Shaun Groves
I’m convinced. I’ve fought it. I really have. But today I’m convinced there is no good reason not to go to church.
My church has a guy who speaks about God. He’s called the pastor and I like him a lot.
The earliest Christians were Jews and so they went to synagogue regularly. They didn’t stop doing this once Jesus left the planet. There soon came a time though when the Christians were no longer welcome in synagogues (near the beginning of the second century) so they gathered together on their own, organizing themselves the same way they had before in the synagogues. They had a guy who prayed and preached from behind a wooden pulpit, for example, just like in the synagogues. He was called a chazan.
My church has a guy who has us sing Tomlin songs with him for twenty minutes on Sunday mornings. He’s called the worship pastor and I like him a lot.
Synagogues had preceptors, or music leaders, but when Christians left the synagogues and started meeting on their own they sometimes didn’t have a preceptor. So Christians sang songs to each other with or without a leader. They sang two main kinds of songs: songs that were prayers to God and songs that told the history of God’s People and His relationship with them – Jewish songs. They used this last type of song to teach newcomers and the young the history of the faith and to remind those of all ages how faithful God had been to His People.
My church has a small troup of “actors” who do dramas for us sometimes.
Church dramas suck.
My church receives about twenty percent of my income. They use that money to pay rent, pay the worship pastor and pastor, buy grape juice and tiny square breads, sustain their food pantry and support missionaries and other good folks doing great things in our town and around the world.
I haven’t found much scholarly stuff on how finances were handled in the early church. What I have found is that equality was one financial goal of the early church. To oversee this mission leaders, deacons for one, were needed. They took the offerings of the people and gave them to those who had need. This of courses didn’t stop people from giving to their neighbors in addition.
My church let’s me sit beside Redneck Neighbor and his wife and other members of the cult-de-sac for an hour or so every Sunday, during which time we say very little to each other and mostly just sit and listen.
The early church wasn’t much different. It was made up of two basic groups: those in official leadership positions and those who participated in other ways, like listening. For example, the early church had a preacher (we’ve already mentioned the chazan) but also a nasi (James, Jesus’ brother was the first in Jerusalem). The nasi was the administrator, the judge of disputes, the admitter of newcomers, and was in charge of everything in the Christian church that the Sanhedrin was in charge of in the Jewish faith. Then there were deacons (parnasin) men and women who officially cared for the poor, doling out the offerings of the church to those who had need. Some scholars think when Acts 6:3 talks about choosing “seven good men” it was the chazan, nasi, and panasins that were being spoken of – you couldn’t have an official synagogue like meeting without them present. Then there were the batlan, scholarly leaders who were independently wealthy or supported by the church. They were around to answer any scholarly questions that would arise, about history, language, law, etc. You had to have ten of these for every 120 people in the church. You couldn’t start a synagogue like service without all of these kinds of leaders present – at least ten leaders total. Then there was the zaken, an older person who was wise and counseled/mentored everyone. They had to be at least fifty years old. Then there was the interpreter, called a meturgan, who stood by the one reading the scriptures. The scripture would be read in its original language into the interpreter’s ear and then the interpreter would speak it in the languages of the day and “add meaning” when necessary.
That’s a lot of leaders (and that’s not all of them) doing a lot of structured leader stuff at a structured time and in a structured way. Can we turn our backs on the whole idea of structure and leadership and hierarchies today given that they were so integral to the early Christian churches?
I don’t know.
I know from “going to church” my whole life that “going to church” on Sunday doesn’t keep me from being the Church all week long. The two aren’t mutually exclusive are they? If they aren’t and if I might make even the slightest positive contribution to a local chruch by “going” there and the leaders there might make the slightest positive contribution to me then why stop going?
Anti-go-to-churchers, in light of all this confession, explain to me why I should not go to church. And then please stick around and talk to us if we have questions about your reasons.
(Sometime soon I’ll propose a potentially better kind of church…or at least a way worth trying.)
George says:
Sorry for posting twice on the other blog. Technical difficulties.
The question should not be why you should of should not, but rather why you must or must not.
The history lesson is great, but we are not commanded to imitate that or any other historical example.
Like I said in the other post, we must gather and we must pursue certain things over the course of our gatherings, but the Scriptures do not mandate a liturgy or an organizational structure.
Shawn Bashor says:
A good reason not to go, that is simple, so you are not a part of that thing 99% of christians in America do every Sunday which is limiting…in my opinion.
Actually, truth be told(which evidently truth and deception are okay here)I don’t care whether you go to TPC, FBC, ABC or OCD, in the end it does not effect me whether you “go to church.”
Have fun doing whatever it is you plan on doing, I will stick around, I said what I have to say, the only difference between this post and last, I am not setting people up with false precepts.
ChuckTrukk says:
We should meet together and be a people-group.
We should encourage each other with teaching, hymns, spiritual songs.
We should pray for each other.
We should have leadership and pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc.
However, I believe the church in Acts and Ephesus, etc. were speaking to the people-group in cities. The NT church didn’t seem to be competing churches in an area. There was one example, and Paul threw down on them for the “I am of Paul” and “you are of Barnabas” stuff.
There will be smaller groups that meet together more regularly. There is also a time for larger groups (or a city to get together).
We, the Christian people-group, are the church and we must stick together. But to create “teams” in individual buildings fighting over the same group wasnt mentioned in Acts.
How did the old synagogues work? Were they city or area-based? Or did the compete for “members”?
Shaun Groves says:
ChuckTrukk, according Dr. Moseley, this guy who writes about the early church, there were between 394 and 480 synagogues in Jerusalem during the first century.
Shaun Groves says:
Yes, Shawn. I’m huge into lying. And deception in general. And I love you for coming here in spite of it.
I’m not done yet. Hang in there ‘til the end.
Brant says:
No, certainly not mutually exclusive to “go to church” and be the church.
One is required. The other one involves, in this country, spending 30 billion per year plus on “congregational operations”.
You *can* go to six churches, and it wouldn’t be mutually exclusive from being the church.
Like Bell says, there are 43 “one anothers” in the N.T., and you could still do these even if you go to a church. You might have less time, and you can’t do them at the worship service, but you can still go to it.
“There is no good reason not to go” to a church service” is precisely right. The N.T. doesn’t forbid it. Jesus, Son of God, doesn’t even mention it. The Bible doesn’t tell us not to go to Smitty concerts, either, or Christian Wrestling Federation Events.
Does give us the 43 one anothers, and yes, could still go to a service, and then do them later, and that’s cool.
Shawn Bashor says:
You know Shaun I said false precepts, I didn’t accuse you of lying. A false precept would be kind of a set up, not really lying, but not coming out with the whole truth at once. If I wanted to call you a liar I would have, you know me a little and know I don’t hold much back.
I think you are an honest guy and I am hoping this all ties together and makes sense in the end. I enjoy coming here too and I am glad you think all our opinions count even as imperfect as we all are.
Michelle says:
Thank you for stating what has been so painfully obvious to me for such a long time.
The modern church is man made, ridiculous and has little to nothing in common with the early church.
Trey says:
I agree with what Brant said and George alluded to the fact that Christ didn’t set any kind of model for the Church other than the “one another” idea. Pretty much Church structure as we know it today evolved from manmade ideas or were borrowed from the Jewish tradition and in some instances, pagan tradition.
The original apostles began instituting the church offices of deacons and elders (nothing more than that have I ever found in the NT, especially the position of Pastor as a religious figurehead–the word “pastor” is only mentioned about twice in the NT and used to identify a gift, not a position). Actually Jesus said in regards to Christian leadership in Matthew 20:
“25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant. 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave”.
All this extra stuff of liturgy and Church infrastructure, isn’t vital to the Christian walk, it’s not found in scripture, and I’ve mostly witnessed the detrimental and crippling effects it has on people. The system seems to foster a sense of dependency. I don’t think Christians would know what to do if we all had to go into hiding like the 1st century church. I still think you can keep your churches and still have a thriving relationship with Jesus, but I personally feel like you’re missing out on a little bit more.
I don’t see the need for organized religion when the guidance of the Holy Spirit in a community of believers is all we really need. If Jesus thought we needed more, I think he would have mentioned that.
Brian Seay says:
This may be a ‘rabbit trail’ but in two different comments there is reference to Jesus not saying anything specific about strcuture of the church. Does what Jesus say (or not say) in scripture carry more weight than what Paul says? For example, Jesus says nothing about homosexuality but to make the argument that it’s OK because of that does not stand up because of what Paul says. My point is that just because Jesus does not have a quote about church structure in the Gospels does not mean we get to ignore what Paul or Timothy have to say about it.
It seems a bit hypocritical (myself included) that we criticize the church for only spending a small percentage of its money on ‘external’ issues. Christians, at best, spend 10%-20% of their income on someone other than themselves (the average is actually around 3%). Are we holding the church to a standard that we are unwilling to hold ourselves to? We want the ‘church’ to avoid buildings yet we still live in houses. I am more than aware that we have major excesses in the area of church spending so I am not trying to be the voice of defense for the church financial picture but this is a thought I had today when processing this.
Shawn – I am glad that SG has been revealed as the man of ‘half truths’ that he really is. The only reason you did not call him a liar is the fear of being banned from the comments!
Scott says:
Top 10 Signs it is time to leave your “church”:
10. Church stops bus ministry, because those rotten little kids are costing too much in gas money
9. Church “invests” in luxury vehicle for preacher, so he can visit the flock in style!
8. Church has to hire people to work in the nursery, ‘cause the church babies’ heads spin around (i.e. The Exorcist)
7. Music minister has been known to record death metal demo’s in his “off” time
6. “Large” preacher leaves “gluttony” out of the “sins to preach on” list
5. Pastor tells kids to leave their pennies at home, for it is “too logistically difficult” to count them in the offering
4. Deacons, before accepting position, make sure everybody understands that they “don’t visit….period”
3. Church Deacon “gets saved” during his tenure and remains a deacon…Logic: We trusted him before when he wasn’t saved…why not keep him?????
2. Pastors or deacons use “counseling time” to pick up chicks
1. Preacher doesn’t practice what he…
clint says:
Church is a who not a where. Scanning over the comments of the previous post I saw where it was said that we are commanded to “go” to church. I’m unfamiliar with that command. I’m familiar with the command to be apart of the church.
I don’t have a problem with the fact that, for some, regular attendance is part of following. My problem is that, for many, regular attendance has become the point. Witnessing has come to mean – invite them here so we can save them from hell and have more nursery workers. I just could not stomach one more sermon on how real Christians return on Sunday night. Dedicated Christians bring a friend.
I realize that with a group of people some structure and organization is needed, even if I don’t like it. I’m not sure that a model designed to efficiently give and act upon orders during military conflict is the right one.
Enough rambling. Maybe that made a little sense.
Kat says:
Great points Brian. Kind of convicting…but good.
Rachel says:
I work at a Christian university. And I attend 2 churches, although one is what I consider my “home” church (the truth comes out). I’m around some amazing people that make Christianity a lifestyle and a heart attitude, not just an event or an annual budget. In fact, life happens amongst us more outside the 4 walls of the building than it does inside (although I think we, as Americans, have badly skewed what a corporate worship experience should be).
Life happens at my favorite coffee shop…where were sit around and write our blogs, talk, shoot the breeze, sing all-too-loudly to Johhny Cash tunes and Mute Math songs, and just dwell together. Life happens when we get together to watch the Office and talk about this journey we’re on. Life happens everywhere…and we’re just now starting to grasph what it means to “be” the Kingdom.
I suppose I’m saying all this to express that I can’t imagine myself anywhere else but with the community I’ve found in the context of “church as we know it…” and the way it’s evolved into something surprisingly, refreshingly beautiful and imperfect and full of life.
(Not bad for the armpit of America, I guess!)
Amy says:
Brian, good point. If we’re going to cling so much to what everyone but Jesus said about homosexuality, we need to do th e same for church. After all the words we have that Jesus said are reported to us from someone else anyway.
Grovesfan says:
I knew there was a good reason I like Brian so much (other than the fact that my youngest refers to him as “Brian Buddy”). I agree with his post here and on the other thread concerning this topic. He said what I wanted to say and couldn’t find the words for (I know, highly unusual for me NOT to find any words).
In all seriousness, I’m not on Shaun’s Christmas card list or anything, but I think I know him well enough to say he’s honest; to a fault sometimes; and while he’s always striving to lead readers somewhere with any topic, intentionally MIS-leading readers isn’t his aim.
Beth
MamasBoy says:
I liked George’s comment on the previous thread. He points out how few real commands there are in Scripture regarding the details of communal worship. While individuals may differ on the details and extent of that list, it is pretty clear that is will be short. If all we are looking at is Scripture, then it seems like an impossible task for anybody to say that worshiping as a community in a building with a leadership structure is inherently good or bad.
If people are looking for explicit instructions on these things in Scripture, they are probably looking in the wrong place. The nitty gritty details of how things were to be done were passed on by example and word when Paul was in town, not via letter from many stadia away. What little Scripture does record on communal worship was mostly written to correct mistakes at local churches. In that sense, it is hard to know in some cases whether the practices described were simply local customs or universal practices. Even when local seating customs are corrected (as in James 2), it is tough to do more than draw educated guesses regarding the details of the actual seating arrangement for that particular congregation (e.g., where women were seated). The only thing corrected is the preference given to rich folks. Other details are sparse at best.
If we want to know the details of how the early church worshiped, we are left with 3 options (as I see it).
1) Wait until heaven and assume it is just a mystery to folks on earth. To some extent, this is the defacto option for everybody.
2) Look at Jewish synagogue worship and assume that the first Christians adopted the same style and structure. This is probably a good start, but it is far from conclusive. Did the NT church assume they needed 10 people to have a service?
3) Read the writings of the early church fathers. The benefit of this is that there are no assumptions about whether Christians actually did it (as when translating Jewish worship structures into a Christian context). The problem with this is that the early church writings ignore the topic about as much as Scripture. No detailed description is given of the actual structure until about 155 AD when Justin Martyr is trying to explain the faith to pagans (not Christians). The assumption is that Christians don’t need to have the liturgy explained to them. They experience for themselves on a regular basis, though not even catechumens were allowed to stay for the entire service, but were sent out for what was considered a very sacred portion of the service. Can we safely assume, though, that the Christian worship service Justin Martyr describes in 155 AD is the same as what Christians did under the guidance of the apostles?
Ultimately, the exact form communal worship takes for Christians depends less on what Scripture says about the actual form itself and more on
A) the role one believes that history and various traditions should play in interpreting Scripture.
and/or
B) A utilitarian view that tries to align practice with fruit: an approach based on pragmatism and assumptions regarding cause/effect for the source(s) of various ills/goods in the life of Christians today.
MB
Trey says:
Brian,
I understand what you are saying about Paul and homosexuality, but even before Paul, homosexuality was clarified as “sin” in the OT. Jesus would agree.
I’m not going to further press the issue of what’s specifically in scripture versus what’s in tradition regarding church practices. I would merely suggest to you that 99.9% of church practices were instituted post assention by fallible human beings, including Paul (heresy alert!) who once even referred to himself as chief of sinners.
When you read Paul’s writings, you won’t find alot of talk about structure and organization and rituals and rules (except maybe about women not talking in services and having their heads covered), but you will read chapter after chapter about the love of Jesus and the leading of the Holy Spirit being enough to sustain the believer and the Church, and about the love Jesus has shown us being enough for us to love one another and the world. I think, while being fallible, Paul did a great job serving Christ and reinforcing His teachings confirmed by the Holy Spirit.
It’s been my observation that so much debate has been fueled within the Kingdom of God over the issue of how church should be done, because being the Church isn’t enough (or maybe we just forgot what that is) and structure and ritual have come to define the Church.
For a system that even statistically isn’t satisfying the hunger for God that believers and non-believers have today, I personally am ready to scrap the whole thing and go back to the basics the Bible DOES teach, mainly, as Jesus summed up in his NEW Command, “Love as I have loved you.”
Some how people, numbers and money made early believers think…hmmm…how do we organize this…this is growing out of “our” control? And in efforts to keep up with the cultural changes in the various regions of the world where Christianity spread, Christians adopted the practices and idealogies of their former religions, Jewish and pagan, and transposed the Christian faith over them.
My main point, and I think Paul would agree, is that we do alot of stuff that people made up a long time ago and even some new stuff, and call this the Church. Just my opinion though.
Shawn Bashor says:
Shaun,
so would you like to clarify to brian and Beth my stance on the thoughtfulness and intentionality of what I said, or do I need to post another tactless post?
Shaun Groves says:
I don’t think Brian misunderstood you at all, Shawn. Beth might have. That’s for you two to talk through kindly, if it matters enough to spend the time and energy.
For the record, I don’t think you’re calling me a liar.
Hugs and kisses.
Brian Seay says:
Shawn –
I completely understood and my remark was with full sarcasm in tow.
Trey –
My stance is not that scripture gives us comprehensive ways to ‘do’ church – I think is an unbelievable amount of freedom there. My statement is that both Paul and Timothy give us a structure of leadership that we need to use.
I get what you are saying about the OT scriptures with homosexuality and agree to that excellent point.
Cali Amy says:
Actually, on the topic of the Old Testament and homosexuality, it’s not all that clear to me. Several scholars would say it was only temple prostitution that was forbidden.
In fact, when this very blog (and a good friend coming out) caused me to research the issue, the only passage in Scripture that seemed one hundred percent clear on the issue was Romans 1. Incidentally, it’s also the only place lesbian sex is mentioned.
So I actually think it would have been enormously helpful if there was a report of Jesus saying something about homosexuality. This is actually a very troubling issue to me and it’s not as clear as whipping out my Bible and reading Leviticus. In fact, I would love to come to a why answer about it being a sin, just as we are discussing the whys of church. I think prejudice plays a huge role in the church response and reaction and I often shudder when I think about the way Christians talk about people who are absolutely convinced, to their great sorrow, that they irreversibly are attracted to members of their own gender. Sorry for derailing, but it’s sort of one those things that gets my attention, because it troubles me so and I’m always hoping someone can give me an answer to put my mind at rest.
MamasBoy says:
CaliAmy,
The OT and NT folks also had very different ideas about what “lawful” sex looked like between a man and a woman than most modern people. Onananism (withdrawal) was considered to be sinful by many Jews and early Christians even within marriage (e.g., Babylonian Talmud and Shulchan Aruch both say that onanism is sinful). Dr. Rodney Stark also cites this difference between pagan culture and early Christian culture as one reason that Christianity grew so rapidly relative to the rest of society.
This is a huge topic that cannot be done justice in this setting. I just wanted to point out that homosexuality must be considered within the context of sexual mores as a whole before one can come to meaningful conclusions regarding the why’s and what for’s of past Jewish/Christian attitudes regarding the practice.
MB
Grovesfan says:
Sorry if I misunderstood your previous comment Shawn (Bashor). It is very hard to decipher a persons’ intent when reading rather than having a face to face conversation.
That, and the fact that Shaun (Groves) is 10 years my junior, and I therefore get this very “older sibling protection syndrome” when I “assume” (yikes!) he’s being dissed in any way.
If Shaun wants to hug and kiss you, that’s his business, but I hope you’ll settle for a cyber-handshake from me.
Beth
Shaun Groves says:
Why don’t you guys interested in discussing homosexuality to a greater degree use the message board to do that? It’s a great place for that kind of thing and you’ll get a good crowd to talk with you there too.
Just click the BOARD link up top there and start a thread about it…if there’s not one already.
tunz says:
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god_article.php?id=7349
interesting reading, thanks again for the blog. I appreciate your willingness to share.
Shari
Omar Thurman says:
Incredibly awesome post. Honestly.