| 5. The Sunday “worship service” is characterized by passivity among the laity with the Pastor or a select group of leaders doing nearly all the ministry. | Church meetings were participatory and interactive – every member had a function and contribution to make. (1Cor.12:4-27; 14:26; Eph.4:15-16; Rom.12:3-8; 1Pet.4:10-11; Heb.10:23-25; Rom.12:15; 1Cor.12:26) |
| 6. The Sunday morning worship service is characterized by a rigid and inflexible order of service. | Church meetings were characterized by informality, flexibility, and spontaneity. (Acts 20:7-12; 1Cor.14:26-31) |
| 7. The goal of the meeting is worship, listening to a sermon or evangelism. | The goal of the meeting was mutual edification. (1Cor.14:3,4,5,12,17,26; Eph.4:11-12,16; Heb.10:24-25) |
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Traditional Versus New Testament Church
I mentioned an article by Brian Anderson yesterday. He has several other articles at the Milpitas Bible Fellowship site, including a chart showing The Traditional Church Vs. The NT Church. I would encourage you to check out the entire chart. I have copied just a small portion of the chart dealing with the Sunday "worship service" here (the "traditional church" is on the left and the "NT church" is on the right):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wayne,
Some interesting points are brought up here adn I should quote them, but I know you read them too. I think the site you linked too makes some generalities based on stereotypes on the "Common" church of today.
There are even a few generalities that have a Biblical basis, i.e. the pastor being paid 1 Tim 5:17-18.
It also paints a picture of a "passive" audience, yet this is a danger no matter how big the audience, each on must prepare his / her own heart no matter "how large" the worship!
I wonder about some of the generalities made in this list? In your experience do you find the entire list to be true and unbiblical?
I don't totally disagree with Brian, but I think he has made some generalities and it seems that according to him, no church with a building is Biblical. Yet I can point to a few "large" churches and show you a ministry built on the foundations of Christ and His Word.
Jason,
Good thoughts. Yes, there are generalities on the "Traditional Church" side. I would add that there are legitimate differences of interpretation regarding the "New Testament Church" side. That's partly why I don't buy into the view that we should write off the conventional (traditional) church in North America.
So, for example, I think meeting in houses was a matter of convenience in the New Testament, and they would have had no problem meeting in a "building" if the facilities were available to them.
It's easy to read a chart like this and think that "The NT Church" means we have to do everything exactly like that side of the chart, and "Traditional Church" means everything on that side is unbiblical. But maybe some of the items are not biblical mandates but they are merely telling us what we do versus what they did.
So what's the purpose of a chart like this? I don't know Anderson's purpose, but for me, one thing it can do is challenge the cultural ideas of how we function as a church (which have become authoritative for some). To go back to the matter of a building: I don't think the NT is against it. On the other hand, doesn't anecdotal evidence suggest most people equate church = building? So the chart helps people to see that you can be a church and not have a building.
Having said that, I don't want to leave this as merely a matter of preference. If some of these points challenge the way we do church, then it ought to drive us back to the Bible to determine (1) if our practice really does conform to the Scriptures; and/or (2) if this chart's depiction of the NT church is accurate.
Just some of my thoughts. I appreciate your clarifying points.
Post a Comment