Introduction
We are not told much in Scripture about the meetings of the first
Christians—this, I believe, is deliberate, and leaves room for the
liberty of the Spirit. Formalisation, and, especially, enforced
harmonisation between assemblies in different places, is a sure sign
of the mind of man in action. Where the Holy Spirit is truly at work
there will be a coming together of hearts and minds—but this flows
from growth in Christ not coercion.
One passage in which the Bible does furnish us some meeting details
is found in 1 Cor. 14: 26-33:
“What is it then, brethren? whenever ye come together, each [of you]
has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an
interpretation. Let all things be done to edification.
If any one speak with a tongue, [let it be] two, or at the
most three, and separately, and let one interpret;
but if there be no interpreter, let him be silent in [the]
assembly, and let him speak to himself and to God.
And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others
judge. But if there be a
revelation to another sitting [there], let the first be silent.
For ye can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and
all be encouraged. And spirits of
prophets are subject to prophets.
For God is not [a God] of disorder but of peace, as in all the
assemblies of the saints”. This is clear
enough—so do modern believers act on these apostolic instructions?
The Modern Situation
The reality is that gatherings together of Christians on the lines
of 1 Cor. 14: 26-33 have largely ceased today. Indeed, in the
so-called ‘established churches’, where more or less everything
publicly spiritual is left to the activities of one or two
individuals, there would be great surprise at a meeting in which “each
[of you]” (v26, my emphasis) was expected to bring something for the
edification or building up of others (edification is the same word
in Greek—oikodomh—as
that used for buildings in Mark 13: 1). Clericalism as a
system is the antithesis of the open ministry described in 1
Cor. 14: 22-33—ministry which is not pre-determined and is not
always restricted to the same few. Open does not mean a free
for all (the women, after all, cannot participate—see vs. 34, 35)
but simply that there is liberty for any brother in Christ to take
part as prompted by the Holy Spirit. From a purely human standpoint,
open ministry will inevitably end in chaos since there is no visible
chairman or leader—but while there was confusion in the open
ministry practised in Corinth, the apostle neither criticises the
Corinthians for their lack of such a leader, nor suggests that they
appoint one. The scenes at Corinth were disorderly because the
Corinthians failed to recognise that it is God that is
to preside, hence: “let all things be done comelily and with order”
(v40), for “God is not [a God] of disorder but of
peace” (v33, my emphasis). Where God is in control, that control
affects the character of what takes place.
Sadly, even where there is a profession of a return to apostolic
principles, the open meeting has become rarer or disappeared
altogether. It is ironic that some take pride in referring to their
own circle as ‘an assembly’ and yet see no inconsistency in dropping
the assembly meeting that Paul describes in 1 Cor. 14
or subtly allowing it to wither (while continuing, curiously, with
other meetings not based on clear Scripture or, indeed, any
Scripture at all). It is inconsistent to grieve over
numbers and spirituality going down if the very
meeting that the Spirit of God particularly associates with building
up is neglected! For invited speakers to give teaching
and exhortation, and for brethren to read and discuss the Scriptures
together, are good practices—but why overlook what the Holy Spirit
in His wisdom has given us as characteristic of those
who assemble together (“whenever ye come together, each [of you] has
a psalm, has a teaching …”—v26)?
Again, if Christians are willing to gather in prayer to tell God
about their collective problems, it seems odd to not also gather to
hear the divine response—for 1 Cor. 14 speaks not of mere speakers
(telling us their thoughts) but prophets—and
prophets speak to men on behalf of God (comp. Exod. 4:
16; 7: 1). How did the Assembly in Jerusalem have confidence that
“it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit …” (Acts 15: 28)? Through
their recognising the contributions of James and others (see vs.
7-21) as being, not simply the voice of men, but “oracles of God” (1
Pet. 4: 11). That is why an unbeliever entering into the assembly,
“will do homage to God, reporting that God is indeed amongst you” (!
Cor. 14: 25). Those who disregard the open meeting are, in effect,
saying that they do not really believe that God is among His people
on such occasions. Furthermore, if, in unbelief, some other meeting
is substituted (invariably of a character over which man can more
easily exercise his control) then should there be any surprise that
the Lord’s voice is not heard, and the problems remain?
Is Open Ministry for today?
Of course, the mention of prophets will be scorned by some on
the basis that 1 Cor. 14 describes conditions unique to the
apostolic era and therefore does not apply today. For them, chapter
14 is a dead letter and really just an historical curiosity. Now
certainly prophecy was a foundational gift (see Eph. 2: 20), and
once the canon of Scripture had been completed was no longer
required. Similarly, tongue-speaking as a sign to unbelievers (see 1
Cor. 14: 22) pointed to the imminent judgment of God on the Jewish
nation in rejecting Christ, and has long since ceased. Thus no
one speaks in tongues today and there are no prophets
today (indirectly proved by 2 Pet. 2: 1, where Peter speaks
of false teachers being the present danger, not false prophets).
Yet if we admit that those gifts are gone, why should 1 Cor. 14
regulate the assembly now? The answer is that there is one thing
that has not changed, and that is the presence of the Holy
Spirit in the Assembly (see 1 Cor. 3: 16, 17; Eph. 2: 21,
22). So do we believe that—in a real sense? That He is actually
present in the Assembly, and that he still acts in the Assembly? How
many, week after week, say, I believe in the Holy Spirit, but
deny this by their practice? Does unbelief dare to make the Spirit
no better than a dumb idol? What is the use of quoting “let all
things be done comelily and with order” (1 Cor. 14: 40) if a routine
of our own (fixed or extempore) is put in place which does not even
resemble the mere form of the divine order?! What does Paul say in
v37? “If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let
him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is [the]
Lord’s commandment”. What is? Everything in the
chapter—as proved by the conclusion in vs. 39-40—and therefore
including the open ministry in vs. 26-33. Now if 1 Cor. 14: 26-33 is
the Lord’s commandment, what right have
any to totally set it aside, and to substitute some human
arrangement in its place? And yet is this not precisely what largely
characterises the Christian profession in which ‘ministry’ is
delivered by those trained for it, while the rest are there merely
to receive? Is this what we find taught by the apostles? The very
fact that these verses have been preserved to us in our day, when
much else has not, indicates divine purpose in that preservation to
which we would do well to take heed.
Some, of course, will argue that the public position is so divided
that there can be no thought of having open meetings, as the gift
necessary is scattered rather than in one place. Yes, there has been
a very grievous scattering, but did God not foresee the present day?
Has God’s will about His Assembly changed? Either I am acting upon
that will or I am not. Of course, it would be pretentious and wrong
to claim to be the assembly in a particular town or
city, but are we to be denied the right to assemble (even if just
two or three) in the manner that is taught in the Word? Despite the
public breakdown, is not the Holy Spirit at liberty to act among
those so gathered, whatever their limitations? The question is not
whether the Spirit of God may be active in this denomination or
that, for God is sovereign, but whether we are
carrying out the Lord’s will concerning His Assembly as taught from
the Scriptures. Certainly, we may fail on a practical level—we all
do. Thus when the saints come together, you may hear individuals
that had been better to have been silent, and you may see sometimes
have those silent whom it would have been blessed to hear. Nobody
denies the possibility of failure. But this does not in the least
degree weaken the truth of God, or the responsibility of His people
to cling to it. Let me put it in a way that all can understand. A
Christian has the Holy Spirit dwelling in his body (see 1 Cor. 6:
19) and is responsible to act in the Spirit. Of course he will often
fail, but despite this, the Holy Spirit remains with him forever
(see John 14: 16, 17)—the believer is always the temple of God and
can never not be. Now as certain as the Spirit dwells in every
Christian, so He dwells in the Assembly (see 1 Cor. 3: 16, 17; Eph.
2: 21, 22)—and the obligation of the Assembly is to recognise His
presence, and to act accordingly.
Having meetings that expound the letter of the truth is one thing,
but “the word of God” is also “living and
operative” (Heb. 4: 12, my emphasis), and thus there is also
such a thing as that same truth given as directly from the
Lord. Thus while the gift of prophecy has gone, it should
not be assumed that God no longer actively speaks. God speaks
through His Word, often through the instrumentality of His
servants—and where that is the case, then the ministry, as coming
from God, may be said to have a prophetic character. Of course, this
is never ‘new’ truth as it might have been in apostolic times, but
the truth of the Scriptures applied to the state of those assembled
to His name in a particular time and place. The value of the open
meeting is that the saints gather together to the Lord to hear
His voice (in contrast with the situation in Corinth, where
the Corinthians appeared to gather to hear their own voices).
Assembling to hear the Lord’s voice implies that we are open to what
He has to say about our state and our circumstances and are
receptive to whatever ministry He may provide that is for our
edification. That being the case, it might be asked:
Is the Open Meeting to be Frequent or Rare?
The thought of coming together occurs three times in the
first Corinthian epistle. In 1 Cor. 5: 4, the assembly was to come
together for the discipline of one of their number. In 1 Cor. 11:
17, the saints ostensibly came together to partake of the Lord’s
Supper (although this was accompanied by much failure). In 1 Cor 14:
26, the Corinthians were again gathered together, and on this
occasion, they expressed in the assembly what they had individually
received from the Lord (though again, with much failure). In the
first two instances, it is evident that those gathered had a
specific purpose in gathering, but in the last Scripture it is much
less clear. 1 Cor. 14: 26 records what took place when
the saints were gathered, but it is not certain that they gathered
for that as a purpose. The reader of the NT is also
given no direct information on how long or short meetings were in
those days (although some were clearly very long—see Acts 20: 7), or
whether saints might assemble for one purpose (such as prayer), and
then proceed to another. Indeed, prayer followed by prophecy would
seem to be a fitting sequence since in prayer we make our requests
to God (see Phil. 4: 6), while “he that prophesies speaks to men” (1
Cor. 14: 3) on behalf of God.
The meeting for discipline clearly occurred as frequently as
occasion demanded it (and from the serious nature of the sins listed
in 1 Cor. 5: 11, it would evidently be extraordinary and rare). The
gathering together to partake of the Lord’s Supper appears to have
occurred at least weekly (see Acts 20: 7), although in no sense is
this laid down as a rule. What then of the meeting for open ministry
(if indeed it was a distinct occasion)? Some, embarrassed by the way
the meeting is sometimes misused by the flesh (or, conversely, by
the searching nature of the words spoken) restrict it to once or
twice a year—or even are motivated to get rid of it altogether in
order to look more like the ‘mainstream’ denominations. Others have
fixed upon arbitrary rules that it should be once a month or once a
quarter—although this appears strangely inconsistent in the light of
the fact that weekly prayer meetings have almost universal
acceptance. As observed already, speaking to God (in prayer) and God
speaking to us (as in prophecy) are linked. Looking at 1 Cor. 14: 26
itself, it is impossible to get around the fact that it says
whenever the saints gathered together each of them had a
psalm, a teaching etc. This leaves the clear impression that this
was a very regular event (perhaps occurring even on every occasion
when the saints assembled together)—and Paul does not correct the
practice of the Corinthians in this regard. Certainly, no fixed rule
as such is laid down (for Christians are governed not by the law,
but by the Spirit) but it would appear that open ministry was a
normal and frequent practice among the early Christians. Some say
that there is neither faith nor power for such meetings now, but if
there is faith and power for the gathering together of 1 Cor. 11:
17-34 (which few would deny) why not for 1 Cor. 14: 26-33? In the
former, the Assembly ministers to the Lord and in the latter the
Lord ministers to the Assembly. It is the same Lord that presides at
both gatherings, and faith has to do with Him, and it is the same
Spirit who is present at both, and all power is in Him. But do we
really believe this? If, in faith we “prove” God, shall He not “pour
… out a blessing, till there be no place for it” (Mal. 3: 10)? Now
it may be that the frequency of open ministry in the apostolic era
was necessary because the NT Scriptures were not complete, but that
does not alter the fact that if modern saints are to go by the
Bible, then what is detailed in 1 Cor. 14: 26-33 is all they have.
Indeed, it could be argued that the state of the collective
testimony is now such, that we, in our day, need to hear from God as
often as possible!
Edification and Abuse
Finally, let us briefly consider some of the details of the open
meeting outlined by the apostle.
No one would deny that open ministry has given occasion to the
flesh, and that the very liberty which forms the basis of the open
meeting has been abused. There may be an unseemly haste to speak,
talking at inordinate length to the exclusion of others, or
delivering what has been prepared in the study rather than received
from the Lord. All of
these things are regrettable. Corinth was no exception, for while
the assembly there came “short in no gift” (1 Cor. 1: 7), these
gifts were being used in a selfish manner rather than as under the
hand of the Lord, with the result that the saints were not edified.
The remedy for this was not the abandonment of open ministry but to
“Follow after love” (1 Cor 14: 1), to speak “[in] edification, and
encouragement, and consolation” (v3), and to seek to “abound for the
edification of the assembly” (v12; see also vs. 4, 5, 17, 26).
Unless the assembly was going to be edified by his taking part, it
would be better for even the most gifted speaker to remain silent in
his seat.
Ministry in the open meeting is to be exercised as under the
hand of the Lord, for He is the administrator of His own
Assembly (see v30: “if there be a revelation to another sitting
[there], let the first be silent”). The needed contribution might be
great or small: Paul was happy to speak only “five words” (v19) in
the assembly and it is notable that the list in v26 begins with “a
psalm” (comp. Col. 3: 16), which need not imply specific gift at
all.
Finally, it must ever be kept in mind that spiritual occasions do
not run according to a set pattern (whether codified in writing or
unspoken). In keeping with this, Paul is very sparing about what he
says regarding order. However, the instructions regarding two or
three speakers (see vs. 27, 29) clearly fall under “the Lord’s
commandment” (v37), and to ignore this rule is to ignore the Lord
Himself. Many think that in v23 (“and all speak with tongues”) the
apostle is criticising the tongues-speakers for speaking at the same
time as each other. However, if this was the sense then to be
consistent the following verse would then have to be taken to mean
that several prophets speaking at once is commendable (in direct
contradiction of v31, where the apostle shows the need to prophesy
“one by one”). No, what Paul is saying in v23 is that if all
speaking in the assembly was only in untranslated tongues, this
would be justly dismissed as madness by simple persons and
unbelievers coming in. By contrast, an orderly sequence of no more
than two or three speakers (preferably prophecy) would both edify
the saints and convict outsiders. Now while we no longer have the
gift of tongues or of prophecy, the Lord’s commandment remains, and
those who have “a teaching” (v26), for example, need to remember not
to weary the saints by flouting the rule of “two or three” (v29). It
is not the ‘liberty of the Spirit’ to go beyond this, but rather a
flagrant abuse of the order of God’s house (comp. 1
Tim. 3: 15).
Conclusion
Today, when saints are divided and scattered, we may find ourselves
in a situation where there is little outstanding gift available to
us. The temptation in such circumstances would be to abandon open
ministry, but this overlooks the reality of God’s presence among His
people. As with the little boy with five barley loaves and two small
fishes, the Lord is able to make use of what is available. Let us
not be unbelieving believers (!) but walk in faith!
