expressly in 'the church that was at Antioch.' 'Churches' in the same place, each with its own minister, we see here as everywhere ignored. It is not meant that the faithful may not have met to break bread regularly in many houses here or there, as we know they did in Jerusalem; but none the less did they in that city as in every other constitute 'the assembly' there. Unity prevailed, which only the Holy Spirit could form or maintain; not unity invisible or for heaven merely and admitting of actual diversity or even antagonism, but rather living and manifest unity on earth: which as yet the gifts, and the elders where they existed, subserved, instead of being the instruments of expressing their independency.

Now no one disputes that the saints assembled at first in private houses to remember the Lord in His supper, the centre of their worship. It was expressly κατ᾽ οἶκον "at home," in contrast with the temple (Acts 2:46); and there would they teach the disciples, if not preach more openly (ver. 42). Ere long, even in Jerusalem, they might need a hundred upper chambers instead of that one which sufficed before Pentecost. Unity does not at all depend on all assembling within a single apartment. This would make it material. It is really in the power of the Holy Spirit. Hence coming together ἐπὶ τὸ αὐὸτ (1 Cor. 11:20) admits of as many localities as suited the convenience of saints dwelling sometimes in all the quarters of an extensive city. No matter how numerous the assemblages might be, scripture (i.e. God's mind) regards the saints as the church met together for the same purpose. One Spirit, not theirs but God's, created and maintained the unity for the manifestation of God's glory in Christ. Hence we never hear of "churches" but solely of "the church" in a city as in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, etc.; though we read of "the churches" of Judea, Galatia, Macedonia, Asia, etc.

It will not be questioned by any fair and intelligent enquirer that the church in Ephesus, the metropolis of Asia, had been planted before the first epistle to the Corinthians was written thence. Evidently too "the church at Aquila's" (1 Cor. 16:19) existed then in that city. "All the brethren greet you," in verse 20, supposes souls gathered elsewhere, and the main body too. The active grace of God gathers freely and in all simplicity; but as the Holy Spirit is one and impresses unity on all saints here below, so is there care in a place like Ephesus, not assuredly to hinder the gathering of saints to the Lord's name in more houses than one, but also to guard them all in unity. There may be the assembly here or the assembly there; but the aggregate of the saints in the place were "the assembly in Ephesus," never the assemblies in it or of it. Unity is the governing truth according to the will of our Lord, the Head of the church. So runs His word, which cannot be broken. To have them all meeting under one roof is an earthly notion: the presence and power of the Spirit rises wholly and essentially above diversity of place. Only it is indispensable that as Christ's body they be all gathered to His name in the liberty and unity of the Spirit.

The church of God in a place (say Plumstead) consists of all believers in Plumstead. It is part of the church of God (see question 2). In the old days (New Testament time), this was easy to see because the Christians came together in one place. They were known. No unbelievers dared to join them (Acts 5:13). If they were too numerous to meet in one place they would meet in different houses, but they did so in fellowship with one another. Today, things are more complicated (but God’s principles always apply). Men have formed churches, organisations, sects, etc. by introducing memberships (other than the membership of the body of Christ). So how can you ‘see’ or ‘show’ the church of God in a place today? Only by coming together on the basis of Scripture with all those willing to do so – but always bearing in mind that those who come together may not be the whole church in this place’. The local church (assembly) gives expression to the church (which is universal).

We have been speaking of discipline, but the same principles are found where other subjects are in consideration. For instance, in the apostle's farewell to the elders of the assembly at Ephesus, not only does he give prophetic intimations as to the history of the whole Church, but he applies to them — local officers — titles which refer to the whole Body: "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God which He hath purchased. with His own blood" (Acts 20:28). Their responsibility was chiefly concerned with Ephesus, with Christ's sheep there, but as an integral part of the whole Church of God. We have the same thought in the epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 4:12). All gifts, whether apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, or teachers, were for the edifying of the Body of Christ. Some of these gifts might never be exercised outside the limits of a single assembly, yet they are for the whole Church. "There are many members, yet but one body" (1 Cor. 12:20).

Let us ask now, What constitutes a local assembly? Naturally our answer would first be, All the believers in a given place, as Corinth, Ephesus, and the like; and this, in the main, would be a sufficient answer. A further question would be, When Christians in one locality are more in number than can conveniently come together, and simply for that reason meet separately, would each such meeting constitute a local assembly, be an expression of the one Body, or would the several meetings collectively be required to make up the local assembly? It seems plain that the question is not one for geography to settle. The whole spirit of the passages we have been examining would show that it is simply a question of manifestation of divine principles by a gathering of the Lord's people. If those principles which we have been looking at control a gathering of Christians — principles of Church unity and obedience to the truth — each such gathering would be a local assembly, an expression of the whole Church; and there might be a number of such gatherings in a single city. Naturally, believers in the same locality would be much thrown together, and such intercourse would suggest mutual prayer and consultation when any question for decision should arise. But if the Lord is in the midst (and "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," Matt. 18:20), His authority is sufficient to bind and the Holy Spirit is sufficient to direct.

<Some say, "Oh, but there were churches in Paul's time." Yes, there were. But I ask, were there different kinds of churches? That is, in any one city or place were there more kinds of gatherings (ekklesiai) than one? I go further, and assert that in any one city there was one assembly of saints only; and I challenge any one to show the contrary. Hence Paul wrote to THE church (assembly) in Corinth, Philippi, etc. Moreover, a member of the assembly at one place was a member of all others also. I will give an extreme example for illustration. If there were six fishermen living at Athens, and they were all the believers in the place, they would constitute "the assembly of God" in Athens. Outside them was the world, and perhaps Judaism. Let those six remove to Cenchrea, and then there would be no Church of God in Athens, although the religious Jews were ever so busy in their synagogue services. But such six fishermen would be bona fide identified with the saints gathered at Cenchrea. And yet, again, if all these went to Ephesus, and a place large enough could be obtained, they would all be gathered in this one place, on the Lord's Day, to break bread with the assembly in Ephesus. I say, therefore, that there might have been as many gatherings in Paul's time as there were cities, but, morally and practically, they were all one. No names, sects, and parties separated them then. If such be God's truth, everything is false which does not answer to it.>