Dave Black comments on Hebrews 10:24-25
Dave Black wrote this on his blog today concerning Hebrews 10:24-25:
Wow! Does this not suggest the character of our church meetings? Does this not teach us that we are to come together for the purpose of mutual edification? Does this not challenge our deeply entrenched views about “worship”? Should we not suspect The Message of a bit of eisegesis when it renders “let us not neglect our meeting together” as “not avoiding worshiping together”?
Paul’s point is crystal clear: We come together to encourage one another. How we can get “We come together to hear the Word of God preached” from these verses is beyond me.
Earlier in the day, he also wrote this concerning the phrase “corporate worship”:
I’d like to know where in the New Testament we are told to assemble for the purpose of “corporate worship.” Just thinking out loud. Yes, I know we have our worship teams, our worship guides, our worship services, our worship pastors. But could we be wrong about the whole notion of why we gather in the first place? Man, if we get something as basic as this wrong, just think of all the areas of ecclesiology we might be missing!
It is difficult to separate the spiritual from the secular in the first century
While discussing the current state of research into first century synagogues, Stephen Catto makes the following observation:
There would appear to be two major difficulties in addressing the area of worship practices in the first-century ‘synagogue’. The first is the lack of detail that we have on the subject, which should make us wary of overly confident assertions on practice. The second is defining what should or should not be considered worship. It is difficult to separate the spiritual from the secular in the first century, with any public act often having a religious element to it. (Catto, Stephen K. Reconstructing the First-Century Synagogue: A Critical Analysis of Current Research. New York: T&T Clark, 2007, pg. 106)
Certainly, we can do little about the detail of the evidence that we possess, however we can seriously consider that evidence. As Catto notes, in the evidence that we do have, the Jews of the first century did not make a distinction between the spiritual and the secular when it comes to worship. (Of course, the same could be said – and has been said many times – concerning other religious groups of the first century, including early Christians.)
This causes a problem for modern readers. Why? Because we DO make a distinction between the spiritual and the secular, and so we try to FIND that distinction in all historical evidence, including Scripture.
What would happen if we accepted (as those in the first century did) that there is no distinction between the spiritual and the secular, even when it comes to worship?
New Years Eve Worship Service
Today, a friend of mine asked if I could help him install a dishwasher for another family. So Jeremy and I joined our friend and his son. Actually, we mainly provided “muscle power” – carrying the dishwasher and loosening/tightening where he told us to.
But, serving someone else really was a great way to end the year. I’m trying to remember and learn from what Jesus said, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” (Matthew 9:13, 12:7; Hosea 6:6)
I think that would be a good lesson to carry over into the new year.
Wednesday Afternoon Worship Service
Last Saturday, our family visited with friends in “the Neighborhood.” We spent some time with Mrs. W. and her son B. We’ve known them and have been spending time with them for just over a year and a half. But, something different happened last Saturday.
Usually, after we talk to people for a while, we ask them if we can do anything for them. Mrs. W. has always answered, “No, we’re fine.”
But, Saturday, for the first time, she said that she could use some help cleaning her apartment. I told her that we could ask our friends to help us clean her apartment, but since it’s so close to Christmas and New Years, it may be a couple of weeks before we can do anything.
That was fine with her.
But, it was not fine for my wife Margaret.
So this afternoon, Margaret, our daughter, and a friend of ours went to Mrs. W.’s apartment and cleaned it – sweeping, mopping, dusting, picking up, everything she needed. This was a service that Mrs. W. can never return or repay! What a great example to all of us of worshiping God by serving someone in need!
Considering Mutuality – Introduction
According to one definition, mutuality is “a reciprocal relation between interdependent entities.” In fact, mutuality is directly related to a state of interdependency. For mutuality to exist between two or more individuals, the individuals involved must recognize that they depend upon one another.
Beginning a 1985 article, Leonard Swidler said:
What is the fundamental matrix within which humans must live if they are to lead mature lives? A simple, but momentous, question to which everyone has an answer, even if it is inarticulate or unconscious. In the contemporary world there are two very dominant but extremist answers abroad: individualism and collectivism. There are other, better, answers and in these reflections I want to put forward one that takes the best insights of the two extremes and puts them together in, I believe, a truly creative, humanizing way: mutuality. (“Mutuality: The Matrix for Mature Living,” Religion and Intellectual Life 3.1, Fall 1985, p. 105)
For the remainder of the article, Swidler considers mutuality from various perspectives: metaphysical, epistemological, psychological, and ethical. He concludes as follows:
How these principles of mutuality, relationality and dialogue, which are at the very foundation of our human existence, understanding and action, and hence at the core of our religiousness, are to be applied to the further building of the community of men and women is a matter of hard thinking, work and experience by many individuals and groups. Simply knowing these principles will not solve specific problems; they are myriad and unending. But knowing them should keep us from unconsciously resisting them – always to our distortion and destruction – and also provide us with starting points which orient us in the direction we need to move… (p. 119)
While Swidler’s article considers mutuality from the perspectives of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, and ethics, for the past few years, I have been considering mutuality from a different perspective: Scripture. I have become convinced (as has Swidler according to the title of his article) that mutuality is the matrix through which Christians grow toward maturity in Jesus Christ.
In this short series that I’m calling “Considering Mutuality,” I will be considering what it would mean for the church to lead mutual lives, as opposed to independent or collectivist lives. Note, as Swidler says in the quote above, all of us relate to one another in some way, whether we are aware of it or not. For those who desire to mature in Jesus Christ, and if the way we interact with one another affects our maturity in Christ, then it is important for us to consider how we relate to one another instead of relying on our culture or personality to form our default manner of interaction.
Again, as Swidler says, this is a “a matter of hard thinking, work and experience by many individuals and groups.” I certainly don’t intend to answer all of my (or my readers’) questions concerning mutuality in this short series of posts. Instead, I hope that this series can help us all begin to ask questions concerning mutuality, and how our lives either demonstrate or hinder mutuality.
Furthermore, if you conclude – as I have – that mutuality should be a characteristic of both the individual believer and the church, I hope that this series will also help us begin to consider our own manners of interactions, and how we – individually and as a church – can begin to relate in a manner that better demonstrates our mutual relationships – our interdependence.
Tuesday Night Worship Service
Its about 9:00 pm Tuesday night, and we’re just returning home from a Tuesday night worship service with the church. I hear some of you asking, “A Tuesday night worship service?” Yes. A Tuesday night worship service.
This afternoon and this evening after work, twenty or so of us gathered together and worked together to help Jason and Mandie (two of our friends) move. (By the way, Jason has an awesome post on his blog called “Lessons from Marriage.” He’s learning, as I have learned, that marriage can become our most important discipling relationship.)
One friend told me that he had a bad attitude all day. His attitude seemed fine when we were talking. Serving others has a tendency to do that because we take our minds off of ourselves and our circumstances.
So, that was our Tuesday night worship service… helping Jason and Mandie move.
Facebook Stati Ecclesiae
When I update my Facebook statuses (stati?), they usually fall under one of four categories:
1. Links to my blog posts.
2. Something humorous.
3. Things that I’m doing or have done.
4. Something about the church.
Sometimes, my status updates about the church lead to good discussions. Here are some Facebook statuses that I’ve written recently about the church:
—————————————————————————————————
1. “Members expected. Visitors welcome.” (from a sign in front of a church building) huh? If you’re getting together with us only because you think its expected of you, then you may as well stay home.
—————————————————————————————————
2. (From a discussion about discipleship…) “The church is full of Ethiopian eunuchs.” What do you think that statement means? Do you agree or disagree?
—————————————————————————————————
3. Quote from SYTYCD (“So You Think You Can Dance”) that every believer should be able to say about the church: “Everyone in my family has affected who I am in one way or another.”
—————————————————————————————————
4. “Exhort one another daily”… but today is Tuesday… What if I only see them on Sunday?
—————————————————————————————————
5. “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” hmmmm… which one will I demonstrate today?
—————————————————————————————————
6. Both the priest and the Levite thought they loved the injured man, but only the Samaritan truly loved him.
—————————————————————————————————
7. Wednesday night worship service and church activities = milking goats for our friends while they are out of town.
—————————————————————————————————
8. Are you a child of God? Then also consider yourself an ordained minister and missionary. Now, live accordingly.
—————————————————————————————————
9. If you can’t replace the word “ministry” with the word “service”, then you’re not using the word “ministry” in the same sense as Scripture.
—————————————————————————————————
10. Get out of “the ministry” and start ministering.
—————————————————————————————————
11. Today, the church agreed that there will be coffee shops in the new heavens and new earth. However, we quickly divided concerning the style / brand / roast of coffee that would be served.
—————————————————————————————————
12. The Lord’s Supper (intended to demonstrate our unity around a common table, among other things) is too often used to divide.
—————————————————————————————————
13. If the church in my house meets the church in your house while we’re all in the park, do we become the church in the park, or two churches in the park?
—————————————————————————————————
14. Discipleship requires sharing life. If you are preaching/teaching but not sharing your life, then you are not making disciples.
—————————————————————————————————
15. Spiritual maturity occurs primarily in community… and community can’t happen one or two days a week.
—————————————————————————————————
Well, there you have it… fifteen Facebook status updates… numbered for your convenience. Feel free to comment on any or all and to add your own thoughts.
21st Century Church Contest Entries
Energion’s blogging/essay contest is finished. All the submissions are in, and the judging has begun. I know, because I’m one of the judges. Without giving away my preferences or rankings, I thought I would share some thoughts from each essay (in the order listed by Energion):
From A. Amos Love’s submission:
This congregation of “Disciples of Christ,†“the ekklesia of God,†“ sons of God,†will;
Forsake all…
Love not the world…
Love not their own life…
Just want to know Him…
Count all things but dung…
Always take the lower place…
Make themselves of no reputation…
From Arthur Sido’s submission:
Scripture does not lay out a specific, liturgical schedule of events to govern the lives of believers nor is one desirable. All too often we have tried to push Scripture aside when it comes to the gathering of the New Covenant people as the church and replaced it with our own pragmatic solutions, rituals and traditions which may bring us comfort and a sense of being religious but bring little glory to God. Isn’t bringing glory to God what the gathering of the church is supposed to be about?
From Lew Ayotte’s submission:
When the Assembly of Christ is about building one another up, not dividing over leaders or denominations, focused on recognizing their own leaders, they will inherently be about fulfilling the Great Commission. In fact, I believe following Jesus’ command here may be like second nature to them. They will see the world through His eyes instead of their own. As the Assembly of Christ, reaching our neighbors will not be based on a program, chant, or weekly exercise… it will be according to Christ’s example. Each member in the assembly will recognize their responsibilities, although different, each one has an extremely important role.
From David Blanton’s submission:
Finally, a Jesus Christ ministry cannot help but look like Christ Jesus, the only mirror that is worth measuring itself against. What did the Good Samaritan look like? The parable never gave the listener a physical description because it wasn’t important. The only radical ministry is the one that has Christ Jesus as its center, who said to love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind. And love your neighbor as yourself. If a ministry does that, then it cannot help but look like a Jesus Christ ministry. Does the ministry look forward or backward or does it abstain from the obtuseness of looking anywhere but its center?
From Lionel Woods’ submission:
When the disciples met with Christ, He was modeling community before them. They asked “where are you staying†and He answered “come and seeâ€. From that day forward they lived in a community, sharing, eating, living amongst, and knowing one another. They would have looked at what we giggle at today as a cult. We think that type of life on life is appalling, idiotic, unnecessary, we believe that type of life is too radical, ridiculous, we cling on to our autonomy like it is a right, my friends it is not. We belong to a King. A King who has created us for this community a community to reflect who He is.
From James Lee’s submission:
This aptly demonstrates the need for our ministry to each other and provides a point of commonality that will equip us to be true salt and light in the world while loving each other. We cannot accomplish the tasks of discipleship and proclamation of the Gospel through political agendas, legislated morality, bully pulpits, and sectarian distinctions that scream we are right and you are wrong. We can only accomplish true ministry in this century through the power of Christ, His Holy Spirit, and a love for one another that strengthens us to face the enemy head on, and storm the gates of hell with the victory that was wrought in the spotless Lamb’s blood.
From Christopher Larson’s submission:
Such ministry will seek to avoid the two pitfalls of pragmatism on the one hand and self important hyper-spiritual perfection on the other. it will celebrate the freedom to do many things so that one thing might in the end be done, and it will celebrate all who share that calling as brothers and sisters in the ministry that takes many external forms, but in the end is one, (Pslam 119:63). Our goal will be to always ‘remember Jesus Christ’ in whatever form our work may take, and to know however difficult the path may seem He is Lord and He is not in chains, but freely working in and through us to bring forth a people for Himself, (2 Timothy 2:1-9).
I enjoyed all of the submissions. They all caused me to think about the church of Jesus Christ in the 21st century in different ways. I encourage you to read each of the essays.
Peterson’s concluding remarks on edification
One of my favorite books is David Peterson’s Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship. This book was very influential in my decision to continue my eduction toward a PhD. Peterson was able to present a biblical theology on a topic (my own area of interest) in a manner that is both scholarly and accessible. Also, this book intersects my own interests because Peterson includes a chapter called “Serving God in the Assembly of His People.” One section of this chapter even deals with edification, the topic of my dissertation.
Peterson calls the conclusion of that section “Concluding remarks on edification.” You could say that Peterson’s concluding remarks are the jumping off point for my own studies. When I read through this section again as I was working on my prospectus, I decided that I would share these few paragraphs with my reader. I hope this except is an encouragement to those who already agree that edification is the purpose of the church assembly, and a challenge to those who disagree:
The apostle regularly, but not exclusively, employs the terminology of edification to oppose individualism, either in the ethical sphere or in the sphere of congregational ministry. Edification is first and foremost the work of Christ, ‘fashioning the whole life of the Church in its members in faith, hope and love’. (G. Delling, Worship in the New Testament, London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1962, 40) As Christians utilize Christ’s gifts, made available through the Spirit, they participate in this divine activity and further God’s purpose for his people collectively. Although the edification of the church is a principle that should govern the thinking and behaviour of Christians in all circumstances, Paul normally employs this notion with reference to the activities of Christian assembly. When Christians gather together to minister to one another the truth of God in love, the church is manifested, maintained and advanced in God’s way.
The apostle’s teaching calls into question the validity and helpfulness of much contemporary thinking and practice in relation to church services. Mention has been made of the inappropriateness of designing out gatherings primarily to facilitate private communion with God. This can happen in Catholic, evangelical and charismatic traditions alike. Paul would urge us to meet in dependency on one another as the vehicles of God’s grace and to view the well-being and strengthening of the whole church as the primary aim of the gathering. There ought to be a real engagement with other believers in the context of mutual ministry, shared prayer and praise, not simply a friendly chat over a cup of coffee after church!
Again, 1 Corinthians 14 challenges the tendency of many Christian traditions to undervalue spontaneity and variety of input in the congregational gathering. Paul expected that members of the congregation would come with some contribution prepared for the occasion or that individuals might be prompted by the Spirit to offer prayer or praise or some other ministry on the spot. Ephesians 4 certainly indicates the importance of pastor-teachers in the equipment of God’s people for their work of building up the body of Christ, and the pastoral epistles highlight the teaching role of those identified as leaders in the congregation. However, as noted previously, there should be some public opportunity for spontaneous and informal ministries as well as for the ordered and prepared.
It is sometimes said that the size of our gatherings or the physical context makes it impossible to put such New Testament teaching into practice. People who argue this way show little imagination or willingness to reassess their traditions, even though others in the contemporary scene have found helpful solutions to these problems. It may be a matter of finding appropriate spots in the regular pattern of Sunday services where contributions can be made. It may be a matter of rearranging the furniture or encouraging people to gather together differently so that those who contribute can be more easily seen and heard.
Of course, it is equally possible to lose the vertical dimension and consider congregational meetings as little more than an occasion for human fellowship. The balance of Paul’s teaching suggests that we view mutual ministry as the context in which to engage with God. Edification and worship are different sides of the same coin. (pg 213-215)
To continue Peterson’s last paragraph (in my own words, not his), we worship God in our church gatherings when we mutually build up one another toward maturity in Christ. And what if we are not involved in mutual edification when the church assembles? What if we are not given that opportunity or if we do not take advantage of the opportunities that we are given? Are we worshiping?
Re-defining Worship
A few days ago, in a post called “Sabbath and Synagogue and Church,” I quoted from a book called Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism by Heather A. McKay (Leiden: Brill, 1994). In that book,McKay concludes, based on archaeological and manuscript evidence, that the Jews did not consider their synagogue meetings to be “worship,” at least, not around the time that the New Testament was written.
In yesterday’s post “Eating Together,” I quoted from the book Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (edited by I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson). In his chapter “The Influence of Jewish Worship on Luke’s Presentation of the Early Church,” Brad Blue concludes that the early church acted as a Jewish synagogue in most respects.
However, he does not think that McKay’s conclusion concerning worship carries over to the church. He says:
McKay contends that the Jewish community did not worship in the synagogue… Reading, studying and explaining sacred texts, according to her argument, did not constitute worship… [Next, Blue lists several activities that coincide between the early church meetings and synagogue meetings.] The church, then, was a Christian synagogue.
This takes us back to McKay’s assessment of the Jewish material since she argues that the practices of the synagogue community do not constitute worship. Must we infer that the early Christians did not worship or is McKay’s definition wanting? According to our study the latter is the case provided that our understanding of worship incorporates the activities of the early community including God’s communication with his people. (pg 496-497)
Thus, Blue concludes that the early church did meet to worship, if in our definition of worship we include the church meeting or the activities that took place during the church meeting.
But, I think Blue’s argument misses the main point. In McKay’s research, she found that neither Jews nor others writing about the Jewish practices described their synagogue meetings as times of worship. They did not use worship language for these meetings. They used worship language to describe other aspects of their lives, but not synagogue meetings.
I’ve found the same to be true when the New Testament authors discussed church meetings. They did not use worship terminology.
There is another problem, however. Blue sets up a false dilemma when he asks, “Must we infer that the early Christians did not worship or is McKay’s definition wanting?” In fact, the answer to both of these questions is, “No.”
McKay’s “definition” is simply a description of what she found in her research. So, her findings that the Jewish synagogues were not described as time or places of “worship” is not lacking.
Similarly, the early Christians did worship, but they did not consider their church meetings (the times when they gathered together with other believers) to be a special type or kind or place or time of worship. Instead, they recognized that their entire life was lived as worship to God. Certainly this included the times they met with other believers. But, it also included other activities as well.
Certainly, reading and discussing Scripture can be worship. Certainly, sharing a meal together can be worship. Certainly, praying for or with someone can be worship.
But, in the same way, the early Christians could also say that going to the marketplace can be worship. Reading Scripture alone can be worship. Praying or singing alone can be worship. Preparing and eating a meal for your family can be worship. Working to earn support for your family can be worship.
The New Testament authors were consistent in writing that the early Christians gathered together as the church in order to edify, encourage, comfort, etc. one another. I think they recognized that as they served their brothers and sisters in this way, they worshiped God.
But, they did not use worship terminology to distinguish their times of meeting together from other times in their lives. Perhaps they recognized that doing so would have re-defined what it means to worship God.
I think the church is experiencing the ramifications of this type of re-definition today.