It shall not be so among you.

[Obadiah]

Re: Go to church?

Those meeting in what we consider traditional church settings have no scriptural basis to condemn.....

This is one of the issues that needs to have some attention paid to it. I fully agree with what you stated however, in reality, the church does not practice this teaching. Instead, the church is in the habit of misusing texts like Hebrews 10:25 to say that member MUST go to church and they define going to church in terms of the formalized Sunday and Wednesday gatherings at their selected "places of worship". They go further off track by consistantly saying things in their Sunday meetings like: "it's good to be together in the house of the Lord". Such a statement directly implies that the place of the gathering is somehow holy and similar to a pagan temple and this statement is consistantly uttered and promoted despite the fact that the Bible clearly says that God does not dwell in temples made with hands! The audacity of the formalized, corporate, heirarchial church in such matters is what is highly objectionable.

If you have a group of 4 or 5 who meet in someone's home on a Thursday evening, there's nothing wrong with that either, and they also have no scriptural basis to condemn those who meet in more traditional church settings. Both situations have their strong points and both have their weaknesses. Neither situation is unscriptural.

Traditional church settings that promotes a clergy/laity divide, mandates certain ceremonial 'acts of worships', and condemns those who are not obedient participants in the corporate hierarchial church structure that is so pervasive is in fact unscriptural.

This is one of the issues that needs to have some attention paid to it. I fully agree with what you stated however, in reality, the church does not practice this teaching.

Yes, the part of your post I re-quoted above is true of some traditional churches, and as evidenced by some people's experiences in a few recent threads including this one. However it is also just as true if not even more true of those in the "home church" environment (by whatever term they have been called at various times). People are imperfect and there is a lot of finger pointing and improper judging going on. I've been part of several of these home churches and even started one along with some Christian friends once, so I have seen first hand how they functioned. I've not found them to be any more correct or successful than the traditional churches, and it is significant that all of them fell apart within a year or two, usually because of internal squabblings and no clear and strong leadership to resolve them. this includes the one I started. Only one lasted a little longer, but it was organized a little more along the lines of a traditional church, only smaller. But it also ultimately failed for all the same reasons. Is this scriptural conduct in your view?

I think part of the problem lies in the fact that you are not a Christian so have probably not spent as much time in as many different types of churches as one who has been an enthusiastic, dedicated Christian for the majority of his life. (Why would you?) It seems your viewpoint is from maybe one, or just a relatively few churches where you have attended services that were this way. And I too know some churches are like this. But not all of them are. There must be many thousands of local churches spread around the United States alone, not to mention the world. There is a huge variety in how these churches conduct themselves, and that's why it's not proper to condemn the entire traditional church based on your obviously limited experience.

I have attended many churches over many years that do not conduct themselves in the way that you are saying is unscriptural, and so have many others on this forum. I have no idea what you specifically mean by "ceremonial acts of worship" that attendees are "mandated" to perform and are "condemned" if the don't perform. I've been in a variety of denominational as well as non-denominational churches and have never been forced to perform any act of worship nor condemned for not doing it that I am aware of. Now I know there are some churches that do these things, but no one here has claimed that every organized church is perfect. Far from it. But then, no small group meeting in someone's home is perfect either. They are also far from it and also are extremely varied in how they conduct themselves as well.

Perhaps much of what you see as wrong is really more a matter of perspective. What a Christian may do from his heart as a matter of worship guided by the Holy Spirit may very well seem like a mandatory forced act to a non-Christian as yourself. Perhaps this disagreement is more a matter of perspective than of scripture.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Re: Go to church?

the traditional churches

When you speak of traditional churches, what exactly do you mean?
My definition is one that has a hired pastor/reverend that for all intents and purposes is the front man for the church so much so that the church can be referred to as "Reverend Jones Church" or T.D Jake's Church, Joel Olsteen's Church, etc, and such titles act as the church's primary identifiers. Not all church churches are megachurches, many are community based but still pastor-centric. I know from decade of first hand experience that this type of churchdom is the norm in the South where I have always lived.

My experience is limited to the baptist church, the church of Christ, and the SDA (Adventist) Church, so I'll not speak for those I have not been a part of or spent much time visiting. In my experience, the protestant (baptist) groups really rely strongly on the preacher/pastor and they tend to give him a position of authority and reverence that at times can border on worship. The other two are less preacher-centric but are slightly more rigid is terms or what must be done "in worship" and the necessity of the membership not missing the worship services.

A suggestion I'd have is for christian gatherings to be more frequent and less formalized. I believe taking this approach will foster more of a family ties between believers and enable them to get more deeply connected and involved in each others lives. At this point I know of no church that would equate informal gatherings of christians with going to a church service. If that attitude would change, I think it would be for the better. More emphasis should be placed on the idea that the people are the church as opposed to the corporate institution or building at thus and such address. Believers should be able to find what they need and give of themselve to each other in settings that don't involve the ritual of audience attention, stage performer presentations, and then crowd dismissal with very limited deep personal interaction between members.

A question we'd do well to ask it what type of setting(s) provide the best scenario whereby the admonisions of Jesus, Paul, etc. could best be acheived. The frequency of the gatherings, the level of formality of the gatherings should all be focused around providing a setting where believers can truly grow together in love and knowledge of one another so that they can be involved enough brother to brother and sister to sister in order to truly be in a position to share in one another's lives as they provoke one another to love and good works. Those that proclaim a message, those that teach others, as well as those that lead by setting excellent examples do so for the express purpose of edifying the collective body of believers so that the individuals are build up and are able to do the same for others so that all members are equiped for the work of service that each would do well to recognize that they are called to do (Ephesian 4:12, Matthew 25:31-45).

One thing that kind of sticks out to me when I read the NT and see instances of christian gatherings is that it almost always involved a meal. In Acts 20, they gathered and ate, in 1 Corinthians 10-14 they did as well. There never seemed to be an emphasis on the gathering being a formal one where people put on their "Sunday best" before "coming to the house of the lord."

 

[farouk]

All sorts of local arrangements may prevail, which may reflect local convenience. Acts 2.42 is a basic guideline, I think.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Re: Go to church?

Traditional church settings that promotes a clergy/laity divide, mandates certain ceremonial 'acts of worships', and condemns those who are not obedient participants in the corporate hierarchial church structure that is so pervasive is in fact unscriptural.

Some, yes. There are also apostate churches that teach false doctrine, such as saying that sinning is good because it increases God's grace. (Yes, really! My best friend told me there is a church like that where she lives.) Others speak out against those kind of things.
Minus the possibility of clergy/laity divide (unless you are going to the house of someone who attended Bible seminary or something), the same kind of problems can crop up with going to someone's house for fellowship and worship, although perhaps to a smaller scale. The problem is human nature.

A suggestion I'd have is for christian gatherings to be more frequent and less formalized. I believe taking this approach will foster more of a family ties between believers and enable them to get more deeply connected and involved in each others lives. At this point I know of no church that would equate informal gatherings of christians with going to a church service. If that attitude would change, I think it would be for the better. More emphasis should be placed on the idea that the people are the church as opposed to the corporate institution or building at thus and such address. Believers should be able to find what they need and give of themselve to each other in settings that don't involve the ritual of audience attention, stage performer presentations, and then crowd dismissal with very limited deep personal interaction between members.

Actually, I've been going to baptist churches all my life. I honestly doubt any of them would have a problem with believers using a different method to get the fellowship and edification, as long as they are fellowshipping with other believers. The main thing is to have a community of believers you can fellowship with, edify, and receive edification, because it's easier to live a Christian life if you are with other beleivers than if you're just doing it alone. If you can get fellowship and edification without going to a church building, then no problem.

It's just that most people who don't go to church aren't getting those things, and most people who do try to get those things go to church to do so.

A question we'd do well to ask it what type of setting(s) provide the best scenario whereby the admonisions of Jesus, Paul, etc. could best be acheived. The frequency of the gatherings, the level of formality of the gatherings should all be focused around providing a setting where believers can truly grow together in love and knowledge of one another so that they can be involved enough brother to brother and sister to sister in order to truly be in a position to share in one another's lives as they provoke one another to love and good works. Those that proclaim a message, those that teach others, as well as those that lead by setting excellent examples do so for the express purpose of edifying the collective body of believers so that the individuals are build up and are able to do the same for others so that all members are equiped for the work of service that each would do well to recognize that they are called to do (Ephesian 4:12, Matthew 25:31-45).

My church only has actual services Sunday mornings and evenings. There's also Sunday school, which--for us in the youth group, at least--consists of studying the Bible and having real discussions. Which means, not only do you get to know each other, but you get to learn from each other.
From what I've heard when walking by the adult Sunday school class, same deal there.
On Wednesdays, they gather for prayer and the youth gathers for Bible study.

In addition to that, you can also get involved in small group Bible studies, which meet on other days of the week.

Every so often, we also do things like game nights. Last time we played Bible Scattegories, which you have to gather in teams in order to play. We also brought food to share.
Something similar to that that we do in the youth group is ACTS (After Church Teen Social) where we go to someone's house and fellowship there.

(Ironically, considering the this conversation, those things would likely be criticized to some degree or another by those in my old church, especially the pastor.)

Not all churches are just "Okay, let's gather and then all go home and never get to know each other". But then, it also depends on if you actually try to get to know other people. (And of course, hopefully they try to make you feel welcome, and to get to know you.) Some people go to church just to go to church.

One thing that kind of sticks out to me when I read the NT and see instances of christian gatherings is that it almost always involved a meal. In Acts 20, they gathered and ate, in 1 Corinthians 10-14 they did as well. There never seemed to be an emphasis on the gathering being a formal one where people put on their "Sunday best" before "coming to the house of the lord."

If you've been to baptist churches, then you know how much they love meals. ;)

But seriously, I don't think that's a command. It may have more to do with the fact that the church was being persecuted at the time, and they met in houses and ate meals together in order to make it seem more like a gathering among friends.

Also, not all churches are formal. Some are, some are formal to a lesser degree, and some are pretty informal. There are different schools of thought on that. The way I was raised, it was considered disrespectful to wear anything other than a nice dress or a suit (depending on your gender, of course) to church.
At my current church, I just dress like I normally do: t-shirt, sweatpants or jeans, and sneakers.

 

[farouk]

[MENTION=89910]questdriven[/MENTION]:

I know what you mean about all the food!

Blessings.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Re: Go to church?

There's also Sunday school, which--for us in the youth group, at least--consists of studying the Bible and having real discussions.

If only more of it was done this most effective way.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Re: Go to church?

There's also Sunday school, which--for us in the youth group, at least--consists of studying the Bible and having real discussions.

If only more of it was done this most effective way.

A similar method was used at the camp the youth group attended last month: At the camp, you had different "schools" that met for worship and to hear a message, but you also had "family" groups that met after each message to discuss it. This allowed those in the family groups to get close enough to each other to be comfortable sharing things and to have a conversation. I thought that was so cool.

 

[farouk]

Re: Go to church?

There's also Sunday school, which--for us in the youth group, at least--consists of studying the Bible and having real discussions.

If only more of it was done this most effective way.

A similar method was used at the camp the youth group attended last month: At the camp, you had different "schools" that met for worship and to hear a message, but you also had "family" groups that met after each message to discuss it. This allowed those in the family groups to get close enough to each other to be comfortable sharing things and to have a conversation. I thought that was so cool.

[MENTION=89910]questdriven[/MENTION]:

Kind of like an annual church camp event, I guess.

Blessings.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Re: Go to church?

@questdriven :

Kind of like an annual church camp event, I guess.

Blessings.

Yeah. Although next year will be the last time I can go, since I'll be done with high school by then and won't be in the youth group anymore. (If you're out of high school at the camp, you're considered a college freshman and that's pretty much the last time you can go as a student.) Unless I wanted to be a TL (team leader), but I don't think I'm quite cut out for that.

 

[Obadiah]

Re: Go to church?

When you speak of traditional churches, what exactly do you mean?

When the subject involves traditional churches verses home churches with no formal organization I think most people here understand what "traditional church" means. To answer your question only invites an argument over semantics that will accomplish nothing.

 

[Obadiah]

Re: Go to church?

There's also Sunday school, which--for us in the youth group, at least--consists of studying the Bible and having real discussions.

If only more of it was done this most effective way.

Most traditional organized churches DO function this way. You have to take a look at them with and open mind instead of just looking to criticize as an outsider if you want to see what goes on in addition to the kind of "church services" you are condemning. Many people have said this over and over in a few threads in the last week or so, and I'm sure you have read about them.

The few churches I've seen that don't have some of these activities don't have them for simply practical reasons, such as not enough people to participate. You can't have a youth group that gets together for study and fellowship if your church is in a neighborhood primarily of retired older people and there are no youth around. You can't have a ministry to shut in elderly people if you are in an area with no elderly people. Etc etc, etc.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Re: Go to church?

My church consider home bible study meetings to be church. They call them 'Home Churches'. I think it would be nice if there were more home churches, and they kept Jesus as the leader and perhaps didn't do anything without prayer by the group. All decisions are prayed over. Everyone gets a chance to speak their mind and thoughts about whatever is going on. People would get to know each other and what's going on in their lives and so forth. If anyone was disruptive or anything, it would be handled in a group manner.

Having experienced both the traditional setting as well as the one you described above, without question the less formal setting lends to closer relationships/friendships, better opportunities for the individual to learn and grow, and deeper connections.

Most traditional organized churches DO function this way. You have to take a look at them with and open mind instead of just looking to criticize as an outsider if you want to see what goes on in addition to the kind of "church services" you are condemning. Many people have said this over and over in a few threads in the last week or so, and I'm sure you have read about them.

Okay my friend, I guess I must play my history card here. I was a Christian for over 2 decades. I have been deep on the inside my friend and have a lot of fond memories and friendships because of my past. All that to say that I speak from experience when I discuss what I and vast numbers of other Christians observed and experienced.
I know of only a handful of churches that do not offer Sunday school or Bible classes. That however is not the focus of any of my posts or of this thread. The issue is the alleged non-Biblically sanctioned organization of the corporate heirarchial church structure that is in existence that has led to a clergy/laity divide along with other sad consequences.
Why is the pastor/preacher exalted? Why is the "main" service, aka the Sunday morning worship service so formal and impersonal? Why aren't the atherings more like what was seen on the pages of NT scripture? Those things are what people that "attack" the corporate church take issue with, not Sunday school or ministries that assist needy believers. If you look back at the last century at the "progression" of the typical local church, what can be seen is a paradigm shift from more community and familial smaller church gatherings to the megachurch, far less personal and far more corporately structured church. Churches today commonly HIRE not only those that preach from outside of their number, but they typically hire entertainer, yes musicians that are not members but rather are only required to show up and perform during "service". The church has slowly gotton away from its community roots and has become an industry as opposed to a collection of individuals that know and love one another. The very idea of what is good for the church in many cases is no longer about what will be good for Sister Emily or Brither Thomas and family but instead, what's in the best interest of the institution. Sad, really sad.


-------
How would I recommend fixing it you ask, since anyone can complain, but very few like to work to fix the problem. I'd start by trying to effect change in the way people thought. I'd constantly and subtly emphasize the idea that the people are the church to the point where the idea of going to church sounds strange to all members. Additionally, I'd challenge the idea that their must be a church building that is owned by the church. Members usually have no idea how expensive paying for, operating, and maintaining church facilities can be. Much of what is collected from the church members in offerings goes to this end as oppossed to other more benevolent ends. Next, anyone that is willing to be on "staff" wouldvoluntee and be selected from among the local fellowship. The older more seasoned in the faith Christians would be looked upon to act as pastors setting an excellent example and acting as leaders among the number. Collection would be taken when needed to help meet the needs on the members who may have some issues they can't momentarily handle themselves. Only a small amout of what is collected would be paid to rent/buy a space to meet or to finance the lifestyle of those that deliver a message from the good book. The money paid would basically be a "thank you" offering for taking the extra time out of one's normal life to prepare an edifying lesson and it (the responsibility to prepare and present lessons) would be spread among the brotherhood instead of falling on 1 or a few select career preachers. We would strongly encourage each family to open their hopes to us all so that we can get personal and get more than a glimpse into each other's lives but instead really be conditioned to be fully comfortable sharing our very souls with one another. We would strive to be a community of faithful believers that leaves no sheep behind and focuses on helping one another be constantly provoked to love and good works.
(1 John 3:18-19, 1 John 4:7-12)

 

[ejected]

The single head/lead/senior/executive Pastor.....

The Executive Pastor...where oh where from whence did he come?

 

[Danus]

Re: The single head/lead/senior/executive Pastor.....

You mean the position of executive pastor in some churches?

 

[handy]

Re: The single head/lead/senior/executive Pastor.....

Would not Timothy have been considered the head pastor of the church at Ephesus?

 

[evenifigoalone]

There are good churches and there are bad churches. I think even with a "good" church, there's always some room for improve. There are some different schools of thought on how they ought to be run. Some of them scriptural, some of them not. There are some things the scripture does not cover, though.

It has even been said on this forum by some, more than once, that pastoring a church was not meant to be put on one person. I'm not sure how it went when my church had an actual pastor (I started attending not long before he retired), but as of right now, the committee and deacons work together to bring messages on Sunday.
Also, every couple of months, the youth group puts together a type of message for Sunday. Last time we gave testimonies. We usually play the worship part of the service on youth Sunday, as well, but last time we didn't have enough time to practice.



Some of those ideas do sound good to consider, at least, but I don't know enough to have a real opinion on 'em.

 

[ejected]

Re: The single head/lead/senior/executive Pastor.....

Hello Handy. How handy r u? I've got one spark plug I can't get out...seriously.
Timothy was a young man but knowledgeble. Paul was endorsing his maturity telling him to take some oversight along with the other elders. Bishop, episcopal,pastor, teacher, elder are all synonymous. The ones who have been around the block some. Elders also denotes age and not always leaders. Some elders ministered to the needs of the poor, others taught, all watched out for errors and wolves, they took the oversight of the younger sheep. One man did not quit his job and tell everyone he was the LEADER and elevated into a high salaried position. Churches have split over men fighting for that prized position of power. Is that really of God. They long to quit a sweat shop job and move into a rent free parsonage. Somebody stop me! Lol!

 

[evenifigoalone]

A question, though--wouldn't you need at least some form of leadership in order to decide who can and cannot preach? And deacons and such are usually chosen out of regular, faithful members who are mature Christians, aren't they? Or I'm pretty sure that's the general idea?

 

[farouk]

A question, though--wouldn't you need at least some form of leadership in order to decide who can and cannot preach? And deacons and such are usually chosen out of regular, faithful members who are mature Christians, aren't they? Or I'm pretty sure that's the general idea?

[MENTION=89910]questdriven[/MENTION]:

Acts 20, and various of the Epistles, have good guidelines about those who oversee among companies of Christians that costitute a local church.

Blessings.

 

[reba]

Re: The single head/lead/senior/executive Pastor.....

[MENTION=96739]Withheld[/MENTION] do you have anything to say that falls in line with this scripture passage?


Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.