What are the absolute, bare bones essentials for saying ‘here is a church’? What is the fundamental difference between a group of Christians meeting together and a specific church meeting? What must be present and without it we do not have a church? What can be missing, even if it means we aren’t ultimately healthy, and yet we can still say here is a church? Here are some basic things.

A group of people

Before we get anywhere close to being called a church, we need an actual group of people. The Bible does not recognise a church when there is just one person. Not necessarily even one family. Neither the Ethiopian Eunuch on his chariot nor the Philippian jailer and his family, on their own, constituted a church. A church exists when there is a group of people. By my reckoning of Matthew 18, if we are to follow the steps all the way to the end, there needs to be at least 6 people (two to have a problem, two others to take as witnesses, and at least two ‘others’ to allow you to tell it to the rest of the church). You can take or leave the figure, but church means a gathering of people rather than person or even singular family.

The Holy Spirit

Of course, it’s not just a meeting of any people. It is a meeting of believers who have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. That is to say, it is a meeting of regenerate people. This is what we see in Acts 2. The Holy Spirit leads the people listening to Peter’s message to repent. It’s only those who believe the message (that is, are made regenerate by the Spirit) who are then baptised and added to the church. A church isn’t just any group of people; it is a group of people who have been made alive by God’s Spirit.

Ordinances

But Acts 2 doesn’t stop there either. A church is not just a random bunch of people, nor is it just saved people, it is a group of people indwelt by the Holy Spirit who have been baptised and committed to one another. Those who were made regenerate by the Spirit, evidenced by their repentance, were then baptised and only then added to their number. A local church is a body of regenerate, baptised believers.

Acts 2 also tells us it is only at this point – regenerate, repentant, baptised people added to the number – do the things of church. Specifically, it notes they dedicated themselves to the breaking of bread. That is, the Lord’s Supper or communion. The table was only open to those who had repented, been baptised and had been added to their number. Baptism and communion were ways of marking off a group of Christians from the world and saying, not just ‘here are some Christians’, but ‘here is a church’.

Right teaching & prayer

Acts 2 also highlights two other aspects of their life together: devotion to the Apostles teaching and the prayers. They were not just a secret organisation, marking themselves off from the world just to sit in an exclusive huddle. Rather, they met together regularly as believers to sit under the Apostles teaching and pray. The means of growth for the church was regular fellowship together, listening to the Apostles teaching (which is, ultimately, Jesus’ teaching) and prayer. These are the means of growth for the church.

Interestingly, the Reformers argued that a true church exists when (1) there is right teaching of the Word; and, (2) there is right administration of the ordinances. Essentially in mind was that the errant teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the gospel and the administration of baptism specifically as a means of regeneration meant they were not a true church. Acts 2 would suggest (further to the Reformers) a church does not exist where there are not regenerate believers (a matter they side-stepped to maintain the inclusion of unbelieving children without, contrary to The Catholic Church who maintained regenerate membership, relying on baptismal regeneration. Baptists are in line with the early and pre-reformation church arguing for regenerate membership; they break with Rome on the issue of baptismal regeneration).

What about other matters of healthy church polity?

There are all sorts of matters we might consider necessary if we are to have a healthy church. We might think about the implementation of elders, for example. As I argued here, although elders are ultimately required to have healthy churches, scripturally it seems to they are not required for the existence of a legitimate church. Paul repeatedly refers to churches as churches despite them not yet having any elders. Nor does Acts 2 – which refers to the church – seem to have a problem calling the Jerusalem Church a church before they have elders there either.

There are a whole host of other matters we might consider important if we are to have a healthy church. We may well be entirely right that those things are necessary to have a healthy church. But if we are looking at what makes a church altogether, what are the absolutely essential ingredients without which there is no church, these are the things that both scripture and the Reformers seemed to recognise.