"Don't look for the [congregation] nearest to your house. Look for the [congregation] closest to the Bible." —Paul Washer
That is correct. A congregation alive is worth the drive. Look for the congregation that is closest to what is taught in the pages of God's holy Word. In other words, look for a congregation that meets these non-negotiable, irreducible, bare minimum requirements that determine whether a congregation is biblical or not:
- New Testament congregations met once a week on the first day of the week (Sunday; which for Jews began immediately after sundown on Saturday evening) to partake of the Lord's Supper.
- New Testament congregations assembled in houses (Acts 2:2, 46; 5:42; 16:40; 20:20; Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phile. 1:2 [and if you would like to eisegete it, you can include Matt. 18:20 here]). Temple courts, such as Solomon's Porch, as public gathering spaces, were used for mass gatherings for teaching, evangelism, prayer, etc. They were used for multi-congregational gatherings.
"The earliest Christians had no special buildings, but met in private houses, as mentioned in several places in the New Testament." Dr. Colin J. Hemer, A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity, p.58.
- New Testament congregations were completely open, spontaneous, and participatory in their corporate worship and sharing for the spiritual well-being of everyone present. No one was to control the proceedings and lead from the front. The format for how they were to function is outlined in 1 Corinthians 14:26, 29-31. The key to a healthy Body is that each part function properly according to its design.
"Worship in the house-church had been of an intimate kind in which all present had taken an active part... [this] changed from being 'a corporate action of the whole church' into 'a service said by the clergy to which the laity listened.'" Dr. Henry R. Sefton, A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity, p.151.
"In the earliest days... their worship was spontaneous. This seems to have been regarded as the ideal, for when Paul describes how a church meeting should proceed he depicts a Spirit-led participation by many, if not all... There was the fact that anyone had the freedom to participate in such worship. In the ideal situation, when everyone was inspired by the Holy Spirit, this was the perfect expression of Christian freedom." Dr. John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, p.402.
"The very essence of church organization and Christian life and worship... was simplicity... Their worship was free and spontaneous under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and had not yet become inflexible through the use of manuals of devotion." A. M. Renwick, The Story of the Church, pp.22-23.
- New Testament congregations ate the Lord's Supper as a full meal as part of their proceedings, which was commonly referred to as a "love feast" (Acts 2:46-47; 1 Cor. 11:17-24; Jude 1:12 [possibly even 2 Pet. 2:13]).
"In the early day the Lord's Supper took place in the course of a communal meal. All brought what food they could and it was shared together." Donald Guthrie, The Lion Handbook of the Bible, p.594.
"Jesus instituted this common meal at Passover time, at the last supper shared with His disciples before His death... the Lord's Supper looks back to the death of Jesus, and it looks forward to the time when He will come back again. Throughout the New Testament period the Lord's Supper was an actual meal shared in the homes of Christians. It was only much later that the Lord's Supper was moved to a special building and Christian prayers and praises that had developed from the synagogue services and other sources were added to create a grand ceremony." Dr. John Drane, The New Lion Encyclopaedia, p.173.
"[1 Corinthians 11]... reveals that at Corinth the Holy Communion was not simply a token meal as with us, but an actual meal. Moreover it seems clear that it was a meal to which each of the participants brought food." Canon Leon Morris, Commentary on 1 Corinthians for the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p.158.
"[The Lord's Supper]... was observed by His disciples, at first as part of a communal meal, Sunday by Sunday." I. Howard Marshall, Christian Beliefs, p.80.
- New Testament congregations were extended family units; living organisms—not institutions/organizations/corporations, and they practiced non-hierarchical, plural, co-equal, indigenous male leadership (not controlling, subjugating, dominating) that had arisen from within the congregation they would subsequently shepherd. Eldership was understood to be purely functional and not positional (as a title or an office). Decision making was consensual and collective, made by the whole company of believers and not simply the “officials.”
"It was Paul's practice to appoint several elders (the same thing as bishops) to take charge of each church." Donald Guthrie, The Lion Handbook of the Bible, p.620.
"The churches were living organisms rather than organizations... When decisions were made, they were made by the whole company of believers, not simply the officials." Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p.741.
"When we come to consider the permanent officers of the Church we find that in the days of the Apostles elders and deacons were appointed and their duties defined. The office of elder is variously described in the New Testament as bishop, pastor, teacher, preacher, minister and steward. The various terms mentioned referred to the same officer, but each presented a different aspect of their work. Thus 'pastor' indicated their duty to 'shepherd the flock' of Christ. Bishop, a word used to translate the Greek 'episkopos,' indicated that was 'overseers' they had to 'feed the Church of God' (Acts 20). That the 'presbuteros' and 'episkopos' (elder and bishop) were the same is shown by many facts... Furthermore, the qualifications for bishop and elder were the same. Scarcely any scholar today would dispute the words of the late Dr. J. B. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, and an undoubted authority: 'It is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same Officer in the Church is called indifferently bishop, and elder or presbyter.'"" A. M. Renwick, The Story of the Church, pp.20-21.
"Instead of the community of the Spirit that it had originally been, the Church came to be seen as a vast organization. Instead of relying on the Spirit's direct guidance it was controlled by an hierarchy of ordained men, following strict rules and regulations which covered every conceivable aspect of belief and behaviour and when the Spirit featured in this scheme it was taken for granted that what the leaders decided was what the Spirit was saying. By the middle of the 2nd Century the change was complete. At the beginning the only qualification for membership of the Church had been a life changed by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, at the start there had been no concept of church 'membership' at all... But by the end of the 1st Century things were rather different. Now the key to membership of the Church was not found in inspiration by the Spirit, but in acceptance of ecclesiastical dogma and discipline. And to make sure that all new members had a good grasp of what that meant, baptism itself was no longer the spontaneous expression of faith in Jesus as it had originally been. Now it was the culmination of a more or less extended period of formal instruction and teaching about the Christian faith. And in all this we can see how the life of the Spirit was gradually squeezed out of the Body of Christ, to be replaced as the church's driving force by the more predictable if less exciting movement of organized ecclesiastical machinery." Dr. John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, p.397.
"It is important to realize that the movement towards a more authoritarian church hierarchy originated in the fight against unacceptable beliefs. At a time when Gnostics were claiming a special authority because of their alleged endowment with the Spirit it was important for the mainstream church to have it's own clear source of power. It was of little practical use for the church's leaders to claim -- even if it may have been true -- that they, rather than their opponents, were truly inspired by the Spirit. They needed something more than that, and they found it in the apostles. In the earliest period, supreme authority had rested with them. So, they reasoned, anyone with recognized authority in the church must be succeeding to the position held by the apostles. They were the Apostle's successors, and could trace their office back in a clear line of descent from the very earliest times. They stood in an apostolic succession." Ibid, 403.