Someone I know takes their Bible to the prayer
meeting. When asked why this was, since the focus of the occasion
was prayer, they replied that the Holy Spirit might cause someone to
give a message from Scripture at any time—even when many are
“gathered together and praying” (Acts 12: 12). I think this is
right—indeed, I think the very fact that a question was raised about
it shows how far removed we are from conditions in which the Holy
Spirit has true liberty among us. We think we have the
liberty of Spirit because we arrange our meetings in a certain way,
but this proves nothing. How easy it is to criticize the established
church for its ritual and formality while being blind to our own
rigidity—unsurprising when it is dressed up as being something other
than what it actually is.
Man likes to
organise and formalise, and then, as a final move, to legalise—so
that nobody dare deviate from the orthodoxy (the orthodoxy might
even proudly be called the ‘liberty of the Spirit’). Now a
fundamental characteristic of the tabernacle system was its
formality: everything was legislated for, and no variation was
allowed from the “pattern, which hath been shewn to thee in the
mountain” (Exod. 25: 40). When we turn to the Assembly, however, the
contrast is striking, for there is a relative dearth of instruction
on how Christians are to arrange their gatherings together. This
scarcity of information is instructive, particularly
seeing as the apostle’s doctrine is copious in other areas. The
reason is simple: Christianity is characteristically spiritual. The
Assembly does not function by following a set of rules but moves in
subjection to the Head in heaven in the power of the Holy Spirit.
There are parameters set (see 1 Cor. 14: 29, 34 etc.) but there is
no liberty on our part to add to them. Indeed, Christians need to
keep in mind that the structures of their arrangements, even when
nominally there to facilitate liberty, can have the opposite effect
and result in the Spirit being quenched (see 1 Thess. 5: 19). It is
good, for example, for meetings to be arranged for so-called ‘open’
ministry (see 1 Cor. 14: 26-33) but if such ministry can only
take place there (or, in practice, only ever occurs
there) then we are placing limitations on the Lord. Does He not have
the right to speak at any time—even in the prayer meeting? We may
well strenuously assert His title but if we think He is bound by our
arrangements then our assertion is proved to be merely theoretical.
Whose Assembly is it? Of course, some will always
object because of the chaos and disorder they think will inevitably
follow, but this is simple unbelief. They believe in human
regulation rather than the power of the Spirit.
We cannot afford to
ignore these issues. Why is our testimony to mankind so weak, and
why are not more Christians from around us attracted to our
supposedly ‘Scriptural’ model of gathering? Is it not because while
we have, in measure, sought to follow New Testament precept and
example, the arrangements remain, in practice, ‘our’ arrangements
and we have not been subject to Christ as Head? I do not doubt that
the Lord blesses in spite of all the restrictions that
we have the effrontery to place upon Him, but how much more blessing
would surely result if we truly subjected ourselves to Him as Head!
What greater need have we ecclesiastically than what we read of in 1
Cor. 14: 25: “that God is indeed amongst you” (my
emphasis)? Without His presence, our meetings are futile, and any
‘Assembly’ character we may have is but “a name that thou livest,
and art dead” (Rev. 3: 1; AV).
