December 7, 2009
-
Notes on the book "House Church", Chapter 3
Chapter 3 - Participatory meetings - 12/6/2009
Continuing notes on the book "House Church" by Steve Atkerson.This chapter discusses one of the most important contributions of their book, in my opinion. Quite simply, they build their case on 1 Corinthians 14 that church meetings should be participatory. This means that instead of one pastor giving all the teaching/preaching in a meeting, each man attending should come prepared to share something that will edify everyone. Cf. 1 Cor 14:23-40, certain sections highlighted that pertain to participatory meetings:
23Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?
24But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all;
25the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.
26What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
27If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret;
28but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.
30But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.
31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;
32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;
33for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
36Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?
37If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.
38But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
39Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.
40But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.
Isn't 14:26 crystal clear? "When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation."And isn't it so widely ignored throughout the world in churches today? Typically there is one person up front who teaches, while everyone else listens silently in pews. Some churches have multiple pastors/elders that rotate the teaching, which is a step in the right direction. And many churches have smaller group Bible studies that meet throughout the week and include participation, which is a great step in the right direction.
But very few churches today seem to follow this clear Biblical pattern in 1 Cor 14:26/context. Or am I missing something? I certainly didn't notice the difference between 1 Cor 14 and the churches I attended while growing up, but now I am starting to see some differences. I am asking my friends - 'Do you see these differences too? Are they legitimate? Are we 'doing church' in a suboptimal/unBiblical way? Or am I missing something? Are these differences between Paul's directions and our practices acceptable or not?"
Other corollary points the authors make in this chapter:
- This participatory pattern came out of the Jewish synagogue pattern, where Jewish men were encouraged to raise questions, hear new teaching from visitors (e.g. Paul/Barnabas), weigh in, etc.
- In Acts 20:7 where Paul teaches the church until midnight,
the Greek word used is "dialegomia", (dialog, argument, discussion, etc).
- The authors say that today's meetings are usually called "worship services", wheras the NT meetings were not described as focusing so much on worship of God, but rather fellowship and edification of each other. I.e. they are not saying that worship is inappropriate, but that there should be a shift in emphasis... more emphasis on fellowship and participatory teaching, less time spent in worship.
I'm not sure what I think about this. I agree that the NT meetings were not called "worship services". I guess part of the modern approach is a throwback to the Solomonic Temple mindset, where indeed there were professional musicians (1 Chronicles 25), big crowds of hushed people listening to the law and its exposition (Ezra, etc) and everything was oriented toward worship of God (since He actually DWELT there in the temple).
The authors discuss the 'performance' aspects of today's church meetings, and compare to the 'participatory' aspects of the 1 Cor 14:26 meetings.
What are your thoughts?
- The authors raise the point that participation is closely linked with the small size of the NT group meetings. When people started meeting in large pagan temples after Constantine, the participation became impossible. Conversely when people meet today in small home groups, participation feels natural.
- They make the point that if every man starts bringing some teaching to share, each teaching/preaching will naturally need to be shorter, to fit everybody in. This intrigues me and saddens me a little. I have been so blessed by the lengthy/carefully-researched sermons by pastors throughout my life. If things were changed so that there was "a lot of short teachings by less-trained people", it seems to me that there would be a big hole left from the former "few teachings by highly-trained people".
On the other hand, I suppose that just because a teaching is shorter (say 5 min instead of 40 min) doesn't mean that it need be 'off-the-cuff'... each man could still carefully research and distill what he has to say... we could still take notes... the "weighing"/"judging"/questioning that occurs after each teaching/prophecy could expand on the interesting points of his teaching... I solicit your thoughts and comments on all this.
- Relatedly, on p. 58, they talk about "special-purpose meetings" of some visiting gifted teacher who spends the whole meeting time sharing what God has gifted him to share. I suppose that one could say that our churches today are exactly this- "special purpose meetings" every Sunday morning, with the occasional "New Testament church service" relegated to our "monthly small group Bible study".
- They answer the objection that if everyone taught there would soon be a lot of off-the-wall teachings and heresies taught, by the reminder that the purpose of the elders is to prevent exactly that.
- On tongues, they mention the scripture 1 Cor 14:39 which says "do not forbid to speak in tongues". I think this is a balanced way to look at the issue. Tongues may or may not be given by God to the church today (perhaps it depends on the area of the world). But we should not "forbid" to speak in tongues, and if ever someone wants to speak in tongues, it must be under the pattern of the Scriptures (1 Cor 14 - interpreter must be present or else the person must speak silently to God, implication that the 'tongue' is a spoken language, one person at a time, etc). And tongues are never commanded in the NT as a sign of salvation or a "second blessing" or the filling of the Spirit. They are recorded as a sign of the Holy Spirit's filling only in certain instances in Acts which seem inaugural (beginning of the Church, first Gentile converts, first formerly-John-the-Baptist converts, etc), but elsewhere (Rom. 8:9) the Spirit is clearly taught to live in everyone who belongs to Christ.
- They discuss problems with participatory meetings which might arise, one of which they label "Pooled Ignorance", when a person comes with a question rather than a teaching. They recommend discouraging such questions... However, having had (/having still) many such questions myself, perhaps those could be 'redirected' rather than 'squelched'.... e.g. "That's a great question - let's discuss that over the meal afterward and keep this time open for those who have prepared teachings or songs or messages to share."
- They raise the huge issue of what 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 means when it says "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." Of course 1 Cor. 11:5 says "But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved." In 'House Church', chapter 18 delves into this issue at more length and presents two standard reconciliations of these verses: either (1) that women are to be silent in the 'judging' of prophecies/teachings but they are allowed to prophesy/pray in the assembly if God so moves them, or (2) that women are to be completely silent throughout the assembly/teaching time of the meeting, and that 1 Cor 11:5 refers to praying/prophesying at other times/places, not in the church meeting. I tend to think that (2) has a bit more scriptural support, but I'm very willing to hear others' thoughts on this.
- They complain about the way many non-house-churches today "squelch spontaneity": here's a quote from page 63:
"Many people today have read 1 Corinthians 14 and judged their churches to be in complete compliance merely because the congregation participates through responsive readings, genuflecting, partaking of the wafer and wine of the Lord's Supper, singing hymns, giving tithes and offerings, etc. Part of the problem is that all of this is planned out, it is not spontaneous, the structure is the same every week, and the entire order of worship is laid out in the bulletin. There may be limited audience participation, but there is no real liberty. Is any one of the brothers free to pick a hymn? To bring a teaching? To raise his hand and ask a question? Is there spontaneity?"
Personally I would love more 'spontaneity' in the order of church meetings. But I am considering the question: Is this desire of mine (and the "House Church" authors) just a personal/genetic/American-individualist/ADHD/etc type of thing, or is it an actual Biblical principle?
Certainly the principle of participation of all the men seems Biblical - 1 Cor 14:26. But of the rest of what they say, how much is American individualism, and how much is straight from the Bible? Your thoughts are welcome.
In summary of this chapter, they say that 1 Cor. 14:26/context clearly commands participatory meetings, and that the church today usually ignores this. I find their points extremely compelling. How about you? - This participatory pattern came out of the Jewish synagogue pattern, where Jewish men were encouraged to raise questions, hear new teaching from visitors (e.g. Paul/Barnabas), weigh in, etc.
Comments (6)
Interesting post. I found myself comparing to my own church. I think that a lot of the aspects mentioned here are achieved in possibly unexpected ways. You already mentioned small groups, but also consider Sunday school, youth group, women's ministry, and even potlucks, etc. Although organized and perhaps institutionalized, these things may be filling the gaps singled out by those who only look at specifically the morning service. I see so many people that do not get involved elsewhere, that they come to think that the single morning service is all that church is. The variety of events I listed may have been a way early on to identify with the fact that not everyone is comfortable sharing in the same context. I don't see much in the post that I disagree with, but I think much of it may be reinventing the wheel. Of course, there is always room for improvement.
One thing: if everyone shared something, it seems like people would eventually build up a reputation, like "here's Mr. Good speaker", or "here's Mr. Long winded". People would be seen as this before they even began speaking, and more respect might be given more to some than others. Like in prayer meetings today, some people pray long prayers and others shorter ones. Some would posses a greater talent at speaking, and would be more desirable to hear. I don't know. Thanks for sharing this.
Hi Tim. Thanks for including me.
I've watched a lot of "methods" of church. I've always been a small church guy, but I recognize that the mega church can offer things, especially for niche groups, that a small church or association of small churches cannot. It is an axiom that the larger the number of people at any meeting, the fewer may share with the whole in a measured time, or the longer the meeting must become.
I guess my perspective is that a church can have both. I would not allow anyone to belittle the concept of the small group within a large church. It is my position that every Christian, besides living for Christ 24/7, should be involved regularly in three things: 1. a gathering (larger) of Christians for fellowship and networking (the Holy Spirit is the Master Networker) and what is said to be corporate worship and teaching; 2. a small participatory group of Bible study, growth discussion, friend building, personal sharing and prayer - group size 12 or less - this group is the key to a person's Christian social life and close Christian support system; 3. a place of active service to Christ that 'does or will' touch the lives of others (Christians or unbelievers) for Christ - this piece is essential for the person to find the spiritual growth that comes only from service, and it enables the server to be better prepared to help (minister to) those with whom he/she has contact in the first two types of meetings - it also is the most likely regular outlet for the exercise of one's spiritual gift - and the exercise of one's spiritual gift is what produces a spiritual joy or spiritual satisfaction that is part of the abundant life Christ offers.
But the "average Christian" (Watchman Nee's term) or the "common Christian" (my term) does not do these three things even though they are all open to him. Go figure.
This topic, because of its scope, is hard to deal with in an e-mail format. Wish you lived closer for a talk over dinner. - Ralph Essery - Northern Frontier
PS - liked you blog photo!
@interstellarmachine - Thanks for your thoughts ISM! Yes, I agree with you that these other things are 'filling the gaps' of the needs for fellowship and interaction. I still wonder, however, if the current situation is optimal, and if it's not, whether I should be trying to help my church and other churches I know to move toward God's optimal church plan....
@Archer - Good point, Archer. I think this would indeed happen. Is this a bad thing or just a normal thing? I guess it may happen to some degree already, as people choose which pastor's church to attend, which sunday school teacher's class to attend, etc. Reminds me of how Paul talks about Cephas and Apollos and those who were "reputed to be pillars" in the Jerusalem church...
@Ralph Essery - Thanks for your thoughts Ralph! You wrote:
"1. a gathering (larger) of Christians for fellowship and networking (the Holy Spirit is the Master Networker) and what is said to be corporate worship and teaching; 2. a small participatory group of Bible study, growth discussion, friend building, personal sharing and prayer - group size 12 or less - this group is the key to a person's Christian social life and close Christian support system; 3. a place of active service to Christ that 'does or will' touch the lives of others"...
I can see #3 coming from Romans 12 / etc, and #2 coming from 1 Cor 14 and other places where the house churches in the NT are mentioned. Upon what scriptures would you base #1 (the large-group corporate worship and teaching... i.e. larger than one house-group)? Would you say "since we have these things available to us in the USA, might as well use them"? Or would you go to a specific pattern or command in the New Testament for this one?
This "large-group-gathering" is the one I'm most pondering right now... whether it's worth spending lots of money building a separate 'church building' for large group meetings (which is all I've known, all my life), or whether the New Testament pattern of house churches should be normative for us today also.
In other words, did the early church only meet in homes because they didn't know any better (whereas now we know better), or because they were too poor to build large buildings, or because there was too much persecution to have large buildings, but with the latent understanding that as soon as easier times came along they would build and meet in larger buildings? Or was / is there something intrinsically 'better' about staying in small groups and avoiding separate church buildings and large group meetings?
Another friend shared via email:
The ‘Brethren’ try this more than others but over time, those who share become fewer; not everyone has the gift to share ‘up front’. That is why bible studies and participatory adult SS classes bring out more sharing than any church service.
I responded:
Your points make sense... however, the authors of House Church are saying that the whole idea of the nonparticipatory "worship service" is not biblical, or at least misplaced emphasis. They say the bible studies and participatory adult SS classes ARE biblical church, and there's no need for the nonparticipatory service part.... Also, they advocate small house gatherings instead of large group gatherings in specifically devoted buildings... interesting....
and he responded:
Fine, add lots of worship, prayer, sharing offerings etc and you have yourself a church. Contemporary Mennonites do nothing else but this. However, we have freedom in Christ. We can meet when we want, where we want, how we want, how often we want, etc. Is not worship legalism is an oxymoron? ....
And a second friend shared via email:
Sounds like an interesting subject. I've always thought the effectiveness of Paul's life and the early church was because of their faithful obedience and passion for Christ. In fact the early church had the flexibility to meet where ever the Lord led them too and regardless of where they met the meeting place was not their calling card, but the rather the reason that they met...Jesus Christ. Even house churches can lose their focus. I've seen a few.
hey Tim, Good thoughts. I'm looking forward to reading the book. It is on my stack for the Christmas break.
Alot of your post has some good thoughts.
I know that it is bad to make generalities, but my impresion of many house church people is that they tend to have an attitude that anyone who does not do it their way is unspiritual, etc. So I am wary of that.
I agree with the participatory meetings. I cor 14 is a good place to go to see that. Question: Do you think some of the lack of that is a result of the theology of the early chuirch fathers of bringing OT worship into the churc (i.e. preists who represented the people as opposed to the preisthood of all believers, sacramentalism that said that there was something inherently spiritual about the rituals as opposed to church meetings being just an expression of Christ-centered community). Love to hear your thoughts on this.
@noah_kelley - That could well be the case about the church fathers! Interesting... I am not too familiar with what they said/did in this area... BTW, I tend not to use the xanga 'friend' connect thing for internet privacy reasons, but of course I am definitely your friend, and I think I subscribed to your xanga site...
Thanks for your thoughts!
Comments are closed.