00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
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?
9. New Testament Church Dynamics: Rediscovering Early Church Practice ~ Audio Book!
Series Key Early Church Practices
Audio Book! New Testament Church Dynamics: Growth Strategies of the Ancient Church. Read by Robert Thomason. Printed version available at NTRF.org. You can contact Robert Thomason via the external link above.
| Sermon ID | 218212226536170 |
| Duration | 4:19:06 |
| Date | |
| Category | Audiobook |
| Language | English |
Documents
Add a Comment
Comments
No Comments
© Copyright
2025 SermonAudio.
