New Testament Church Dynamics—Growth Strategies of the Ancient Church. Second Edition. Written by Stephen E. Akerson. Audiobook recorded by Robert Thomason. Copyright 2021 by New Testament Reformation Fellowship. Scripture quotations are from the ESV Bible, the Holy Bible English Standard Version. Copyright 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission, all rights reserved. Chapter 1 Tradition, a strategy for success. A church alive is worth the drive. Jesus did not leave us wondering how to encourage spiritual growth. Through the apostles, he equipped the ancient church with strategic, timeless traditions to make disciples. Success in fulfilling God's purposes for his body awaits your church if you adopt the apostolic traditions found in the New Testament. In view of the unique relationship between Jesus and His apostles, we should be careful not to neglect the church practices they established. Prophet According to Stanley Greenslade, an evangelical professor of church history at Oxford University, the church exists to promote the worship of God, the inner life of the Spirit, the evangelization of the world, and the molding of society according to the will of God. Jesus knew the best ways to achieve these purposes. The apostles intentionally modeled these practices for us in the churches they founded. Their example was intended to constitute normal and universal church practice. God gave Israel a clear pattern for the tabernacle and worship in the Old Covenant. What pattern did he give for worship in the New Covenant? God's spiritual temple must be built on the chief cornerstone, both in doctrine and sound practice. Adopting the ways of the apostles better allows the Spirit to create unity, community, commitment, and love in a body of believers. Growing churches love, and loving churches grow. Presumption. Church leaders have two options for ecclesiology. One is to adopt the ways of the apostles. The other is to follow a path of their own choosing. Regarding historical precedents, Gordon Fee and Douglas Stewart in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth state, our assumption, along with many others, is that unless scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way. No one, for example, would advocate following Jephthah's tragic example in Judges 11 verses 29 and following. However, when it comes to church practice, Fee and Stewart also noted that almost all biblical Christians tend to treat precedent as having normative authority to some degree or another. What evidence is there that New Testament traditions for church practice We're not merely described in Scripture, but we're intended to function in a normative way. Proof number one, holding to tradition is praiseworthy. 1 Corinthians chapters 11 through 14 constitutes a four-chapter section on church practice. In this passage, Paul revealed his attitude about following his ecclesiological traditions. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions as I delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11 verse 2. He praised the church at Corinth for holding to his traditions. The Greek for traditions, parodicis, means that which is passed on. It differs from the Greek word for teaching, didache. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee pointed out that in the context of 1 Corinthians 11, parodicis specifically refers to religious traditions regarding worship. This same Greek word in verb form is found a few paragraphs later with regard to the practice of the Lord's Supper, that it was passed on from Paul to the church. Chapter 11, verse 23. It is significant that the word traditions in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2 is plural. Paul clearly had in mind more than one tradition dealt with in 1 Corinthians 11a. The words, even as in chapter 11 verse 2, indicate the degree of their compliance with these traditions, exactly as passed on to them. Paul praised the church for holding precisely to his traditions regarding worship. He would likely feel the same about our churches following the traditions he established for church practice. Mosaic legislation was paradigmatic in nature. It was case law. Only a few legal examples were recorded by Moses. The Israelites were expected to apply these case studies to other areas of life not specifically cited. Similarly, we argue that adherence to apostolic tradition is paradigmatic in nature. If we observe that the apostles were pleased when a church followed one specific tradition of church practice, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2, then we would be expected to apply that approval to other patterns we see modeled by the apostles in their establishment of churches. The Church, the Bride of Christ, is too eternally important to allow her to deviate from traditions established by the Lord and His Apostles. Of course, not all religious traditions are good. The tradition of the Pharisees undermined God's commands. The same word used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, verse two, was also used by Jesus when he asked the Pharisees, why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? Parodicis. Matthew 15, verse three. In contrast, Paul blessed the Corinthians for following his traditions. Apostolic traditions are consistent with the teachings of Christ. Thus, holding to the traditions of the apostles is thus praiseworthy, as seen in Paul's praise for the Corinthian church. Proof 2. Holding to tradition was expected. The churches of the New Testament were expected to follow apostolic traditions for church practice. In the four-chapter section on church practice referenced above, 1 Corinthians 11-14, Paul quieted those who disagreed with his traditions by appealing to the universal practice of all the other churches. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11 verse 16. This statement was designed to settle any objections. Paul expected all churches to do the same things. Just to realize that one was different was argument enough to silence opposition. Prior emphasis had obviously been given to certain practices that were supposed to be done the same way everywhere. This indicates a uniformity of practice in all New Testament churches. In 1 Corinthians 14 verses 33b through 35, Paul referred to something else that was true universally, as in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. Paul again appealed to a universal pattern that existed in all churches as a basis for obedience. The point to be observed is that all churches were expected to follow the same practices in their meetings. The Corinthians were tempted to do things differently from other churches. Thus, after detailing how worship services should be conducted, Paul chided them. Or was it from you that the Word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 1 Corinthians 14 verse 36. The obvious answer to both questions is no. These two questions were designed to keep the Corinthians in line with the practice of all the other churches. They had no authority to deviate from the church traditions established by the apostles. Holding to apostolic traditions, New Testament church patterns was expected in the first century. Perhaps it should be today as well. We should ask ourselves, did the word of God come from our churches? Are our churches the only ones it has reached? If the Corinthian church had no authority to deviate from the traditions of the apostles, then neither do we. Proof number three, holding to tradition is commanded. Although apostolic traditions make for interesting history, many think that following them is optional. What then are we to make of 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 15, which actually commands us to stand firm and hold to the traditions? It appears that is not just apostolic teachings to which we should adhere, but also apostolic traditions as revealed exclusively within the pages of scripture. The overall context of 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 15 refers to the apostles teaching tradition concerning end-time events, not church practice per se. However, the word traditions, chapter 2 verse 15, is yet again plural. The author clearly had more traditions in mind than merely the one teaching tradition about the second coming. Would this command not also apply in principle to his traditions regarding church order, which are modeled in the New Testament? We are to follow the traditions of the apostles, not only in their theology, but also in their practice. A similar attitude towards tradition is expressed in the next chapter. Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us. 2 Thessalonians 3, verses 6 and 7. The word tradition here clearly refers to practice more than doctrine. It is clear that the apostles wanted the churches to follow their traditions of both theology and practice. Should we limit those apostolic traditions that we follow only to work habits? Proof number four, holding to tradition is logical. It is logical. It just makes sense to follow the church practice traditions of the apostles as recorded in scripture. If anyone truly understood the purpose of the church, surely it was the apostles. They were handpicked and personally trained by Jesus for three years. After His resurrection, our Lord appeared to them over a 40-day period, Acts 1-3. Jesus then sent the Holy Spirit to teach them things He had not taught them, John 14-16. Paul received further revelation from Jesus during his 14 years in the wilderness. The things Jesus taught these men about the church were naturally reflected in the way they set up and organized churches. Paul's letter to Titus dealt directly with church practice. This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order and appoint elders in every town as I directed you. Titus 1, 5. It is evident from this passage that the apostles had a definite way they wanted things done regarding church practice. It was not left up to each individual assembly to find its own way. There was obviously a definite order, pattern, or tradition that was followed in organizing the churches. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 34, another passage about church practice, Paul wrote, the rest I will set in order when I come. It is logical, it just makes sense to prefer the church traditions of the apostles. If the apostles were to return and see how modern churches function, would they be pleased or grieved? Paul boldly offered himself as an example to be followed with regard to his faithful service to Christ. I urge you then, be imitators of me. That is why I sent you Timothy, to remind you of my ways in Christ as I teach them everywhere in every church. 1 Corinthians 4, verses 16 and 17. Taking this a step further, for us to imitate Paul's way in Christ regarding church practice would arguably be a wise choice for any fellowship. Proof number five, holding to tradition brings God's peaceful presence. The church at Philippi was told how to have the God of peace be with them. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things and the God of peace will be with you. Philippians 4 verse 9. The context concerned such practices as imitating Christ's humility, putting others first, and rejoicing in the Lord. Just by extension, could it not also include the way Paul organized churches? It is clear from Scripture how the apostles designed churches to function. To bypass apostolic tradition in this area may, therefore, be to bypass some of God's blessings. Could fellowships that follow apostolic church practice enjoy more of God's peaceful presence? Professors. Professors Fee and Stewart acknowledge that for many believers, Acts not only tells us the history of the early church, but it also serves as the normative model for the church of all times. They go on to recognize that large movements and new denominations have been founded partly on the premise that virtually all New Testament patterns should be restored as fully as possible in modern times. Early Southern Baptist theologian J.L. Dagg believed that if the apostles taught us, by example, how to organize and govern churches, we have no right to reject their instruction and captiously insist that nothing but positive commands shall bind us. Instead of choosing to walk in a way of our own devising, we should take pleasure to walk in the footsteps of those holy men from whom we have received the Word of Life. Respect for the spirit by which they were led should induce us to prefer their modes of organization and government to such as our inferior wisdom might suggest. Former Anglican clergyman Roger Williams believed churches should strive to follow New Testament church forms and ordinances as closely as possible. This belief led Williams to found the Rhode Island Colony on the New Testament pattern of a separation between church and state, and in 1638 to plant the first Baptist church in North America. According to E.H. Broadbent, church historian and undercover missionary to closed nations, events in the history of the churches in the time of the apostles have been selected and recorded in the book of Acts in such a way as to provide a permanent pattern for the churches. Departure from this pattern has had disastrous consequences, and all revival and restoration have been due to some return to the pattern and principles in the scriptures. According to Chinese church leader Watchman Nee, Acts is the genesis of the church's history, and the church in the time of Paul is the genesis of the Spirit's work. We must return to the beginning. Only what God has set forth as our example in the beginning is the eternal will of God. It is the divine standard and our pattern for all time. God has revealed His will not only by giving orders, but by having certain things done in His church so that in the ages to come, others might simply look at the pattern and know His will. It was missionary martyr Jim Elliott's firm conviction that the pivot point hangs on whether God has revealed a universal pattern for the church in the New Testament. If he has not, then anything will do so long as it works. But I am convinced that nothing so dear to the heart of Christ as His bride should be left without explicit instructions as to her corporate conduct. It is incumbent upon me, if God has a pattern for the church, to find and establish that pattern at all costs. Pastor and author A.W. Tozer wrote, the temptation to introduce new things into the work of God has always been too strong for some people to resist. The church has suffered untold injury at the hands of well-intentioned but misguided persons who have felt that they know more about running God's work than Christ and his apostles did. A solid train of boxcars would not suffice to haul away the religious truck that has been brought into the service of the church with the hope of improving on the original pattern. These things have been, one and all, great hindrances to the progress of the truth and have so altered the divinely planned structure that the apostles, were they to return to earth today, would scarcely recognize the misshapen thing which has resulted. He concluded, if the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the church today, 95% of what we do would go on and no one would know the difference. If the Holy Spirit had been withdrawn from the New Testament church, 95% of what they did would stop and everybody would know the difference. Proposition. What can be concluded about God's interest in your church adhering to New Testament patterns for church practice? Fee and Stewart offered the general observation that what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way. In a later edition of their book, they qualified their position somewhat. Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is only narrated or described does not function in a normative, obligatory way, unless it can be demonstrated on other grounds that the author intended it to function in this way. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that the apostles did indeed intend for churches to follow the patterns they laid down for church practice. Holding to their traditions for church practice, which were universally practiced in first century churches, brings God's peaceful presence. It is logical, praiseworthy, and even commanded. The question thus is not, must we do things the way they were done in the New Testament? Rather, the question is, why would we want to do things any other way? What are some of these ancient apostolic traditions for church practice? Here's a list of some traditions still practiced and others long neglected. 1. Meeting weekly on Sunday, the Lord's Day, in honor of Jesus' resurrection. 2. Believers' baptism by immersion. 3. The separation of church and state. 4. A plurality of co-equal elders leading every congregation. 5. Elder led congregational consensus. Number six, participatory worship services. Number seven, celebrating the Lord's supper weekly as a fellowship meal. Number eight, Roman villa sized churches, neither micro nor mega in size. Most churches follow some of these patterns, but not all. Why not? Perhaps it is because little attention is paid in seminary to the role apostolic traditions should play. Perhaps it is because most churches are firmly entrenched in man-made traditions developed long after the apostolic era. Many pastors have simply adopted historical traditions inherited from their denomination. Is there not a danger of neglecting the inspired tradition of the apostles for the sake of more modern traditions? Matthew 15 verses 1 through 3. We argue for consistency. The burden of explanation ought to fall on those who deviate from the New Testament pattern, not on those who desire to follow it. This consistency is especially important because the apostles evidently intended all churches to follow their traditions just as they were handed down. 1 Corinthians 11 verse 2. Perhaps these patterns of church practice are part of what gave the early church the dynamic that churches today are sometimes missing. Perspective. Even though all first century churches adhered to apostolic practices, they were still far from perfect, as seen in Jesus' warnings to the churches in Revelation. However, adopting the ways of the apostles for church life is a strategic stepping stone to putting a fellowship in a better position to be all Christ wants it to be as His body. These practices will enrich your church. but are not the answer to all its problems. For example, without Christ at the center of things, New Testament church life patterns become legalism and death, a hollow form, an empty shell, John 15, verse 5. At the end of a very long life of faithful ministry, seminary professor L. Reginald Barnard cautioned that one can have a very scriptural idea of how the early church did things and yet miss the real idea of the church entirely. Barnard opined that even if our church is identical to the apostolic ideal, we would accomplish nothing unless that church was holier by far than the church we started with. Heaven forbid that at the end we present a form to God instead of a holy people redeemed by the gospel. We must always remember that the church is people, the living body of Christ. Jesus died to sanctify His bride, presenting her to Himself without spot or wrinkle, holy and blameless. There is no perfect church. The church is the most relative thing God owns. Yet God will do His perfect work in His imperfect church, for it is His church. When a church truly has new spiritual wine, the best church practice wineskin for that wine is apostolic tradition. The church traditions of the apostles are simple, strategic, and they're scriptural. The most neglected practices are intentionally smaller congregations. participatory worship, celebrating the Lord's Supper weekly as a fellowship meal, and servant leadership that builds congregational consensus. Incorporating these traditions into our churches today can result in tremendous blessings. Such churches have a bright future and tremendous potential if their leaders maintain a focus on disciple-making in the context of dynamic, spirit-filled early church practice. It is a divine design. Practicum. Lifelessness. Jesus came that we might have life and have it abundantly. John 10, verse 10. Critical to any outworking of church life is having an inner life to work out. Technically correct church practice without the wine of the Spirit is a hollow shell. It is dry, seasoned wood, all stacked up with no fire. Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. Apart from Jesus, we can do nothing. John 15, verse 5. It is folly to give attention to outward perfection while neglecting that which is vital, a daily walk with the risen Lord. Jesus is the reality. Apostolic Church practice is the application of that reality. License. A temptation for those who truly possess the inner reality of life in Jesus is to treat its outward expression as a matter of liberty. Having the greater, the wine, they feel that they themselves are competent to decide in lesser matters, the wineskin. They believe they have a license from the Spirit to do whatever they please with the outward form. To be bound by the ways of the apostles is seen as mindless aping. However, Jesus warned that pouring new wine into the wrong wineskin could lead to the loss of the wine. Matthew 9 verse 17. Do we really know better than the apostles how to organize churches? With specific reference to church practice, Paul admonished, if anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 14 verse 37. The Roman world is gone forever. There is a big difference between holding to apostolic tradition versus mindlessly copying everything seen in the New Testament, wearing togas, writing on parchment, reading by oil lamps, etc. The key is to focus on New Testament church practice. We must also beware of making patterns out of things that are not patterns in the New Testament. For instance, the Christian communalism of Acts 4 was a one-time event for a single church. It is an option for believers of any age, but it is neither a command nor a scriptural pattern. But beware of making patterns out of silence. Some are so convinced that we should follow New Testament patterns that they feel they have no freedom to do anything that was not done by the early church. They believe that if a practice is not found in the New Testament, then we can't do it. It is forbidden. For instance, if the New Testament were silent about using musical instruments, then they must not be used. In response, it must first be pointed out that the absence of a mention of a practice is not proof that the early church did not follow that practice. Second, this negative approach is essentially a form of legalism and leads easily to a judgmental spirit. Instead of seeking to positively follow clear New Testament patterns, advocates of this negative hermeneutic are best known for all the things they are against. Finally, if this is the right approach, then why did Jesus participate in the festival of Hanukkah and the synagogue system? both of which were extra-biblical, Inter-Testament historical developments. Liberty We advocate a normative hermeneutic. The church should normally hold to apostolic practices followed by the early church. Matters of silence are matters of freedom. If the Bible is silent about something, if there is neither command nor pattern to follow, then we have the liberty to do whatever suits us, following the lead of the Holy Spirit. Are there ever any good reasons for going against New Testament patterns? Moses told the Israelites to observe a Saturday Sabbath. Violating it was a capital offense. However, If an ox fell in the ditch, then work on the Sabbath was permissible. Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, clarified that it was also always appropriate to do good works on the Sabbath. He further taught that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. So too, the traditions found in the New Testament are there for the sake of the church, not vice versa. Scripture indicates that we are generally to hold to the patterns laid down by the apostles. However, there are times when extenuating circumstances argue against keeping some patterns. Just don't let the exception become the rule. We would place doing church the New Testament way, as opposed to any other way, in the same category as infant baptism versus believer's baptism. Sincere believers disagree over it. One position is an error, but it is a sincere error, and surely not in the same category as lying, stealing, adultery, etc. We never intended to imply that not doing things the New Testament way is a sin. That said, We do intend to give pause to those not doing things the New Testament way since the word command is used in reference to participatory meetings, 1 Corinthians 14, verse 37, and since holding to apostolic traditions is also commanded, 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 13. The seven last words of churches today might be We never did it that way before. We want to spur pastors to action so that their churches don't miss out on potential blessings. Discussion questions. Number one, how can the axiom form follows function be applied to how the apostles set up churches? Number two, What in the New Testament indicates whether there was a basic uniformity of practice in all early churches? Number three, Jesus criticized the Pharisees for holding to Jewish traditions, Matthew 15. Paul praised the Corinthians for holding to his traditions, 1 Corinthians 11. Why the difference? Number four, Why is it important to make a distinction between apostolic traditions found in the New Testament and later historical traditions? Number five, Mosaic law was paradigmatic in nature. How would the paradigmatic principle apply to commands in the New Testament to follow specific apostolic traditions? 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 15, chapter three, verse six. Number six, what gave the apostles authority to establish patterns that all churches are obliged to follow? Number seven, what is the difference between holding to apostolic traditions versus mindlessly copying everything seen in the New Testament? Wearing sandals, writing on parchment, studying by oil lamps, dressing in togas, et cetera. Number eight, Jesus washed his disciples' feet. The Jerusalem church practiced communalism. How can we determine what is and is not intended to be an apostolic tradition? Number nine, what should we make of the fact that there is scholarly consensus regarding the actual practice of the early church in the New Testament? Number 10. Some think it is foolish to try to recreate the primitive church because it was far from perfect. God expected his church to mature, to grow up beyond the emphasy stage. How would you respond to this argument? ntrf.org has audio, video, and a teacher's guide on traditions. Chapter Two, Worship, Strategy to Stir Up Love. Jesus equipped the early church with a worship strategy designed to promote love and good deeds, edify, encourage, strengthen, and instruct. His plan called for ordinary believers to be able to regularly and significantly contribute to corporate worship. There was an open format for sharing. with orderly spontaneity. In contrast, today's worship services have become more of a spectator sport. Did you know that Jesus actually commanded that the laity be unleashed through an open pulpit format? In the New Testament churches, those prompted by the Spirit were free to offer testimonies, to share spiritual experiences, to give exhortations, to lead out in prayer, to testify, to sing, and to praise. Generally, each person who spoke did so in accordance with his spiritual gifting. The prime directive was that everything be designed to edify, strengthen, build up, encourage the congregation. There are many benefits to an open format. More people become actively involved in building up the church. The opportunity to make truly meaningful contributions to the meeting heightens congregational interest. The ideas that are shared tend to be practical, from the heart, and drawn from real-world application of God's Word. It prevents the development of apathy from the frustration with passivity. There is a fuller expression of the spiritual gifts that involve speaking. This open mic approach also helps to avoid the atrophying of spiritual gifts from lack of use. All this not only takes a tremendous load off the pastors, but it allows them to enjoy being ministered to. Professors, In the Mid-America Baptist Theological Journal, Professor Jimmy Millican stated that in early Christian congregations, there was apparently a free expression of the spirit. In the public assembly, one person might have a psalm, another brother a teaching, another a revelation, another a tongue, another an interpretation. In the nature of the early church, church historian Ernest Scott wrote, The exercise of the spiritual gifts was thus the characteristic element in primitive worship. Those gifts might vary in their nature and degree according to the capacity of each individual, but they were bestowed on all and room was allowed in the service for the participation of all who were present. Every member was expected to contribute something of his own to the common worship. In introducing the New Testament, Theologian John Drane wrote, in the earliest days, their worship was spontaneous. This seems to have been regarded as the ideal, for when Paul describes how a church meeting should proceed, he depicts a Spirit-led participation by many. There was the fact that anyone had the freedom to participate in such worship. In the ideal situation, when everyone was inspired by the Holy Spirit, this was the perfect expression of Christian freedom. Concerning public worship in the New Testament church, London Bible College lecturer G. W. Kirby concluded, there appears to have been considerable fluidity with time given for spontaneous participation. Scottish commentator William Barclay stated, the really notable thing about an early church service must have been that almost everyone came feeling that he had both the privilege and obligation of contributing something to it. Proof. Open synagogue format. Paul was free to preach the gospel in synagogues throughout the Roman world. Acts 13 verses 14 and 15, 14 verse 1, 17 verses 1 and 2, 17 verse 10, 18 verse 4, 19 verse 8. If the ancient synagogue meetings were in any way like modern Christian worship services, Paul would have needed to develop alternative strategies for spreading the gospel to the Jews. First century synagogues were open to the participation of those in attendance. Jewish Christians comprised the first churches. Thus, it is no wonder that the early church meetings were open to audience participation. encouraging one another. The author of Hebrews urged his readers, ordinary Christians, to consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, but encouraging one another. Hebrews 10 verses 24 and 25. Before coming to church, every believer was responsible for giving thought to how he might inspire others. It is clear, then, that early church meetings were designed to provide ample opportunity for mutual encouragement. The focus was not exclusively on pastors. It was on one another. Participatory worship is in keeping with the principle of the 59 one another scriptural passages. John 13 verse 34, Romans 12 verse 10, 1 Peter 4 verse 8, 1 John 3 verse 11. There was a principle of participation. It was about each member doing his part as led by the Spirit. All members of Christ's body bore the responsibility to encourage the others through testimony, song, praise, prayer, exhortation, teaching, and the sharing of personal spiritual lessons learned. Paul talked with them. Acts 20 verse 7 records that Paul spoke all night when he visited the church at Troas. The Greek verb that describes his actions is derived from dialegomai. The English word dialogue is a transliteration. It means discuss rather than preach. In Acts 18 verse 4 and 19 verse 8, the same word is rendered as reasoned and reasoning. The English Standard Version states that Paul talked with them. Paul undoubtedly did most of the speaking that night. However, it was not an uninterruptible sermon as if broadcast on the radio. Thus, the time that the early church set aside for teaching, even when led by an apostle, was to some degree discussion-oriented. Another indicator that early church meetings were characterized by a principle of participation. Each one has. Guidelines for the use of spiritual gifts when the whole church comes together are presented in 1 Corinthians 14, verse 23. The ESV Study Bible states, these verses give a fascinating glimpse into the kinds of activities that took place when the early church gathered as the body of Christ to worship the Lord. This glimpse reveals a principle of participation. What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. 14 verse 26. To whom was 1 Corinthians 14 verse 26 written? It was directed to each one of the brothers, not just pastors. These early meetings were not nearly as pastor-centric as modern worship services. If the words, each one, were replaced with only one, which would better characterize your church services? Indeed, 1 Corinthians 11-14 is a lengthy passage about church meetings. Amazingly, pastors are not even mentioned in this entire section. This does not mean that pastors are unimportant. On the contrary, they are critical to the proper functioning of a church. Thayer defined an episkopos as one charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done are done rightly. They are essential personnel. However, it appears that in worship services, pastors are to be more like sideline coaches than star players. New Testament believers did not merely attend services. Each one was free to use his spiritual gifts to build up the gathered church. They were active, vital participants who could significantly contribute to what went on in the gathering. Their motto for church meetings could have been, every member a minister. Edification. The overarching purpose for all that is said or done in such a gathering is edification. Let all things be done for building up. 1 Corinthians 14 verse 26. The Greek for building up, oikodome, is related to the act of strengthening or encouraging One lexicon has described oikodome as the action of one who promotes another's growth in Christian wisdom, piety, and holiness. Any comment made in participatory worship had to be prompted by the Spirit and lovingly designed to encourage, to build up, to strengthen, or to edify. If not, it was inappropriate and was to be left unspoken. Each testimony had to be well thought out so that it would build up the church. To be edifying, all teaching had to be both true and practical. The music had to honor the Lord. It had to be theologically sound. Prophecies were for upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 1 Corinthians 14 verse 3. The Corinthians were told, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. 1 Corinthians 14 verse 12. This highlights the principle of participation in early church gatherings. Each person ministered according to his spiritual gifts. As Romans 12, verse 6 says, having gifts given to us, let us use them. Music. The regulation of spiritual gifts and worship is addressed in 1 Corinthians 14. Thus, when Paul wrote that each one had a hymn, psalmos, chapter 14, verse 26, he meant each one gifted in music. All Spirit-led musicians in good standing with the church had the freedom to edify the congregation through this gift. Furthermore, it appears that there was at least some degree of spontaneity in the music. The early church's singing also had a one-another aspect. Even believers who were not musically gifted were admonished, be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart. Ephesians 5, verse 19. Similarly, the Colossian believers were exhorted to admonish one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Colossians 3, verse 16. Those with musical gifts should facilitate the entire church's singing during worship. It has been cautioned, the music must not turn the church into an audience enjoying the music, but into a congregation singing the Lord's praises in His presence. Our music should reflect the psalmist invitation. Let us come into His presence with thanksgiving. Let us make a joyful noise to Him with songs of praise. Psalm 95, verse 2. Teaching. In-depth, practical, biblical exposition was an integral part of each weekly church meeting. Pastors rightly do most of the teaching on the Lord's Day. However, the New Testament says that each one of the brothers who had the gift of teaching also had the freedom to bring the weekly lesson, 1 Corinthians 14, verse 26. Thus, James cautioned, not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness, John 3, verse 1. This caution makes sense in light of the participatory meetings that characterized the early church. In accordance with the principle of participation, there was clearly an opportunity for supernaturally gifted mature brothers that had opportunities to teach with pastoral approval and coaching. Two or three tongues. The participatory nature of early church meetings is also evident in the guidelines for those who spoke in tongues. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two, or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God." 1 Corinthians 14, verses 27, 28. Interpretation was required so that the church might be built up. 1 Corinthians 14, verse 5. Multiple people participated, one at a time, and there was clearly a degree of spontaneity. Speaking in tongues is obviously a controversial topic. Even if it is no longer practiced, the principle of spontaneous participation remains. People could still contribute through teachings, songs, testimonies, prayers, exhortations, encouragements, and public scripture readings. two or three prophets. The participatory nature of New Testament gatherings is also seen in the guidelines for prophecy. Let two or three prophets speak and let the others weigh what is said. 1 Corinthians 14 verse 29. The impromptu nature of prophecy is clear. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 1 Corinthians 14 verse 30. The goal of prophecy is that all may learn and all be encouraged. 1 Corinthians 14 verse 31. Prophet is a transliteration of prophetēs. Pro can mean either before or forth, and phetēs means to speak. Generally, the prophets received divine revelation, which they shared. They proclaimed and interpreted divine truth. This revelation might have concerned sin in someone's life, 1 Corinthians 14 verse 24-25. It might have been a word of encouragement, Acts 15 verse 32. Or it might have been a prediction of the future, Acts 11 verses 27 to 30. Modern prophets might give practical insights about the correct application of Scripture. They are passionate people who speak words of encouragement. exhortation, motivation, and application. They are change agents who impart life into church meetings. It must be noted that prophecy and teaching are not the same gifts, Romans 12, verses 6 and 7, 1 Corinthians 12, verse 28, even though they both result in learning and encouragement. Prophets tend to receive their messages through direct revelation from the Spirit, whereas teachers spend hours in the study of written revelation—Scripture. Because the source of a prophet's message was somewhat subjective, his revelations had to be judged. Let the others weigh what is said." 1 Corinthians 14 verse 29b. See also 1 Thessalonians 5 verses 20 to 21. The main point is the principle of participation with a fair amount of spontaneity. It is the pastor's duty to be sure that everything is done decently and in order. 1 Corinthians 14 verse 40. women to be silent. Scripture states that women should keep silent in the churches. 1 Corinthians 14 verse 33b. There would be no need to convey this to most of today's churches because generally no one, man or woman, except the pastors, speaks. Whatever this means, it would not have been written unless first century church meetings were participatory. Thus, even this prohibition reflects the principle of participation. Perspective It is helpful to have a good perspective on why participatory worship is important and how it was lost. After Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, A.D. 380, Large pagan temples were often repurposed as church buildings. Church gatherings moved from the relative intimacy of Roman villas to vast impersonal basilicas. These large church services naturally morphed into performances by professionals. Socratic teaching gave way to eloquent monologues. Spontaneity was lost, and with it, the principle of participation. The one another aspect of assembly became impractical. Each one has became only one has. Informality was transformed into formality. Church leaders began to wear special clerical costumes. Worship aids such as incense, icons, candles, and hand gestures were introduced. In A Lion Handbook, The History of Christianity, Church of Scotland minister Henry Sefton wrote, worship in the house church had been of an intimate kind in which all present had taken an active part. This changed from being a corporate action of the whole church into a service said by the clergy to which the laity listened. Many consider traditional worship services to be participatory simply because the congregation joins in responsive readings, partakes of the Lord's Supper, enjoys congregational singing, and gives financial offerings. These are positive aspects of worship. However, they do not constitute an open format. Gordon Fee observed, by and large, the history of the church points to the fact that in worship we do not greatly trust the diversity of the body. Edification must always be the rule and that carries with it orderliness so that all may learn and all be encouraged. But it is no great credit to the historical church that in opting for order, It also opted for a silencing of the ministry of the many. Many of us have heard of couch potatoes. Have we trained God's people to be pew potatoes? Many feel that they might as well stay home and watch church on television. Not allowing the ministry of the many can cause apathy. As illustrated in a joke about a Sunday school teacher who once asked the children, why must we be quiet in church? One perceptive little girl replied, because people are sleeping in there. The verbal participation of the members makes for a greater working of the spirit because it allows the many gifts of the ministry to flourish. According to Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 14, God might burden a number of believers, independently of one another, to bring a short testimony or word of encouragement, to lead out in a prayer, or to bring a song. Additional applications and illustrations can be offered by the body at large to augment a word of instruction. Brothers could ask questions or make comments during or after the teaching time. New believers learn how to think with the mind of Christ as they observe the more mature believers sharing in the meeting. Maturity will greatly increase. The brothers will begin to own the meeting. They will take responsibility for the flow of the meeting as they become active participants rather than passive spectators. Edification is thus accomplished. Prescription. After providing guidelines for participatory worship, Paul wrote, the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 14 verse 37. A command is not a suggestion. It is more than a good idea. The instructions in 1 Corinthians are not merely interesting history. These participatory regulations are not just descriptions of primitive church meetings. In some sense, they are prescriptive. Paul even gave advice on dealing with those who argue against obeying these guidelines. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 1 Corinthians 14 verse 38. How will you lead your church to obey the Lord's command regarding participatory worship? Our proposition is that you consider introducing participatory worship to your church. Perhaps you fear it is not worth the anticipated problems it might create. Where there are no oxen, the manger is clean. But much increase comes from their strength. Proverbs 14 verse 4. The potential blessing is worth the risk. It is worth noting the seven last words of declining churches. We never did it that way before. Some in Corinth wanted to conduct their meetings differently from the requirements set forth in 1 Corinthians 14. They were asked two questions. Or was it from you that the Word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 1 Corinthians 14, verse 36. The Word of God clearly did not originate with the Corinthians, and they most certainly were not the only people whom it had reached. As such, whatever applied to the Corinthian church would also apply to us. These questions were designed to convince the Corinthian believers that they had no authority to conduct their meetings in any other way than that prescribed by the apostles. The principle of participation was to be observed. Should the time when the body comes together be focused mostly on pastors? Or is it an opportunity for God to speak through multiple saints to those gathered? Changing the focus to the messages of multiple people strengthens the church as a whole. The church is thus not as dependent on the gifts of one man. Often when a gifted pastor leaves a church, attendance plummets. The likelihood of the development of a personality cult is lessened. One of Martin Luther's arguments for Reformation concerned the priesthood of all believers. Do we really believe in the priesthood of the believer? If so, perhaps we could prove it by allowing the priest to minister during our services. Practicum Leadership's Role Church leaders who are new to the idea of participatory worship are wisely cautious. With good reason, they anticipate unedifying scenarios. One of an elder's roles is to keep church meetings on track in order to be true to the prime directive that all things be edifying. Lexicographer Joseph Thayer defined an episkopos as a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly. He described a presbyteros as one who presided over the assemblies. If a meeting is not edifying, the elders are responsible for making the necessary adjustments. Ephesians 4 verses 11 and 12 reveals that it is the duty of pastor-teachers to equip the saints for ministry. This includes training that prepares them to make meaningful contributions in a participatory meeting. If the scriptures truly reveal God's desire for participatory meetings to be held, then we can expect God to work through the elders to see that the meetings are successful. There is order in a cemetery. However, there is no life. It is much better to risk a little disorder to have life. The Holy Spirit must be trusted to work in the life of a church. Edifying participatory church meetings do not just happen. New Testament-style participatory worship is to be Spirit-led. and the Spirit works through elders to make it edifying. They are behind-the-scenes coaches, encouraging and training so that everyone ministers in accordance with His spiritual gifts and everything that is said is edifying. Below are some typical scenarios. Details are provided to help those who are just beginning to experiment with participatory meetings to avoid some common pitfalls. baby steps. Start slowly. Do not try to have fully participatory meetings initially. During the week, if you hear a brother share something that the Lord taught him, enlist him to share it in church the following Sunday. Work with him to make sure that it is short, more than seven minutes, and practicable. Coach him to ensure brevity and clarity. Each week, a few brothers could be scheduled to share a short testimony in the meeting. A person who shares a witnessing experience can motivate the timid to evangelism. A testimony about a need met or a prayer answered in God's providence can encourage others who are going through hard times. A person who is involved in a jail ministry can talk about good results with inmates and induce others to get involved. Real-life stories with a spiritual emphasis are very uplifting. The congregation will thus become accustomed to greater participation and have a model for the appropriate type of edifying sharing. As the congregation grows accustomed to this approach, the total time allotted for sharing can be increased, and those who are moved by the Spirit can be given more latitude to rise from their seats to share without having been scheduled to speak. Cultural Resistance In the West, having participatory instead of performance-style worship is counter-cultural. Many will find participatory worship uncomfortable. One Baptist church that experimented with it on Sunday nights suffered a precipitous decline in attendance at that service. The members said that they did not want to hear amateur opinions. They wanted to hear polished presentations by professional pastors. Time, teaching, training, and equipping by leadership are necessary for God's people to be prepared for participatory worship. The typical church member is not a professional speaker. Thus, the potential for imperfect presentations is ever-present. However, love bears all things. 1 Corinthians 13, verse 7. If participatory worship is truly Christ's desire, then how strange it seems in our culture is ultimately immaterial. As with the pearl of great price, the benefit is worth the cost. People will become more open to participatory meetings as they are taught obedience to God's word and understand that is a scriptural concept. Sound barrier. After years of passively attending services, most Christians are conditioned to sit silent in church, as if watching television. Patience and encouragement are necessary to overcome this. Meaningful participation will seem awkward to people initially. Continual encouragement by the leadership may be necessary until the sound barrier is broken. During the week, elders should work behind the scenes to encourage the brethren to share. Asking men to lead a weekly prayer or public reading of scripture can help them to overcome their reticence. Open participation does not preclude private preparation. Every brother should be coached to consider in advance how the Lord might have him edify the church. Hebrews 10 verse 25. If a string were stretched across the surface of a stream, various things that would otherwise have floated past would become attached to it as the day progressed. Similarly, thinking all week long about what to bring to the next meeting helps greatly. If no one brought food to a family reunion, there would not be much of a feast. If no one comes to participatory worship prepared to contribute, there will not be much sharing. The following could be asked of the brothers. What has the Lord shown you this week during your time with Him? Is there a testimony the Lord would have you to bring? Could you commit to begin a time of conversational prayer? Is there a song that would edify the church? Is there a subject or passage of scripture to teach on? The worst cause of a lack of participation is the absence of anything spiritual to share. Many Christians are not walking with the Lord or living Spirit-filled lives. They may be as straight as a gun barrel theologically and just as empty. Such spiritually dull believers will have little that is worthwhile to share on Sunday. Edifying participatory worship happens only when church members abide in Jesus. Too often, liturgy and clerical dominance become a necessary cover for congregational carnality. In contrast, genuine heartfelt sharing and confession in the meeting can cause those living lives of hypocrisy to come under conviction and repent of their sin. Obedience is contagious. People who love Jesus do not come to church to worship. They bring their worship with them. Un-edifying remarks. Sometimes, after brothers become accustomed to sharing, they become overly casual in their remarks. Unless someone has the gift of prophecy, spontaneous utterances typically do not edify the assembly. An open format does not mean that people can say anything they want to say. Leaders need to remind the church that whatever is said in the meeting must be designed to build up the body. Sometimes merely requiring speakers to rise and stand behind a pulpit, lectern, or a music stand at the front of the room as opposed to speaking from their seats, will effectively squelch casual, unedifying remarks. The elders must coach each person to remember, a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver. Proverbs 25 verse 11. Church meetings must not become therapy sessions for the wounded. The focus should not be exclusively on needy persons. If allowed, spiritual black holes can suck the life out of a meeting. Such people do need counseling. However, it should be done at a time other than during public worship. Corporate edification must remain the prime directive. It is the elder's responsibility to help people understand what is and is not edifying and to provide private coaching to help people to make only edifying comments. Brothers should be trained to tell what the time is rather than how to build a clock. As does a pencil, every message should have a point. Those who share should also be taught to focus on one point, to keep it short. The words spoken must have power. The goal must be exhortation. Despite the best modeling, some brothers simply will not get it. They will have to be privately and repeatedly coached regarding edifying and unedifying comments. There is to be a certain degree of decorum. Peter said, as each has received a gift, use it to serve one another as good stewards of God's varied grace. Whoever speaks as one who speaks oracles of God. 1 Peter 4 verses 10 and 11. Participatory worship should not be interactive. It is generally not edifying when someone in the audience tries to interact with a person who was burdened to stand up to share. The church should not be subjected to having to listen to a public conversation. To edify the church during the worship time, individuals should present verbal offerings with the same attitude in which the Old Testament saints brought offerings. Others should be kept from piling on or adding to something that has already been offered. We call it deceling. Aberrant theology. The lure of a participatory meeting might attract those looking to promote an eccentric doctrine. This is another situation where elders are needed. Timothy, stationed in Ephesus and temporarily functioning as an elder, was to charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 1 Timothy 1 verse 3. One qualification for an elder is that he must be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. Titus 1 verse 9. Similarly, Titus was told, Exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Titus 2 verse 15. John warned about a known deceiver. Do not receive him into your house. 2 John 1 verse 10. The prevention and correction of error is one reason elders are needed. One way to filter out doctrinal error is for the church to have an official statement of faith. Remarks made during the church meeting must be consistent with the belief statement. In addition, only brothers who are in good standing with the church should be allowed to share. Each week an announcement should be made that only church members are permitted to speak. Members with non-heretical but nevertheless odd beliefs must not be free to publicly express them. The elders are the gatekeepers for would-be speakers. Pooled ignorance. During an interview on participatory worship, a Christian radio broadcaster astutely asked, How do you keep the guy who knows the least from saying the most? Rather than considering in advance how to encourage the church, some will come to meeting unprepared. People who are socially clueless and lacking the Spirit's direction will make impromptu, rambling, repetitive speeches that would be better left unsaid. It is the elder's job to know the congregation well enough to be aware of those who are likely to do excessive and inappropriate sharing. They must work with them to help them to be informed, concise, and judicious in their sharing. Disruptive Visitors Uninformed guests could easily vex the church with unedifying remarks. Self-centered visitors might want to dominate the meeting. The mentally unstable will seek to speak loudly and often to the chagrin of the assembly. Critics might publicly attack the church's beliefs. Wandering heretics will view the participatory meeting as a chance to promote errant theologies. Leaders are needed in such cases to keep the peace and to restore order with wisdom and patience. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Thus, it would be wise to allow only church members or invited guests the opportunity to speak. God's flock must be protected from unnecessary vexation. Congregation size. Meetings that are either too big, hundreds of people, or too small, fewer than 10 or 20, present hindrances to participation. The presence of too many people will be inimical to intimacy. It will intimidate the shy and inhibit sharing and accountability. Only a tiny fraction of those present in a big meeting would be able to share anyway, even if they had the courage. Too few contributions from people in a tiny congregation could make the meeting seem dull because of the absence of diversity of spiritual gifts. The typical first century church meeting in a wealthy person's villa would have 65 to 70 people in attendance. There were 120 in the upper room. Early church meetings comprised scores of people, not hundreds and, certainly, not thousands. One home-filled advantage for small churches is the possibility of having truly edifying participatory worship experiences. When well-managed by pastors, open worship taps into the congregation's spiritual gifts. People become excited about attending because they can make meaningful contributions and be blessed by those of others. Sometimes a complete message from God is conveyed through the beautiful blending of testimonies, teachings, songs, and encouragement of multiple people. many springs flowing into one river. The promotion of one-anothering in the assembly can be of great encouragement to those involved with small churches. Why would Scripture speak of these things if they were not important? Participatory worship can transform small church meetings from ordinary to extraordinary. Latecomers If a brother is earnestly sharing from his heart when a family suddenly comes late into the meeting room, everyone will naturally turn to see who is entering. The latecomers then climb over people who are already seated, chairs are shuffled, etc. What effect would this have on the message that was being shared? It will be disrupted and the spirit will be squelched. Late arrivals should be asked to wait quietly outside. They should not enter the meeting area until a song is being sung or there is a change of speakers. In participatory worship, it is not unusual for a latecomer to request a song that has already been sung. Even worse, a late brother might bring an exhortation related to a current event that the church had already spent several minutes considering. The church could adopt a policy that requires late arrivals to refrain from speaking because they would not know what has already transpired. It will also discourage tardiness. So little time. If a service is limited to one hour incorporating music, participatory sharing and an in-depth lesson will be difficult. A one-and-a-half or two-hour meeting would be more ideal. Even then, the meeting time must be carefully managed. Careful attention should be paid to the time designated for each phase of the meeting, singing, sharing, and teaching. In addition, limits should be placed on the number of people who can share and the amount of time allotted to each person. Remarks could be limited to seven to 10 minutes. This will prevent the meeting from being dominated by one person and thus allow multiple people to share. It will be necessary for the leadership to occasionally interrupt long-winded speakers. A sample bulletin is provided in the appendix. In-depth teaching. Feeding the sheep is a critical component of healthy church life. Quality, in-depth teaching that is geared to believers should be an integral part of each Sunday church meeting. This is the lesson that is referred to in 1 Corinthians 14, verse 26. Our Lord instructed the apostles to make disciples by teaching obedience to all His commandments, Matthew 28, verse 20. Acts 2 verse 42 says that the Jerusalem church was devoted to the apostles' teaching. One of the requirements for an elder is that he have the ability to teach. 1 Timothy 3 verse 2. Elders who work hard at teaching are declared worthy of a double honor. financial support, 1 Timothy 5 verses 17-18. Thus, the importance of teaching should not be underestimated. The ideal is a steady diet of the systematic exposition of Scripture with clear practical applications. If the what, the content, does not lead to so what, the application, then the what has not been taught correctly. The goal of all instruction should be to promote love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith. 1 Timothy 1 verse 5. Because we want people to come to Christ, we can be tempted to convert church meetings into evangelistic services. However, the New Testament indicates that church gatherings are primarily for the benefit of believers. They serve to build Christians up in their faith and to encourage them to be obedient. Charismatic gifts. Churches that promote the exercising of charismatic gifts must ensure that the guidelines in 1 Corinthians 14 verses 26 to 32 are followed closely. Speaking in tongues is not to be allowed unless it can be interpreted. A maximum of three tongue speakers should be allowed. Prophecies should also be limited to three speakers. Anyone who prophesies must realize that his words will be weighed carefully and judged. Managing this can be confusing and frustrating because the overly emotional and unstable often imagine they have such gifts. Perhaps that is why the Thessalonians were given this admonition. Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil. 1 Thessalonians 5 verses 20 to 22. In the midst of these supernatural utterances, there must be order. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets. God is not a God of disorder, but of peace. 1 Corinthians 14, verse 33a. Here again, the elders played a key role in ensuring that everything was done in a fitting and orderly way. 1 Corinthians 14, verse 40. Elders are responsible for quality control. Participatory worship obviously does not mean anything goes. Those who speak in tongues must be silent if there is no interpreter. Prophets must be silent if interrupted. In each case, restraint is required for the greater good. Paul's first letter to Timothy, 1 Timothy 2 verse 12, reveals that women are not to teach or have authority over men. Thus, sisters are not free to present the lesson, 1 Corinthians 14, verse 26, and 1 Corinthians 14, verses 33b to 35, appears to further limit their participation. See ntrf.org for help with this topic. Children. The New Testament indicates that children were present with their parents in worship. For example, Paul intended some of his letters to be read aloud to the entire church, Colossians 4, verse 16. Had children not been present in the meeting, they would not have heard Paul's instruction to them, Ephesians 6, verses 1 to 3. See also Matthew 19, verses 13 to 15, Luke 2, 41 to 50, Acts 21, verse 5. It is better for children to remain with their parents in worship rather than to be segregated in a children's church. A young child who begins to cry loudly in the meeting should be removed by a parent until he has been quieted. Having a room designated for this purpose is beneficial. Some parents will be oblivious to this need. In such cases, the leadership must speak to the parents in private to enlist their cooperation in controlling their children. Older children should be taught to sit still or to play silently on the floor to avoid being disruptive. False expectations. New people will invariably come to participatory worship with preconceived notions. For example, some will want to have a moving worship experience or to sing only the great hymns of the faith. Others will exclusively associate praise songs with heartfelt worship, expect dramatic healings to take place. or desire an emotional presentation of the gospel. When their expectations are not met, disappointment and discontent are the result. Church leaders need to be aware of this and take steps to help people to have biblical expectations of the meetings. A description of a typical church meeting could be posted on the church website. In each service, a brief statement could be made about the way that the church meeting will be conducted, and a bulletin could be provided to visitors so that they would know what to expect. REGENERATE MEMBERSHIP. The ability to have participatory worship assumes a REGENERATE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. This requires church discipline. The Reformers felt that one of the characteristics of a true church was church discipline, the wonder of the gospel, is that provision is made for the sinning brother who cannot find his way to repentance on his own. The grace of a loving congregation will help him be restored to full fellowship. Three phases. We recommend three phases for every Lord's Day meeting. The first phase might be participatory, sharing, praying, and singing, followed by a short break. The second could be the lesson brought by an elder or brother qualified to teach. The third phase would be the Lord's Supper or agape. Of course, the order of these phases could be changed to meet the needs of the fellowship. A sample bulletin. Gathering. 10.15 to 10.30. Arrive and settle in. Meet people, enjoy a cup of coffee, and find a seat. 10.30 to 11.15. Participatory worship. First century church meetings were characterized by each one has. 1 Corinthians 14, verse 26. Accordingly, believers in good standing with the church are free to use their spiritual gifts to build up the gathered saints through songs, short testimonies, scripture readings, exhortations, or praise. 1115 to 1130, a short break. Stand up, stretch your legs, refresh your coffee, and greet someone. 1130-1215 Lesson An integral part of our participatory worship is the in-depth teaching of God's Word by an elder or brother with the gift of teaching. 1230-230 Lord's Supper Agape Feast The early church celebrated the Lord's Supper weekly as a literal meal. This holy meal is a wonderful time of edification through fellowship. Central are the bread and wine, which symbolize Jesus' death on the cross to pay for our sins. The single cup and single loaf symbolize unity. An enacted prayer, the Lord's Supper reminds us of Jesus' promise to return and eat it again with us at the wedding banquet of the Lamb. Come, Lord Jesus. Discussion Questions 1. Taken as a whole, what statements in 1 Corinthians 14 indicate that early church meetings were participatory? 2. Suppose 1 Corinthians 14 verse 26 is a criticism of the Corinthian church. What is the significance of the inspired solution being a regulation of participation rather than a prohibition of participation? Number three, why is it important for everything that is said in the church meeting to be edifying? See 1 Corinthians 14 verses 1 to 25. Number four, According to 1 Corinthians 14 and Hebrews 10 verses 24 and 25, what are some of the guiding principles for participatory church meetings? Number five, what role should pastors play in participatory meetings? See 1 Timothy 1, verse 3-5, 3, verse 5, 4, verses 11-14, 5, verse 17, 6, verse 2b, 2 Timothy 4, verses 1-2, Titus 2 verse 1 and 2 verse 15. 6. What can be done if, week after week, few saints share anything of significance in participatory worship? 7. Why would the absence of charismatic gifts not nullify the general principle of participatory church meetings? 8. What is the Lord commanding in 1 Corinthians 14, verse 37? 9. According to Acts 2, verse 42, Acts 14, verses 26-28, and 1 Timothy 4, verse 13, what are some appropriate contributions to a church meeting? 10. What advantages does a smaller congregation have over a larger one regarding participatory worship? NTRF.org has audio, video, and a teacher's discussion guide on worship. Chapter 3, Communion, Strategy for Unity and Community. Jesus empowered the ancient church with a communion strategy designed to create supernatural unity, loving community, and holy living in view of His return. One aspect of this strategy was to partake of the Lord's Supper weekly. The other was the celebration of the Supper as an actual meal. a sacred covenant meal. Because modern churches are not following this strategy, the Last Supper has become the Lost Supper. The bread and wine look back to Jesus' death on the cross. Placing them in the context of a meal adds a forward look to the wedding banquet of the Lamb. This relaxed, unhurried, weekly meal is a significant means for encouraging fellowship, edifying the church, developing community, cementing the ties of love, and creating unity. Professors, scholarly opinion is clearly weighted toward the conclusion that the Lord's Supper was originally eaten as a meal. In New Testament theology, Donald Guthrie stated that the Apostle Paul sets the Lord's Supper in the context of the fellowship meal. Editor of the notable evangelical commentary series, New International Commentary on the New Testament, Gordon Fee noted, the nearly universal phenomena of cultic meals as a part of worship in antiquity. He asserted that in the early church, the Lord's Supper was most likely eaten as or in conjunction with such a meal. Fee further noted, from the beginning, the Last Supper was for Christians not an annual Christian Passover, but a regularly repeated meal in honor of the Lord, hence, the Lord's Supper. In the New Bible Dictionary, G.W. Grogan observed, the administration of the Eucharist shows it set in the context of a fellowship supper. The separation of the meal or agape from the Eucharist lies outside the times of the New Testament. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, C.K. Barrett stated, the Lord's Supper was still at Corinth an ordinary meal to which acts of symbolical significance were attached rather than a purely symbolical meal. United Methodist Publishing House editor John Gooch wrote, In the first century, the Lord's Supper included not only the bread and the cup, but an entire meal. Yale professor J.J. Pelican concluded, Often, if not always, it was celebrated in the setting of a common meal. The setting for the Lord's Supper was the Passover feast. Jesus and His disciples reclined around a table heaping with food, Exodus 12, Deuteronomy 16. Jesus took bread and compared it to His body while they were eating, Matthew 26, 26. After the supper, Luke 22, verse 20, Jesus took the cup. and compared it to his blood, soon to be poured out for sin. Timing is everything. The bread and wine of the Lord's Supper were introduced in the context of an actual meal. The Twelve would have naturally understood the Lord's Supper to be a meal also. Deipnon, the Greek word for supper, means dinner or banquet, the main meal toward evening. Arguably, it never refers to anything less than a full meal. At the last supper, Jesus said, I confer on you a kingdom so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom. Luke 22 verses 29 and 30. What is the reason for this eschatological eating? First century Jews thought of heaven as a time of feasting at the Messiah's table. For example, a Jewish leader once said to Jesus, Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God, Luke 14, 15. Jesus himself spoke of those who will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, Matthew 8, verse 11. Isaiah described the coming kingdom feast in this way, the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of His people will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken." Isaiah 25, verses six to eight. The book of Revelation describes a future time of feasting at the Lamb's wedding banquet. Revelation 19 verse 9. When the early church observed the Lord's Supper, which included the bread and the cup, it was as a true meal. It is important to appreciate why the Lord's Supper was originally a meal. It is an image and foretaste of what we will be doing when Jesus returns to eat with us. What better way to typify the marriage banquet of the lamb than a meal manifesting all the excitement and fellowship and love of the heavenly feast. The most extensive treatment of the Lord's supper is found in 1 Corinthians chapters 10 and 11. The church in Corinth clearly celebrated it as a meal. However, class and cultural divisions resulted in their communion meetings doing more harm than good. Chapter 11, verses 17-18. The upper class not wanting to dine with those of a lower social class evidently came to the gathering early to avoid the poor. By the time the working class believers arrived, delayed perhaps by employment constraints, all the food had been eaten. The poor went home hungry, chapter 11, verses 21 and 22. The wealthy failed to esteem their impoverished brethren as equal members of the body of Christ. The Corinthian abuse was so serious that the Lord's Supper had instead become their own suppers. When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. If merely eating one's own supper had been the entire objective, than private dining at home would have sufficed. Thus, Paul asked the rich, do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Chapter 11 verse 22. From the nature of the abuse, it is evident that the Corinthian church regularly partook of the Lord's supper as a meal. It has been suggested that the abuses in Corinth led Paul to end the meal. For example, the original commentary in the 1599 Geneva Bible stated, the apostle thinketh it good to take away the love feasts for their abuse, although they had been a long time and with commendation used in churches. and were appointed and instituted by the apostles. This prompts the following question. Would Paul have single-handedly overturned a practice that had been established by Jesus, taught by the apostles, and upheld by all the churches? We think not. However, their comment affirms the simultaneous celebration of the Lord's Supper and the love feast as instituted by the apostles. It has been said that the best antidote to abuse is appropriate use rather than disuse. Paul's solution to Corinthian abuse was not to do away with the meal. Instead, Paul wrote, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. Chapter 11, verse 33. Only those who are so famished that they could not wait for the others were instructed to eat at home. Chapter 11, verse 34, acclaimed commentator C.K. Barrett cautioned, Paul's point is that if the rich wish to eat and drink on their own, enjoying better food than the poorer brothers, they should do this at home. If they cannot wait for others, verse 33, if they must indulge to excess, they can at least keep the church's common meal free from practices that can only bring discredit upon it. Paul simply means that those who are so hungry that they cannot wait for their brothers should satisfy their hunger before they leave home in order that decency and order may prevail in the assembly. In summary, it is clear from Scripture that in the early church, the bread and the wine of the Lord's Supper were eaten in the context of a meal. Communion was celebrated not only with the Lord through the elements, but also with other believers through the meal. This early church practice builds community and unity edifies the church and typifies the coming eschatological feast. Celebrating the Lord's Supper as a meal is like participating in the rehearsal dinner for a great wedding and feast. Perspective, a future focus. Fritz Reinecker stated, the Passover celebrated two events. the deliverance from Egypt, and the anticipated coming messianic deliverance. It looked both to the past and the future. When Jesus transformed the Passover feast into the Lord's Supper, he endowed it both past and future characteristics. It looks back to Jesus's sacrifice as the ultimate Passover lamb who delivers his people from their sins. And it looks forward to the time when he will come again and eat it with us. The 2000 Baptist faith and message stated, the Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming. R.P. Martin, professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, wrote of the eschatological overtones in the Lord's Supper with a forward look to the advent in glory. The future kingdom of God weighed on the Lord's mind during the Last Supper. Jesus first mentioned the future at the beginning of the Passover. I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. Luke 22 verse 16. Until hios hutu is forward looking. It indicates a future occurrence. Furthermore, Jesus' use of fulfilled suggests that there is something prophetic about the Lord's Supper. Jesus mentioned a future meal while passing the cup. From now on, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." Luke 22, verse 18. Every time we partake of the cup, Jesus' promise to return to drink it with us should be considered. After the supper, he referred to the future meal yet again. I confer on you a kingdom so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom. Luke 22, verses 29 and 30. Thus, we see that Jesus imbued the Lord's Supper with several forward-looking characteristics. As a full meal, it prefigures the marriage supper of the Lamb. When we partake of the cup, we should be reminded of Jesus' words, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. Luke 22 verse 18. The following description is provided in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Early Christianity regarded this institution as a mandate, learning to know, even in this present life, the joys of the heavenly banquet that was to come in the kingdom of God. The past, the present, and the future came together in the Eucharist. 1 Corinthians 11.26 states that through the Lord's Supper, we proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Until normally denotes a time frame. For example, an umbrella is used until it stops raining. Then it is put away. Using the umbrella does not cause the rain to stop. However, Paul's statement focuses on the reason for proclaiming the Lord's death. The Greek word for until, akrehu, is unusual. Conservative German theology professor Fritz Reinecker indicated that this usage with an aorist subjunctive verb denotes much more than a mere time frame. It can denote a goal or an objective. In the Eucharistic words of Jesus, argument was made that the Greek words akrehu, which underlies until, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 26, is not simply a temporal reference. It functions as a final clause. In other words, the meal functions as a constant reminder to God to bring about the second coming. Paul instructed the church to partake of the bread and cup as a means of proclaiming the Lord's death with the goal of His return. Thus, in proclaiming his death through the loaf and cup, the supper anticipates his return. Professor Herman Ritterbos stated, it is not merely a subjective recalling to mind, but an active manifestation of the continuing and actual significance of the death of Christ. Proclaim, in this respect, has a prophetic, declaratory significance. Everything is directed not only toward the past, but also toward the future. It is the proclamation that in the death of Christ, the new and eternal covenant of grace has taken effect, if still in a provisional and not yet consummated sense. It is interesting that the earliest believers used Maranatha, Our Lord, come, in Dadache 10.6 as a prayer in relation to the Lord's Supper, a context at once Eucharistic and eschatological. Linking this to the situation in Corinth, R.P. Martin wrote, Maranatha in 1 Corinthians 16, verse 22, may very well be placed in a Eucharistic setting so that the conclusion of the letter ends with the invocation, our Lord come. And it prepares the scene for the celebration of the meal after the letter has been read to the congregation. Purpose number one, community. In ancient Jewish culture, sharing a meal symbolized acceptance and fellowship. Thus, in Revelation 3 verse 20, Jesus offered to eat daipneil with anyone who heard his voice and opened the door. One of the major blessings of celebrating the Lord's Supper as a meal is the genuine fellowship that everyone enjoys. This theme of fellowship and feasting is evident in the book of Acts. A casual reading of Acts 2.42 suggests that the church had four priorities, the teachings of the apostles, fellowship, the breaking of bread, the Lord's Supper, and prayer. However, a closer examination reveals that the focus may have been on only three activities, teaching, fellowship through the breaking of bread, and prayer. In Greek, fellowship and breaking of bread are simultaneous activities. It was F.F. Bruce's position that fellowship described in Acts 2.42 was manifested in the breaking of bread. The Lord's Supper has often been associated with the phrase, breaking of bread, which appears throughout the Book of Acts. For example, Bruce argued that breaking of bread denotes something more than the ordinary partaking of food together. The regular observance of the Lord's Supper is no doubt indicated. This observance appears to have formed part of an ordinary meal. If this conclusion is accurate, the early church enjoyed the Lord's Supper as a time of fellowship and gladness as would have been the case at a wedding banquet. Breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. Acts 2, verses 46 and 47. The Lord's Supper was characterized as a time of fellowship. That sounds inviting, doesn't it? Many churches observe the Lord's Supper in a funeral atmosphere. An organ plays reflective music softly. Every head is bowed and every eye is closed as the members of the congregation quietly search their souls for sins that need to be confessed. In an arrangement that is eerily reminiscent of a casket, the elements are laid out on a narrow rectangular table that is covered with a white cloth at the front of the church. Pallbearer-like deacons solemnly distribute the elements. Dutch theologian Karl Dedens noted, under the influence of pietism and mysticism, a sense of unworthiness is awakened within them, and they become afraid that they may be eating and drinking judgment unto themselves. As for those who are still bold enough to go to the table of the Lord, their faces suggest that a funeral is underway rather than a celebration. Is this somber approach to the supper in keeping with the apostles' tradition? It was the unworthy manner, not unworthy people, that Paul criticized 1 Corinthians 11 verse 27. He was referring to drunkenness at the Lord's table, conniving to avoid eating with the poor and humiliating the poor who went home hungry. This failure of the rich to recognize the body of the Lord in their poor brethren resulted in divine judgment. Many of them were sick, and a number had even died. 1 Corinthians 11, verses 27 to 32. Indeed, every person ought to examine himself to be sure he's not guilty of the same gross sin, failing to recognize the body of the Lord in the other believers. 1 Corinthians 11 verses 28 and 29. Once we each have evaluated ourselves, we can come to the meal without fear of judgment to enjoy the fellowship of the Lord's Supper as the true wedding banquet it is intended to be. We all desire church relationships that are genuine and meaningful, not just a friendly church, but one where our friends are. The Lord's Supper can help to make this a reality. A middle-aged man knew in Christ and to the church sat through a number of traditional Sunday services, and finally he asked, I see people greet each other just before the service. As soon as it ends, they hug goodbye and quickly head home. I'm not getting to know anyone. What is the Christian equivalent of the neighborhood bar? Celebrating the Lord's Supper weekly as a relaxed fellowship meal is the biblical answer to his question. The Holy Meal should be celebrated often to maximize the fellowship aspect. For the early believers, participation in the Lord's Supper was one of the main reasons for their coming together as a church every Lord's Day. Encyclopedia Britannica has described the Lord's Supper as the central rite of Christian worship. and indispensable component of the Christian service since the earliest days of the church. The first evidence of weekly communion is grammatical. To Christians, Sunday is the Lord's day. Revelation 1 verse 10, the day Jesus rose from the dead. This is a translation of Kyriakon hameron, unique technical Greek wording. It is literally the day belonging to the Lord. The phrase, belonging to the Lord, is from Kyriakos, which is found in the New Testament in only Revelation 1 verse 10 and 1 Corinthians 11 verse 20, where it refers to the supper as belonging to the Lord. The connection between these two unusual but identical ways in which these words are used must not be overlooked. The supper belonging to the Lord was eaten every week on the day belonging to the Lord. The Lord's Day and the Lord's Supper are a weekly package deal. More evidence for the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper is found in the only clear reason given in Scripture for regular church meetings, to eat the Lord's Supper. In Acts 20 verse 7, Luke stated, on the first day of the week, we came together to break bread. The words to break bread in Acts 20 verse 7 are known as a telic infinitive, denoting a purpose or an objective. They met to break bread. Another New Testament passage in which the purpose of a church gathering is stated is 1 Corinthians 11, verses 17 to 22. The meetings, chapter 11, verse 17, were doing more harm than good because when they came together as a church, verse 18a, there were deep divisions. Thus, Paul wrote, When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat," verse 20. Thus, the ostensible reason for the weekly church meetings was to eat the Lord's Supper. The third and last reference to the explicitly stated reason for assembly is found in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 33. When you come together to eat, wait for each other. As before, the verse indicates that they came together to eat. The scriptures give no other reason for weekly church meetings. It is clear that there were times for worship and teaching each Sunday. However, the focus was communion. Early extra-biblical sources also indicate that the church originally celebrated the Lord's Supper weekly. For example, Justin Martyr's First Apology, which was written in the middle of the 2nd century. Another is the Didache. Around A.D. 200, Hippolytus wrote of a typical worship service in Rome. It included the Lord's Supper. It has been said that the Protestant churches replaced the altar with the pulpit. Nevertheless, John Calvin advocated weekly communion. Karl Dedens wrote, if the Lord's Supper were celebrated more often, we should not view such a change as an accommodation to sacramentalists who wish to place less emphasis on the service of the Word. Rather, we should view it as an execution of Christ's command. The fellowship and encouragement that each member enjoys in such a weekly gathering is significant. This aspect of the church's Sunday meeting should not be rushed or replaced. It is also important that it be devoted to prayer and the apostles' teaching. Acts 2 verse 42. However, this should not be at the expense of the weekly Lord's Supper. The weekly celebration of the Holy Meal adds an unparalleled dynamic to church meetings. Purpose number two, supernatural unity. The celebration of the Lord's Supper each week as a fellowship meal makes a significant contribution to unity. Also important is the visual presentation of the elements. The scriptures refer to the cup of thanksgiving. A single cup, 1 Corinthians 10 verse 16, and one loaf. Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body. For we all partake of the one loaf. 1 Corinthians 10 verse 17. If using one cup and one loaf symbolizes our oneness in Christ, then using pre-broken crackers and multiple tiny cups represents disunity, division, and individualism. The single loaf symbolizes our unity in Christ. And according to 1 Corinthians 10, verse 17, partaking of it actually creates unity. The words of the inspired text should be noted, because there is one loaf, therefore we are one body. 4. We all partake of the one loaf. 1 Corinthians 10 verse 17. One scholar argued that the Lord's Supper was intended as a means of fostering the unity of the church. Professor Gerd Thiessen said, because all have eaten portions of the same element, They have become a unity in which they have come as close to one another as members of the same body, as if the bodily boundaries between and among people had been transcended. In their commentary on Corinthians, Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer concluded, the single loaf is a symbol and an instrument of unity. Gordon Fee wrote of the solidarity of the fellowship of believers created by their all sharing the one loaf. Some in Corinth were guilty of partaking of the Lord's Supper unworthily. 1 Corinthians 11, verse 27. Shameful class divisions cut at the heart of the unity that the Lord's Supper is designed to symbolize. What was Paul's solution to the harmful meetings? So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 1 Corinthians 11, verse 33. A partial reason for the Corinthians' lack of unity was their failure to eat the Lord's Supper together as a meal centered around the one cup and one loaf. Jesus prayed that they may be one even as we are one. John 17 verse 11. In the Lord's Supper, we express our oneness in Christ. The Lord's Supper is a fundamental practice that reflects the eternal image of the church and Christianity. There is one body and one spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call. One Lord. one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Ephesians 4 verses 4 to 6. Our unity in Christ is a powerful witness. Jesus prayed that we may all be one so that the world may believe that you have sent me. John 17, verse 21. Purpose number three, Jesus's return. In the covenant God made with Noah, he promised to never again destroy the earth by flood. God declared, whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember. the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures. Genesis 9 verse 16. Wayne Grudem noted that the Bible frequently speaks of God remembering something, and therefore I do not think it inappropriate or inconsistent for us to speak this way when we want to refer to God's awareness of events that have happened in our past, events He recognizes as already having occurred and therefore as being past. It is biblical to say that God remembers covenant promises. in His covenant with Abraham, God promised to bring the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage. Accordingly, at the appointed time, God heard their groaning, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham. Exodus 2 verse 24. During the Babylonian captivity, God made a promise to the Jews, I will remember my covenant with you. The Sinai covenant. Ezekiel 16 verse 60. God remembers covenant promises. In the Lord's Supper, the fruit of the vine represents the blood of the covenant, Matthew 26, verse 28, and the bread symbolizes Jesus' body. Jesus said to partake of the bread in remembrance of me, Luke 22, verse 19. The bread and wine are reminders of His body and blood given for us, the Greek word for remembrance. Anamnesis means reminder. A reminder can be a prompt about either a previous or future occurrence. Translating anamnesis as remembrance leads to the exclusive focus on Jesus' past sacrifice on the cross. However, if anamnesis is translated as reminder, It could be understood to refer to both the past, Jesus' death on the cross, and the future, Jesus' promise to return. As we have already seen, God remembers covenant promises. Another very significant function of the Lord's Supper is as a reminder to Jesus himself of his new covenant promise to return. Jesus said, do this unto my reminder. The word my in my reminder is a translation of the Greek emu. More than a mere personal pronoun, it is a possessive pronoun. This suggests that the reminder is not simply about Jesus. It actually belongs to Jesus. It is His reminder. Theologian Joachim Jeremias understood Jesus to use anamnesis in the sense of a reminder for God. The Lord's Supper would thus be an enacted prayer. Just as seeing the rainbow reminds God of His covenant never to flood the world again, so too, Jesus, seeing us partake of the Lord's Supper, reminds Him of His promise to return to eat it with us. Thus, it is designed to be a prayer to ask Jesus to return. Thy kingdom come, Luke 11 verse 2. God remembers covenant promises. In summary, when we partake of the bread and wine, We are reminded of Jesus' body and blood, which were given for the remission of sin. Along with Jesus, we should be reminded of His promise to return to eat it with us. The celebration of the Lord's Supper is an enacted prayer that reminds Jesus to return. This weekly reminder of the imminence of our Lord's return can be a motivation for holy living. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him because we shall see Him as He is, and everyone who thus hopes in Him purifies himself as He is pure. 1 John 3, verses 2 and 3. Maranatha. Proposition. As was demonstrated above, there is general agreement within scholarly circles that the early church celebrated the Lord's Supper as a genuine meal. However, the post-apostolic church has had little use for this practice. Williston Walker, a well-respected professor of church history at Yale stated, by the time Justin Martyr wrote his apology in Rome 153, the common meal had disappeared and the supper was joined with the assembly for preaching as a concluding sacrament. Throughout history, the church has sometimes deviated from New Testament patterns. For example, for more than a millennium, Credo-baptism was essentially unheard of in Christendom. However, since the Reformation, this long-neglected apostolic tradition has been widely practiced. Another example is the separation of church and state, a New Testament example that was disregarded during the long period in Europe when church and state were merged. Today, however, most believers appreciate this separation. The church today might be missing out on a great blessing in its neglect of the early church's practice surrounding the Lord's Supper, given that celebrating the Lord's Supper weekly as a meal was the practice of the early church. Should we not follow this example? Prescription For many church leaders, the New Testament example of the Lord's Supper as a weekly fellowship meal is a precious historical memory that they feel no compulsion to follow. However, Scripture indicates that the practices of the early church should serve as more than a historical academic record. For example, 1 Corinthians 11-14 concerns church practice. The passage begins with praise for the Corinthian church for following Paul's traditions. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." Chapter 11, verse 2. Parodicis, the Greek word for tradition, means that which is passed on." This same Greek word is used as a verb form in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 23 with regard to the practice of the Lord's Supper, that it was passed on from Jesus to Paul and then to the Corinthians. Do we really want to disregard a tradition that was handed down by Jesus Himself? It was a commendable practice. It is often mistakenly thought that there are no commands to follow tradition. However, 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 15 specifically commands, stand firm and hold to the traditions. Thus, we should adhere to not just apostolic teachings, but also apostolic traditions. The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 15 is the apostles' tradition about the end times. The word traditions, chapter 2 verse 15, is plural. The author was including traditions besides about the second coming. Should it not also apply to his traditions regarding church order, as indicated in the New Testament? The Lord's Supper was the primary purpose the early church gathered each Lord's Day. It was celebrated as a feast and a joyful wedding atmosphere rather than a somber funeral atmosphere. A major benefit of the supper as a meal is the fellowship and the encouragement each member experiences. Eaten as a meal, the supper typifies the marriage supper of the Lamb and looks to the future. There should be one cup and one loaf to both symbolize and create unity in a body of believers. The bread and wine represent Jesus's body and blood. They also serve as reminders of his promise to return to eat it with us. Amen. Come quickly, Lord Jesus. Practicum. The elements, one cup and one loaf, symbolic of our unity in Christ, should be visible to the congregation. Pre-broken crackers and pre-poured tiny cups represent division and individualism. The entire congregation should partake of the same cup and loaf. Anglicans have done this for centuries without obvious harm to their health. Another option is to pour the wine from a large decanter, visible to all, into smaller cups, or to have each person dip his bread in the common cup. The beginning. Church planners can easily make the weekly celebration of the Holy Meal an integral part of the church meetings from a church's inception. Existing churches might consider gradually phasing in the Lord's Supper as a meal. One approach could be to make the meal optional initially. The elements could be served as usual, followed by a meal in the fellowship hall for those who wish to participate. Members of the congregation should be given time to grow excited and tell others. Furthermore, unless they are persuaded of the scriptural basis for the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper as a fellowship meal, there will be resistance to going to the trouble of preparing food to share. It is important that everyone understand the holy nature of the meal. It is not an inconvenient lunch. It is a sacred covenant meal before the Lord and with His children. Wednesday night suppers. Many churches offer Wednesday night fellowship meals. The introduction of the Lord's Supper as a meal in conjunction with the existing Wednesday night meal is a creative option, but should be only a transitional step. Two thousand years of Western Christianity have rightly ingrained in believers the notion that what happens on Sundays is what is really important. The Lord's Supper, agape, was the main reason that the early church gathered each Lord's Day. Thus, the goal should be to celebrate it on Sundays in order for it to have the same prominence accorded by the apostles. Grace, unto unity, comes when the entire congregation, not just the minority who attend on Wednesday night, partakes of the cup and loaf. The entire congregation needs to experience the weekly fellowship of the agape. The bread and wine were given in the context of a dinner. To avoid the impression that the Lord's Supper is the cup and loaf and everything else is merely a meal, Care should be taken not to separate the elements from the meal. The food should be ready before the elements are presented so the meal can be eaten immediately afterwards. One approach is to call attention to the significance of the elements and lead in prayer. Then the head of each household could come forward to take the elements back to his family. After partaking of the elements, each family could then go immediately through the food-serving line to begin the banquet aspect of the holy meal. This is an issue of freedom. Adaptations can be made to suit the needs of each church. Leaven. Should the bread be unleavened? During Passover, the Jews ate unleavened bread to symbolize the speed with which God brought them out of Egypt. No doubt, Jesus used unleavened bread during the Last Supper. However, the New Testament is silent on the use of unleavened bread in Gentile churches. In the New Testament, yeast is sometimes associated with evil. 1 Corinthians 5, verses 6 through 8 is also used to represent God's kingdom. Matthew 13, verse 33. The real symbolism is the bread itself, leavened or unleavened, as Jesus' body. Should the fruit of the vine be alcoholic? It is clear from 1 Corinthians 11 that wine was used in the Lord's Supper. Some became drunk. However, no clear theological reason is given in the New Testament for its being alcoholic. Consider Genesis 27 verse 28, Isaiah 25 verses 6 through 9, and Romans 14 verse 21. Jesus called it simply the fruit of the vine. The object lesson is that red wine looks like blood. As is the case with leavened or unleavened bread, the use of wine or grape juice would seem to be a matter of freedom. Thus, each local church can make decisions with spiritual sensitivity for one another. Unbelievers Most churches restrict access to the elements. For example, the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 deemed baptism the prerequisite for enjoying the privileges of the Lord's Supper. However, the celebration of the Lord's Supper as a meal could change the perspective on the presence of unbelievers. That the bread and wine are only for believers should be announced. The Lord's Supper as an actual meal has spiritual significance to believers only. To non-believers, it is merely another meal. As is the case with believers, unbelieving adults and children who are too young to believe also experience hunger. They can be invited to enjoy the meal. We can love them to the Lord. The danger in taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner applies only to believers. 1 Corinthians 11 verses 27 to 32. Where did it go? Greg Mamula's research led him to conclude that the transition from full meal to token ritual was gradual, taking place during the mid-2nd century in some places to mid-3rd century in others. The key to transition was connected to the size of the congregation. The larger ones transitioned earlier. They needed a more efficient way to gather people and distribute the most significant symbols of the meal. The smaller congregations continued to use meals until the mid-third century, when the standard practice became the more recognizable Eucharist officiated by key leaders such as bishops and their approved leaders. Researchers have difficulty precisely understanding why this transition took place. By the fourth century, it is clear the tradition of full meals held in homes is gone. The Eucharistic rite inside of a basilica or other large church becomes the new norm. In his role as bishop, Eusebius consecrated a church building in Tyre. At the dedication, he spoke of the most holy altar as the center of the building. The Synod of Laodicea later forbade the celebration of the Lord's Supper in private homes, late 300s. Peter Davids and Siegfried Grossman offered this comment. Once you have an altar with holy food, mixing it with the common food of a communal meal appears profane. Thus, the focus on the table as altar brings about the forbidding of celebrating the Lord's Supper in houses. The irony is that the tabernacle and temple, the central act of worship was a family meal in the presence of the deity. The temple being part slaughterhouse and part barbecue, as well as being the place where animal fat was burned and incense was offered. Logistics. Sandra Akerson contributed the following practical ideas on logistics. Ask each member to prepare food at home and bring it to share with everyone else. Many churches have had great success with the potluck or pot providence method. The Lord's Supper is a feast of good and bountiful food with fellowship centered around Christ. A picture of the marriage banquet of the Lamb. It is a time to give and share liberally with our brothers and sisters in Christ. As for how much to bring, if you were having one more family over for dinner with your family, how much of one dish would you prepare? If church were canceled for some reason, could you satisfy your own family with what you prepared to take to the Lord's Supper? Encourage each family to bring a main dish and a side dish. Dessert should be considered optional and brought as a third dish, but never as the only dish by a family. At least enough food should be brought by every family to feed themselves and have more left over to share with others. The singles, especially those not inclined to cook, might bring drinks, peanuts, dessert, chips, certain dip, or a prepared deli item such as potato salad or rotisserie chicken. The congregation should see this as a giving expense, a ministry, an offering to the Lord. Confusion is minimized at the time of serving if your dish is ready when you arrive. Cook it before you come. Consider investing in a Pyrex portables, insulated hot cold carrier that will keep your food at the temperature at which it was prepared. Hot plates can be plugged in to keep dishes warm. Others could bring crock pots. The oven can be put on warm and dishes stored there. Wool blankets or beach towels work well for hot-cold insulation during transport. Coolers in the summer months are great for icing down cold dishes. The main point to remember for food safety is to keep hot foods hot at 150 degrees and cold foods cold at 40 degrees. Once the food is out for serving, it should sit out no longer than two or three hours before it is refrigerated. Dispose of any food left out longer than four hours. Parents should consider helping their children prepare plates. Little ones often have eyes bigger than their stomachs and much food can go to waste. Many churches prefer to buy smaller 12 or 16 ounce cups. Most folks tend to fill their cups full, often not drinking it at all. Smaller cups make less waste. It is better to go back for refills than to throw away unwanted drink. A word about hygiene might be appropriate. There can never be enough hand washing among friends. Be sensitive to germs. All folks going through the serving line should wash before touching serving utensils. Put out a pump jar of hand sanitizer right by the plates at the beginning of the line. To help with cleanup, consider using paper plates and plastic cups and forks. Discussion questions. Number one, what is the scholarly consensus on the early church's celebration of the Lord's Supper? Why does this consensus matter? Number two, how is the focus of the Lord's Supper both backward and forward? Number three, if Acts 2, verse 42 to 47 refers to the Lord's Supper, how would you describe its mood? Funeral or festive? Number four. What theological reason did Paul give for using a single loaf for the Lord's Supper? Number five. What are the indicators in 1 Corinthians 11 verses 17 to 22 that the Lord's Supper was eaten as an actual meal? Number six, why does the word until in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 26 indicate purpose? Why? And not merely duration, how long? 7. Describe the unworthy manner that made some in Corinth guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11, verse 27. How should this influence us today? 8. According to 1 Corinthians 11, verses 33 and 34, what was the inspired solution for abuse of the Lord's Supper? 9. What is the only reason given in the New Testament for the early churches gathering each Lord's Day? 10. What blessings might a church miss by not celebrating the Lord's Supper as an actual holy meal? ntrf.org has audio, video, and a teacher's discussion guide on communion. Chapter 4, Serving, Strategy to Lead Like Jesus. As pastors, we want to lead like Jesus. To do so, we must adopt the leadership strategy He modeled. It is the New Testament way for pastors, as undershepherds of the chief shepherd, to lead. Jesus promised a blessing for those who follow His management style. It will also allow the church you lead to be much stronger in the Lord. However, like so many other things in God's kingdom, Jesus' pastoral strategy is counterintuitive. Compared to worldly authority, it is truly otherworldly. Prophet, a major component of Jesus's leadership strategy was for pastors to serve the church by taking the time to build congregational consensus. The mind of Christ is more likely to be found when the leaders guide the whole congregation to wrestle corporately with major decisions. Church members are encouraged when they realize that everyone's suggestions are respectfully weighed in accordance with Scripture. Unity is strengthened and the church can more easily be guided by the Spirit. In this process, the role of the leadership includes helping to build consensus by teaching what Scripture says on an issue, having private conversations with church members about decisions, appealing to those who differ, and, after much persuasion, calling on any dissenting minority to yield to the leadership in the rest of the congregation. Adopting Jesus' example can make the church's decision-making process both unifying and edifying for the whole congregation. Proof number one, the authority of pastors as children. and slaves. Contrasting the authority of secular political leaders with that of church leaders, Jesus said, the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest and the leader as one who serves. Luke 22, verses 25 and 26. Let us think about this for a minute. How much authority does the youngest person in a family have? How much authority does a household servant have over his employer? Although it is true that Jesus was a master of hyperbole, There is an underlying truth that must not be glossed over. Pastors are to be servant leaders. Their attitude should be one of humility in leadership, not kingly authority that lords it over others. Pastors must lead with a servant's heart. In harmony with Jesus' words, Peter instructed elders to shepherd the flock of God. not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 1 Peter 5 verses 1 through 3. Jesus offered himself as an example for church leaders to follow. Who is the greater? One who reclines at table or one who serves? Is not the one who reclines at table? but I am among you as the one who serves." Luke 22, verse 27. On another occasion, Jesus washed the disciples' feet to make the point that anyone who wants to be a church leader must first learn to be a servant of all. He said, do you understand what I've done to you? You call me teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I, then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master. nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them." John 13, verses 12 through 17. Do we want to receive God's blessing as church leaders? Then we must live out what Jesus modeled and wield our authority with a servant's heart. Proof number two, elder rule properly understood. Because Scripture mentioned elders who rule well, 1 Timothy 5 verse 17, it is obvious that God intended for pastors to serve in a management capacity. The word underlying rule literally means to stand before. For example, directing or managing others. A secondary meaning is to stand before in the sense of caring for or giving aid to others, as would a nurse or attending physician. Combining these two definitions helps to frame the management style that is to be employed by pastors. How can someone who has only the authority of children or slaves be expected to rule? Hebrews 13 verse 17 instructs believers to obey church leaders. The common Greek word for obey, hupakaiō, was used to refer to situations such as children obeying their parents and slaves, their masters. Ephesians 6 verses 1 and 5. However, the common word for obey is not found in Hebrews 13 verse 17. Instead, Pytho, which fundamentally means persuade or convince, is used. In Greek mythology, Pytho was the name of a goddess, a consort of Aphrodite, who personified persuasion. Consistent with this root meaning, McReynolds' interlinear translation of Pytho in 13 verse 17 is persuade. One expositor went a step further and stated that with Pytho, the obedience suggested is not by submission to authority but resulting from persuasion. Linsky's comment on this text was that those who allow themselves to be convinced by someone would obey that person. In our passage, it is found in the present imperative passive form, which means obey. However, the author's use of Pytho suggests that disobedience is born of dialogue, teaching, persuasion, and argument. Mindless obedience is not what is envisioned. Someone who is persuaded of something will act on it, obeying it with joyful conviction. One of the qualifications of an elder is the ability to teach, 1 Timothy 3 verse 2. This is because church leaders have to persuade by teaching the truth. Dwight Eisenhower captured the idea behind Hebrews 13 verse 17 when he said, I would rather try to persuade a man to go along. Because once I have persuaded him, he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as he is scared, and then he's gone. Elders are not to simply pronounce decisions from on high like popes. The servant pastor sells instead of tells. Ideally, the obedience described in Hebrews 13 verse 17 will happen after a process of persuasion. Hebrews 13 verse 17 further instructs believers to submit to their church leaders. However, the common Greek word for submit, hupotasso, is not found here. Instead, the classical Greek word hupaiko, a synonym for hupotasso, which means to yield or to give way, was chosen by the author. Reinecker defined it more precisely as to give in, to yield, to submit. Hupaiko was used elsewhere with reference to contestants such as wrestlers and meant to yield after a struggle. The nuanced understanding hupaiko is not that of a structure, such as civil government, to which someone automatically submits. Rather, it is submission at the end of a process, a struggle, or a contest. It is a portrait of serious discussion and dialogue prior to one party's giving way. In summary, the relationship presented in the New Testament is not mindless slave-like obedience between leaders and those who are led. God's flock must be open to being persuaded, pitho, by their shepherds. Leaders, in turn, must be committed to ongoing teaching and discussion. However, there will be times when someone or a few in the fellowship cannot be persuaded. Congregations are made up of both mature and immature Christians. of those who walk in the Spirit and those who do not, of those with the gift of discernment and those without it. Impasses will arise. Hebrews 13.17 calls on dissenters after much persuasion to yield, hupaiko, to the wisdom of their church leaders. This submission, however, is to come only after dialogue, discussion, and reasoning. Thus, even though final decision-making authority resides with the leadership, A critical aspect of elder rule must include a commitment to serve the body by building spirit-led congregational consensus. Just as a person can have an opinion without being opinionated. or make judgments without being judgmental, so too, a pastor has authority to rule without being authoritarian. Proof number three, pastors, star players or sideline coaches. Amazingly, church leaders were given little prominence in the epistles. Paul's highly theological epistle to the Romans was addressed simply to the saints, Romans 1, verse 7, with no special mention of the shepherds. The two letters to the Corinthian congregation were addressed to the whole church, 1 Corinthians 1, verse 2, 2 Corinthians 1, verse 1. There was no mention of the pastors in either the greetings or anywhere else in the body of the letters. That these two epistles deal with critical leadership topics such as the Lord's Supper, worship services, and church discipline makes this all the more remarkable. The greeting in Galatians was to all the churches in the region. No mention was made of the leadership. 1, verse 2. Throughout Galatians, the readers were addressed simply as brothers. The saints in Ephesus were the designated recipients of their letter. Ephesians 1, verse 1. The importance of pastor-teachers was mentioned in Ephesians 4, verse 11, but even there, the pastors were not written to directly. Philippians 1, verse 1 breaks the pattern of leadership neglect. The overseers were greeted along with the saints. However, no other mention was made of these leaders, nor was anything else written directly to them. The salutation in Colossians 1 verse 2 was simply to the saints and faithful brothers. Nothing was written directly to or about the leaders. In the last chapter of Hebrews, the readers were asked to greet all your leaders, chapter 13 verse 24. Not only did the author not greet the leaders directly, but he assumed they would not even read the letter. This failure to focus on the leaders continues in the salutations of 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, James, 1st and 2nd Peter, 1st and 2nd John, and Jude. Of all the letters to the churches, it is only in 1st Peter 5 that elders are written to directly. None of this should be taken to mean that pastors are unimportant. It is simply that shepherds are themselves sheep, too. The pastors were a subset of the church as a whole. There was no strong clergy-laity distinction. Ephesians 4, verses 11 and 12 reveals that the duty of pastor-teachers is to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. This, combined with the apostolic spotlight on entire congregations rather than just pastors, suggests that pastors are to serve as sideline coaches rather than star players. Much may be gleaned from the New Testament writers' direct appeals to entire congregations. They went to great lengths to influence all believers. not just those in leadership. The apostles did not simply bark out orders or issue injunctions as military commanders might do. Instead, they treated other believers as equals and appealed directly to them. The priesthood of the believer was actively practiced. Local pastors no doubt led in much the same way. Their primary authority was in their ability to influence through the truth. The respect they were given was earned honestly. It was the opposite of military authority, wherein soldiers respect the uniform, but not necessarily the man. Aristotle astutely stated, we believe good men more fully and more readily than others. This is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. His character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses. Hebrews 13 verse 7 reflects the fact that the leadership style employed by church leaders is primarily one of direction by example. Remember your leaders. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Similarly, 1 Thessalonians 5 verse 13 reveals that leaders are to be respected, not because of the automatic authority of appointed rank, but because of the value of their service. Esteem them very highly. in love because of their work. As Jesus said, you know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and the high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant. And whoever wants to be first must be your slave. Matthew 20 verses 25 through 28. In summary, the apostles wrote to entire churches and not just the leadership. The apostles taught, gave reasons, persuaded, and guided as opposed to merely issuing orders. Servant pastors should serve by leading in this manner. Leaders are to be great in service. Proof number four, church as Congress. We will have a poorer understanding of Christ's church if we fail to factor in the dynamics of the original Greek word for church, ekklesia. With so much emphasis today on the separation of church and state, government is seldom associated with the church. However, in Jesus' day, ecclesia was used outside the New Testament to refer to a political assembly that was regularly convened for the purpose of making decisions. According to Thayer, it was an assembly of the people convened at the public place of council for the purpose of deliberation. Bauer defines ecclesia as an assembly of a regularly summoned political body. Writing for the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Lothan Conan noted that ecclesia was clearly characterized as a political phenomenon repeated according to certain rules and within a certain framework. It was the assembly of full citizens, functionally rooted in the constitution of the democracy, an assembly in which fundamental political and judicial decisions were taken. The word ekklesia throughout the Greek and Hellenistic areas always retained its reference to the assembly of the polis. The secular meaning of ekklesia can be seen several times in Acts 19, where it is translated as legal assembly rather than church. Two of the occurrences in Acts 19 refer to a meeting of silversmiths convened by Demetrius. These trade union members rushed into the theater where civic decisions were normally made in order to decide what to do about a damaged reputation and lost business. However, they overstepped their jurisdiction, so the town clerk counseled that the matter be settled by the legal Ekklesia rather than the trade union Ekklesia. Acts 19 verses 37 through 39. Why did Jesus choose such a politically loaded word, Ekklesia, to describe His people and their meetings? Had He merely wanted to describe a gathering with no political connotations, Jesus could have used synagogue. Perhaps it was because Jesus intended his followers to function together with a purpose that parallels that of the political government. If so, believers have the responsibility to make decisions together through consensus. God's people have a decision-making mandate. A church is a body of kingdom citizens authorized to weigh major issues. to make decisions and to pass judgment on various issues. The Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 stated, each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. The New Testament contains many examples of God's people making decisions as a body. After promising to build his ecclesia on the rock of Peter's revealed confession, Jesus immediately spoke of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and of binding and loosing, Matthew 16, verses 13 to 20. Keys symbolize the authority to open and to close something. Kingdom is a political term and binding and loosing involve the authority to make decisions. Was this authority given to Peter only? In Matthew 18, verses 15 to 20, the authority to bind and loose was conferred on the whole ecclesia by Jesus. In Acts 1, verses 15 to 26, Peter charged the Jerusalem church as a whole with finding a replacement for Judas. Later, the apostles looked to the church corporately to choose men to administer the church's food program. Acts 6 verses 1 to 6. Acts 14 verse 23 indicates that the apostles appointed elders with the wide agreement of the local congregation. The apostles were the standard for doctrine and practice. If there were an appropriate time and place for the apostles to make a decision on their own apart from the church, it would have been the Jerusalem Council, Acts 15. The very nature of the gospel had been called into question. Yet even here, the amazing fact is that the apostles included not only the local Jerusalem elders, but also the whole church. Colin Brown observed, in the council's decision-making, they are accorded no special preeminence. It is consistent with the non-authoritarian, collegiate character of church leadership, which Acts consistently depicts. Acts 1, verse 13 to 26, 6, verse 2 and following, 8, verse 14 and following, 11, verse 1 and following, 13, verses 1 through 4. Servant leadership is decentralized. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 5 reveals that the church corporately has the authority to lovingly discipline unrepentant members, professors, Commenting on the general nature of congregational involvement, Donald Guthrie observed, these early communities displayed a remarkable virility, which was a particular characteristic of that age. The churches were living organisms rather than organizations. The promptings of the spirit were more important than ecclesiastical edicts or episcopal pronouncements. When decisions were made, they were made by the whole company of believers, not simply by the officials. It would be a mistake, nevertheless, to suppose because of this that the church was run on democratic lines. The Acts record makes unmistakably clear that the dominating factor was the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Guthrie further said, any examination of Paul's view of the leadership within the Christian community must begin from his basic idea that the church is a body of which Christ is the head. No authority structure is possible without the supreme authority being vested in Christ himself. Moreover, even here, the authority must be understood as organic and not organizational. It is the most intimate kind of authority. Any officials who are mentioned must be regarded as exercising their various functions under the direction of the head. Although the Christian church is not a democracy, neither is it an autocracy. Indeed, the one instance mentioned in the New Testament where one man sought to lord it over the community is regarded with strong disfavor, 3 John 9-10. The New Testament idea of the church is a community in which Christ, not man, is the head. Colossians 1 verse 18, Ephesians 1 verse 22. It is theocratic, not democratic. Its sense of law and order is dominated by God's will. 1 Corinthians 5 verses 3-5. The New Testament approach is for leaders to involve the whole church in major decisions, relying on the Holy Spirit's guidance and seeking to build congregational consensus on important matters. Early church government was a combination of elder rule and congregational consensus under Christ as the head. If the church leaned too much in one direction, it would become a dictatorship. And too much in the other, there would be mob rule. The pastors and the church are in a nuanced dance of mutual respect as they look to Jesus as the head, the caller of the dance steps. Provision. The process a church goes through to achieve consensus can be just as important as the consensus that is finally achieved. Consensus governing takes time, commitment, mutual edification, and a great deal of brotherly love. It truly can work in smaller churches, such as those in the New Testament era. We must love enough to accept one another and to work through our disagreements. The concept of consensus could be called government by unity, oneness, harmony, or mutual agreement. Do we really trust in the Holy Spirit to work in our lives and churches? It is important to consider what the Lord has done to help His people. First, our Lord Himself prayed that they may be one as we are one. that all of them may be one. Father, just as you are in me and I am in you, may they be brought into complete unity. John 17, verse 11, verses 20 to 23. Because Jesus asked this on our behalf, unity is certainly achievable. Another provision God made for our unity lies in the Lord's Supper. Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." 1 Corinthians 10, verse 17. The prepositions because and for are important. Partaking of the Lord's Supper not only symbolizes unity, but it even creates it. Finally, Christ gave the church various leadership gifts, such as pastor-teacher, for a purpose, until we all reach unity in the faith. Ephesians 4, verses 11 to 13. Leaders play a critical role in building consensus. Proposition. Jesus said that church leaders are to become like children and slaves, those with the least authority in worldly Roman society. Jesus himself came not as a king, but as a servant. A servant leader is concerned about the needs and desires of others, truly respects the values and dignity of the brethren, believes in and practices the priesthood of the believer, adopts a participative management style, and takes the time and effort to build congregational consensus in problem-solving and decision-making. Serving in this way involves shepherding, community building, making disciples, teaching, persuasion, listening, explanation, empathy, humility, and coaching. The church as a whole may be compared to a Congress with authority to make decisions and to render judgment that is binding on its members. Church leaders are congressmen as well. However, they are appointed to a special committee whose purpose is to study the issues and to make recommendations, teach, inform, or prompt the Congress. Church leaders should not normally make decisions on behalf of the church as an alternative to seeking consensus. Pastors should guide, teach, suggest, and build consensus. However, when the church finds itself in gridlock, unable to resolve an issue, the pastors serve as predetermined arbitrators or tiebreakers. In these instances, those in opposition are called on to submit in the Lord to the elder's leadership and wisdom. Hebrews 13, verse 17. Spirit-filled elder rule combined with congregational consensus on major decisions gives free reign to the Holy Spirit and puts the church in a better position to discern the mind of Christ and to walk in the light of God's Word. Practicum. Consensus versus simple majority. Should decisions be made by consensus or simple majority? It is important to consider what is implied in these two options. Consensus means general agreement, a representative trend or an opinion. It is related to the words consent and consensual. In contrast, majority rule can be a 51% dictatorship for the 49% who do not agree. This works against unity. Consensus, however, seeks to build unity. Consider the following biblical texts. How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity. Psalm 133. I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." 1 Corinthians 1 verse 10. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. Ephesians 4 verse 3. Make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Philippians 2 verse 2, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues, put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Colossians 3 verses 12 through 15. Systematic, well-presented, biblically-based teaching that is soaked in fervent prayer will facilitate mature discussion. Even though leaders will bring teachings that are relevant to the issues under consideration in church meetings, much of the consensus-building process will occur outside a church service. It will happen one-on-one, brother-to-brother in many ways, including the fellowship of the Lord's Supper, midweek social visits, telephone conversations, text messages, and email. Bringing church members into agreement requires time, patience, humility, gentleness, and the ministry of elders. There is a major difference between consensus and simple majority rule, which involves voting and a 51% win. Congregational voting. In the consensus process, there may never be a time that a vote is taken. The leadership should know each brother's position on the basis of individual conversations. Due consideration should be given to the opinions of godly, mature, longstanding members rather than those who have just begun to attend. After consensus has been reached and any few remaining dissenters have been asked to yield to the elders, an announcement can be made and the proposal implemented. Should a general meeting of the church be held to ascertain whether there is consensus on issue? Ideally, the church should be small enough that the leadership knows where each person stands without necessarily having to call a general meeting. However, it would be appropriate to have special meetings apart from worship services for teaching about and discussing important issues. Who makes decisions in the consensus process? Should it be men and women or only men? Everyone's thoughts are important. In the Trinity, God the Father and God the Son are equal. However, the Son voluntarily submits to the Father's will. Even though men and women are equal in God's sight, wives are called on to submit to their husbands. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the church, and the husband is the head of his family. One way this divine order is expressed in the church is that only men are to serve as elders and teachers. It is further expressed when men, as heads of their homes, represent their wives' opinions in the consensus process. Certainly, wives have valid opinions and insights. These concerns may be expressed directly by the women or through their husbands. A loving husband will lovingly consider his wife's views, but it is the brothers who have the last say. It is the brothers who must make the decisions that are binding on the church. See 1 Corinthians 11 verses 1 and following, 14 verses 33 through 35, 1 Timothy 2 verses 11 through 15. In matters of mere preference, being considerate of the women and yielding to their desires is the appropriate course to take. However, in matters of theology or the application of Scripture, the men must make the final decisions. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14, verses 33 to 35, R.C.H. Linsky quoted from an opinion of the theological faculty of Capital University, how the granting of voice and vote to women in all congregational meetings can do anything but place women completely on a level with men in all such meetings and gravely interfere with their divinely ordered subjection and obedience, we are unable to see. When do issues rise to a level that requires consensus? It is impractical to involve the entire church in every decision. The key is to focus on achieving consensus on major issues, such as major purchases, selecting elders and deacons, church discipline, determining the location for the church to meet, making major changes to the way meetings are conducted, planting new churches, supporting missionaries, and starting outreach ministries. When does the size of the congregation present a problem? No magic number is provided in the scriptures for the optimal congregational size. If a church is too big for the elders to know and have a relationship with every man, it is too big. Consensus governing works best in a congregation that is small enough for everyone to know and love one another. Relationships must be strong enough to allow people to work through their disagreements without becoming upset and leaving the church. It is noteworthy that the early church met in Roman villas. The typical villa could accommodate approximately 100 people. What about inactive or newly converted members? Do their voices count in the consensus process? There will almost always be spiritually immature people in a church. The opinions of the inactive should carry the same weight as their involvement with the church. This is precisely where Hebrews 13, verse 17 is relevant. After reasonable discussions and appeals, such persons are to listen and yield to the wisdom of the elders. How should consensus apply to interpretations of the Bible? Certainly, we should study the Bible as individuals, but not individualistically. We need to weigh our interpretations against the consensus of the church, not just our local church, but the church universal. Historical humility is needed to reject the time-honored conclusions of millions of our fellow believers over thousands of years is to effectively become little popes who fancy themselves as having the divine right to interpret Scripture autonomously. The Scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit dwells in every believer. As we survey the beliefs of the Church around the world today and throughout the past two millennia, we can readily see several fundamental agreements about the correct interpretation of Scripture. This has to be more than coincidence. It is the work of the Spirit. Some of these general agreements are about matters such as the virgin birth, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the perpetuatory nature of Christ's death on the cross, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the dead, and the inspiration of Scripture. When the church universal has arrived at a consensus about a doctrine, it becomes authoritative. Does one congregation have the right to defy the historical consensus of the church? These basic agreed-upon doctrines constitute the regula fide, the rule of faith. we need a good dose of historical humility. Thus, we can see that there are limits to what a local church as a decision-making body should determine. No local church has a license to redefine the historical Christian faith. Some doctrines are simply not open for debate. Each ecclesia should operate within the bounds of orthodoxy. The elders are to consider the harmful and heretical ideas to be off-limits. 1 Timothy 1, verse 3. The reason is that the church at large today and throughout time has already reached a consensus on certain fundamental interpretations of Scripture. The Holy Spirit has not failed in His mission of guiding the church into all truth. John 16, verse 13. G.K. Chesterton said, It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. Plural leadership. New Testament references to local church leaders are generally in the plural. For example, they had appointed elders for them in every church, Acts 14, verse 23. and call for the elders of the church, James 5, verse 14. From such texts, many have inferred that each local church should have a plurality of elders. Generally, each church should have as many men as are qualified to serve as elders. Ideally, it should be a plurality. The following are some of the benefits of plural leadership. Number one, the chances of a dictatorship developing are reduced. We should remember Lord Acton's wise words, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men. Even if only one brother is qualified to serve as an elder, An understanding that elder rule is to include consensus building among all the brothers will help to avoid the development of a modern Diotrephes. I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I'll bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. and not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers and also stop those who want to and puts them out of the church. 3 John 1 verses 9 through 10. Number two, dealing with an attack of wolves is easier. I know that after my departure, fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. And from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things to draw away the disciples after them. Acts 20 verse 29 and 30. Ecclesiastes 4.12 says, Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken. 3. There is greater wisdom. By wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory. Proverbs 24 verse 6. 4. As reflected in Jethro's advice to Moses, Exodus 18 verses 13 to 27, having several elders would allow for the sharing of the workload, like hospital visitation, teaching, counseling, and dealing with problems. Number five, it taps into a broader range of spiritual gifts. Elders do not have the same gifts or motivations. Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 1 Timothy 5, verse 17. And number six, it has been said that it is lonely at the top. Being a sole elder can be lonely and discouraging. Having several elders makes for mutual encouragement. Discussion questions. Number one, what can Luke 22 verses 24 to 27 teach about a church leader's authority? Number two, to what did the Greek word ekklesia originally refer? Number three, why did Jesus choose a political word such as ekklesia to describe his followers? Number four, what are some New Testament examples of God's people making decision as a body? Number five, what is the difference between majority rule and congregational consensus? Number six, what is the difference between consensus and unanimity? Number seven, What provisions has God made to help a church achieve consensus? Number eight, how do pastors build congregational consensus? Number nine, in Hebrews 13, verse 17, believers are encouraged to obey and submit to their leaders. How does this square with congregational rule? ntrf.org has audio, video, and a teacher's discussion guide on leadership. Chapter 5, Psy's Strategy for Effective Ministry. When it comes to the size of a church, it's easy to assume that bigger is better, but is it really? Instead of 1,000 people in one church, might it be better to have 100 people in 10 churches? For its first 200 years, the church met in the private homes of its members. Since everything in the New Testament was written to a church that met in someone's home, the body-life activities set forth as ideal were designed for smaller settings. God used these small churches to turn the Roman world upside down. Acts 17, verse 6. Smaller churches have strategic, divinely designed size advantages for effective ministry. Prophet, is your church small? If so, you have lots of company. 60% of all Protestant churches in the United States have fewer than 100 adults attending. Worldwide, more than 1 billion Christians worship in churches with fewer than 250 people. Small church pastors shepherd more than 1 billion of God's sheep. Good things really do come in small packages. Smaller settings foster the simplicity, intimacy, unity, love, support, and accountability that characterized the early church. The relationships described in the New Testament work best in situations in which everyone knows everyone else. A loving, family-like atmosphere is more easily developed. The many one-another exhortations of Scripture can be more realistically lived out. Church discipline takes on genuine significance. Disciple-making is natural and personal. Participatory worship is better suitable for smaller settings. Celebrating the Lord's Supper with the Agape Love Feast is more natural in a smaller setting. Achieving congregational consensus is easier when everyone knows everyone else and open lines of communication genuinely exist. Involvement with a smaller church can be a wonderful blessing with strategic, divinely designed advantages. Charles Spurgeon opined, It strikes me that there would be a great deal of good done if persons who have large rooms in their houses would endeavor to get together little congregations. Where there is a church in the house, every member strives to increase the other's comfort. All seek to promote each other's holiness. Each one endeavors to discharge his duty according to the position in which he is placed in that church. No less a Reformation luminary than Martin Luther wrote, those desirous of being Christians in earnest should assemble by themselves in some house. Those whose conduct was not such as befits Christians could be recognized, reproved, or excommunicated. Here we could have baptism and the sacrament and direct everything towards the Word and prayer and love. Smaller churches have strategic, divinely designed size advantages for effective ministry. Proof. According to Yale University archaeologists, the first Christian congregations worshiped in private homes, meeting at the homes of wealthier members on a rotating basis. Worship was generally conducted in the atrium or central courtyard of the house. For example, Philemon, who was wealthy enough to own a slave, hosted a church in his home, Philemon 2b. Church hostess Lydia was a prosperous businesswoman who sold expensive purple fabric and could afford household servants, Acts 16, verse 14. Churches met in the various homes of Aquila and Priscilla. A couple involved in the evidently lucrative first-century tent-making trade. Acts 18, verses 1-3. Gaius had a home big enough to host the sizable Corinthian congregation. 1 Corinthians 1, verse 14. Romans 16, verse 23. Less well known is the fact that the early church continued the practice of home meetings for hundreds of years after the apostolic era. Graydon Snyder of Chicago Theological Seminary observed, the New Testament church began as a small group house church, Colossians 4.15, and it remained so until the middle or end of the third century. There are no evidences of larger places of meeting before 300. Snyder also stated, there is no literary evidence nor archaeological indication that any such home was converted into an extant church building, nor is there any extant church that certainly was built prior to Constantine. The real issue is not where a church meets, but how it can best do what God requires of it. Size plays an important role. Having too many people in attendance can defeat the purpose of holding a local church meeting. Large crowds are great for occasional praise concerts, teaching, as Matthew 4, verses 25 through 5, verse 1, or evangelism, Acts 5, verses 12 through 14 and chapter 19. Such meetings are necessarily relatively impersonal. However, the weekly local church gathering is supposed to offer such personalized benefits as mutual edification, accountability, community, and fellowship. In keeping with the New Testament example, the ideal size for a congregation might be the number of people who would fit in a first-century Roman villa. Smaller churches have strategic divinely designed size advantages for effective ministry. Professors. Regarding the meeting places of early church meetings, Reformed scholar William Hendrickson said, since in the first and second centuries, church buildings in the sense in which we think of them today were not yet in existence. Families would hold services in their own homes. Anglican priest and evangelist David Watson stated, For the first two centuries, the church met in small groups in the homes of its members, apart from special gatherings in public lecture halls or marketplaces, where people could come together in much larger numbers. Significantly, these two centuries mark the most powerful and vigorous advance of the Church, which perhaps has never been equaled. Martin Selman of Spurgeon's College in London wrote, The theme of the household of God undoubtedly owed much to the function of the house in early Christianity as a place of meeting and fellowship. 2 Timothy 4 verse 19, Philemon 2 verse 2, John 10. W.H. Griffith Thomas, co-founder of the Dallas Theological Seminary opined, for two or three centuries Christians met in private homes. There seems little doubt that these informal gatherings of small groups of believers had great influence in preserving the simplicity and purity of early Christianity. Seminary professor Ronald Sider concluded, the early church was able to defy the decadent values of Roman civilization precisely because it experienced the reality of Christian fellowship in a mighty way. Christian fellowship meant unconditional availability, too, and unlimited liability for the other sisters and brothers, emotionally, financially, and spiritually. When one member suffered, they all suffered. When one rejoiced, they all rejoiced. 1 Corinthians 12 verse 26. When a person or church experienced economic trouble, the others shared without reservation. And when a brother or sister fell into sin, the others gently restored the straying person. Matthew 18, verses 15 to 17, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Corinthians 2, verses 5 to 11, Galatians 6, verses 1 through 3. The sisters and brothers were available to each other, liable for each other, and accountable to each other. The early church, of course, did not always fully live out the New Testament vision of the body of Christ. There were tragic lapses, but the network of tiny house churches scattered throughout the Roman Empire did experience their oneness in Christ so vividly that they were able to defy and eventually conquer a powerful pagan civilization. The overwhelming majority of churches today, however, do not provide the context in which brothers and sisters can encourage, embonish, and disciple each other. We desperately need new settings and structures for watching over one another in love. Smaller churches have strategic, divinely designed size advantages for effective ministry. Pattern. What are we to do with the fact that the early church met mostly in homes? The most common explanation for the existence of early house churches was the pressure of persecution. Their situation was similar to that in China or Iran today. However, even without persecution, might the apostles have intended to lay out a purposeful pattern for smaller congregations? It is a design axiom that form follows function. Meeting in a smaller setting would have a practical effect on an individual's church life. The apostles' belief about the function of the church was naturally expressed in the first century form of the church. Some distinct practices of those early small churches are worth considering. Number one. the church as family. The overarching significance of the New Testament church lies in its theology of community. Apostolic writers used words pertaining to family to describe the church. Believers are God's children, 1 John 3, verse 1, who have been born into His spiritual family. John 1, verse 12 and 13. God's people are thus seen as part of his household. Ephesians 2, verse 19. Galatians 6, verse 10. They are called brothers and sisters. Philemon 2, Romans 16, verse 2. Consequently, Christians are to relate to one another as members of a family. 1 Timothy 5, verse 1 and 2. Romans 16, verse 13. Out of the theological truth that God's children are a spiritual family arise many issues surrounding church practices. This includes the congregation size that best facilitates functioning as God's family. According to Fuller Seminary professor Robert Banks, even the meetings of the whole church were small enough for a relatively intimate relationship to develop between the members. Number two, one another ministry. The scriptures are full of one another commands. A church should be characterized by mutual encouragement, accountability, interpersonal relationships. community, and church discipline. These ideals are best accomplished in smaller congregations where people know and love one another. They will not be easily achieved in a large auditorium filled with people who are relative strangers. Nominal Christianity is harbored in settings where it is easy to get lost in the crowd. Smaller churches can best foster the simplicity, vitality, intimacy, and purity that God desires for His church. 3. Participatory Worship Early church meetings were clearly participatory. 1 Corinthians 14, verse 26 and following. Because public speaking is a great fear for many, participatory meetings are best suited to smaller gatherings of people who know and love one another. After the church meetings in the atriums of Roman villas were replaced by meetings in much larger basilicas, Participatory worship was replaced by scripted, stage-like performances by professionals. The practical reality of the priesthood of the believer was lost until the Reformation. Number four, communion fellowship. The Lord's supper was originally celebrated weekly as an actual meal, the agape feast, 1 Corinthians 11. Each local church is to be like a family. One of the most common things that families do is to eat together. The larger the congregation, the less family-like and more impersonal will be the Lord's supper as an actual meal. Early church meetings centered around the Lord's Table were times of great fellowship, community, and encouragement. Rather than being observed in a funeral atmosphere, the Lord's Supper was joyfully celebrated in anticipation of the wedding banquet of the Lamb. 5. Congregational Consensus Each New Testament church had a plurality of clearly identified leaders who led more by example and persuasion rather than command. Building consensus among the members of the congregation was important in decision-making. Consensus can be achieved in a church in which everyone knows one another, loves one another, bears with one another, is patient with one another, and is committed to one another. A smaller informal setting is an effective place for building consensus. However, the larger the fellowship, the more difficult it is to maintain relationships and lines of communication. Intimacy suffers. The pastor becomes inaccessible and will necessarily function like a corporate chief executive officer. Number six, multiplication. Small churches have great potential for growth through multiplication. New churches grow faster than older ones. New leaders should be continually trained to go out to start new churches. We need to think small in a really big way. Rather than growing a single church even bigger, we should consider sending clusters of people out to start other churches. We should commit to being a small church that starts other small churches that start yet other small churches. Number seven, resource allocation. The director of missions for the San Antonio Baptist Association, Charles Price, lamented that the typical cost of starting a new church in North America was an astounding two million dollars. Jim Henry, pastor of First Baptist Church of Orlando stated, our two church plants are going to cost us about $2,450,000 over a three-year period. In light of these staggering figures, we must be creative in finding cost-effective meeting places as our small churches start new small churches. Options include renting an apartment clubhouse, dance academy, storefront, school cafeteria, or community center. Older, kingdom-minded congregations may be willing to let others use their buildings after their services are over. The possibility of meeting in someone's home under the right circumstances should not be ruled out. It can still be a viable option, perhaps the best one. A suitable home would have a large gathering area and ample off-street parking, a problem first century house churches did not have to deal with. Some homeowners have built what appears to be a four-car garage behind their home for the church to meet in. Proportions. Because first century churches met almost exclusively in private homes, the typical congregation of the apostolic era was relatively small. Though house churches were at the opposite end of the spectrum from modern day mega churches, it is important to avoid the mistake of thinking too small. The size should be just right, not too big and not too small. neither mega nor micro. There were no more people than would fit in a wealthy person's home, in the atrium, courtyard, or living area. The Matthew 18 restoration process, detailed by Jesus, clearly assumes more people than us four and no more. There was a single house church meeting in Corinth. Counting the people using their spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 14 reveals a surprising number of believers. Early house churches were able to support qualified widows and elders. This would have required more than just a handful of believers. 1 Timothy 5, verses 3-16. Having a plurality of elders in a church is unlikely in a setting that is too small. Acts 14, verse 23. The early churches meeting in Roman villas typically consisted of scores of people. not hundreds, and certainly not thousands. As previously noted, Scripture indicates that early churches met in the homes of their wealthier members. This may have been because of the larger size of the homes and the host's ability to provide much of the food for the love feasts. The challenge in worshiping in a home today is that the largest room in modern homes is often far smaller than the largest room in first-century Roman villas. They were big, semi-public houses. Rooms facing the street were often businesses. A hallway between them led into the atrium, at the far end of which was the business office. It was not unusual for strangers to be in and out of a home. In addition, multiple generations of a family typically dwelled under the same roof. There were large areas, such as the atrium, in which the church could gather. Beyond the business office was an even larger semi-covered enclosed courtyard. Spacious living rooms were often built around the courtyard. Enough believers were able to gather for a variety of spiritual gifts to be manifested, for multiple people to be present who had the same gift, for there to be a plurality of elders, and for qualified pastor-teachers to be financially supported. The pastor-teachers were thus free to devote themselves to disciple-making, in-depth teaching, and leadership. The meeting room of the Lullingstone Villa House Church in Kent, England, built during the Roman occupation, was approximately 15 feet by 21 feet. By modern standards, this would seat approximately 50 people. An examination of floor plans in Pompeii shows that the typical atrium was 20 feet by 28 feet. This would seat 60 to 80 people. The ESV Study Bible notes that early Christian churches met in homes. There is extensive archaeological evidence from many sites showing that some homes were structurally modified to hold such churches. One such modified home that was known to host a church was found in Jura Europos in modern Syria. According to the archaeologist who excavated it, it could seat 65 to 70 people. Since early believers had more of an Asian mindset about personal space, it may have seated more than 70 people. Jerome Murphy O'Connor measured six homes in Pompeii and Ephesus and found the average atrium size to be nearly 800 square feet. This would seat approximately 100 people. Luke recorded that 120 believers were assembled in the upper room of a house. Acts 1 verse 13, 15, chapter 2 verses 1 and 2. In the tipping point, Malcolm Gladwell quoted British anthropologist Robin Dunbar on the rule of 150. The figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of individuals with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who they are and how they relate to us. Dunbar noted, for example, that military units are typically kept at fewer than 150 because orders can be implemented and unruly behavior controlled on the basis of personal loyalties and direct man-to-man contacts. Another example cited was the Hutterites, Anabaptist communalists who for hundreds of years have had a strict policy of splitting a colony into two when it approaches 150 people. The Hutterites discovered that with a greater number, people became divided and alienated. Hutterite leader Bill Gross opined, keeping things under 150 just seems to be the best and most efficient way to manage a group of people. When things get larger than that, people become strangers to one another. He said that as a colony approaches 150, you get two or three groups within the larger group. That is something you really try to prevent. And when it happens, it is a good time to branch out. Gladwell concluded, the size of a group is another one of those subtle contextual factors that can make a big difference. Crossing the 150 line is a small change that can make a big difference. When first century congregations grew, they obviously did not erect ever bigger buildings. Instead, they multiplied, continually training leaders and sending out subgroups to plant new churches. Following this approach, rather than growing a congregation ever larger, our goal should be to start new small churches that start other small churches. Small churches align very much with the size of the apostolic churches that met in Roman villas. Perspective. Small churches have both advantages and disadvantages. They can play to their relational strengths by incorporating various ancient church growth strategies. According to the Barna Group's research, people younger than 35 years are the most likely group to consider attending a small church. their desire is to be known and to feel connected. This can be more difficult to achieve in larger churches. On the other hand, people with children were often looking for a church that offers an impressive children's ministry. Such programs require funding for first-class facilities and the hiring of competent staff. This would be financially difficult for smaller churches. However, most small churches do not follow the previously mentioned growth strategies of the ancient church. The adoption of these strategies makes a big difference in attracting and retaining people. Leading a small church to adopt early church practices will result in blessing. It will foster spiritual growth. It will likely create a contagious excitement that will lead to numerical growth. The temptation is to enjoy this growth, allowing the original church to become much bigger than a typical church in the apostolic era. Instead of pursuing the continual growth of a single congregation, Maintaining the New Testament example of multiplying Roman villa-sized churches should be the goal. Reproduction should be built into the church's DNA. There is a need to continually teach the men to be leaders in their homes and the church. New leaders from within should be trained. Once the leadership is in place, a sizable portion of the original church should be sent out to start another small church. Strategically small. Mega church pastor Adrian Rogers joked to those in his congregation who preferred a smaller church. Just sit in one of the first 10 rows and don't look back. However, a genuine advantage for small churches lies in being positioned to reap strategic benefits from adopting the small church growth strategies of the ancient church. This includes participatory worship, the weekly Lord's Supper agape, a plurality of co-equal elders who lead with the servant love of Christ, a commitment to congregational consensus, and an understanding of the vital importance of making disciples by regularly teaching people to observe all that Jesus commanded. Small churches that follow the ways of the early church are in a good position to offer what many are looking for, genuine fellowship, lasting and transparent relationships, and less politics. Church Houses A church house is not the church. It is just a sheepshed. Thus, Donald Guthrie concluded, the expression in church, in ecclesia, refers to an assembly of believers. There's no suggestion of a special building. Indeed, the idea of a church as representing a building is totally alien to the New Testament. It is interesting that the New Testament is devoid of any instructions for the construction of special buildings for worship. This is far different from Mosaic legislation, which contained exacting blueprints for the tabernacle. When the New Covenant writers broached this subject, they pointed out that the believers themselves are the temple of the Holy Spirit, living stones that come together to constitute a spiritual house with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. 1 Peter 2, verses 4 and 5, Ephesians 2, verses 19 through 22, 1 Corinthians 3, verse 16, and chapter 6, verse 19. Itinerant English Bible teacher, author Wallace said, in the Old Testament, God had a sanctuary for His people. In the new, God had his people as a sanctuary. Southern Baptist pastor John Havlik offered these penetrating words. The church is never a place, but always a people. Never a fold, but always a flock. Never a sacred building, but always a believing assembly. The church is you who pray, not where you pray. A structure of brick or marble can no more be the church than your clothes of serge or satin can be you. This is in this world, no sanctuary of man but the soul. Some Christians place too much emphasis on church buildings. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote, I will not dwell upon the vast height of their churches, their unconscionable length, their preposterous breadth, their richly polished paneling, all of which distracts the eyes of the worshiper and hinders his devotion. You throw money into your decorations, your candlesticks as tall as trees. great masses of bronze or exquisite workmanship, and as dazzling with their precious stones as the lights that surmount them. What, think you, is the purpose of all this? Will it melt a sinner's heart and not rather keep him gazing in wonder? O vanity of vanities! No insanity rather than vanity. Due diligence is needed before spending exorbitant amounts acquiring church buildings that will sit empty most of the week. This is money that might be better spent on disciple making, evangelism, benevolence, or support for pastors and missionaries. Charles Spurgeon asked, does God need a house? He who made the heavens and the earth, does He dwell in temples made with hands? What crass ignorance this is. No house beneath the sky is more holy than the place where a Christian lives and eats and drinks and sleeps and praises the Lord in all that he does. And there is no worship more heavenly than that which is presented by holy families, devoted to the fear of the Lord. The real issue is, thus, not where a church meets, but where and how it can best do what God requires of it. House. Churches. Under the right circumstances, a private home can be the ideal setting for a church meeting. J. Vernon McGee predicted, as the church started in the home, it is going to come back to the home. The smaller, homey setting fosters genuine friendships. The celebration of the Lord's Supper as a fellowship meal in this relaxed, unhurried, comfortable setting helps to build unity and love. A home is not big enough to accommodate a huge number of people. Thus, participatory worship in which each person contributes according to his spiritual gifts is much more intimate and meaningful. Meeting in a suitable private dwelling is a good use of scarce financial resources. Every member's participation and ministry were highly valued and encouraged in the early church. Thus, a large home is still a setting in which every person can comfortably contribute and function for the edification of the whole body of Christ. House churches can be simple, wonderful, down to earth, yet touching heaven, expressions of New Covenant church life. Another advantage of a church that meets in a home is that the money that would normally have gone toward rent can be used to support a pastor. Houston Baptist University professor Peter Davids and German Baptist pastor Siegfried Grossman offered this studied insight. The witness of the New Testament is clear. The living space of the church was the house. We judge the church historical development to be a step backward from relationship to religion. Today, a new desire for a face-to-face fellowship has broken out. For too long, we have exclusively seen the formal church services as the center of the church and neglected our concrete life together in houses. We cannot slavishly imitate what took place earlier, but we should be challenged anew by this foundational structure of the church as a network of house churches. We see the following concrete challenges. The church needs face-to-face fellowship. The church dare not bracket out daily life from the life of the church. The church needs structures through which the reality of concrete life can be encouraged. The church must keep in balance the handing out of the Word and the handing out of life. Many modern homes are too small to hold enough believers to have the strength of a first-century Roman villa-sized house church. In a typical modern Western house church, no one is qualified to serve as an elder. In addition, no one has the free time to consistently devote to in-depth teaching. The reproduction of new house churches will be hindered because of the critical shortage of qualified leaders. The Holy Spirit did not gift enough pastor-teachers for so many sub-biblical micro-churches. Lacking both qualified leadership and in-depth teaching, The house church becomes somewhat of a bless-me club. The fellowship of the agape is marvelous, the worship is wonderful, and the children have a good time playing together. However, no significant discipleship occurs. Outreach is minimal. Thus, it is important to avoid the mistake of thinking too small. Even if the home is big enough to host scores of people, the neighbors will not be pleased if the surrounding streets are choked with traffic every Lord's Day. Many areas have passed zoning ordinances against churches in homes for this reason. This situation is not helped by the fact that house churches are perceived as cultic by many in society. In addition, they are not taken seriously by the typical believer. Maybe worst of all is their tendency to attract an unusually high percentage of disciples who are anti-authority and socially dysfunctional, espouse aberrant theologies, or hold secondary issues so dear that they have separated themselves from other believers. Factiousness. In sum, accomplishing what the early church achieved might necessitate not meeting in a home. A dynamic equivalent might be more appropriate. Therefore, the emphasis should be on following the general New Testament principle of smaller churches not simply meeting in homes. For a church to function as effectively as the early church, the size and layout of the building should be carefully considered. Ideally, the building should feel homey. It should be designed to hold a relatively small congregation, and the seating arrangement should be flexible. Because eating together was a major part of early gatherings, the church should have a food preparation area. a sink, a long countertop, a refrigerator, etc., and a dining area. To help families with small children, it should have a nursery area and safe indoor and outdoor play areas. There should be ample parking. To overcome the limitations of modern Western homes, which are smaller than Roman villas, the elders from the various house churches in an area could meet weekly as a sort of presbytery. A midweek centralized teaching that is open to all house churches could be offered by pastors who are especially gifted in teaching. The house congregations could also meet together in a large rented facility monthly or quarterly for worship and encouragement. Many forward thinkers suspect that the Western Church is on the path to persecution. For example, biblical teachings against homosexuality will be viewed as hate speech. Christians will be painted by the media as close-minded, right-wing bigots who are on the wrong side of history. The tax-exempt status of churches could be revoked by government legislation when sexual freedom trumps religious liberty. The power to tax is the power to destroy. In times of persecution, meeting in private homes is an attractive option. Buy vocational pastors. Southeastern Baptist Seminary President Danny Akin opined that as the number of Christian recedes in the West, house churches are the wave of the future. He further advises seminarians to prepare to be bivocational. Bivocational ministry was the norm in New Testament times. Jesus' statement that it is more blessed to give than to receive are famous. However, the context is much less known. These words do not appear in any of the four Gospels. They were cited by Paul at a pastor's conference. Paul assumed that most of the pastors would earn their living from regular jobs, just as he did. Thus, they would be the givers of silver and gold to the church, rather than the recipients. I coveted no one's silver or gold. or apparel, you yourselves know that these hands minister to my necessities and to those who are with me. In all things, I have shown you that by working hard in this way, we must help the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how He Himself said, it is more blessed to give than to receive. Acts 20 verses 33 to 35. Pastors feel a great burden to make disciples. They identify with Jeremiah who said, if I say I will not mention him or speak anymore in his name, there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones and I am weary with holding it in. I cannot. Jeremiah 20 verse 9. This burden creates the tension expressed by a bivocational pastor who wrote, I leave home at 530 a.m. and return at 530 p.m. while I see the people around me as an open field for ministry. So much of my time is consumed in commercial activities that I feel like there is something beyond all this that pulls my mind to it perpetually. Perhaps solace can be found in Paul's example. He was God's premier evangelist, church planter, and disciple maker. Yet God, in his sovereignty, felt that making tents was a good use of Paul's time. In his divine wisdom, God also judged that it would be better for Paul to spend much of his time in jail, unable to do the Lord's work. However, Were it not for Paul's time in jail, the church might not have his prison epistles. Our idea and God's idea of the Lord's work might be different. None of us knows the work that God is doing in our lives to prepare us for whatever comes next. Are we in the places that He has called us to serve? If so, what else can we do but continue to be faithful and to remain where we are? Jesus promised to build the church. Let us rest in God's sovereignty. Small in a big way. Pastors deeply desire to see their churches grow spiritually and numerically. They want to reach people with the gospel and to see lives transformed. A small church with the life of Christ that adopts early church practices will likely grow spiritually and numerically. As people's needs are met, as they walk closer with Christ, they will become excited and cannot help but tell others about Christ and His church. Growing churches love, and loving churches grow. The temptation will be to allow a small church to grow ever larger. However, beyond a certain size, a church will begin to lose the small church advantage. Following the practices of the New Testament will become increasingly difficult. The church will become a victim of its own success. The solution is to intentionally keep the church relatively small through the multiplication of small churches, the ongoing training of new leaders, and the deployment of the best people to start new congregations. The goal is dynamic small churches that start other dynamic small churches that start yet other dynamic small churches. We must celebrate the multiplication of small churches. Engage success by multiplication rather than addition. Church growth consultant Bill Easom suggests success shouldn't be measured solely by our worship attendance. Success must also be measured by how many people we send out and release into ministry. There are 400,000 churches in America with an average size of 100.45. If only 10% start a new church in the next five years, that would be 40,000 new churches. Now this is something to get excited about. Smaller churches have strategic, divinely designed size advantages for effective ministry. Closeness, intimacy, refreshing simplicity, ease of multiplication, one another ministry, face-to-face fellowship, the Lord's Supper as an agape meal, less bureaucracy, less management headache, church discipline, meaningful participatory worship, and in achieving consensus. After all, God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise. God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God." 1 Corinthians 1 verse 27 following. Discussion questions. Number one, what is the evidence that persecution was not the only reason the early church met in homes? 2. Some argue that Roman villa-sized churches were characteristic of the church in its infancy. It was right and natural, they argue, for each church to mature beyond the confines of a home and to build ever-larger meeting places. How do you feel about this? Question three, were smaller congregations merely an incidental fact of history or were they a purposeful part of the blueprint for effective church ministry? Why? Number four, why might the apostles have laid down a purposeful pattern of small churches? Number five, what are the practical advantages and disadvantages of meeting in a home? 6. What might be the psychological effects of the size of a congregation on a church meeting and on those in attendance? 7. How would the number of people involved affect a church's ability to have a participatory meeting or to achieve congregational consensus? Number eight, what advantages for growth and reproduction might house churches have over fellowships that have to build church houses? Number nine, what should be done in a situation in which a home is too small to host a church meeting? Number 10, how did New Testament churches grow numerically yet continue to meet in private homes? ntrf.org has audio, video, and a teacher's discussion guide on small church theology. Conclusion Jesus said, no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins. His point was simply that some actions are inappropriate. Some church practices are also inappropriate. If we compare the new wine to our new lives in Christ, then the wineskin could be likened to what we do when we come together as God's people, ecclesiology. The most appropriate wineskin is arguably found in the dynamics of New Testament church practice. The growth strategies of the ancient church were simple – a family atmosphere, participatory worship, weekly fellowship, over food with friends who love Jesus, servant leaders, and the in-depth discussion of Scripture. Economist E.F. Schumacher said, any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a lot of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. The growth strategies of the ancient church were strategic. God's people got involved in church meetings through participatory worship that stirred up good deeds. Loving relationships were formed through the weekly agape. and a strong commitment by the leaders to build congregational consensus promoted unity. Overflowing love and unity is a powerful witness to the watching world. The growth strategies of the ancient church were scriptural, based on Jesus' teachings, clearly seen in the Bible, practiced by first century believers. and prescribed in the New Testament. They constituted a divine design for making disciples of all nations. Who knew better than the apostles, the best church practice wineskins? Aren't their traditions worthy of our consideration? About the author. Stephen E. Akerson, Master of Divinity, Mid-America Baptist Seminary, helps church leaders discover simple growth strategies given by Jesus to the early church. For over 30 years, he has worked with evangelists, missionaries, church planters, and pastors in Asia, the Americas, Europe, and Africa. He is one of the pastors of a Southern Baptist church he planted in 1991 and is president of the New Testament Reformation Fellowship, ntrf.org. About NTRF. The New Testament Reformation Fellowship is a fellowship of pastors who seek the reformation of today's church through the adoption of New Testament church practices. We aid in church leaders recapturing the intimacy, simplicity, accountability, and dynamic of Spirit-led, first-century church life. The essential tenets of the faith to which we subscribe are identical to those found in the doctrinal statement of any sound evangelical institution. Our favorite statement of faith is the First London Baptist Confession of 1644. In particular, those of us associated with NTRF agree with the doctrines of grace, New Covenant theology, the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, the 1987 Danvers Statement, and the 2017 Nashville Statement. My mother passed away from cancer during my freshman year of high school. What had become of her? Where had she gone? Would I ever see her again? After much inquiry about life after death, I discovered that obtaining eternal life is not based on how good we are, but on the goodness of Jesus. Although I had heard of Jesus since my earliest memory, My belief in him was not unlike my belief in Albert Einstein. I believed he existed but did not look to him to do anything for me. I mistakenly thought heaven my destiny simply because I sincerely tried to be a good person. No matter how good I was, it would not be good enough. God is so holy that just one sin is all it takes to separate us from Him. That was bad news. The good news is that Jesus, who is God in human form, died on the cross in order to pay for sin. Since He is infinite God, Jesus was able to suffer in a finite amount of time on the cross But it would have taken me, who am finite, an infinity of time to suffer in hell. After dying and being buried, Jesus literally, bodily rose from the dead on the third day. He conquered death. He then ascended to heaven, and from there Christians await His return. When I realized the truth, I consciously transferred trust for my eternal destiny from me and anything good in me. over to Jesus. I confessed the same thing that Thomas, an early believer, confessed. My Lord and my God, John 20 verse 28. After trusting in Jesus, he gave me a desire to learn about and obey his teachings. If you love me, you will keep my commandments. John 14, verse 15. My appeal is that you look to Jesus for eternal life. Worship Him as your Lord and God. Call on Him while He is near. Now is the day of salvation. To learn more, find the gospel of John in the Bible. Read it a chapter at a time. At the end of each chapter, ask yourself two questions based on that chapter. Number one, who is Jesus? Number two, what does he want from me? There are 21 chapters in John's gospel. Will you accept a 21-day challenge and read a chapter a day?