Sunday 'Church' tradition vs. small groups

[Jethro Bodine]

This should never be considered either/or. Churches and small groups are both absolutely necessary and have their functions.

Why must the traditional Sunday morning service be kept in consideration?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What are these goals?

The goal...so encouragers can encourage, servers can serve, teachers can teach, people gifted with wisdom can share their wisdom, people with knowledge can share, people with faith can pray, administrators can lead, etc., for the purpose "...that the church may be built up." (1 Cor. 14:26 NIV1984)

How can this happen when there is no communication or interaction between the members of the body in the traditional Sunday morning service?

 

[Free]

Why must the traditional Sunday morning service be kept in consideration?

One reason would be accountability. Another is that the very same problems can, and do, exist in small groups, so it would solve very little.

There are benefits and issues with both and they balance each other out.

The goal...so encouragers can encourage, servers can serve, teachers can teach, people gifted with wisdom can share their wisdom, people with knowledge can share, people with faith can pray, administrators can lead, etc., for the purpose "...that the church may be built up." (1 Cor. 14:26 NIV1984)

How can this happen when there is no communication or interaction between the members of the body in the traditional Sunday morning service?

But that is what happens Sunday mornings and any other time a church puts on a service.

 

[Nick]

That all would function in their spiritual gifts. That all would be discipled into a greater attainment of Christ.

How is this not done in a typical church service?

We have two ministries on sunday mornings...the big mouth and the big ear.

But monologuing to an assembly is meant for unbelievers. Christian teaching is interactive.

"Monologuing" is only part of what should be a typical church service.

So the traditional approach of professional clergy and the masses is very Catholic in it's spirit. It assumes that the pew warmers can never know anything...they are given the same lessons over and over again with no distinction given between an atheist and a disciple. It is the principle of the crowd. But discipleship it something completely different. We are to be EMPOWERED to change the world....and this begins with spiritual intimacy with Christ and each other.

Perhaps your only experience of a church service is a Catholic mass. Because what you described is not the case in many evangelical churches I have been to.

It is not a coincidence that we have no Peters and Pauls anymore. It is by design. Men wish to control the comings and goings of other men.

Anything but let the Spirit of Christ take over.


That is the result of the evidence for those who are not brainwashed to follow a man-controlled institution.

So the Spirit of Christ cannot dwell in a church gathering?

 

[Nick]

The goal...so encouragers can encourage, servers can serve, teachers can teach, people gifted with wisdom can share their wisdom, people with knowledge can share, people with faith can pray, administrators can lead, etc., for the purpose "...that the church may be built up." (1 Cor. 14:26 NIV1984)

How can this happen when there is no communication or interaction between the members of the body in the traditional Sunday morning service?

What is your experience in a typical church service? Because, in my experience of evangelical church services, people serve each other, have Biblical conversations, members of the congregation lead in prayer, someone opens up the Bible, reads it and another preaches a sermon on it, so we may be fed the Word. We sing to each other and to God to encourage, build up and challenge one another and praise Him.

There is a great sense of community and fellowship, not to mention accountability in these services. It is also an opportunity to reach a lot of people with the Word.

There are many people serving each other in many different ways through a typical service.

How is this not in line with the goals you mentioned?




I too do not think this should be an either/or. I believe both large church services and smaller groups should have their place in a Christian's life. The smaller group, such as a Bible study opens up the Bible in a more discussion-like setting, more intimate and more accountable. But I don't think either replace there other. There's a place for both.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

One reason would be accountability.

There is virtually zero accountability in a large church where its congregants just file in, sit and listen for an hour or an hour and half or so and then leave. That's actually one of the attractive things about the unBiblical Sunday tradition--some like the anonymity factor and that you don't have to do anything, but can still satisfy the requirement to go to church.

Another is that the very same problems can, and do, exist in small groups, so it would solve very little.

And that would be...?

There are benefits and issues with both and they balance each other out.

Any benefit you can make a Sunday traditional meeting provide can easily be done in a small group of 40 to 60 people. And, obviously, you can do what only a small group can do in that size of a meeting.

It's interesting that there are churches who are realizing the need for more to happen when they meet. That answer has been to add outside meetings that attempt to do some of the things Biblical meetings should do. But they refuse to touch the apple of the church's eye--the traditional Sunday service.

But that is what happens Sunday mornings and any other time a church puts on a service.

How when no one talks or shares openly about anything except the handful of people selected to perform various reverential duties that comprise the service?

If there is no open sharing and discussion then it is impossible to fulfill the goals and the purposes that Paul said must happen when we meet together. IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Timf]

But monologuing to an assembly is meant for unbelievers. Christian teaching is interactive.

There is a lot of truth here. I spent a number of years leading a Bible study at a juvenile detention facility. At my first session, it took me 10 minutes to discover the futility of the monologue and the benefit of interaction.

I led a Bible study in a church where we had four or five men and there would be significant work of the Spirit, open hearts and "real" Christianity. As soon as there were seven or eight, everyone would stop sharing and put themselves into the "I'm listening to a lecture mode".

I have seen "real" Christianity and the synthetic substitute leaves you craving the real thing.

Satan is collectivizing the entire world. He has used Christianity to accomplish this. In small groups we tend to show who we really are. We do this in our families. In large groups we put on a persona. This is the hypocrisy Jesus warned His disciples about.

Small groups allow the "warts and all" exposure that lends itself to real Christianity. The persona model does not want and cannot accomplish the interaction necessary for real Christianity.

Here is a link that describes some of what went wrong with churches.

http://christianpioneer.com/lib/rchurch/rchurch.htm

Those who cling to worldly churches and the comfort of the familiar, cannot be argued into seeing how much they are missing.

Instead of appearing to attack other Christians for being "wrong", it may be more effective to entreat other Christians to reflect on their church practice and seek in prayer for the Lord's leading in their lives.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is a lot of truth here. I spent a number of years leading a Bible study at a juvenile detention facility. At my first session, it took me 10 minutes to discover the futility of the monologue and the benefit of interaction.

Bingo!

I led a Bible study in a church where we had four or five men and there would be significant work of the Spirit, open hearts and "real" Christianity.

This is what Christians long for, isn't it? ...but seem so frustrated in finding.

As soon as there were seven or eight, everyone would stop sharing and put themselves into the "I'm listening to a lecture mode".

Which doesn't have to happen with this few of people. There's no reason sharing and interaction can't be maintained in groups up to 60 people. What some may not realize is a person is still free to not participate and just sit and listen...but who can also change that and begin to interact if the circumstances lead them that way.

I have seen "real" Christianity and the synthetic substitute leaves you craving the real thing.

You hit it on the head. Once you experience the real thing God intended for his people it's very, very, very hard to go back to the church's misguided tradition of how to meet.

In small groups we tend to show who we really are. We do this in our families. In large groups we put on a persona. This is the hypocrisy Jesus warned His disciples about.

This is that aspect of anonymity I was referring to. Large, inactive, static meetings actually encourage the attendance of hypocritical, insincere brethren who feel just marking the 'I went to church as required' box on their spiritual scorecard somehow is what pleases God. I think it's a mistake to make your church service a comfortable place for these kind of people to feel good about 'coming to church'. Some feel that is how you evangelize these kinds of folks. I don't think that's a good way to evangelize the lost. Inviting a curious inquirer of the faith to a small group where pertinent, spiritual discussion is happening is how you best address the needs of the potential Christian.

Small groups allow the "warts and all" exposure that lends itself to real Christianity. The persona model does not want and cannot accomplish the interaction necessary for real Christianity.

Here is a link that describes some of what went wrong with churches.

http://christianpioneer.com/lib/rchurch/rchurch.htm

Wow, this site speaks of the very things that have rolled around in my own mind.

Those who cling to worldly churches and the comfort of the familiar, cannot be argued into seeing how much they are missing.

And that my friend is the most frustrating thing about this whole thing. That's why I call the tradition of our Sunday morning service the apple of the church's eye. I even see it a golden idol that we have been deceived into honoring and cherishing instead of what we should really be honoring and serving.

Instead of appearing to attack other Christians for being "wrong", it may be more effective to entreat other Christians to reflect on their church practice and seek in prayer for the Lord's leading in their lives.

This is why I ask questions. Everybody answers polite questions in the privacy of their own mind, even if they outwardly resist and deny the obvious truth that question leads to and exposes.

I've seen many, many people make the mistake of alienating the very people they want to influence by how they present what they believe. I corresponded with an avowed atheist through a website a few years back who was so foul mouthed and violently angry and mean I had to ask him, "you are trying to win the people you talk to, right?" (Ah! Another question that can't help but to get answered honestly in the mind of who it's asked of and which causes them to be confronted with the truth, bypassing their natural defenses to resist and deny that truth.)

 

[Free]

There is virtually zero accountability in a large church where its congregants just file in, sit and listen for an hour or an hour and half or so and then leave. That's actually one of the attractive things about the unBiblical Sunday tradition--some like the anonymity factor and that you don't have to do anything, but can still satisfy the requirement to go to church.

While that is a grand generalization, it certainly may hold true for many people. But my point was directed at the pastor and to proper teaching and biblical understanding. Take that away and all sorts of errors and heresies could be taught. That isn't to say it doesn't happen already, but it would be significantly worse.

Any benefit you can make a Sunday traditional meeting provide can easily be done in a small group of 40 to 60 people. And, obviously, you can do what only a small group can do in that size of a meeting.

It's interesting that there are churches who are realizing the need for more to happen when they meet. That answer has been to add outside meetings that attempt to do some of the things Biblical meetings should do. But they refuse to touch the apple of the church's eye--the traditional Sunday service.

The dangers of having only small groups instead of a traditional service are far too great. Small groups and their leaders must be accountable to a larger congregation and church leadership, who must also be accountable to a larger governing body. There is a definite reason and need for such structure.

How when no one talks or shares openly about anything except the handful of people selected to perform various reverential duties that comprise the service?

If there is no open sharing and discussion then it is impossible to fulfill the goals and the purposes that Paul said must happen when we meet together. IMPOSSIBLE.

As has been told you more than once already, you paint with a very broad brush.

As I clearly stated, both are necessary.

 

[Adullam]

How is this not done in a typical church service?


"Monologuing" is only part of what should be a typical church service.


Perhaps your only experience of a church service is a Catholic mass. Because what you described is not the case in many evangelical churches I have been to.


So the Spirit of Christ cannot dwell in a church gathering?

The Spirit can move over a large gathering...but what is taken away after that?

If everyone brings a revelation or song, teaching etc....a gathering of say 200 people would take about 10 hours. You can't possibly know hundreds of people and these cannot possibly follow the actual biblical outline for church meetings.

We should call the sunday morning "service" a sideshow but never a church meeting. That is unless we throw out the biblical directives and follow the traditions of men.

To me...all institutions are Catholic.....they are just different flavours of the same traditions of men.

Monologuing is the central theme of the service where the paid cleric gets to sermonize for the salary he is getting.

Rather get rid of the controls of men, the microphone and hoopla and let the Spirit take over the meeting where ALL members participate...even children.

 

[Adullam]

There is a lot of truth here. I spent a number of years leading a Bible study at a juvenile detention facility. At my first session, it took me 10 minutes to discover the futility of the monologue and the benefit of interaction.

I led a Bible study in a church where we had four or five men and there would be significant work of the Spirit, open hearts and "real" Christianity. As soon as there were seven or eight, everyone would stop sharing and put themselves into the "I'm listening to a lecture mode".

I have seen "real" Christianity and the synthetic substitute leaves you craving the real thing.

Satan is collectivizing the entire world. He has used Christianity to accomplish this. In small groups we tend to show who we really are. We do this in our families. In large groups we put on a persona. This is the hypocrisy Jesus warned His disciples about.

Small groups allow the "warts and all" exposure that lends itself to real Christianity. The persona model does not want and cannot accomplish the interaction necessary for real Christianity.

Here is a link that describes some of what went wrong with churches.

http://christianpioneer.com/lib/rchurch/rchurch.htm

Those who cling to worldly churches and the comfort of the familiar, cannot be argued into seeing how much they are missing.

Instead of appearing to attack other Christians for being "wrong", it may be more effective to entreat other Christians to reflect on their church practice and seek in prayer for the Lord's leading in their lives.

Thank you for your courage to speak the truth. Satan is using the church to push his own agenda of a man-centered message of salvation. After all...all the devil wants is his fair due in his own estimation.

It seems people have difficulty hearing the difference between a man-centered salvation plan and the truth in Christ.

As you begin peeling the onion you see levels of lies...so that men do EXACTLY the opposite of what Jesus commands.

 

[Free]

Thank you for your courage to speak the truth. Satan is using the church to push his own agenda of a man-centered message of salvation. After all...all the devil wants is his fair due in his own estimation.

It seems people have difficulty hearing the difference between a man-centered salvation plan and the truth in Christ.

As you begin peeling the onion you see levels of lies...so that men do EXACTLY the opposite of what Jesus commands.

Fallacious generalization, again. This can happen just as easily in small groups. Cults, such as JWs, have started with small groups. There is a very real and serious danger with ignoring the larger church gatherings and solely relying on small groups.

 

[Nick]

Fallacious generalization, again. This can happen just as easily in small groups. Cults, such as JWs, have started with small groups. There is a very real and serious danger with ignoring the larger church gatherings and solely relying on small groups.

I have nothing to add to this or Free's other posts here.

 

[Adullam]

Fallacious generalization, again. This can happen just as easily in small groups. Cults, such as JWs, have started with small groups. There is a very real and serious danger with ignoring the larger church gatherings and solely relying on small groups.

We are not advocating size of group as truth. But the truth does not fit into the religious system. Bringing the same carnal reasonings to a smaller group will not fix the fact that it is still carnal. The "honey, I shrunk the church" effort of the cell group movement does not replace the depth and the surrender of true seekers (like the 120 at Pentecost) who gather in the name of Jesus Christ in submission to the Holy Spirit.

Being the church is not a proper technique...but it helps to begin with a basic obedience to the word.

Our cultural heritage of religious services is not a good starting point to causing a spiritual revolution in the world.

 

[Free]

We are not advocating size of group as truth. But the truth does not fit into the religious system. Bringing the same carnal reasonings to a smaller group will not fix the fact that it is still carnal. The "honey, I shrunk the church" effort of the cell group movement does not replace the depth and the surrender of true seekers (like the 120 at Pentecost) who gather in the name of Jesus Christ in submission to the Holy Spirit.

Being the church is not a proper technique...but it helps to begin with a basic obedience to the word.

Our cultural heritage of religious services is not a good starting point to causing a spiritual revolution in the world.

Again, more generalizing. I fail to see how this addresses my point.

 

[Adullam]

Again, more generalizing. I fail to see how this addresses my point.

Would you call the truth that all men are born in Adam a generalization?

Is not your defence of the idea of a large gathering the type of generalization you seem to disagree with?

 

[Free]

Would you call the truth that all men are born in Adam a generalization?

No, of course not but that is quite a different point altogether.Are you not understanding the seriousness of my point? To have small groups only would be disastrous. They would be breeding grounds for false doctrine and doctrines of demons. Hence the necessity for large churches and organizations and trained teachers to keep teachings in check.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Free, Nick:

It's important to not let what you see being done in small groups in the church today be exactly what is being defended here. Some small groups are closer to the truth than others.

A true Biblical meeting of the saints has the hierarchy and accountability among the leadership that large denominational churches have.

If there is a single distinguishing element of the small meeting that our large, traditional meetings don't have it's open discussion. Not chaotic, uncontrolled, out of turn chattering, but an open and orderly discussion of scripture through a series of carefully crafted questions being opened up for discussion--but all in the control of a pastor and elders who maintain order and keep things on track.

A teaching ministry is the central core and foundation of a successful meeting of the saints. From there everything else flows, in order, and hopefully, in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I personally know no better way to stir the inspiration of the Holy Spirit up among believers than to get them talking among themselves about the things of the faith. And this is entirely consistent with the guidance and instruction we see in the NT for how the saints meet together, and for what purpose. Our centuries old Sunday tradition simply does not do that. But I can see how if one is not familiar with an alternative that it would be hard to accept that. There are other reasons to.

 

[Adullam]

No, of course not but that is quite a different point altogether.Are you not understanding the seriousness of my point? To have small groups only would be disastrous. They would be breeding grounds for false doctrine and doctrines of demons. Hence the necessity for large churches and organizations and trained teachers to keep teachings in check.

If we look at the bible for our example we see small churches that are united through the Holy Spirit so that they all may one. These small churches would have a common leadership (overseer and council of elders) in any given city.

What we need is true unity in the Spirit and leadership that is Christ-like in service.

By going to the world for the corporate example of incorporating churches as competing businesses we lose the unity of the Spirit. We become like fast food restaurant chains....with "millions served" seen as an object of pride! Do the golden arches of MC Donalds have more in common with the wide road or the narrow way?

 

[Free]

If we look at the bible for our example we see small churches that are united through the Holy Spirit so that they all may one. These small churches would have a common leadership (overseer and council of elders) in any given city.

What we need is true unity in the Spirit and leadership that is Christ-like in service.

By going to the world for the corporate example of incorporating churches as competing businesses we lose the unity of the Spirit. We become like fast food restaurant chains....with "millions served" seen as an object of pride! Do the golden arches of MC Donalds have more in common with the wide road or the narrow way?

We don't know what size the churches were. If they were small, it could very well have been due to persecution. There is no biblical mandate that a church must be of a given size.

You say you want unity, yet having many more smaller churches would further fracture the Christian community. And, again, it would allow for significantly more heresy and false teachings. You have something against large churches but fail to see the potential disaster of doing away with "large" churches and having only "small" churches. You entire position is based on conjecture and generalizing.