Shaun Groves
Justin Martyr was martyred for his faith in 165 AD. His description of how Christians (Jews and Gentiles) gathered in Rome at that time is one of the oldest “orders of service” on record. It’s believed that what he describes happening among Roman Christians was the norm for Christians everywhere during his time period. He wrote:
“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities in the country gather together to one place*, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the president [or nasi]* verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying “Amen.” [This means “we agree” or “let it be so.”] And there is a distribution to each, and each participate in the food over which thanks have been given. And to those who are absent a portion is sent by deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who kindly assists the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds [imprisoned for their faith] and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is this first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.”
What I understand from his description is that…
The book of Acts also tells us this about Christians in Jerusalem in the first century…
“All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:44-47)
What I understand from his description is that…
So, here we have two accounts of early Christians meeting. One type of meeting was weekly and very structured. The other type was seemingly more informal, probably many smaller groups in homes. One meeting had a leader who taught. The other might have but it’s not mentioned, so teaching was probably not a central or essential part of that gathering.
Questions for you:
*emphasis mine, or brackets mine
Albert says:
Heck, I’ll take a simplistic stab at it. But first you need to know a little about where I’m coming from. I’m an elder in a large church (a conservative presb. denomination)of about 3500. The worship service we attend has about 1300 in it, we have a “Sunday School” class of about 60 we’ve been in for 15 or so years, and a small group of couples (with a core of 5) we’ve met with for those years as well. I meet one on one with others to give, and recieve, mentoring/soul friendship/spiritual direction.
“Must we have both types of meetings?… Is one superior to the other?”
I think we must have both types because each is superior to the other in certain ways. The larger more formal/tradition formed meetings remind me I’m part of something both bigger, and older than me and my small circle. It can offer more opportunity to know and learn from those farther along the way than I, and for me to pass that on as well. It can more easily remind me of the majesty that is pictured in scripture as multitudes sing to Him who sits on the Throne.
The smaller groups can offer more care, more sharing of life with each other, more opportunity to practice the one another’s. It’s also where most of the inconvenient, messy work of carrying each other burdens can happen.
We all know, to some extent, the shortcomings of each of these types of meetings. G. K. Chesterton once said, “Any fool can criticize…and usually does.”, so I’ll not go there, but the fact that each does have it’s shortcomings is an indication to me that both might be needed.
“Did these meetings bring about the Kingdom?, Do they still?, Should we expect them to?” (my paraphrase)
Yes, Yes, and Yes. Imperfectly (embarassingly so at times), slowly, with much need of correction always, with need of prophets and shepherds who love the rest of us too much to give up on us.
Sorry this is way too long, but I’ll end with the verse that makes me madder than any other in scripture. I grieve for the Church because it’s all too common in our day as well. Psalm 142:4, “…no one cares for my soul.” I’ll be damned (maybe literally) if I’m gonna let that be true for those I care for.
Anon says:
I think that both are beneficial to an individual. While one provides core teaching and interpretation, the other allows for an environment to practice God’s word– well, they both do, but I think the second form of meeting has a broader selection of practices. I like both of these types of meetings (as far as I understand them). I like someone to instruct and teach me on how I’m supposed to live and I also like to discuss those lessons with a community of believers.
I think that both meetings are like churches I’ve been to, but I believe they usually leave out the selling all you have to give to those in need. Perhaps it was easier in those days to just go out and sell all of your possessions, or maybe Christians today give more out of their wealth than their poverty. One may tithe 10% and still be well to do, and even 20% might not put a dent in their luxuries. You might wonder just how much someone would have to give to break even if all monetary resources of Christians were distributed as each had need.
Shawn Bashor says:
I’m still not seeing a purpose to meeting in a really big group to listen to one guy sing and one guy preach at you. Forgive me for being a cynic.
angie says:
Shawn B.,
A question for you with no sarcasim!
Do you not sing and praise with the ‘one’ person and have you ever felt preached to and not at?
Shaun Groves says:
Angie, I don’t understand the first part of the question. And I know I’m not ShaWn but in light of how conversations have been going around here lately I thought I’d act preemptively and ask for clarification.
Butting out now…
Shawn Bashor says:
Angie,
I too am a little confused by your question. A little clarity please?
Shaun,
Thanks for…um…doing whatever you did there?
Shawn Bashor says:
I guess I will try and answer, I think I am getting it.
I do in fact sing songs of praise in our “pretend church” as someone likes to call it. Part of the “everyone brings a song, prayer, word, so on and so forth.” There is no smooth transition, no set list to evoke a certain emotion, there is not someone leading the spirit, there is the Spirit leading followers. Oh, and I would argue what worship is, that’s a whole other debate.
I am “ministered to” by a number of people who feel lead to speak, sometimes this person can be a 11 year old girl who asks a question that has scholars stumped like, “is it free will or predestination?” There is my feeling of being preached to.
Rachel says:
This has nothing to do with the entry (sorry Shaun, I promise to read up later), but I’m sitting at my favorite coffee shop on the very night you’re playing a show here, and your song “Welcome Come” just came on the satellite radio they have on. This shop doesn’t usually play a mix that would afford such an opportunity, and I haven’t really heard this song for a long time. It made me smile though, since I’m missing the show tonight.
Hope you’re well. Sorry again that I couldn’t catch up with you guys this time around.
Rachel says:
Yeahhh…Welcome Home, I meant to say. My fingers apparently got ahead of my brain.
angie says:
I’m sorry for the confusion, let’s blame it on daylight savings and my hearing the patter of little feet and trying to hurry and type. . .
Shaun, um I don’t think it’s butting in since it’s your site
ShaWn,
I had read some of your other posts and your response to this one and I just wondered if you had ever been part of something bigger than yourself by attending a more traditional church setting. It went back to the whole topic of you still didn’t see the point.
And I was just wondering if you NEVER saw the point or if you perhaps had just been burned on too many times and now had moved on to your house church which seems to better fit your personality and view on things.
No hidden agenda here or slamming you later, I just wondered. . .
Hope that made better sense!
RBerman says:
I agree with Albert. Both types of Christian meetings are important means through which God is advancing his kingdom. They’re both part of the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry. Small groups are great for discussion, accountability, and personal prayer. Large groups, including sermons, are helpful for helping everyone stay on the same page. I agree with Mr. Bashor that when the church gets together, everyone should sing. I feel sorry for him if his experience of hearing God’s Word expounded by a trained authority is nothing more than “someone preaching at him.” I wouldn’t go to a church like that either, but I’ve always been in a situation where there was a pastor I was glad to hear on a regular basis.
Shawn Bashor says:
angie-
I wouldn’t say I have been “burned” by any established church, I just see the bigger picture of what it has become. I grew up in churches my whole life, so I promise my opinion is not one that is without observation.
RBerman-
I think that the business model church is exactly that. If you want to be really honest it is the biggest raquette in business out there. You employ as few as possible then get a ton of people to volunteer(serve) to make your business run. This is very smart in the business world and I would argue that other companies start doing this. I promise if your work place started running this way you would take notice of the big picture.
If I was the only one who thought this way I might even think I was crazy, you should check out “Revolution” by the Barna group, it gives a great insight into a movement away from the church business to just being the Church.
angie says:
Thanks for ShaWn, I’ve never really heard some of these views before so it’s diffently interesting!
I can totally see why you would enjoy the intimacy of a ‘house church’!
I myself LOVE church and serving in it, but I also see so many churches that have become a buisness and find that so frightfully scary to the cause of Jesus Christ.
Aren’t we so blessed that God created us each unique to the whole Body of Christ, each with a purpose only we can fulfill?!
Thanks for seeing my question coming from a sincer place.
angie says:
Thanks for answering. . .that’s what I meant, not thanks for ShaWn, although we can be thankful for you too
Must go get caffine now!
Shawn Bashor says:
Angie- You are welcome. I know for me, when I started asking questions and people started presenting new ideas to me, I found it somewhat difficult to take at first. When you have been raised as “church” and the way it is done is the status quo and someone challenges it, the first instinct I had was to defend it. I blindly defended it because that is what I was raised to do. I have a hard time with change, so for someone like me it is even more difficult to get this point across.
Another thing I thought about was someone had said something along the way about how a “church” can bring money together from a lot of different people. I am not against “para-church” organizations. There is no reason we cannot have these organizations to funnel money through to help on a larger scale than what a few may be able to accomplish. This is one reason I support compassion. I know some will argue “well isn’t a church just that?” I would counter with, “they are an unnessesary middle man.” Think of it this way, 80 of the 100 dollars you give to a “church,” goes to “opperational costs.” 100 dollars of 100 dollars I give to a reputable organization, or a missionary get to that person. I am no math wizard, but I think the latter is the better deal with the money I choose to give to further the kingdom of God.
Seth Ward says:
Like any era of Christian history, this era is a unique era. In that, as far as information goes, the world is essentially flat again.
20 years ago, if you would have asked me if it was okay to ditch “church” I would have said “Heck no” (If I would have cared about that stuff at 13.) Anywho, nowadays, if someone has a problem interpreting scripture, they go to the internet and look up reference. I know most protestants like to think that they discern all truth by their lonesome from the Holy Scripture, but when it comes to the tough questions, they seek help. Please. And that is good. REALLY good.
In a way, the internet and interconnectivity that it has provided the Christian community has provided on of the main components the old model of the Church was giving, accountability and doctrine. It is no surprise to me anymore when I go to a new church website and see that they embrace one of the creeds.
You are much less likely to become a David Koresh these days, alone with your own thoughts and the scripture, than you would be 20 years ago.
Just as the internet has caused serious problems to the music industry, I think in some ways, it is causing problems for the corporate model, because the core need of the protestant church is the pastor and solid biblical teaching. But why do I need that when I can flip on Youtube and hear Tim Keller anytime I want? Why not a weekly bible study and we all sit in front of the tube if we get the hankering for some good preaching.
Sorry, now for your questions.
1.No
2. No
3. No, however, I do like a good bible study. But in general, I enjoy a singing with a great many people. Something powerful about that to me in the right setting.
4. I would say the Mass I attend on Sunday is exactly like what Justin described. (We go to Episcopal Mass in the morning at St. James and then we go hear Tim Keller preach at night at Redeemer Pres., so we get both.)
5. (yes to”bring about the kingdom”) Christians draw strength from each other. I need Christians to be the light I am supposed to be. No way around it. I am just a flopping pinkie finger without other Christians encouraging and loving me. Order is good. Chaos is bad. There seems to be a deconstructionist view arising in the online community towards any kind of church establishment. I don’t really see what is so wrong with calling your gathering “something” i.e. church, home church, bible study, blah blah. I guess some people are hung up on this and that’s okay, but its like they have P-diddy syndrome. Always jacking with the name.
So Christians need to be strengthened to be a light to bring about the Kingdom. A big part of that has always been meeting together. I’m a Niebuhr fan so I think we should be in the culture, transforming, not set up on a hill building attractive buildings like some kind of electric bug zapper.
RBerman says:
Mr Bashor, I’m befuddled with your complaint against what you call “business model churches.” I happen to be a business owner with a dozen employees, and I can tell you that the church which I attend runs nothing like my business.
Corporate America, contrary to your claim, does not run by paying a few people and then having a ton of volunteers do the work. (Can you name the corporations you’re thinking of that run this way?) It works by paying everybody. That would indeed be a bad way to run a church. Rather, the church should be mostly volunteer labor.
There are a few people it makes sense to pay, though. Indeed, the Bible tells us that it’s good to have some people full-time in the service of the church, and that it’s good to pay them for their efforts. In the OT, look at the many passages that show that the Levites were salaried out of the offerings of the people. In the NT, the practice continues in Galatians 6:6, 1 Timothy 5:17-18, and especially 1 Corinthians 9.
What exactly are you advocating? Churches in which no one is paid? That goes against the Scriptures I cited. Churches in which everyone is paid? I have trouble imagining how that would work. Churches in which some people are paid and others are not? That’s what I’m advocating, and what you seem to be criticizing.
Brant says:
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but meeting in the “temple courts” is not akin to a church building. It was a public place, the center of the city, too, where people could see each other and talk.
Doesn’t mean church buildings are bad, at all, but also doesn’t set a precedent for gathering in a specific building for worship.
How about this for deciding what our churches are to be?
Jesus first.
Our mission follows from Jesus.
Our ecclesiology—church form—follows from our mission, to our culture
I’m more excited about this than trying to re-create what Justin was doing in his culture, or re-creating the mess that was the church in Corinth, for instance.
Jenny says:
Also being discussed here:
http://thejosher.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1056&hilit=
Shawn Bashor says:
Mr. Berman,
1) You should try running your business that way, call it a ministry and see how many volunteers you have.
2) I am all for someone being paid to further the kingdom ie a missionary.
3) So basically you think that it is good to pay someone who will make your “job” of being a christian easier ie “call the pastor when someone is sick that is what he is paid for.” We should all be responsible.
4) I agree with Brant, I would love to have a preacher stand in the middle of a mall and start preaching, that my friend is not what I would call seeker friendly, that’s down right scary, but hide in a building, it is easier.
5) I plain out don’t see a reason to meet in a building with a bunch of people I don’t truely know, smile at each other for a hour and a half a week, pretend like everything is honky dory and then drive there on the occasion to hear someone teach the Bible. I have both the internet and the radio and I know how to use them. I also own a copy of the Bible, in fact I have about 8 copies of the Bible. I even know how to read, that’s two up on what most people during that time could do, so to have someone teaching what was to be memorized makes sense. The other aspect of that is they didn’t use a neatly cannonized fresh off the printer, calfs hide soft leather bound Bible, there is another arguement for another time too.
Shawn Bashor says:
One thing I forgot. I am not trying to convert you to anything, these are nothing more than my personal opinions. Just remember I am only part of a discussion. All this to show either you get it or you don’t, and if you don’t get it no problem, keep doing what you’re doing.
RBerman says:
Mr Bashor,
1) The reason you can’t come up with any examples of corporations that run that way is because there aren’t any. The reason there aren’t any is because that’s not how businesses work well. You appear to be operating with some bad information.
2) Good, as long as you’ll accept “local church pastor” as missionary in the same sense as “guy in some other country” as a missionary.
3) I don’t recall saying that having a pastor in your church means that the members of the church should not visit each other when they’re sick. We seem to be not talking about the same thing.
4) There are “public preachers” in my community, and they are totally ineffective at reaching the unchurched. Having a church building is not a matter of hiding. It’s a matter of logistics. If your church has 200 people, you need a facility that can accomodate your worship and training. If you have a positive argument that churches should not be larger than a single home can accomodate, I’m open to hearing it.
5) I wouldn’t want to go to a church like the one you describe, either. And I don’t. Let’s keep the baby while throwing out the dirty water, shall we?
“Lone Ranger” Christianity is the natural result of American evangelicalism. You’re not taking things back to basics. You’re taking a problematic trend to a problematic extreme.
Shaun Groves says:
Brant, is it your belief that the “mess” in Corinth stemmed from the form or structure of the local church in those days?
shaunfan says:
Shaun, fascinating post and I guess because of my small group which meets every other week, we do participate in both kinds of meetings described.
I think it’s good that we attend both types of meetings. We have a larger church community where we serve, respond, minister and learn some biblical truth more than once per week and then we have a smaller church community where we do the same things every other week and both groups also discuss and act out living the gospel outwardly as well and encourage one another.
We use Hebrews 10:23-25 as our small group model. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
Shawn Bashor says:
Mr. Berman-
1) that’s exactly my point, why is church run that way?
2)&3) I don’t think a “pastor” falls into that catagory in the sense that all they are doing is making us lazy as a Church.
4)”There are “public preachers” in my community, and they are totally ineffective at reaching the unchurched.”
Face the facts, what you just said was, “we are not attracting people from other churches(ie churched people) by preaching to the non-church, the ones that don’t know Jesus.
5) I don’t think that what you get in a “home church” (which by the way I cannot stand calling it that, I actually perfer the more antagonistic “pretend church” that Shaun calls it) can be duplicated in a large church.
And
““Lone Ranger” Christianity is the natural result of American evangelicalism. You’re not taking things back to basics. You’re taking a problematic trend to a problematic extreme.”
I don’t have a clue what you are saying here, what I am a part of is far from “Lone anything” I think calling it “people who think for themselves, or people who are not okay living with the status quo” is more appropriate, but “Lone Ranger” would imply I am alone in doing what I do and I assure you since, what I do is such a worry of your, I do not do it alone.
Brant says:
Shaun—No, I didn’t mean that.
I just grew up in a New Testament Church (TM) where we literally prided ourselves on replicating the N.T. church.
Then it occurred to me: Which N.T. church? Corinth sounded like a mess, that’s all. Then again, the churches I grew up in had all the N.T. “structure” in place, and they were messes, too. So maybe we nailed it.
I still think we’re at our best when our idea of “church” flows from the mission, which flows from our understanding of who Jesus was. And yes, this will take some different forms, imbedded in different cultures. (As opposed to trying to replicate the exact church in Turkey in 240 A.D., or Greece in 90 A.D., or Rome in 700 A.D.)
I think early churches met primarily in houses, but I don’t think there’s something magically delicious about houses. I think the church in Acts hung out in the temple courts, but I don’t think we need to find some temple courts to hang out in. I think our forms flow from mission, which flows from Christ.
But I could be wrong, or maybe Jesus talked a lot about the importance of structure and it just didn’t make the Bible or something. I literally don’t know.
Shaun Groves says:
Shawn, regarding number 4, I don’t think that’s what RBerman was saying, though he can surely speak for himself. What I took him to mean was that he thought of “street preachers” as the “public preachers” you described. Am I right there, RBerman? And I think you and I and Berman would agree on that one – yelling at people on the street is not effective.
I also think we ALL need to be extra careful when typing about a topic we care a great deal about about, careful not to appear unkind. I’m also a little paranoid about this conversation degrading into something unhealthy so I apologize if I’m being a little too big of a Dad all of a sudden.
Shawn Bashor says:
Thanks dad,
I agree that this could get heated when you care. I am also starting to think I suck as a non-verbal communicator, because it reads a heck of a lot angrier than I mean for it to.
I guess at this point I will stop, because as I would agree with you and Mr.Berman there (who was nice enough to call me Mr. Bashor) that screaming on the streets may not work and my point there was nothing short of a sarcastic low blow to his choice of words.
I do like to argue though, I’m not going to lie. What it boils down to is simple. You can do church the way you want to and as long as you are not doing harm then good for you keep up the good work. My personal conviction is simple, there is something very wrong with the way we are doing things and I have a hard time pin-pointing exactly what those things are.
RBerman says:
Mr. Bashor,
1) We must be talking past each other. I don’t think churches should be run at all like corporations, who pay their staff to generate revenue for the shareholders of the company. Churches should be run as the NT describes, with a paid pastor who equips the people of God to do the work of the kingdom on a volunteer basis. That’s how every church I’ve attended worked.
2) & 3) I’m sure there are bad churches who see their pastor as the only one who’s supposed to do the work. Don’t attend or support that kind of unhealthy church. I don’t.
4) Shaun is correct that I was speaking of a preacher who stands in a public place to harangue passersby. Our society is not one in which that sort of public speaking bears good fruit, regardless of the cause being espoused.
5) I sort of agree with you. Shaun’s original blog post was about this very thing. Large group and small group meetings have different dynamics, and each is a tool which can be used to equip the saints. I would never say, “Small group Christian fellowship is always bad,” and I hope you wouldn’t say, “Large group Christian fellowship is always bad.” I find both groups indispensible in my Christian walk.
Grovesfan says:
Very interesting topic and responses too. I was raised in the Baptist (Southern) church as well. “Born on a Wednesday, and in church on Sunday” was the saying for me for a long time (it’s true of me). I have no regrets about the way I was brought up or what I learned in the churches I attended. I will say that I did not question what came from the pulpit until I was older and more mature. I’ve been a part of large churches (15,000+ members), small churches ( 7 families meeting in a home) and many inbetween. I grew in all of them to some degree. I was discipled and discipled others and continue to do so in the church I belong to now. Our church has weekly services for “corporate worship” and about 30 different small groups that meet throughout the week as well. Those small groups are made up of different people for different reasons (single parents, young couples, parents of teens, singles, men, women, addictions, etc.) Some of those who attend small groups do not come to Sunday services and vice versa. Our local church body IS affecting our community, supporting missionaries locally and worldwide, serving in MANY hands-on capacities in our area and really reaching out to EVERYONE. We are doing our best to SHOW Christ to everyone we encounter. We fail miserably sometimes, but who doesn’t? We keep trying. There are different reasons for doing church different ways and as long as none of those ways are contrary to scripture, then what’s the problem?
Beth
Chris says:
Shawn Bashor said “I don’t think a “pastor” falls into that catagory in the sense that all they are doing is making us lazy as a Church. “
Sorry, but that’s not fair. Are there some pastors who make the Church lazy? Of course. Is it a gross generalization to say that is all pastors do? Of course.
There are pastors, such as the one at the church I attend, whose gifts are in helping people discern what thier gifts are, then putting them into practice. These kinds of pastors are hardly making the Church lazy.
Veretax says:
First time commenting on your Blog Shaun, and I enjoy your thoughts thus far, so before I get to your questions, I’ll preface them by saying, that in the last few months my wife and I recently left a strong bible believing church with a solid pastor. I say solid, because he is a man that looks to the bible first, and his messages usually hit home regardless of the walk of life we are in. We left this church not because of him, or the assistant pastor, but due to a wind of attitude that we felt had strangely found its way into the church. Some of my comments may hint at this, so I figured I’d preface my comments with this. Now I’ll give my take on your questions.
1 Must we have both types of meetings?
I would say no. Jesus said in Matthew 18:20 – “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” NKJV. It is not a requirement that we meet daily, or weekly, but I do believe we should meet as often as we feel we are able. The problem with our society and many Christians today, is we chave a tendency (and I know not everyone does this, but I know I am guilty of this at times) to check our Christian Beliefs at the door of the building where we worship, we fail to seek the truth in Gods word on a regular basis for ourselves, or we fail to pray to him, or some such. Families are uniquely positioned I believe to minister and fellowship as believers with each other, but many of us (I speak of Americans) miss out or ignore this opportunity. But are they required that we meet in small or large groups? Certainly not.
2. Is one meeting superior to the other in some way?
I would say no, there is no Preeminent or best style of meeting for all occasions, maybe one day when we are perfected, sanctified, and in God’s eternal presence there will be, but as flawed human beings, each of us has areas of need or areas of strength, and not everyone can learn in either environment better than another.
3.Is one meeting more appealing to you personally? Why?
There are benefits to both styles, and I do think that a group that focuses too much on the formal “large” service is not as intimate or as friendly as the smaller groups usually are. My wife and I recently left a church where we felt that once that Sunday Morning service was over, that there was no real fellowship or kinship amongst the people. We just don’t believe that way, so we’ve begun attending a different church here in town. Does that mean that those sort of meetings are wrong? No, but it does truly show that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Even the Apostles, felt so overwhelmed with the masses in Jerusalem that they asked for Deacons to be appointed. So there is a point at which a church may be too large, but where that point is I could not attempt to quantify.
I’ve been in several different churches, the one I used to be a part of before moving here, had small groups that met periodically as our schedules allowed, and I loved the Saturday morning mens bible study. I really miss that part of that group of believers since moving perhaps more than any other. Ultimately I think some believers look at Church Attendance as an Obligation, when it should be viewed as a Privilege, or they look at associating with other “Sinners turned saints” as a necessary ‘evil’ instead of a chance to bear each others burdens and strengthen the body of Christ.
4. Is any meeting of Christians you’re involved in like either of these early church meetings? How does your meeting differ from these?
The church I attend now has a much smaller more intimate atmosphere for its Wed Evening bible study. It is to me preferable then being preached at for a third time in the week, the church we used to attend did not seem interested in using bible study as a tool of instruction or discussion, or at least after a year things changed and that focus was lost. I don’t believe you can get the most out of God’s word without voicing what the Holy Spirit is revealing to you personally. I’ve learned a lot more from digging into passages, and questioning thoughts in a bible study then I have at times just being told what X or Y verse is saying. Its not that I don’t trust the “authority” of any particular Pastor or Teacher, but we are responsible for our own faith, and must endeavor to prove what is true by the bible.
5. If the kingdom (God’s will done on earth as it is in Heaven) is the Good Reason (or Good News) God does everything, and it’s the message Jesus preached on earth, then is it right to expect these meetings to in some way bring about the kingdom. How did they? Or didn’t they?
I can’t really answer this one. God has gifted each of us differently. Not everyone is a hand, or an ear, or a mouth, or an eye. We each learn and grow better in different ways. The same was true in College, some folks were book learners who learned better from reading and practicing themselves, some learned better by seeing and being lectured too, and others just had to have a hands on approach, some were multi-taskers, that learned better if multiple styles of teaching are used, some learn better when thoughts are emphasized with visual slides, or music, or some other thing. Why should this be any different in the Church? The goal is for us to be perfected unto the image of Christ, and that comes through the hearing of Gods word. So for each individual we must question ourselves, are we hearing the Word of God through the particular meeting style or not. If we are not than something is wrong, and it may not necessarily be the messenger or format. That’s my opinion on the matter though.
In Summary I agree with RBerman in a way, simply being drones for an hour listening to preaching, is not as likely to produce a change in the heart. It can help, but you need more than just that. Why are we there ultimately? Are we there to Get something? Or are we there to Serve Christ? My wife and I both feel that we go to Church not necessarily to get something, though we certainly receive our share of exhortation and blessings, rather we believe that each of us is Called to unique ministry, and should seek to use the gifts we have been given, the best that we know how through Christ’s church to further his kingdom. We weren’t afforded the opportunity to do that in the last church we attended, and I honestly felt that too many folks felt that the “paid staff” if you will should be doing all of this work. How convenient it must be to ignore your God given calling to Evangelize, to witness, or to help your fellow believers or neighbors. Ultimately though, the style of worship, or meeting, really is less important than the message that is brought across.
I’ve been in churches where they condemned outright the CCM movement. (I’ve never agreed with their sentiment) Yet in the small number of Concerts I’ve attended in my lifetime, not one have I seen any of the things they’ve accused or slighted these folks on. Now that’s not to say that the Industry itself is without fault, I’m not wanting to delve into that, but I was pleasantly surprised when I had the opportunity to take my brother to a Winter Jam Concert organized by Newsong. The tenor of the people, and the groups on stage, was one of honor to God, and reaching out to the lost. By the end of that concert, I noted that the end result was not much different then an organized church’s typical Sunday service, except that instead of a lengthy sermon on one topic, many areas of need or concern were addressed through song. In whole, the message was presented. Some folks may never get more from a lecture than they might from listening to a particular song. So Ultimately, I’d say the meeting style is not as important so long as you are growing in Christ.