Working through Leeman's book was an interesting experience for me. On the one hand, I deeply appreciate his careful thought given to how the structure of the church shapes the members' understanding of it. The medium is the message, and I found his argument that a multisite or multiservice medium communicates the idea that a church is an administrative system or performance deeply persuasive. He turns the screws on this point by highlighting how people will say things like "Did you make it to church today?" or "Wasn't church great this morning?" The way the word "church" is being used in these sentences reveals that certain people have imbibed the idea that "church" is synonymous with the things that happen on stage during the Sunday service. I found that argument powerfully persuasive and even convicting.
Throughout this book, I was nodding along to many of Leeman's arguments, and feel aligned with his final conclusions. Namely, The structure of our churches communicates our understanding of it, and a natural outflow of a healthy ecclesiology would be a structure with one assembly, in only one location. The book is jam packed with biblical wisdom and discerning pastoral insight.
That being said, I am ultimately unconvinced by Leeman's lexical argument concerning the word εκκλησία, which is a major supporting premise of his whole argument. In order to establish that those who would endorse a multiservice or multisite model are "picking a fight with Jesus," he spends nearly all of the second portion of the book picking a fight with Greek scholarship, BDAG, and a whole swath of New Testament Studies. He insists that the word εκκλησία always and every time refers to an assembly. In making this argument, he has some explaining to do, in light of verses that really seem to not use εκκλησία in such a way. For example, in Acts 8:1 Luke describes how Saul brought a great persecution upon "the church (εκκλησία) in Jerusalem." In order to make his argument work in this verse and in many other instances, Leeman has to argue that the Christians in Jerusalem and other ancient cities met in some large "one assembly" as opposed to the consensus understanding that there were many groupings of Christians in the early church that met in house churches. He also makes numerous appeals to the *classical* Greek definition of the word εκκλησία, which he argues is and can only be “assembly”. Of course, the New Testament was not written in the classical Greek period, but the Koine period. Using classical Greek definitions to define Koine Greek words is bad linguistics and honestly comes off as a bit dishonest.
Again, I walk away in a strange place. Unconvinced by his primary lexical argument, but agreeing with nearly all of his practical and pastoral applications. If I had to articulate my own conviction today, I would say that a one-assembly church model is a natural outflow of a healthy/biblical understanding of the church, and I would strongly advocate for it. However, I don't think the biblical data is clear enough to make the arguments that Leeman wants to make here.