When ritual loses meaning
The religion of ancient Rome was one of ceremony and festival, without belief, revelation, or teaching. Every Roman citizen learned to perform the prescribed rituals by watching their parents in the home, the priests in the temples, and the civic officials in the public places. The meaning behind the rituals was secondary to the correct practice of the rituals themselves. From generation to generation, as meaning was lost but ritual retained, the community would add new meaning to the traditional ceremonies and festivals.
It is also possible for Christians to place ritual above meaning, replacing the importance of the content of the message with methodology. While never teaching that human traditions are bad on their own, Jesus warned his disciples never to place those traditions above the commands of God (Mark 7:1-13). Quoting the prophet Isaiah, Jesus reminded his listeners that God does not accept worship that is based on the traditions of men: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:6-7; Isaiah 29:13).
The Pharisees were teaching people to uphold their traditions even when those traditions were contrary to the commands of God (c.f. corban in Mark 7:9-13). The Pharisees had forgotten that God’s commands must take precedence over the traditions of men. Similarly, the church must always remember that the commands of God found in Scripture take precedence over the traditions of men, regardless of how long believers have practiced those traditions, or how “successful” the traditions have become.
For example, it has become commonplace to refer to the gathering of the church as the “worship service,” and to understand the purpose for that gathering to be “corporate worship.” However, as with any tradition, this tradition must be analyzed through exegesis of Scripture. In this case, the student should study passages dealing with the gathering of the church to determine the scriptural purpose for that assembly. According to those various passages, the purpose of the gathering of the church in the New Testament is the mutual edification of the gathered believers.
Over the last several years, as I’ve read books, commentaries, and articles about the church, I’ve often read about the importance of edification. But, I have seen few examples of the importance of edification in the practices and beliefs of the modern church. Even as the language of edification becomes more common among Christians, few are thinking about what it would actually mean to work toward edification when we meet together.
It seems that our practices and beliefs are continuing to be forms of ritual that have lost their meanings. We come into a room together. We sing some songs together. We listen to someone teach/preach. We go home having done our “job” for the week.
We say it was “edifying,” but we barely know the names of the people around us.
This is not edification.
What’s the Meeting For?
I wrote the post “What’s the Meeting For?” almost four years ago. This was in the early days of my blog. My post was prompted by a post by Neil Carter. I had the great pleasure of meeting Neil a couple of weeks ago in Atlanta.
Here’s the post:
———————————-
A few weeks ago over at Christ in Y’all, Neil asks the question “What’s the Meeting For?” Consider the following quote:
The meeting of the saints ISN’T an end in itself. It’s not the reason we exist. As we say in the churches I run with: The church isn’t the meetings. The meetings express what the church is. But the church can’t be reduced to its meetings. We are the church all the time. Of course, this is so much easier to see when there’s some kind of community going on. When you live really close together, for example, the communal aspect of the church is made visible. It’s like a family. And a family doesn’t become a family by eating supper together. It already is a family. Everything it does is as a family. But because it IS a family, they spend a lot of time together, and they eat together. Likewise the church is the church whatever it does. It doesn’t become the church because it does the right thing when it meets. Please don’t buy that mentality. The church is so much more than its meetings.
Neil continues by reminding us that a problem with the meeting is an indication of an underlying problem with the church itself. “Tweaking” the meeting will not solve the underlying problem.
Many people look at the “worship service” of the church today – the meeting – and decide that there are problems. I would tend to agree – there are certainly problems. However, these problems will not be solved by simply changing the meeting. We must return to the Scriptures to answer the question: “Who are we as the church?” Once we know who we are, then we can better answer the question, “What should happen when we meet?”
The wisdom of mutual encouragement
The exhortation to mutual encouragement was wise: in isolation from fellow-believers each individual among them was more liable to succumb to the subtle temptations which pressed in from so many sides, but if they came together regularly for mutual encouragement the devotion of all would be kept warm and their common hope would be in less danger of flickering and dying. In isolation each was prone to be impressed by the specious arguments which underlined the worldly wisdom of a certain measure of compromise of their Christian faith and witness; in the healthy atmosphere of the Christian fellowship these arguments would be the more readily appraised at their true worth, and recognized as being so many manifestations of “the deceitfulness of sinâ€â€¦ [I]n a fellowship which exercised a watchful and unremitting care of its members the temptation to prefer the easy course to the right one would be greatly weakened, and the united resolution to stand firm would be correspondingly strengthened. (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991100–101)
F.F. Bruce on 1 Thessalonians 5:11-14
I came across an interesting quote concerning the following passage in 1 Thessalonians:
Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. (1 Thessalonians 5:11-14 ESV)
F.F. Bruce wrote the following concerning 1 Thessalonians 5:14 (the instructions for “brothers and sisters” to “admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, etc.”):
The various forms of service enjoined in the words that follow [in 1 Thess 5:14] are certainly a special responsibility of leaders, but not their exclusive responsibility: they are ways in which all the members of the community can fulfill the direction of v 11 to encourage and strengthen one another. (F. F. Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians (WBC 45; Waco: Word Books, 1982),122)
I think the church would be stronger and healthier if all believers would understand and function in this manner. Yes, leaders are to teach, shepherd, admonish, etc. It is their special responsibility, but not their exclusive responsibility. In fact, leaders alone cannot do what is necessary for the maturity of the church. (Ephesians 4:16)
Provoking of one another to love and good works
David Peterson commenting on Hebrews 10:24-25:
It may be suggested from the syntax of Hebrews 10:25 that encouragement can be given to other Christians at the most basic level by not abandoning the assembly. Looking more positively at the benefits of Christian assembly, F.F. Bruce asserts that “every opportunity of coming together and enjoying their fellowship in faith and hope must be welcomed and used for mutual encouragement.” [F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1964, p. 253] However, remembering what was said above in connection with Hebrews 3:12-13 and Hebrews 5:12 it would seem that the writer intended such meetings to be opportunities for mutual teaching and exhortation. It is perhaps best in the context to render paraklountes more generally as “encouraging (one another),” but the provoking of one another to love and good works clearly demands more than just being present at the assembly and participating enthusiastically! (David G. Peterson, “The Ministry of Encouragement,” in God Who is Rich in Mercy. Ed. Peter T. O’Brien and David G. Peterson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986, p. 246) (italics in original)
Church Meetings in Acts – Acts 11:26
The next usage of “gathering language” in the Book of Acts is found in Acts 11:26. Here is the verse in context:
Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord. So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians. (Acts 11:19-26 ESV)
Once again, the “gathering language†in Acts 11:26 is found in the Greek verb συνάγω (sunagÅ) which generally means “I gather†or “I bring together.†The ESV translated the verb as “met.†Interestingly, the verb is passage, as in the previous passage (Acts 4:31), so a translation like this would be more precise: “For a whole year they were gathered together with the church.”
The context tells us that Gentiles began to be added to the church in numbers. The apostles and other brothers and sisters (Acts 11:1) had already agreed that God was extending his grace to the Gentiles just like he was to the Jews. But, there were still some questions about how this would all work. As we see in the following chapters, some followers of Jesus were still not satisfied that the Gentiles could be right with God without keeping the law.
Meanwhile, the church in Jerusalem sends Barnabas to Antioch. We are not told exactly why he was sent, but we see what happened when he got there: he exhorted the believers (Jew and Gentile alike) to remain faithful to the Lord Jesus, and he recruited Paul to come help him. Together they served others in the church of Antioch, primarily by teaching.
If we see this passage as an indication that Barnabas is a leader among the church in Antioch, we also see that Barnabas recognizes the need for mutual leadership. At this point, the Holy Spirit had not sent either Paul or Barnabas as apostles (see Acts 13:1-2), so they are functioning as part of the church in Antioch, perhaps leader, but if so, then mutual leaders… leading the church together.
In fact, if Paul and Barnabas are highlighted here because they are leaders of the church in Antioch, then we see that by Acts 13:1, the number of leaders has grown to at least six. Also, while Paul and Barnabas are said to primarily teach, at least some of the people listed in Acts 13:1 are prophets. So, Luke does not limit the role of leaders to teaching and teachers only.
It is also interesting that in the next passage (Acts 11:27-30), Paul and Barnabas serve in the role of couriers by delivering relief that had been gathered by the church in Antioch to the church in Jerusalem. The image of Paul and Barnabas in this passage – in the context of the church gathering together – is an image of leaders who were willing serve in any capacity that was necessary. No type of service was too menial.
Markus Barth on Ephesians 4:16
Last weekend, someone mentioned Markus Barth’s (son of Karl Barth) commentary on Ephesians. During the conversation, I remembered this great paragraph concerning Ephesians 4:16 –
(1) It is Christ, the head, alone “from whom†the body derives unity, nourishment, growth – but Christ’s monarchy and monopoly do not exclude but rather create the activity of a church engaged in “its own†growth and upbuilding. (2) All that the body is, has, and does is determined by its (passive and active) relationship to the head – but this (“verticalâ€) relationship establishes an essential and indispensable (“horizontalâ€) interrelation among the church members. (3) While Christ provides for the body as a whole and makes it a unity, and while the body grows as a unit – no individual growth is mentioned here – the distinct personality of each church member is not wiped out but rather established by Christ’s rulership and the church’s community. What Christ is, does, and gives, is appropriate “to the needs†(lit. “to the measureâ€) “of each single part.†If the only things affirmed in Eph 4:16 were Christ’s own activity, Christ’s rule over all Christians, Christ’s relationship to the community, then this verse would have been phrased more clearly in Greek and could be more easily interpreted in a modern language. But in this verse there are several accents, not just one: the church’s and each member’s responsive activity is not only recognized or tolerated but receives an emphasis of its own: “The body makes its own growth so that it builds itself up in love.†(Markus Barth, Ephesians: Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4-6, Anchor Bible 34a, Garden City: Doubleday: 1974, 446-47)
As simple as knowing, hearing, and responding
Felicity at “Simple Church” wrote a very succinct, but thought-provoking post called “The One Key Skill in Simple Church.” She begins with this:
One of the main paradigm shifts within this movement of simple churches is the belief that ordinary men and women hear God. They can be entrusted with the affairs of the Kingdom. It does not need specially trained people to manage the church. The Holy Spirit is able to run the church by speaking directly to His people.  He will do a far better job of it than our organizations and denominations ever can.
Within simple church, we like to say that church is as simple as knowing God, hearing His voice and responding to what He tells us. Jesus is head of His church, and if we believe that we are to take this literally, it means that both at an individual and at a corporate level, He desires to communicate with us. It also presupposes that we have the ability to recognize His voice when He is speaking to us.
What Felicity is saying here is very similar to what I said in my post “Justification and the Church Meeting.” Those who have been saved, justified, indwelled, born again, etc. have everything necessary to be a functioning part of the church and even to take part (speaking and serving) in a church meeting.
In fact, most Christians would agree with what Felicity said… in theory. But, when it comes to practice, many feel that they must protect the church from themselves. That someone may say or do something wrong… unhelpful… selfish… heretical… etc. Therefore, only certain people are allowed to speak / serve when the church meets.
When I read Felicity’s post, I began asking myself these questions: Do I really trust God with his people and his church and his kingdom? Do I really believe that Jesus can build his church better than I can? Do I really believe that the Spirit can use any of God’s children to speak to or serve me and others in a way that helps me grow in maturity?
And finally this question: Is my life with my brothers and sisters in Christ demonstrating that I REALLY believe these things?
Sanctification and the Church Meeting
In my previous post “Justification and the Church Meeting,” I discussed how the doctrine of justification should intersect our ecclesiology (the study of the church) and even influence how we act when the church gathers together. Today, I want to think about a similar doctrine: sanctification.
There are two ways to understand sanctification which are somewhat related. “Sanctification” refers to the idea that some things have been set apart for God. “Sanctify” is the verbal form of the nouns “holy” and “saints.” Thus, in a very real way, we are sanctified (i.e. set apart) when we are justified.
This is not a unique concept for Christianity. Almost all religions include the concept of some things being “set apart” for their god or gods.
Most of the New Testament passages that include the language of “sanctification” refer to it in this sense – that is, as something that has already been set apart:
You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred [i.e., sanctified]? (Matthew 23:17 ESV)
And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. (Acts 20:32 ESV)
But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (Romans 15:15-16 ESV)
Both the one who makes men holy [i.e., sanctifies] and those who are made holy [i.e., sanctified] are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. (Hebrews 2:11 ESV)
In these instances, the term “sanctification” is very similar to the term “justification.”
However, the term “sanctification” is typically used today to refer to the process of discipleship, growth, or maturity. In this sense, the term refers less to our identity, that to the process of living according to that identity. There are a few places in Scripture that use the term in this sense:
Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy [i.e., sanctified], useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. (2 Timothy 2:21 ESV)
But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:12-14 ESV)
Since I have already discussed the relationship of justification to the church meeting, in this post I want to consider the relationship of the process of sanctification (discipleship, growth, or maturity) to the church meeting.
First, as I said in the previous post, a certain level of sanctification is not necessary for someone to take part in the church meeting. The person who is justified is also indwelled and gifted by the Spirit and thus has everything necessary to take part in a church meeting.
Second, we should recognize that sanctification is the goal of the church meeting. We meet together in order to help one another grow in maturity in Christ Jesus. This is a community activity (many believers speaking and serving together) with community growth as the goal (many believers being “sanctified” in the sense of being discipled).
Obviously, we can grow in maturity on our own when we are not meeting with the church. Thus, we can be sanctified in this sense without anyone else around. But, when the church gathers together, we are no longer only concerned about our own personal growth; we are concerned about the growth (sanctification) of the entire church. We recognize that we grow in maturity as the church grows in maturity.
This type of community sanctification is what the author of Hebrews had in mind when he wrote:
And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:24-25 ESV)
In Hebrews, the concept of “encouragement” is very similar to (if not synonymous with) “sanctification.” For the author of Hebrews, “encouragement” includes moving away from undesirable actions and thoughts (see Hebrew 3:13 for an example) and moving toward desirable actions and thoughts (such as “love and good works” in Hebrews 10:24). Thus, the act of “encouragement” leads to our sanctification, that is, our mutual growth in maturity towards Christ as our goal.
Thus, when we meet together, we don’t rely solely on the “most sanctified” or “most discipled”. Instead, any who are justified can help the church. However, our goal is mutual sanctification… seeing the church as a whole growing toward living the life that Christ modeled for us.
All felt themselves an important part of being together
Art from “Church Task Force” left the following as a comment on my post “The weaker are indispensable“:
At what great cost have we gained so little. We have ruled out 95% of the life of a family in our formality and in our quest to keep up appearances that meet the world’s approval.
I think we need to look past sizing up the importance of contributions–and the methods of these contributions–based on how they make us appear in the eyes of the world (and the eyes of those who are careless in their journey). Is speaking the only way to function (must all be mouths)?
And we cannot do this without also considering the environment we craft and choose for our gathering. I mean both physically and the atmosphere we create by our level of formality. Just the idea that a meeting “starts†and now everyone must shut up, only 1 person may speak from here on, and everyone must give undivided attention, and no one must move or do anything without permission–oh how very weird for a family to act like this together! These have a great impact in shutting out the natural functions of these important members of His body.
Sure, at a family reunion, someone may ask for everyone’s attention for a few moments. But it would be rare. Most often, people cuddle up in groups and jabber away, sometimes dragging someone over to join in on some particular point. No one is excluded from functioning in the most natural ways.
Look around, and you will see love and tenderness being meted out generously. You will see the young caring for the old, the children laughing and playing with freedom and security, the men sometimes pulling aside, the women, too, but the gathering continues to flex and flow as everyone interacts, gives, receives, appreciates, enjoys, loves.
There was one family, but it was not a singular meeting in an artificial, formal manner, and so all contributed in constantly shifting collections of people. Think back and recall the family times together with uncles and aunts and nieces, cousins, and nephews and gramma and grampa. Remember the chaotic, ordered, joy of being together? Who has such thoughts of Sundays at 11 AM to noon?
In the end, everyone was fed a meal, everyone found acceptance, everyone contributed in many ways at various opportunities that presented themselves quite naturally throughout the time together. Service–caring for the needs of others–is highly valued and esteemed in these families. All felt themselves an important part of being together; all had a place. Even those unskilled in public oratory.
If the church is a family (and I think it is, not just metaphorically, but really), then shouldn’t we look and act like a family, even when we meet together? One of the great things about what Art said above is that it is often difficult to tell where he’s talking about a family reunion and where he’s talking about a church meeting.