Sitzerrecht: the rights of the one seated
Last week, in a comment on my post called “Order or Disorder?“, Jonas mentioned the term Sitzerrecht and the book The Radical Reformation by George Huntston Williams. The seminary library had this book, so I checked it out and have been looking through it for information concerning Sitzerrecht. I thought some of my readers would be interested in what Williams says about this topic.
First, in definition, Sitzerrecht (German) is also called lex sedentium (Latin) and the Rule of Paul. Specifically, it has less to do with interrupting a speaker – although it is certainly related. Instead, Sitzerrecht is a hermeneutical priciple. Here is how Williams explains this topic in the context of tongues and prophecy (by the way, he lists several different understandings of “prophet” and “prophecy” held by the magisterial reformers and the radical reformers):
Freedom of prophecy, in any case, anchored in 1 Cor. 14:29-31, became in the sixteenth century the scriptural sanction for committed inquiry into the meaning of Scripture over against the magisterium of the papal Church – the right of those duly converted and seated in the expectancy of guidance from the Holy Spirit to judge the meaning of disputed texts.
Paul, in 1 Cor. 14:29-34, facing the phenomenon of the gift of tongues, declared: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation [clarification] is made to another sitting (sedenti), let the first be silent.” Eventually the rule for speaking up in conventicle or synod in the face of opened Scripture would be called lex sedentium, in German: Sitzerrecht. Paul was, in this pericope, sorting out the rules for prophetic glossolalia and the proper order for congregational (or synodal) interpretation of the meaning of Scripture… The first to use the pericope as the basis of common prophecy (prophetia communis) or “prophesying” (the later English Puritan term) was evidently Zwingli. (518-519)
Yes, apparently the magesterial reformers as well as the radical reformers held a view of Sitzerrecht (the rights of the one seated) at first. In another part of the book, Williams explains the importance of this concept to Luther:
Pastors and teachers therefore should at all times be subject to hearers, for, citing 1 Thess. 5:21 about testing all things and holding fast to the good, Luther says that things must first be declared by teachers if they are to be tested by hearers, for Christians, unlike worldlings who command, in their mutuality are subject to each other, everyone the other’s judge (Matt. 20:26). Christian hearers not only have the power and right to judge, but they are also, he went on, under threat of forfeiting their favor with God if they do not do so. Luther cites here the warning about the false Christ, Matt. 24:4, “Take heed that no man deceive you”. Therefore, the congregation at Leisnig, and every true congregation (which is so because it has the Gospel), has the right and power, indeed bounden duty through baptism, to judge teaching, to identify the false prophet (preacher), and either flee from him or to dismiss him… [E]very Christian indeed has the obligation to confess, preach, and spread [the Word] in one of two ways: where there are no other true Christians, any Christian is bound to proclaim the good news; where, however, there are other Christians who have the same power and right, a person should not “thrust himself forward,” but should “let himself be called and drawn forth.” Luther attaches importance to a text soon to become very important among Anabaptists and other radicals (1 Cor. 11:4b), the scriptural locus for Sitzerrecht (lex sedentium), 1 Cor 14:30, “If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.” In other words, let the teacher be silent and a hearer rise to make an assessment. The layman may do this, Luther says, “Even without a call, because necessity knows no law,” observing further that if such is true for an individual Christian, how much more for an entire congregation. (145-146)
So, for Luther, while Sitzerrecht (lex sedentium) has application while a teacher is speaking, the primary application of this term is in understanding and applying Scripture – hermeneutics. For Luther, and Zwingli above, and most of the Anabaptists and other radical reformers, Sitzerrecht is a principle that teaches that all believers have the ability to understand Scripture and to weigh what another says concerning Scripture, even if that “other” is a teacher or preacher.
The question is, “Who determines what Scripture means?” Certainly, all would say that God determines the final meaning, but how do we understand this meaning? During the sixteenth century, there were three answers to this question: 1) the pope through the Roman Church, 2) the religious professional, and 3) the Christian congregation. The principle of Sitzerrecht puts the burder of understanind Scripture squarely in the domain of the congregation – with the assumption that the individuals assembled are indwelled by the Holy Spirit:
[These] appealed to what they and the radicals generally thought of as they Rule of Paul or the lex sedentium (Sitzerrecht), based on 1 Cor. 14:23ff. and with some support from 2 Pet. 1:19ff., namely the right of the whole Christian congregation, the laity with the divines [religous professionals], to judge difficult passages of Scripture together, not individually or professionally. The principle of inspired corporate interpretation of the Bible was the presupposition of much of the committed conversation within Anabaptism… as well as in magisterial Protestantism, but this interesting theological formulation would be eventually routinized or abandoned. (1256-1257)
Discussing the abandonment of Sitzerrecht by the magisterial reformers, Williams quotes an article by John H. Yoder (“The Hermeneutics of the Anabaptists,” MQR 41 (1967): 291-308):
He [Yoder] contrasts them [Anabaptists and other radical reformers] here with the other Reformers, who “abandoned their initial vision of the [Reformed] visible church, the hermeneutic community, and were obliged to shift the locus of infallibility to the inspired text and the technically qualified theological expert.” (1257)
Sometime during the 1500’s the magesterial reformers abandoned the idea of Sitzerrecht – that all believers have the right and duty to test teachers and determine the meaning of Scripture together – and embraced the principle that only a “technically qualified theological expert” could properly interpret Scripture for a gathered group of believers.
The idea that only a qualified expert can exegete and explain Scripture today is embraced by most congregations – even if it is not voiced as a hermeneutical principle by those same congregations. For this reason, the “sermon” and the “pulpit” are placed in a superior position to any other type of communication between believers. Since the sermon is now in a superior position – for many a sacrosanct or even sacramental position – Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor. 14:26ff. concerning interrupting a speaker are considered to not apply to sermons.
I agree that in many of today’s churches it would be distracting and not edifying to interrupt a teacher or preacher. I do not question whether or not this is socially or culturally acceptable. I still wonder, however, why interrupting a speaker – even a preacher – would not be considered scripturally acceptable.
Is there any indication in Scripture that the sermon should be immune from Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 14?
Why do you think the magesterial reformers abandoned the idea of Sitzerrecht – that any congregation of believers has the obligation to weigh teaching and interpret Scriptures?
Scripture… As We Live It #4
The fourth installment of “Scripture… As We Live It“:
And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting don’t forget to meet together in the church building every Sunday morning, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another let your leaders encourage you, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:24-25 remix)
Weekend of Service
This has been a very busy weekend. I’ve been trying to decide how to describe everything that happened this weekend, but I’ve come to the conclusion that its impossible. I’ll simply touch on a few highlights.
Friday night and Saturday morning, our family and some friends took part in the North Raleigh / Wake Forest Relay for Life for the American Cancer Society. We were able to raise more money than we had expected thanks to the generous donations of our families and friends. More importantly, Friday night, Margaret and another friends had the chance to serve dinner and dessert to almost 100 cancer survivors. They worked for a total of four hours while other people were enjoying the Relay for Life event. What a blessing and an example they are for us!
Saturday afternoon and evening, we helped a single friend of ours move. She moved in with another family who are also friends of ours. We are so encouraged that she asked for help, and that the family offered to help her in her living situation. Many people are too proud to ask for help, and many are too concerned about themselves and their family to open up their homes to others. God has surrounded us with some very special people.
Sunday, after our weekly church meeting, we had lunch with many of our friends. We were able to visit with some friends from Chicago that we have not seen in almost a year. As we were cleaning up, a man walked up and asked me about a deli near our meeting location. I told him the deli was closed. I asked if he needed something to eat, and he said yes. So, I invited him in to join us. Although everything had been packed up, several ladies grabbed their left-overs and fixed him a huge plate of food. As he ate, several people came over to introduce themselves and to ask him about himself. It was such a blessing to see my brothers and sisters demonstrating God’s love to someone they did not know.
When you come together…
So, today is Mother’s Day and Pentecost Day. We started the day by celebrating my wife – actually, we started celebrating yesterday, but Jeremy and Miranda gave her some gifts and cards this morning.
Then, we met with the church. Today, we were not able to meet in our normal location. We usually meet together in a rented reception room, but there was another event scheduled there today. So, a family offered to let us meet in their home. Actually, the plan was to meet in their backyard under the huge trees there. But, God had other plans – it rained.
So, we went to their house around 9:30 this morning and helped them set up chairs around their house – mainly in the living room and kitchen which are open to each other. We also through some pillows on the floor for the children to use.
Once everything was set up, and while we were waiting for other to arrive, we sang songs that the children chose. As others arrived, they suggested other songs, and we had a great group sing for several minutes.
When most people had arrived, I read Psalm 16 (we’re reading through Book 1 of the Psalms to start our Sunday morning meetings). One of our brothers led us in singing several songs – even one that he wrote. We also read Acts 1:1-11 and all of Acts 2 to remind us of the Day of Pentecost. I taught from Matthew 6:19-24, focusing on three questions: 1) What do you treasure? 2) What controls your perception of the things around you? 3) What is your master?
When I finished teaching, several brothers and sisters shared what God has been doing in their lives lately. It was encouraging to hear how God was teaching people to trust him in truth, not just in theory. I ended our teaching time by reading from 1 Corinthians 10:14-33. This passage was a great way to prepare for the Lord’s Supper, reminding us that we were planning to eat from the Lord’s Table, not from our table or the hosts’ table.
Next, we planned to baptize four people outside. But, since there was a chance of thunderstorms, we decided to baptize in our hosts’ garden tube. The families and a few others would join those being baptized in the bathroom, since everyone wouldn’t fit.
We ended our meeting with the Lord’s Supper. But, don’t think of this as a short ending. We broke a loaf of bread and shared it between us as we remembered the broken body of our Lord. Next, we poured from a common cup and remembered the blood of our Lord which brought us into the New Covenant. Finally, we shared a meal together, sharing the fellowship that we have through the Spirit.
After eating, we talked for a while. One couple asked us to pray for the wife and their newborn son, because they had both been sick. I talked to a few people about what God has been doing in their lives. A couple of people asked if they could talk to me further in the next few weeks. After talking and helping our hosts clean up, we left around 3:30. So, if someone were to ask me, “How long does your ‘church service’ last?” I would have to answer, “Somewhere between 2 and 6 hours…”
What a blast we had “coming together” with the church today!
When institutions get in the way
A couple of days ago, as part of a synchroblog, I published a post called “Give a little bit?” In response to that post, an anonymous commenter left the following comment:
Considering your concerns with “how we do church,” do you think this has an affect on how much we do for the poor, downtrodden, needy, etc?
For example, it is a well known fact that for most churches the offerings they receive are spent mostly upon staff and buildings. In my church approximately 85% of our annual giving goes to these things. This leaves only 15% for ministry in our church and for missions efforts. We do almost nothing for the poor.
And of course most people feel very obligated to support their church first, before anything else. I’d like to give to some other organizations that do work with those in need, but I feel bad about neglecting the “budget of the church.” And since I give about $600.00 a month of my income already (I know this isn’t really a great amount and would really like to do more eventually), it is hard at the time to find other money in my own budget to support other ministries besides the church.
Additionally, because the ministries of the church must run smoothly, most people are encouraged to give their time to the programs (aka ministries) of the church. Although these programs are not in and of themselves bad, in fact many of them are really good, they are mainly geared to those in the church. This leaves people very little time in an already busy life to show concern to the “outside” world.
Alot of the time it seems our resources are all used up (time, talent, and treasure) to “build” the church. But I sometimes wonder what we are really building and if it is really what Jesus had in mind for us to build.
So by the way we “do church,” it seems we have diminished people’s ability to share their time or their money with those in need outside of the church.
Does this make sense? There seems to be a corrolation to me. Maybe not always, but at least often. What do you think?
To answer the questions raised by the anonymous commenter: Yes, this does make sense, and yes, you are making the connection between “doing church” and believers’ abilities to model their life after Scripture.
Let me put it this way… I’m often asked if I’m against church programs or structures or organization. I’ve written about this before, but its worth another visit. I am not against church programs or structure or organization. I am concerned when programs, structures, organizations, and other institutional elements become equated with being the church or obeying God’s will for his children.
Let me explain… As the anonymous commenter described above, church organizations often encourage (or stronger) their members to give in order to maintain the organization. They are asked to give toward building more buildings, buying more literature, purchasing more equipment and supplies… and the giving is associate with giving in Scripture. But, in the New Testament, giving is always associated with people, especially people in need. Giving is not associated with church structures and organizations in Scripture. Thus, a person who gives to a church institution is not following the scriptural commands or the scriptural model of giving. Plus, if giving to a church organization means that the person does not have any money to give to people in need, then giving to the church organization is actually causing people to disobey.
But, this goes much farther than the realm of giving. Think about spending time with neighbors, coworkers, friends, family members, and others who need to see and hear a good news witness. If almost every moment is spent on “church activities”, then when do people have time for others? If we meet on Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night… then Tuesday night for “evangelism training”, then Friday night for “youth activities”, then Saturday for “children’s activities”… do we actually ever get around to spending time with the world – the ones who need a child of God in their lives the most?
When do we have time for fellowship? – not sharing a meal with 1000 other people, but sharing your life (and a meal) with a few. When do we have time for discipleship? – not listening to a professional teach for 30 – 45 minutes, but actually impacting the lives of other believers by spending time with them. When do we have time to teach and train our children? – not dropping them off in the nursery or children’s church or Sunday school, but actually taking the time to demonstrate a life of faith for them.
I am not against church institutions. However, institutions tend to become an end to themselves. When this happens – when the structures, organizations, meetings, and programs of the “church” become more important than edifying, discipling, fellowshiping… living a life of faith… then the institutions become dangerous and damaging to believers. The child of God thinks that he or she is obeying God and growing in maturity because he or she is taking part in the institutional programs. Instead, he or she may simply be growing closer to the institution. Being involved in the institutions replaces living a life of faith – trusting God for everything.
I am not against church institutions. But, I am much more in favor of believers living their lives in a manner that demonstrates their faith in God in everything that they do. Sometimes, church institutions hinder that kind of life.
Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology Lecture
Yesterday, I had the awesome opportunity to present a lecture on ecclesiology. Dave Black asked me to speak to one of his New Testament classes on the topic “How has my view of the church and issues related to the church changed in the last few years?”
Besides being honored by the opportunity to speak, I was also thrilled to be able to present a more complete view of my understanding of the church. Here on my blog and in occasional conversations, I usually talk about one or two specific issues related to the church, but I rarely have the opportunity to present an overview of my ecclesiology. I used this lecture as an opportunity to present a more complete explanation of my ecclesiology, as well as an explanation of why I began looking into issues related to the church.
I started the lecture by looking at a few issues of hermeneutics, and asking the following question: When it comes to ecclesiology, do we start with our practices and justify our practices from Scripture; or do we start with Scripture and allow Scripture to both inform and form our ecclesiology? I think the results of these two ways of approaching ecclesiology will lead to vastly different understandings of the church. I also discuss the nature of the church, the meeting of the church, the leaders of the church, and the work of the church.
If you are interested in hearing this lecture (and seeing the PowerPoint presentation that went along with the lecture). you will find links here: www.alanknox.net/resources. Please, pay no attention to the web site. I am not ready to make this site public, but I needed a location to store these files. If you have a comment concerning the lecture or the notes, feel free to leave the comment here.
A different kind of building
When someone builds a building, when it is complete, at that moment it is the most resplendent that it will ever be, barring future improvement. From the moment that the building ceases, the edifice begins to deteriorate. Thus, when the building stops, the unbuilding begins. This is the nature of our fallen world.
When construction was completed on Solomon’s Temple and when the temple was dedicated, the temple was as beautiful and as perfect as it would ever be. The wood was now rotting. The stone began to crack and chip. The gold would flake off. In other words, the building would begin to unbuild itself. As you read the biblical account, you will see that there were many instances where people repaired the temple because it was falling apart.
There is a different kind of building – a building that does not unbuild – a building that does not fall apart as soon as construction is complete. In fact, this building continues to become more and more complete. It does not deteriorate. Instead, its beauty is continuously growing. What building? You and me and the entire building of God – the church.
This is what Paul wrote in Ephesians:
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22 ESV)
Unlike other buildings, the household of God – the building of God – the temple of God is not build on dead stone or earth. It is built on a living, breathing Lord. The whole edifice being built, is joined together, and is growing because of Jesus Christ and him alone. Notice the emphatic phrase “Christ Jesus himself”, and then the two relative clauses”in whom” and “in him”. Since the Cornerstore is alive, the building is alive. Since the building is connected to Christ, the building continues to be built, continues to be joined together, and continues to grow. This building does not deteriorate; it grows more and more resplendent.
Unlike other buildings, this building is not made of dead material. Instead, this building – this dwelling place of God – is being built of living stones (as Peter puts it) – stones which have been given life by their Lord, who is also their architect, their builder, and their cornerstone. Paul combines the metaphors of building and gardening specifically because this is a different kind of building – a growing building – a living building. He combines these metaphors again in chapter 4:
[W]e are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:15-16 ESV)
He also combines these metaphors of construction and gardening in 1 Corinthians:
I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:6-11 ESV)
We are both God’s building and God’s field (or garden) because together we make up a living building – a building which is alive with the life of Christ and grows through the power and working of the Spirit. This is truly a different kind of building.
Commenting on this building, Peter O’Brien said the following in The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999):
There is a mixture of building and organic images in the statement that the whole structure is ‘being joined together’ and is ‘growing’ into a holy temple in the Lord. The cornerstone unites the building ‘because it is organically as well as structurally bound to it’. So to speak of the building being joined together refers not simply to the union of one stone with another, but also to the union of the whole structure with (and in) the cornerstone. Both verbs, which occur again in 4:15, 16, focus on the idea of continuous progress. There, in a similar mixing of metaphors, the body is ‘joined together’ and ‘built up’ from Christ the head. (pg. 219 – emphasis in original)
The building exists because of Christ, who is both the head and the cornerstone. The building is joined together because of Christ. And the building grows because of Christ. Just as he has given life to dead people (Ephesians 2:1-10), he has also given life to a dead building.
O’Brien said that the two verbs “joined together” and “built up” focus on continuous progress. Thus, this building – which is built, joined together, and growing – is continuously progressing and continuously growing and continuously becoming more beautiful toward some final outcome. What is the goal of this progress?
…until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ… (Ephesians 4:13 ESV)
The final outcome of this building progression will be complete unity – both with one another and with God – and complete maturity – measured against Christ himself. We are progressing, but we are not there yet. How beautiful this building will be when we reach unity and maturity! Of course, there is still much disunity and immaturity today. But, how amazing it is to be part of this dwelling place of God – a growing, changing, moving, working temple – which is an altogether different kind of building.
Attendees or Ministers?
Recently, a friend of Jeremy’s (my son) used a word that I had not heard before: Chreaster. Apparently, a Chreaster is someone who attends church meetings on special holidays like Christmas and Easter, thus “Chreaster”. In a recent article about Chreasters, a reporter comments:
The usual response of church leaders is, “Oh, well, at least they get it right twice a year.”
I understand his comment, and I agree that this is probably the usual response of many church leaders. Many are excited to have extra attendees on special holidays, and most would admit that its better for people to attend twice a year than never attend at all.
However, I think this response reveals a mistaken understanding of the church meeting – assigning a sacramental value to merely attending a church meeting. In fact, I would suggest that there is very little value in merely attending any and every church meeting, even if someone attending every church meeting held during the year.
Yes, I realize that this is a broad and general statement. But, if our goal is for people to merely gather together, to listen and sing along to some songs and to listen to a sermon, then Chreasters and even regular attendees meet our goal.
But, if our purpose in meeting together is edification, then attendance at a meeting does not accomplish that goal. Instead of attenders, we should desire to see our meetings filled with servants (ministers) who use their spiritual gifts in order to build up one another and help one another grow in maturity toward Jesus Christ – whether there are two servants present or more. Attendance is not our purpose. Edification must be our purpose. (See my post “But I have perfect attendance…“.)
As I was thinking about the difference between attendance and mutual ministry, I remembered this passage from Peter O’Brien’s commentary The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) in the Pillar New Testament Commentary series. In this passage, O’Brien is discussing Ephesians 4:7-16, specifically vs 12-13, and the difference between the “special ministers” of 4:11 (apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers) and other “ministers”:
[T]he letter as a whole has emphasized Christ’s riches being received by all the saints (1:3; 3:20), while the immediate context of vv. 7-16 is framed by an insistence at the beginning of the paragraph that each believer was given ‘grace’ (v. 7), and at its conclusion that the whole body is growing from the head as each part (v. 16) does its work. If it is only the leaders of v. 11 who perfect the saints, do the work of ministry, and edify the body of Christ, then this is a departure from Paul’s usual insistence that every member is equipped for ministry. It is better, therefore, to regard those enumerated in v. 11 as helping and directing other members of the church so that all may carry out their several ministries for the good of the whole. (pg. 301, emphasis in original)
Thus, we can have as many attenders as we like, but they do nothing to edify the body. What we need, instead, are those who are willing to spend the time, energy, and preparation necessary to know others, to serve others, to help others, to teach others, to guide others, to speak to others, etc.
There are certainly times when I gather with the church in which I have nothing to say and nothing to do to serve others. This happens occasionally. There are times when God brings me together with other believers because I need to be served. However, if this happens week after week, month after month, year after year… there is something wrong. God brings me together with other believers to benefit them, not only for my own benefit and certainly not to simply attend a meeting.
Helping Chreasters become regular attenders may be good, but it is not the goal. Instead, we should help all believers use their gifts and give all believers opportunity to use their gifts to build up others during the meeting of the church. God does not call together attendees; he calls together ministers.
Summary Remarks about the House Church Workshop
Last Friday and Saturday, my son Jeremy and I attended a “House Church Workshop” in Smithfield, NC which was lead by Steve Atkerson and Tim Melvin from New Testament Restoration Fellowship. In this post, I want to share a few more quotes from the conference, many of which came from the conference introdcution by Steve Atkerson. Also, I want to add a few personal remarks concerning the conference. I am calling this “summary remarks” instead of “concluding remarks” because the conference has prompted futher thought in some areas that will probably result in more blog posts.
Steve Atkerson started the conference by explaining that this would be “A Wineskin Weekend”. In other words, we were going to discuss the church. He said that talk about the church was much like trying to describe a ball – it is difficult because does not have a start or an end, so you don’t always know where to start.
By the way, NTRF does not suggest that the church must meet in homes. They do teach that this is the pattern that is seen in the NT. In fact, they say that there are three aspects of the NT church that all churches should strive for (and meeting in homes is not one of these): the Lord’s Supper as a meal, participatory meetings, and elder-led congregational consensus.
“A Wineskin Weekend” meant that we would primarily be talking about the forms of the church. He brought out a couple of wine bottles – one empty and one full. He pointed out that the empty wine bottle had the correct form, but that it did not hold any wine. He said, “The wine is more important than the wineskin or the bottle. The bottle exists for the sake of the wine and not vice versa. The wine (our life in Christ) must come before the wineskin”.
This was a great way to start the conference and a great way to start any conversation about the church. The church is the people of God. The forms, methods, practices, etc. are all worthless if the church (the people of God) is not present in the forms, methods, practices, etc. In fact, I would say that the forms, methods, practices, etc. flow from our life in Christ and life with one another, and not vice versa. However, many times people expect the forms to create the life. I think this is backwards.
Steve also wanted to ensure that we did not misunderstand their feelings toward other methods and forms of the chuch. He said, “We are not saying that the ‘true church’ had ceased to exist, and we’ve finally found it. But, we’re suggesting that some wineskins are better for the wine than others”. I was glad to hear Steve voice this point. Any time the church gathers together there will be problems regardless of the forms, methods, etc. Why? Because any time people gather together there will be problems, and the church is people. We should not expect any church meeting to be perfect, and we should no expect all believers to meet together in the same way that we meet. This does not mean that all methods of meeting together are equally effective. But, it does mean that even the most ineffective meeting of the church is still a meeting of the church.
Further, in his introduction, Steve stressed that the things that they are suggesting are not new or innovative. Instead, he said, most scholars agree that the way NTRF describes the NT church meeting is the way that Scripture describes the NT church meeting. I have noticed this as well. As I have been studying and writing about the church as described in the New Testament, it has been fairly easy to find scholars who agree with my interpretation of Scripture. However, the difference is not in the interpretation of Scripture, but the application of Scripture. Scholars do not always agree that we can apply NT church practices to the modern day church. The reason? Culture. And, this leads to my last point from the conference.
Steve said, “Culture should not drive what the church does”. He said this in the context of Paul saying that he teaches the same thing “in all the churches”. I agree with this – culture does not drive church practices. However, culture does affect the way the church meets, even if culture is not the driving force behind it. Thus, churches in difference cultures may sing different songs. The speaker may choose to stand or sit based on culture. The clothing that the people wear depends upon the culture. These are cultural issues, and they affect how the church meets.
Because culture does affect the way the church meets, I have spent more time looking at the purpose of the church meeting and how that purpose should be carried out. For example, if Paul was serious in 1 Corinthians 14:26 (and I think he was), then the purpose of the church meeting is edification. Similarly, Paul says that edification is best accomplished when many believers exercise their spiritual gifts during the meeting of the church. The purpose of the meeting of the church (edification) and the way that purpose is carried out (participation of many believers) will not change from culture to culture. However, exactly what that meeting looks like may change from culture to culture.
While I do not mean to slight the teachers at the conference, there was very little new material presented for me. I had already studied many of the topics that they presented. However, the conference was still very profitable for me for several reasons.
First, I completely enjoyed spending that time with my son, Jeremy. I especially enjoyed our drive home after the Friday evening session of the conference. We talked about many of the topics from the conference but in much greater detail. All I will say that this point is that a fourteen year old boy can understand, explain, and apply much more than we usually give them credit for.
Second, I enjoyed meeting some old friends again. We were able to talk during the conference breaks and to discuss some of the topics further. I especially enjoyed hearing how different people were attempting to apply some of things that were being taught in the conference. And, I have to talk about lunch Saturday! It was awesome! Sharing food and fellowship with some dear brothers (and a sister) was challenging and encouraging.
Finally, I also enjoyed meeting some new brothers and sisters in Christ. I did not talk to anyone who was angry with the church or with church leaders. I did not talk to anyone who was hurt by the church or church leader. Instead, I only saw followers of Jesus Christ who had decided that it was important to follow Scripture when it comes to church practices just as they were attempting to follow Christ in other areas of their lives.
As I told my wife, it was encouraging to be able to spend some time with brothers and sisters who whose journey paralleled mine in this area. I thank God for this opportunity.
House Church Workshop
Session 1 – Apostolic Traditions
Session 2 – Participatory Church Meetings
Session 3 – Elder-Led Congregational Consensus
Session 4 – The Lord’s Supper
Summary Remarks
House Church Workshop – Session 2
This weekend, my son Jeremy and I are attending a House Church Workshop put on by New Testament Restoration Fellowship. Our friend, Lew from “The Pursuit” was able to attend the conference this morning. We also talked for a few minutes with Dusty from “Grace in the Triad” and Les from “Joining God in His Work“.
The notes below are from the second session called “Participatory Church Meetings” which was led by Steve Atkerson. These thoughts are primarily Steve’s, and not my own. I’ll be glad to interact with any of the information below in the comments.
———————————————————
Session 2 – Participatory Church Meetings
(Steve Atkerson)
Key passage is 1 Corinthians 14:26
What was this church meeting like? Diverse, spontaneous (not scripted), significant participation. The typical modern church removes the phrase “each one†and replaces them with the phrase “only oneâ€. This is not to be critical, but to demonstrate the contrast between what normally happens when the church meets and what is described in Scripture. Even if 1 Cor 14:26 is a criticism of what is happening in Corinth, his solution in the verses that follow do not do away with this standard. Instead, Paul’s instructions that follow vs. 26 reinforces this verse.
Acts 13:14-15
When Paul went to the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, he spoke during the meeting in spite of the fact that he was a complete stranger to them?
Acts 14:1ff.
A great multitude spoke during their synagogue meeting.
Acts 17:1-2
It was customary for Paul to go to the synagogue and reason with them during their meeting.
See also Acts 17:10-11, 17; Acts 18:4; Acts 19:8
The custom for these early Christian believers was to meet together in a way that was more participatory. Many people were allowed to speak and discuss issues in the synagogue – even strangers.
Activities in the early church:
– Singing
1 Corinthians 14:26; Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19
Each person chose songs to sing when the church met. One person did not choose all the songs. Gifted musicians are a great blessing to the church, but they should facilitate the singing; they should not dominate the meeting. Singing was part of the early church meeting (1 Cor 14:26), but it did not dominate the early church meeting.
– Teaching
1 Cor 14:26; Matt 28:19-20; Acts 2:42; Rom 12:7; 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11; 1 Tim 1:3, 2:11-15; James 3:1
Again, teaching was part of the early church meeting, but it did not dominate the meeting. Any of the believers had an opportunity to teach each time the church met. It does not appear that the church meeting is the time for heavy, in depth teaching. Instead, it looks like it was better to have several people teach a little than to have one person to teach a lot.
– Preaching
Acts 20:7 (not “preached†but “discuss or dialogâ€)
To preach in Scripture is to be a herald of the gospel. In the NT, preaching did not occur during a church meeting. Instead, preaching is associated with evangelism.
– Various charismatic gifts
1 Cor 14:26 (“revelations, tongues, and interpretationsâ€)
– Other activities
Acts 2:42 – prayer
1 Tim 4:13 – public reading of Scripture
Acts 14:26-27 – reports from missionaries
Edification
What is the prerequisite for anything that is said or done in a church meeting? It must be edifying. To be edifying means that it must build up the church – to encourage them, to help mature them. Just because it is a participatory meeting does not mean that anyone can say anything that they want to say. Leaders are there to work “behind the scenes†with those who speak or act in ways that are not edifying.
Leaders tend to make the church into whatever their gifts are. Because of this, leaders must be careful to make sure that they allow all people to use their gifts, not just use gifts that are like the leaders’ gifts.
Hebrews 10:24-25
This famous passage about “church meetings†assumes that there is a lot of “one another’ing†going on. You can have a significant impact on a church meeting by considering how to stir one another up before hand. This type of church meeting requires a lot of work for each person before the actual church meeting.
A Worship Service
Romans 12:1-2; John 4:21-24
The NT never refers to a church meeting as a worship service. To call a church meeting a “worship service†is to imply that the purpose of the meeting is to worship God. You can be edified in a “worship serviceâ€, but the traditional “worship service†is not the way that the NT says the church should edify itself. Everything that we do in life should be worship to God.
Tongues
1 Cor 14:27-28
Speaking in tongues does not have to happen when the church meets. If speaking in tongues does happen, then interpretation must happen. Only two or three people should speak in tongues – and only one at a time. Tongues must be interpreted so that it will edify the church. You can have a legitimate gift from God that God does not want you to exercise when the church meets.
Prophecy
1 Cor 14:29-33; 1 Thess 5:19-22
Two or three prophets should speak and the prophecies must be tried (judged or tested). Only one prophet could speak at a time so that the people can be edified. Prophets must be silent when another prophet stands to speak a prophecy. Again, there may be times when God reveals something to a prophet, but God does not want the prophet to exercise his gift when the church meets.
The Role of Women
1 Cor 14:33b-35
You have to do something with this passage. This seems to say that women should not speak when the church meets. But, more than expressing that women should be silent, this is a command for the men to ask questions, either their own questions or questions that their wives raise. This creates a dynamic silence that forces the men to act; it compels the men into leadership. Women will normally talk first, but God wants the men to take the leadership.
Two Questions
1 Cor 14:36
Did the word of God come forth from you? (No) Did the word of God come only to you? (No) These questions function to get the readers to obey what God is telling them through Paul.
The Lord’s Command
1 Cor 14:37
Verse 37 continues by saying that the ones who are prophets or who are spiritual will recognize that what Paul says here is actually God’s commands. If you do not follow God’s command, then the burden is on you to explain why.
The Penalty
1 Cor 14:28
While the meaning of this verse is unclear, it indicates that there is some penalty for ignoring what Paul is teaching.
Three Imperatives
1 Cor 14:39-40
1) Desire earnestly to prophesy
2) Do not forbid speaking in tongues
3) Let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner
A meeting of a smaller group of believers is more conducive to Paul’s teachings in 1 Cor 14:26-40. When you have more people, it starts hurting what happens when the church meets together.
What conclusions can be drawn from 1 Corinthians 14 about the way God desires church meetings to be conducted?
– Participatory – different people exercising their gifts
– Fitting and orderly – one at a time
– Edifying
– Following the Lord’s Command
House Church Workshop
Session 1 – Apostolic Traditions
Session 2 – Participatory Church Meetings
Session 3 – Elder-Led Congregational Consensus
Session 4 – The Lord’s Supper
Summary Remarks