Why We Gather: Part III

Over the last two posts, we’ve discovered why the church gathers. In Part I, we examined several prototypical models of the Christian gathering. In Part II, we zoomed into the New Testament to examine common themes important to the assembly in the first century.

Putting everything together, we understand that the reason Christians gather is primarily to build one another up in the Lord. We learned that this happens as believers share grace with one another in loving, communal fellowship. It gathers for these reasons because its purpose is a reflection of its founder, Jesus Christ. It’s through this practice of giving and receiving grace amid thousands of humble kingdom communities across the earth that the Lord builds His Kingdom.

This is why the church gathers.

But for the last 2,000 years, the church has collected a lot of practices. While some are beneficial, some can distract us from the Lord’s purpose for His gathering.

In this final post of the series, we’ll imagine a concept of what a Christian gathering might look like based solely on what we’ve learned in the previous two posts. We’ll also juxtapose this idea with several common practices and spend time de-constructing the thinking that led to them.

There’s a lot of what I’m going to mention that will be hard to accept. Some of it will be difficult to envision. I bring these things up not to offend anyone or any particular Christian tradition, but rather for us to thoughtfully consider our manner of gathering so that they might better align with their timeless purpose.

I thank you in advance for your grace. As always, I invite you to share your thoughts.

So where do we begin?

Maybe a good place to start is with what we’re most familiar with.

The Common Church Experience

When I mention the term “worship service”, what comes to mind?

For most of us, the Sunday morning gathering is a relatively predictable set of activities. While order, formality, and exuberance may vary from church to church, the typical gathering will go something like this:

After arriving on Sunday morning, you might engage in some small talk with friends.
At the appointed time, everyone will gather (physically or virtually) in a large room designed to hold the entire congregation.
As the service begins, a few preselected songs will be sung.
After announcements, a few more preselected songs might be sung.
The congregation might be led to recite one of the creeds, read scriptures, or engage in responsive readings or prayer.
The priest/pastor/minister will give a homily/sermon/lesson on a scriptural or moral topic.
Prayers may be offered by a leader on behalf of the congregation.
An offering will be taken.
The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper/Communion may be offered.
Closing prayers or invitations will be offered
Lastly, the congregation will be released to go home.
From beginning to end, roles are clearly divided into two types—the leaders who create and deliver the ministry product, and those in the audience who participate in and consume it.

Does this sound familiar?

For most of us, the Sunday morning service is a ritual. The term ritual may seem cold—as if to imply a lifeless gathering. But whether the gathering is dead or very much alive, the definition is technically accurate. Each week, Christians throughout the world gather to repeat an ordered set of activities in our gatherings. While the songs and lessons may change, the order and elements remain fixed from week to week.

First, let me say that there’s nothing inherently bad about this way of gathering. It can be very beneficial. I grew up gathering this way (as you probably did). It’s what we’re familiar with. Even now, I’m attending a church that’s highly liturgical, scripted, and ritualistic. I will tell you that I’ve sincerely beheld the Lord in these gatherings and can honestly say that the He uses such gatherings to build His church.

But do the activities of this type of gathering best support the purpose of the Christian assembly? In other words, does this way of gathering support each member building up of the body by sharing grace in the context of a loving, authentic fellowship?

If we’re honest, I think answer to that question would be no.

Don’t get me wrong, traditional worship can benefit the body in various ways. It can allow large groups to focus on the Lord together. Scripted activities can also ensure important elements of a Christian gathering avoid neglect. It can even allow visitors and even non-believers to fully “participate” in the gathering without preparation. But if the reason Christians gather is for each believer to share grace, demonstrate love to one another, and grow in authentic fellowship, such things will be nearly impossible to do during a traditional Sunday service.

The Word of God (Jesus Christ) is living and active. This means that He is present in our gatherings, guiding our engagement with others as we follow His movement. When we only gather according to a script, we run the risk of restricting the authentic Life of the Lord found in the sharing of grace. When we limit our gatherings to only what’s allowed in the script (as beautiful and familiar as that script may be), we can miss out on what the Lord may seek to offer outside of it. Traditional gatherings can become a “church on rails”—incapable of pivoting in a life-giving direction when necessary. Such restrictions can deprive the body of something the Lord wants to offer.

Where there’s misalignment between the manner and purpose of our gatherings, it’s not unreasonable to seek (or even create) spaces that allow the active Life of God to flow.

Early Inflection Point

Before we go further, now would be a good place to address a common objection…

“Mike, are you suggesting that the way that nearly every church does Sunday worship is somehow skewed? Our worship practices have remained essentially unchanged since the time of the early church. Because the church holds strongly to tradition, Sunday morning represent the way God intended for His church to gather.”

This is a good point, but it’s important to qualify what we mean by the early church. If by early you mean “since around the 4^th century”, I might agree.

But as we see from scripture, the church from roughly 30AD to 80AD was not the ritualistic observance we see today, but rather a family gathering filled with a wonderful mix of encouragement, support, sharing, love, and praise. It was diverse, dynamic, flexible, and spontaneous. While involving every member, it centered on the life and presence of their Lord. There may have been liturgical elements that were integrated at natural points in the gathering (such as specific prayers, early creeds, and a fellowship meal). But such elements would have taken a back seat to the life-giving interaction among members of the gathering.

But starting around the beginning of the second century the nature of the Christian gathering changed. While the fervor of the church would remain over the next few hundred years, the gathering itself would shift from being a lively and interactive family gathering to a formal ritual observance. While the exact formula for this observance would change over the centuries, but the most radical changes would occur during the first hundred years of the church’s existence.

How did this happen? Unfortunately, there’s little recorded in the late first century for historians to understand exactly how and why this shift occurred. But theologians and academics aren’t without their theories. In his book The Torch of the Testimony, John Kennedy writes,

“…(But) what was the outward reason for (these changes)? The outward reason for the majority of ecclesiastical changes was simply expediency. When the Lordship of Christ ceases to be the impetus of the church, and self-sufficient man takes over, there are bound to be changes in the spiritual pattern which suggest themselves in the name of efficiency, for the spiritual pattern just does not work when man, and not God, is in control.”

In other words, as leadership drifted away from the living Christ toward human polity, changes in how the church gathered would be inevitable. His ways are not our ways. Christ will always lead us to love, freedom, dependence, and sacrifice through the gracious supply of His divine life. Human thinking will always seek efficiency, expediency, systematization, doctrinal precision, and control. This shift is evident in the post-apostolic literature which reflects a much greater interest in things like church discipline, church polity, and sacramental forms that it does the radical freedom and practical focus on Christ that dominated Paul’s epistles.

While the mechanics of this shift aren’t exactly clear, I have a working theory goes something like this:

First, we read from much of Paul’s writings how much he struggled with the Judaizers over the ideas of justification by faith and the complete freedom found in Christ. We note that this conflict was a persistent uphill battle for Paul throughout most of his ministry. Absolute freedom in the Messiah was such a radical concept to Jewish ears that the apostles themselves would even have to struggle with it (Acts 10:9-35; Acts 15:1-20; Gal. 2:11-14).

After Paul was executed and most other apostles passed on to glory, it seems the Judaizing Christians would remain a strong influence in the church. Through subtle but persistent influence, the early church began to re-introduce elements of their worship style (since it was so familiar to Jewish and God-fearing Gentile believers). Over time, the church gathering to be more synagogue-like and liturgically heavy in its gatherings. Recall the description of the first century synagogue service from the previous post and note its similarities to the “order of worship” we use every Sunday.

Again, this is my theory. But I think it’s safe to say that, while many of the church’s practices are indeed ancient, they borrow much more from first century Jewish synagogue worship than they do from the earliest Christian gatherings we see described in Paul’s epistles.

Gathering to Build

So, what if we hit reset on our common church experience and began gathering in a way that supported its intended purpose? What would that look like?

The apostle Paul had arguably the greatest insight into the Lord’s purpose for the church’s gathering. Having been a staunch Pharisee, he could have easily structured the churches he planted around the patterns of synagogue style worship. But he didn’t. When Paul planted churches, he was very practical in this regard. He recognized that absolute freedom in Christ would require a new way of meeting that allowed divine life to flow unrestricted. Passages like Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 11-14; and Colossians 3:1-17 show us that the earliest churches focused on activities that supported mutual edification (building up) of the body. In fact, Paul is explicit when he said,

Let all things be done for building up.

– 1 Corinthians 14:26b (ESV)

Also, it’s interesting to note there were no special offices in the church during that time—only special graces. Some churches had ‘elders’ (older ones) that offered a level of spiritual maturity and insight. But their role was merely to provide oversight to the flock, not to hold exclusive responsibility to perform religious duties that we see in today’s religious professional. Instead, Paul instructed each member to share the grace that they had been given (1 Cor. 14:26a). Recall from the previous post that grace is incredibly broad. It’s not limited to a specific list of activities.

Given all this, what would a gathering like this look like?

I think it would look like anything that might happen when a group of mature believers assembled in the name of Christ.

It could look like…

A couple of saints meeting in fellowship over coffee,
An office lunch break with other believers to encourage one another in Christ,
Several families building one another up in a home under the headship of Christ,
Praise and adoration for our King through song,
Sharing a word of encouragement from the scriptures,
Love, respect, and practical assistance toward others,
Seeking the Lord through intercessory prayer,
Thanksgiving offered to the Lord for realized blessings,
A shared meal with which we spiritually ‘feed on Christ’ and remember His sacrifice and enduring presence,
A hymn or song exalting Christ as redeemer,
A demonstration of love,
Deference and grace to another who is angry and hurting,
A gathering to help the less fortunate in a practical way,
A word of encouragement taken from the scriptures,
Planning, dreaming, and imagining how the Kingdom might engage the surrounding community,
A song or poem shared that extols the glories of Christ,
A confession of sin reciprocated by a reminder of forgiveness through the finished work of Christ,
A recognition and reminder our infinite value in the Lord,
Prayers for deliverance from strongholds and besetting sins,
Rest and safety amid a close-knit family,
A miraculous healing,
A sense of true belonging,
A sharing of joy and an entering into another’s pain,
Listening together for the words of the Spirit,
A group of people helping the less fortunate in the name of Christ,
A shared hope in the future resurrection of the whole of creation, and
Absolute freedom shaped by the infinite glory of the King.

It might look like any of these things and so much more—a kaleidoscope of fellowship, grace, and love. The colors, shades, and hues of the Lord’s manifold grace would change at different times of the meeting and in different seasons of the gathering. There would be no set pattern as the activity would be led by the life of the Lord as He guides and empowers each member. Members would behold the King as they behold one another. No two gatherings would be the same.

The picture I’m attempting to describe is a gathering that is not scripted, but rather diverse, dynamic, flexible, and spontaneous. (After all, isn’t the church indwelt by the Life of Christ who is diverse, dynamic, flexible, and spontaneous?) His diversity is demonstrated through facets of grace as distributed by the Spirit and shared amid the body. His dynamic nature is demonstrated by the fluidity of His Spirit as He blows where He wishes—always seeking to glorify the Father and the Son. His spontaneity is reflected in His desire to engage us in the present, to meet our immediate needs as we seek Him moment by moment. Each assembly would be as infinitely unique and glorious as the life of the Lord Himself.

Under this broader and more generous paradigm, the gathering would no longer be limited to a couple hours on a Sunday morning. There would be no sacred venues, no required activities, no special offices, no roll taken, no designated form, and no prohibitions. There would also be no formal beginning or ending to the gathering. Just like a close-knit family assembling at the dinner table every evening, the act of gathering would merely demonstrate a constructive confluence of the life that each member spent with Christ during the week.

Of course, details such as time, location, and frequency would have to be worked out. That said, there is incredible flexibility and variety in how we might gather. At its core, “church” is nothing more than what happens when a group of believers gather in dependence on the Lord to intentionally pursue, demonstrate, and proclaim His life.

The Worship Fallacy

That said, let’s address another common misunderstanding…

“Mike, you talk a lot about ‘sharing grace’ and ‘building up’ our assemblies, but isn’t the main purpose of a Sunday morning to praise and worship the Lord? Shouldn’t we focus on worship activities in our gatherings and leave that sharing stuff for a separate ‘off the clock’ gathering?”

Let’s talk about worship.

Worship is one of those words that we use so often that we presume everyone agrees on its meaning. For some, worship is synonymous with Sunday morning church attendance. We say things like “I’m going to worship on Sunday” or “come worship with us”. But more specifically, we understand worship as the direct and intentional adoration and praise of God. Most of us associate this with the traditional activities of the Sunday church service.

First, let me say that sincere adoration and praise of the Lord would certainly be a part of church gatherings. When we’re confronted with the truth of God—his root character, what He has done, what He is doing now, and the hope that He offers, our natural response is to love Him back. This is good! However, there’s nothing in scripture that would suggest this to be the sole (or even primary) activity of the Christian gathering.

If you pick up an NIV concordance, the English word “worship” is used 70 times in the New Testament. But not all these words are translated from the same Greek word. The most prominent Greek word translated “worship” is proskuneo (προσκυνέω). This word is derived from a Hebrew word which literally means “to bow low to kiss the ground before”. If not literal, this word signifies a profound reference or submission to its object. Another word prominently translated as “worship” is sebo (σέβω). Whereas proskuneo indicates the actions and activity of worship, sebo emphasizes the attitude of reverence and respect. The third most common word translated worship is latreuo (λατρεύω). This word has less to do with the common idea of worship and more to do with serving, service, sacred duty or offering that could be associated with a worship ritual.

What I find interesting is that there are surprisingly few instances of the word “worship” (in any form) in passages whose context relates to the post-ascension, pre-return Christian gathering. In fact, I can find only six such references: Acts 13:2, 24:14; Romans 12:1; 1 Cor. 14:25; 1 Tim. 2:10; and Hebrews 12:28. Of these, only 1 Cor. 14:25 uses the word proskuneo. All the others (except 1 Tim. 2:10) use latreuo, which is more accurately translated “to serve” or “offer service”. Lastly, the words translated “worship” in 1 Tim. 2:10 is from the Greek phrase “theosebeian di’ ergon agathon” which literally means “the fear of God through good works”.

To me, the Greek used in these verses suggest a pronounced shift in post-ascension Christianity from worship as a ritualistic expression associated with Hebrew tradition to worship as voluntary works of service. This is most clearly captured by Paul when he wrote:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.

– Romans 12:1 (NIV)

Worship of this kind is not limited to the gathering of the church. Robert Banks, in his book Paul’s Idea of Community, reminds us that “worship involves the whole of one’s life, every word and action, and knows no special place or time.” In other words, every good and proper thing the Christian does should be thought of as worship.

Over the last century or two, Bible scholars have been puzzled by the scripture’s lack of emphasis placed on the traditional concept of worship during early Christian gatherings. This may be because we’ve presumed it there based on contemporary church practice. In other words, we may be guilty of eisegeting our traditional concept of worship into scripture.

But my point is not to dispense with the notion of offering praise and adoration to our Lord in our church gatherings. Far from it! Rather, it’s to put adoration in its proper place as one important “ingredient” among a diverse, dynamic, and spontaneous set of ingredients that the Lord directs us into as we gather.

The Evolving Church

There’s another argument that I’ve heard that also needs addressing. It goes something like this…

“Paul only set up churches to share with one another as a stopgap measure until an episcopate could be established in the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries. Having a full-time bishop/priest/pastor and a hierarchical system of oversight was a much better setup to feed the flock than each individual church going it alone.”

This statement really depends on what we mean by better.

One can argue that these changes did offer improvements to the Christian enterprise. Certainly a sincere and godly bishop could offer the body leadership, stability, compassion, and spiritual wisdom. In the same way, a spiritually seasoned episcopate could protect the church against heresy and maintained unification and a proper focus.

Yet these developments would still create a problem. The problem wasn’t that these offices would evolve from what didn’t previously exist. However, they became a problem when the clerical class began displacing and consolidating the God-given responsibilities that had been distributed among all the members of the body. They became a problem when they began to assume a level of authority beyond what the Lord intended. This subtle shift created an unhealthy dependency on the clergy. Having been handed a liturgical script, the church would forget how to assemble as the Lord intended. Over time, the church would come to believe that spiritual nourishment came primarily through the clergy and various sacramental forms and not through the “one anotherings” that Paul advocates throughout his epistles.

So, was this consolidation of responsibility and authority better?

Whenever man attempts to improve upon the Lord’s design, it might appear to result in short-term advantages but always results in long-term losses. Did ecumenical councils save the world from widespread heresy, or did the church’s inclination toward expediency shift our attention from the Living Christ who energizes, empowers, and directs every member of His body in his enduring work? Of course, like in the Old Testament, the Lord will continue to work through man’s “improvements” despite their not representing the best of what He has to offer.

The Lord’s ways are not our ways. To believe that the church is better built up by a designated religious professional is to categorically ignore what Paul spent a lot of ink trying to communicate in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. It also ignores Jesus’ prohibition in Matthew 23:8-10 against re-establishing a priestly class whose role is to act as special spiritual intercessor between the Lord and His children. Make no mistake, the church was designed to be led, encouraged, and built-up by Christ through every member.

To understand this dynamic, it helps to think of the life of God as a multi-vitamin for the body of Christ. Just like a multi-vitamin, the Lord supplies what’s needed to build up His body by way of the different types of grace that’s shared among His children. Each member brings a different type of nutrient. Some people bring the spiritual equivalent of vitamin C. Others are good at supplying the spiritual equivalent of iron. Others, vitamin B12. Sometimes less vitamin D is necessary, but occasionally the body needs 1000% of the recommended daily allowance to heal it or correct some insufficiency. If we’re listening, the Lord is faithful to direct each of us in what to share so that the body stays healthy and is built up.

No single religious professional (no matter how caring or gifted) and no collection of scripted observances (no matter how beautiful or meaningful) can bring all the nutrients necessary for the body of Christ to thrive and fulfill its purpose.

It truly “takes a village” to build the church.

Chaos Theory

Of all the arguments against what I’m advocating, I think this one holds the most weight…

“For everyone to share their grace with one another in a gathering would be chaotic. The extroverts would be talking over and past one another. The introverts would never talk. Without a leader to help us stay on topic and encourage interaction, a meeting like this would be much less edifying than a traditional church service.”

I tend to agree with this statement. Christians don’t naturally know how to gather properly. I think the biggest reason is because a foundation was never laid to prepare the church to function as the Lord designed it.

When Paul planted a church, the very first thing he would do would be to lay a foundation of Christ (1 Cor. 3:10-11). In other words, he would spend three to six months putting Jesus at the front and center of the church. During that time, Paul would reveal the infinite depth, glory, and freedom of Christ to its members. He would teach the church to view the Lord as the living center, source, and supply of everything they did. Paul’s message was undoubtedly powerful, echoing what we read in the early chapters of Ephesians and Colossians. It was so powerful that each member would respond by setting aside their previous biases and preoccupations and fully surrender to the Lord and one another in love and close-knit fellowship. The love and glory of Christ, properly presented, simply compelled them.

After this foundation was laid Paul would “hand off” leadership to the Holy Spirit and leave town to continue his apostolic missionary work. The church would continue to gather under the direct headship of the Lord. Rather than having this foundation re-laid as new members were added, these new believers would simply be absorbed into the communal culture of a church that was living out these foundational truths in their gatherings. Occasionally, the church would have questions and reach out to Paul for some practical advice. Interestingly, we find Paul addressing chaotic meetings in 1 Cor. 14:17-33 as he gives instruction for how to properly “take turns” sharing grace in a gathering.

The Spirit is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). If we’re listening and following, He always guides the activities of these gatherings. Of course, all this assumes a level of spiritual maturity of those who gather. It also assumes the church has been prepared to gather in this way.

Unfortunately, it’s exceedingly rare for a church to have been properly planted by someone gifted in foundation building. Most often, the institutional church relies on ritual to assimilate its members. This may explain why so much of the church is immature, ineffective, and looks so little like Jesus.

For existing traditional churches to gather under this new paradigm requires a type of “reset” that goes beyond the scope of this post. In a previous post, I did share some lessons learned from when we attempted to have this kind of gathering in our home. I can tell you from experience that the habits and expectations of church tradition run deep, even among those who seek change.

Small Group Solution?

Some might be thinking…

“Wouldn’t the kind of gathering you’re describing be a better fit for a small group?”

Practically speaking, yes.

Recognizing that the Sunday morning service by itself is insufficient, some churches supplement body life with other more intimate gatherings throughout the week. These small groups can provide a much more flexible, agile, and intimate space to allow the life of the Lord as its shared among its members.

Unfortunately, most churches view the Sunday morning “corporate worship” gathering to be the focus of church participation–the “irreducible minimum” of church involvement. Since small groups are often viewed as supplementary programs of the church, they can suffer from vacillating interest and spotty attendance.

Also, small groups meet for all sorts of reasons. Some focus on studying scripture. Some are studies of books written by Christian authors. Some groups gather to hear a teaching from a church leader. Some focus on prayer. Some are spent ruminating on the pastor’s message from the previous Sunday. Some are “affinity groups” where believers gather over a common interest (sports, board games, skydiving, whatever) in the hopes of attracting non-believers to evangelize. Of course, there’s good in all of this. But just because a group of believers decides to meet outside the walls of a church doesn’t mean that they’re pursuing the Lord’s purpose in gathering.

A first century style small group gathering would need to be launched and facilitated with this purpose in mind. This would require a plurality of humble, spiritually mature facilitators who could lay a proper foundation. It would require a church that would allow the necessary autonomy for the Lord to operate. It would also require members who see the value in this kind of gathering and who are willing to see it through. Since it takes time to build relationships, such a group would not be an “eight-week course” but rather a long-term investment resulting in authentic fellowship. Rather than being viewed as a supplement to the traditional Sunday worship gathering, such gatherings would be considered the main event.

New Wineskins

Given all this, maybe it’s time to step outside the box and re-think what we call “church”.

I’m under no illusion that the Sunday morning worship and our preoccupation with that experience will ever reform itself to allow the kind of gathering that scripture promotes. Tradition is strong. That ship has sailed.

But recall from the previous post that Paul would have likely viewed any number of believers gathering in the name of the Lord is just as much “church” as the corporate Sunday morning gathering. The earliest church was autonomous under the Lord’s headship. But it didn’t take long for man to overstep his God-given role as overseer to assert authority over a “universal church”.

The church was never intended for the possession of any pastor, confession, denomination, or ecclesiastical body. Rather, the church has always been any number of people, gathering anywhere they could, to sincerely seek the living Christ and assemble in His name.

Perhaps it’s through such a lens that faithful believers might gather outside traditional settings to share grace and edify the body. Perhaps its only by stepping back into the forgotten territory of church history that the body can most fully demonstrate, proclaim, and embody the Kingdom.

First Things