Romans 16 shows that there were many churches in the city. Is it possible to have five or eight churches in one city, each with independent authority? -- Fabio Castellanos (Cali, Colombia)
A new church planting would normally be under the authority and sponsorship of the sending congregation. I will not address that situation--which should, after all, be temporary, since churches are supposed to grow and mature and develop local leadership. If I understand your question, you are asking about a multiplicity of congregations in one geographical area. Perhaps you are questioning the so-called "one church, one city" doctrine.
Jesus prayed for unity among believers (John 17). This is not institutional unity, but unity of the heart. "One church, one city" is a deduction, and abstraction from scripture, not an explicit biblical doctrine. In Rome, it is not clear to me how the various house churches were organized and governed. Could there have been a central eldership in the city governing all members? Perhaps. Or was there a single elder in each house church? Maybe.
A wise man [Mike Fontenot] once told me: "If it's left fuzzy in the Bible, there's a reason it's left fuzzy." We humans love to define, distinguish, and project forwards to cover every possibility. But the Lord gives us considerable latitude. There isn't necessarily only one way to approach the question.
What, after all, is a church? Say we have 50 groups of 100, meeting all over a large metropolitan area. And say they meet together as one church (Greek ekklesia = assembly) once or twice a year. As you can see, this is problematic. Maybe it is best to remain a single congregation--especially if the leaders are in touch with the people and it makes good legal and spiritual sense to remain a single body. However we define a church, each church stands before God. It is responsible for its decision. As I have written elsewhere, congregations should be interdependent. Not dependent, neither independent, just a network of interdependent autonomous congregations.
And what, after all, is a city? The largest city of the Roman Empire in the first century was slightly larger than one million. As you pointed out, the evidence of Romans 16 is ambivalent. One church with an integrated leadership, or a looser "federation" of congregations more informally connected? Most modern cities are vastly larger than the cities of the Mediterranean world 2000 years ago. Rome in the first century was perhaps only 5-10% the size (in area) of modern Rome. Is there not perhaps room for more than one church (assembly) in the municipal area? It really does boil down to definitions: What is a city? What is an assembly (church)?
I would rather trust my brothers in each city to arrive at conclusions that make sense for their local situations than attempt to legislate a one-size-fits-all rule. As we strive to emulate the "New Testament pattern," let's make sure the pattern we have found is actually in the scriptures in the first place.
This article is copyrighted and is for private use and study only. © 2004. Reprints or public distribution is prohibited without the express consent of Douglas Jacoby.
