I’ve been friends with her for years. She had stopped going to church when we met, but now she was thinking of going to “big” church again, this Sunday. Big church, it’s what we used to call the big ol’ service time where pastor and choir, offertory and hymn singing all loomed large. It was an adjective that belied more than I realized.
Out of the mouth of babes.
Big church is where the big stuff happens. It is where my husband and I often speak. It’s the place with the large numbers, the most powerful technologies, where stages help us notice what has been prayed over and planned for this special hour.
Speaking in a wonderful “big” church in the Midwest
My friend hadn’t been to big church as a participant for four years. It’s not quite as dramatic as it sounds.
She still goes to Bible studies, she still reads Christian books and haunts Christian book stores. She still raises her brood as Jesus followers.
She simply doesn’t attend church on the weekends. From her big church respite, she’s shared a few things with me.
The first is rather startling. She did not miss regular weekly gatherings. The weekend arrives and she, like me, has begun practicing Sabbath on Friday evening until Saturday eve. My husband often joins me as I don a cream scarf, light two candles, one for rest, the other for freedom (echoing the command to rest in Genesis and the command to go out and be free –to rest– in Exodus), pull the warmth into my body in a circular motion and recite,
Friends kindling Sabbath lights
Blessed are you O Lord our God who has set us apart and commanded us to kindle the Sabbath lights
With Jews, I kindle these lights. And then I wrestle to rest.
My friend does, too. She’s told me that the way she wrestles to avoid work, to struggle against checking email, cleaning, empaling have done more to settle and unsettle her soul than any big church service challenge.
The second, my friend does not appear to me to be stagnant or weaker in loving Jesus because of the break from formal weekly gatherings. She is just as fervent about prayer, reading Scripture, asking me and her other friends hard questions about Scripture and the hurdles of our faith. She talks to others about Jesus. Each Sabbath I know she reads Scripture and will talk to me about it later. As she puts it, “I don’t miss a weekly fill-up from a sermon. I know it’s weird, but life with church has been good for me.”
I know, deep down, that she’s in good company. Dallas Willard, probably the most humble disciple of Jesus I’ve met (past chair of the Philosophy department at USC, prolific writer of spiritual formation and nationally recognized mentor) writes, “Bible study, prayer and church attendance, among the most commonly prescribed activities in Christian circles, generally have little effect for soul transformation, as is obvious to any observer. If all the people doing them were transformed to health and righteousness by it, the world would be vastly changed” (bold mine).¹
The third, her missing church for a few years has made her ask some important questions that have, frankly, made me uncomfortable at times. What is the purpose of church? If you can fellowship and use your gifts in other ways and in other settings with the Church (believers) all over the town, why is Sunday morning attendance important? What is the heft of the warning “Not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another” (Heb 10:25)?
So why attend?
As Willard says, “We must flatly say that one of the greatest contemporary barriers to meaningful spiritual formation in Christlikeness is overconfidence in the spiritual efficacy of ‘regular church services,‘ of whatever kind they may be. Though they are vital, they are not enough” (bold mine).²
Something about big church is vital? What is it?
I ask my friend if she knows what it is. Why are you going back?
“I want to identify and find the people who claim Jesus, to see them in action in a group. But my expectations are lower,” she says. “I’m not going to expect to be wow’d by the sermon or the music. But I’m in search of those who think they are faithful to Jesus. I want to look them in the eye, en masse, again.”
I don’t think she’ll seamlessly blend in, anymore. But I also don’t think she’ll care. She’s going to see, to find, to identify.
And I think God will honor that.
¹ “Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation, and Restoration of the Soul” by Dallas Willard, Journal of Psychology and Theology, Spring 1998, Vol. 26, #1, pp. 101-109.
² Renovation of the Heart pg. 249-250).
I found this entry very interesting and would like to add a perspective.
I’m a member of a small rural church which is currently feeling the effects of brothers and sisters who don’t come to services. While I find joy in meeting with God in any size group (and especially at His house), the discouragement on the elderly faces is palpable. They don’t get out much or have many people over since they’re well into their nineties, and so they miss the encouragement of worship with and exhortation from their younger brothers and sisters.
Sherry,
What a powerful point… makes me realize how precious the time can be for anyone to gather, to set aside time to be available to see one another and connect.
Do you find “big” church a good time for you to be encouraged and exhorted by your brothers and sisters?
If so, how does that happen for you?
What is not encouraging about seeing friendly faces that I won’t see any other time of the week? Or what is not exhortational about hostile faces that drive me to pray “Lord, quickly, give me love for these people” and then experience the miracle of being able to greet them kindly?
To get to dine on steak (sermon) in my Father’s house after watching my husband work in the kitchen all week (labor in the scriptures) to feed the flock as one that must give an account for their souls….to hear that someone was angry over a sermon about sin….to hear someone else soberly but joyfully report that he needed that same sermon….all of these are how it happens for me.
And if all of that stopped, services in God’s house would still be important because I’m His child. Consider with me: my brothers and sisters are going to meet at my Dad’s house. We’re such a large family that we’ve found it easier over the centuries to have a regular time (instead of every day like the church in Acts) as well as informal times. Dad really loves it when we all meet together under His roof and He sees our struggles to live out His love for us by how we treat each other before and after we’ve praised Him and sung His favorite songs and listened to His Word….
…puts me in mind of the two church services we held at the houses of members dying of cancer and how joyful the singing and praying and looking forward to being with God was….Woo-hoo! Can’t wait to be in His heavenly mansion!
psst…sorry if my opening sounds abrupt! I edited some and didn’t smooth it out.
Sherry,
You’ve done a great job outlining some of the best moments at big church. I can relate and have enjoyed these small miracles of presence, power and hope…
Thank you for sharing from this storehouse.
Raised Quaker I’m always banging on the walls between secular and sacred, perhaps getting sore hands, but nonetheless….. can I push you a bit on one thing you said?
Where do you find the concept that big church is God’s house?
I know God calls his temple in the OT his house and I know the tabernacle was his abode…. but where do we find the idea that the place Jesus followers gather on Sundays is God’s house?
Any Scripture would be great.
Nope, I sure can’t point you to any verse that says post-temple-destruction church buildings are God’s houses. But you would’ve known that already.
So, where do I get the idea? One foundational tenet of my life is an emphasis on the local, visible church. I find roots for this in many New Testament elements: transition from terms “temple” and “houses” as meeting places in Acts 2:46-47 to “churches” Acts 16:5; Paul’s always heading straight for synagogue but writing letters to the church of Galatia (not the synagogue of Galatia) as well to the other churches; 1 letter to the city’s church being revelatory of 1 massive group (take Corinth: apparently everyone who read the letter already knew about the incestuous relationship of I Corinthians, implying more than occasional meeting of a few in each other’s houses); letters to the pastors of the 7 churches of Revelation.
Perhaps here is your aha-you-still-haven’t-gotten-to-an-actual-church-house moment. I did say roots, not the full tree.
A side question: when DID a group finally purchase land and building solely for church? While I’m only mildly curious, I would judge by most underground churches’ great desire to have a church house as well as missionaries’ endeavors to build church houses ASAP that early churches tried for it as soon as possible, also. I wonder if they had to wait for Constantine? Anyway, back to scriptural roots…
The concept of sheep having a sheepfold and an undershepherd as well as the Great Shepherd weighs in heavily, as well. For time’s sake, I shan’t elaborate on the obvious conclusions one can draw, but I will point out that the role of undershepherd (the office of pastor/bishop/elder)is directly connected to a sheepfold. The clear history of Timothy and Titus as pastors as well as Paul the missionary visiting churches implies meeting places of larger groups along with the Corinthian verses of members of a body being diverse in function.
And for the roots to actual buildings being God’s houses, every building is God’s (yes, even temples to other gods: the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof); wouldn’t a building reserved by His people for worshiping Him be doubly so? Aren’t the temple and tabernacle shadows of the New Testament church? Isn’t a church building more His because of what you do there as well as the intent of the people who named it so (and think of all those Holy Spirit temples of believers’ bodies collected in one place to worship)? One final thought on this line: when Finn starts drawing you pictures and giving them to you, will they be yours? If yes, will it be because he gave them to you or because you and Dale equipped him with the paper, the utensil, and the drawing ability? Could it be both?
Could go on, but my youngest just trashed the living room. I hope my sharing some is helpful to your personal study and questioning. It has been interesting to think this (to me) bedrock belief through from the ground up.
Sherry,
I’m interested in what you shared. Thank you for writing this all out! And hope the living room clean-up wasn’t too arduous.
Sometimes I think it would be a little easier if I could find a verse that explains the Big Church movement that has become so normal in American life.
A few responses… feel free to push back if you’d like, but no pressure or hard feelings if you want to forego.
I also see Paul’s interest in going straight to the synagogue evidence that this place was the site of God-fearers. A good question to ponder: are big churches the spot where all God-fearers meet today? If so, then it makes sense that Paul or Jesus would have come to these if they visited today. However, it seems to me that our big churches today, scatter the Church, the groups of God-fearers in a city into personality-led groups that Paul would be hard-pressed to know where to go first? Perhaps he would visit all of them, and people who love Jesus and meet in less formal ways.
When Paul writes to the “church of Galatia” for example, did he expect his letters to be read by a Big Church gathering? or to be passed along in house gatherings? between families? I honestly don’t know. I do have trouble imagining the Christians having a big church building. Rather, I think it’s more likely they met as they could in houses. And unless they had a wicked big house, these gatherings couldn’t have been that big. Upper rooms seem to be popular, Acts 20:7-8, much like Jesus gathered to break bread. However, I believe this gathering was not much like our current big church, given that they were so much smaller. What do you think?
Corinthian letter as evidence that the whole body knew of the incestuous relationship… perhaps this meant they met regularly, true. But couldn’t it also mean that juicy things like this pass as morsels to be savored at EVERY meeting, marketplace, well, street corner? Could mean more about the gossip than the regular meetings.
Sheep and shepherd. I’ve often thought of Jesus as our shepherd, the Good Shepherd (Ps 23), as well. The sheepfold, interesting idea, so the big church house/meeting is like our sheepfold? Our safe place? Role of the undershephered, bishop/pastor/elder… yes this is a role Paul talks a lot about. However, are these offices predicated or dependent on the weekly meeting and big church edifice? Sure they can and usually do work together, but are they mutually dependent? Does Timothy and Titus’ pastoring imply a larger group meeting, or simply a larger group of Jesus followers? Or would/could they have pastored in the smaller way, visiting homes, listening, counseling, praying, teaching in smaller settings?
I think your strongest argument is that the building that is used to honor God being more God’s house than other buildings. My only push back is that it perhaps says more than this, wouldn’t that necessarily include any place that is customarily used to honor God? For instance, my artist friend and photographer, Jeff Lefever preserves consecrated space around the world, before it is destroyed. He is currently in Poland. Jeff has helped me see that God is often taking the common and making it sacred, that it is valuable to learn to consecrate space even in our homes. For instance, I had a room I set apart for prayer and Bible reading back before we down-sized. This place was a sacred spot in our home. But I would not call it God’s room. Why not? I find the phrase “God’s house” should be reserved for places we know God dwells in a sustained manner… the tabernacle and the fire and pillar of cloud come to mind.
As churches are walled up during most the week or converted into places of teaching or multi-purpose uses (Men’s BBQ, Women’s Tea) and as many fail to express beauty or goodness consistently in their community, I have a rough time calling them God’s house. I don’t think this set’s God’s name apart enough.
I really want to better understand the Finn drawing with paper I gave him metaphor. I’m afraid I don’t see the connection, can you explain it further?
All my push back, however, doesn’t mean that big church is discardable, rather I’m trying to find why we quickly assume our big church is God’s house and therefore claims our weekend time. Is this something that is more tradition than command of God, or both? Is this something that God is using, perhaps, but did not command?
Great question, btw, when did the first small house churches push for land? I’d say Constantine may have been part of this since it would have been formally legal (and powerful) to declare your Christianity. I would not say a church building is essential to growth and love of Jesus. Would you?
I like “big church” because many of the people that I enjoy spending time with go first to big church and then to somebody’s house after big church. It is less about the sermon, and the pastor, and the hymns, and much more about the post church social interactions; which probably wouldn’t happen absent “big church.”
This is a nicely made point, Joseph. I wonder what do you think makes people come together for big church when it’s the time after the “unofficial” fellowship that they crave?
And what prevents us from prioritizing the fellowship in unofficial ways (dinners, late night gelato runs, picnics) during the week?
Looooove that Dallas Willard quote…both of them…and find myself heartily in agreement with him.
Thanks, M.
Thanks for this post, Jonalyn!
I attend a “big church” (in fact, one you have spoken to) and am coming to some of the same conclusions as your friend.
The church I grew up in met many of my family’s needs for community and support, but I have yet to find a church in the town we are currently living in that really feels that way for me.
As a result, I’ve linked up with friends from many area churches and put more energy into these friendships.
My expectations for my “big church” experience have lowered quite a bit, as you described. I guess I’m growing to see this as God’s way of expanding my idea of the body of Christ and hopefully, being an example of the unity of believers.
I love your challenging practice of the Sabbath and am thinking hard about that one.
You’re welcome, Shannon. Perhaps it is good to expect less and find more at “big” church.
For some wonderful thoughts of how to practice Sabbath see God’s Appointed Times: A Practical Guide for Understanding and Celebrating God’s the Biblical Holidays by Kasdan
For an abbreviated version of Sabbath tips see my Ruby Slippers post “Practicing Sabbath“.
Jonalyn, very interesting reading! Loved it. I do believe that church attendance is essential for the reasons stated in the quoted passage, BUT, I see quite a bit of pitfalls that are experienced by many, and more often than should be expected.
One of the major negative contributors as a result of regular church attendance is, from my perspective, ritualism. Church attendees, Christian and non, are potentially susceptible to the ‘Zombie Syndrome’. If one were a keen observer (Not a judge, but an observer), sometimes it’s very easy to detect.
You can see it on the faces of the ‘worshipers’. Folks drag in to church on Sunday, out of obligation almost, as if it were a chore or even a burden. I have seen it and, worse and most unfortunately, have experienced it myself in past.
I really cannot say what pulled me out of the ‘Zombie Syndrome’. I don’t even remember the transition back to the human side. So, I’m not sure what is, or maybe I should say what the cure or process to the cure is for this condition. But if church goers are not careful, ritualism can take over, and before you know it, you’re walking around pale-faced and in slow motion.
Z.S. and ritualism. I’ve seen these as well! I wonder if these problems pop up for every regular activity? (for example: Are the zombies at church also zombies in their marriages?) I wouldn’t think so.
Why?
I have a theory that ZS flourishes whenever we are told about and not invited into experiencing God. If the pastor will unearth Scripture and tell me what to think on all spiritual things ZS is a huge temptation.
I have still to find reason to think a head or senior pastor preaching every Sun is a Bublically practiced or commanded idea.
Has anyone read, So You Don’t Want to go to Church Anymore? I highly recommend.
Thanks for the book recommendation – I definitely have seen and experienced the Zombie syndrome! A dangerous thing for the church…easy to enter that lukewarm zone and not really living into one’s faith.
). But I think they are the essential aspects – encouragement, support and challenge in a community of believers and reaching out to the needs of the surrounding community.
I started enjoying a church that encourages “home church” groups. The pastor even says, sunday morning services aren’t essential – he would prefer that people went to home church over that because that is where we encounter each other. You can’t be a zombie, you can’t get lost in the crowd when you are meeting in a small group of people. You are, as you said Jonalyn, invited into experiencing God. They also connect with the community and find ways to reach outside themselves.
I really believe this is probably more biblical (I believe the first believers met in each other’s homes and did not necessarily have “pastors” leading a “service”, this is not based in any scripture at the moment though
The idea of home church has much more appeal to me.
Coryn,
I agree!
From my own experience with house church I have also refined my view of what it can and should (and should not) be.
This is really interesting – I’ve been thinking on this subject recently and have had similar conclusions.
I know the benefits – the church I grew up in from a young child to now (quite a small church, not a large congregation) is important to me but not for the service or speaking, the music can drive me insane – I’m not a fan of alot of current ‘worship’ stuff, and I don’t love getting up early on sunday mornings – BUT the people there have known me as I’ve grown up. I know, without question, that they pray for me, they encourage me, they support me and each other through many challenges – I’ve seen the people of my church support people through affairs in their marriage, divorce, loss, children dealing with serious depression and suicidal ideas, struggles with cancer and illness.
This community and support humbles me and to me, this is the purpose of gathering – connection, support, relationship.
On the other hand, starting at a new big church is hard to want to do. I lived a few years ago, in a new town, and went to tons of churches where I did not feel welcome, nobody talked to me, it was so hard to find any point of connection. Only through a bible study in that church did I meet some wonderful women who I was able to connect with, discuss challenging spiritual questions and socialize. It was so positive but I had to actively seek it out.
I can see why so few go to church when there is no connection, it is easy to get lost in the crowd.
I think my opinion would change to if I practiced the type of Sabbath you’ve discussed. It has been on my mind that Sunday is supposed to be our Sabbath day – but going to church is not what I would pick to do on my day of rest! If I set aside a specific day to really actively rest, I think I would be more inclined to attend church and connect with people instead of feel a bit resentful that I had to get up early, and am losing half my day of rest.
Coryn,
Some music can drive me insane, too. I agree that there seems to be a God blessed community at good churches. Without the connection and as Protestants it is hard to see why else we’d attend.
Because of the friend I’ve written about above, my thinking about what Church IS has fluxed.
Great point about “church” not being restful. I do not, btw, think Sabbath is now Sunday. I think it is Fri eve – Sat eve, at least that’s how early Jesus-following Jews practiced it. I can’t encourage Sanbath observance enough. It has changed my soul!
Thanks, I do get that Sunday is not sabbath – I think the Fri to Sat is a great way to do it and I think it would change my experience of sunday church because it would no longer be encroaching on my rest day!
Hi Jonalyn,
This blog is what my friends and I have been discussing for many years. After being stuck in bed for two years, that became my church. I went through all kinds of feelings about it. Feeling disconnected, but then realizing that my spiritual life was growing more than it ever had. Upon returning to big church it felt hallow and empty. We switched to a smaller church which helped us reconnect with friends again. But, like stated earlier it was more about the friendships. The challenge with a smaller church is that if someone is not there, we all feel it. If I am not there, there are feelings of guilt even if it is for something I know God would definitely honor. On a separate note, practicing the Sabbath is becoming a powerful time in our home as we explore what each of us needs to feel rested and connected. God is good!
Blessings!
Tanya,
I appreciate you sharing how Church can happen anywhere we are with others who love Jesus, even if that ends up being in our bed with family around us. When we began a house church I also experienced that sensitive spirit to those present and absent. I wish people could notice more at big church, but I also like the feeling that I can be overlooked if I just need to be still and alone before God with others who thirst for him.
Perhaps what bothers me most about big church today
The showmanship from the front
The tendency to equate church attendance with spiritual growth and church involvement with spiritual maturity.
The sloppy thinking that church attendees make up the real and only body if Christ.
It warms my soul to hear how Sabbath is changing your lives!
Just throwing out one thing: I have to say…I greatly enjoy the weekly sermon on Sunday morning and miss it when I am in the nursery, in junior church, or absent from church altogether.
Just putting in a word on behalf of the sermons, and those who spend their week readying them.
It’s been a long time since I’ve looked forward to the weekly sermon. I think seminary can make sermons more painful to listen to, it can also grow spiritual one upmanship…. But I know of no way to work on that but to tend big church and endure many an inaccurate sermon..
Let me see if I’m hearing you accurately Jonalyn…
You’re not saying big church is negligible in one’s life with Christ, nor are you saying it’s absolutely paramount. it has a place but so does day-to-day existence outside of it. it’s a both/and, not an either/or.
is that the essence of what you’re trying to say?
that maybe overly simplistic and for that i apologize. but i’m trying to sift through this a little bit better.
also, maybe sometime we could dialogue on a series of blog posts Tim Keller has pulled together on Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jone’s book on preaching. I’ve read and re-read them countless times in the past couple weeks. He says this, “To say that preaching is primary in the church is correct. To make it virtually solitary in practice is not.”
http://redeemercitytocity.com/blog/view.jsp?Blog_param=359
http://redeemercitytocity.com/blog/view.jsp?Blog_param=368
Hoops,
I wish I could simply agree with this, but I’m afraid Ithe simplification is what I’m not sure I can sign up for anymore.
Here’s the deal, big church becomes the or even a goal to show our spirituality, not to others, but even to ourselves, and in the process people stop loving God. Not all people, but some.
My biggest concern is that people dont assume big church is necessary. Why? I don’t think Paul or Jesus or Isaiah or Elijah or Moses found it necessary (Israel didn’t meet weekly in the wilderness, though they did rest each week and received preserved manna for that extra day, Jesus visited synogogues as was his custom, but he doesn’t eve say we should be part of weekly gatherings… I find this curiously absent. Paul visited synogogues, too, but no where does he say all believers in Jesus ought to do the same. Instead I think the only passage that could speak to this is in Heb “Do no forsake the assembling together”. So what does forsake mean, is this speaking specifically to big church or to those who stopped hanging out with other followers of Jesus.
Hanging out with people who love Jesus is not negligible in ones life. Big church could be negligible in one’s life. Big church attendance is not as interesting to me as WHY people go to stop going. Is it because you find church doing nothing for you or are sick of routine, well, let’s unpack those a little more.
I think why people go to big church is just as interesting as why they don’t. Both can be riveted with problems.
These blog posts on preaching/church from Jones: would be good to hear what you’re taking and liking from them. The quote above, not sure about it. Where is preaching given this kind of prominence in scripture? Not trying to be ornery, just plain untested. Btw have you read So you don’t want to got to church anymore??
jonalyn, i like how this post created a tension in me. the struggle i’m having is identifying what it stirred up. i think this is something I have to let linger and revisit with you at some point down the road.
if anything, it seems like these thoughts are still pretty fresh from you. am a right? if so, i like that. i like that you don’t necessarily hold back from something because you haven’t landed.
also, here’s one thought i had today with regard to preaching. it seems to me that preaching (and or teaching) has power, as jesus modeled, when the point is geared toward the transformation of the hearer’s life. when we speak for transformation, i believe we’re being faithful to scripture. I think know this is why you and dale you travel the country and get on countless stages. you want to see changed lives.
Hoops,
I admire your willingness to sit in that tension, too. In one way this is fresh because of what I’m experiencing now, but in other ways it is not.
I’ve been thinking about church, house church, Sabbath for the last three years, re-thinking is a better word. And the process is pushing me to think hard. I hope I never land too adamantly about something God isn’t very clear about.
As a good mentor of mine says, “There are few black and whites in scripture, most of our lives is grey and that’s where the Holy Spirit comes in.”
Let me push you a bit. Do you think God is clear that we need to be at a big church each Sunday? Where or how?
Yes, preaching does have power, but i believe that this is true whether we preach to two or 10 (like in our Gatherings) or to hundreds or thousands. And yes, that power, that wide impact in a short time is why we travel and speak.
I’m glad you reminded me of it! It’s easy to forget on Sabbatical
I speculate the reason there is a commandment for assembling together of part of living in community with other believers. I agree it’s perhaps the smallest part of our spiritual journey, and I currently enjoy a model we use when my husband and I are attending currently. It’s a Messianic congregation (I know that’s loaded because there are good and bad ones just like common churches.) and we have a “sermon” time but the portion of our service we call worship is actually the time spent singing and giving prayer requests, praises and sharing testimony of things during the week.) Afterwards we have oneg (“joy of the sabbath”) and nibble on a few small things we bring while we stand around or sit around and chat, share burdens, challenge one another, goof off, or whatever else people do when they’re together. I found church suffocating in the past also, and still do in some churches. We’re changing the time from Saturday afternoon to Friday evening starting this week for the benefit of the audience we are trying the hardest to reach – Jewish people who haven’t met their Messiah yet who are searching for and need His love and redemption. On Tuesdays we have havurot where we talk, support, and worship in smaller groups. One week is women with women, one men with men, and two of the weeks families. It’s always on Tuesday. These are where the most growth is as the community component is the most free and intense.
Mandy,
Thank you for sharing these models. Some good ideas here!
Do you ever have a hard time with the feel of many church activities of sharing? Does it ever eeel contrived or forced… Like a small group where all feel pressure to share something deep and meaningful, when sometimes there is nothing,
Lately I’ve found more growth happens with the friends who naturally seek me and I them.
Jonalyn, you said: “I can’t encourage Sanbath observance enough. It has changed my soul!”…can you please tell me how it has changed your soul?
Glad you asked!
Sabbath has forced me to re-value myself in terms of ontology (what I am) and not what I do.
It has shown me that it is God- like to be doing nothing, which in my past was always associated with lazy.
Restores my soul so much that I’m chomping at the bit to create and work and tackle projects by Sat eve. I’m heavy with ideas and hope.
I Just wanted to say that ‘Home Church’, like ‘Big Church’ can also have its downsides. Sorry to be bringing out the negatives, but I want to be as fair as I can and call it the way I see it.
I remember at my former church, our pastor decided that he wanted us to get together in smaller groups for our Wednesday Bible Studies. After about a year into that, and some investigations by our able deacons, it was discovered that some of (What was supposed to be) the Bible Study groups were actually now ‘Gossip Groups’.
Apparently, some folks would get together religiously and ‘share’ things like what was wrong with the pastor’s sermon last Sunday, or how Sis. Susie’s daughter is now pregnant, again, and still not married, or that the Smiths bought a new car that they simply cannot afford.
Now, before I get chewed up and spit out, let me say that this does not have to be the norm. In fact, in OUR study group, which was held in our home, we studied the Bible and gained so much each week from our sessions. But, in small groups, there is the potential, because of familiarity, to fall into the negative side of things.
Is there anything wrong with discussing what is wrong with the pastor’s sermons? Absolutely not. In fact, my husband and I do it all the time–which sometimes probably hits a little too close to home for him, since he has been my pastor now for two years. But what I’m trying to say is that there is a place for everything, and turning a study group into a gossip group is not ideal.
Lastly, those who take part in the ‘gossip wheel’, be it ‘Big Church’ or ‘House Church’ are certainly not those who are longing after God and desiring to meet with Him. (People who long after God, find Him!). This pitfall could be experienced anywhere, because people are everywhere. And where there are people, frailty exists!
. . . Oh, and as for Sabbaths, I haven’t formed an opinion either way. I suppose that what we practice in our home could be considered a Sabbath. On Saturdays there is very little done at home. My husband and I try to keep that day as uneventful as possible. This has been our practice for the 10 years that we’ve been married.
We spend the day in personal Bible reading and meditation. I keep the house filled with uplifting music and try to keep a worshipful atmosphere going. Here’s the thing: The reason we have had this practice on Saturdays is to prepare us for Sundays. I don’t exactly know how that works for calling it a Sabbath.
My husband being a pastor and I being a worship leader have found it very beneficial for us to use this time for just us and God. Sunday’s worship service for us is sacrificed to feed the needs of others, in our different capacities. So, we use Saturdays as a time to encourage and enrich ourselves. It really does make a difference.
Nancy,
Yes, house church can also have downsides, no doubt. Much of what we do depends on who is involved, their personal desire to love, grow, change, be vulnerable.
Your Saturday practice sounds lovely!
Thanks for answering my question, Jonalyn! Ontology and being “heavy” with all of those good things. I tried to get hold of Kasdan’s book, too.
)
I’m putting on my English teacher hat a little with this comment, Jonalyn, because I believe in your efforts to bring this topic to us (even as you’re working it out in your own life), you’ve unintentionally placed a different emphasis on Dallas Willard’s words. This comment is lengthy because it continues the quotation from Willard’s essay from where you left off.
I think you’ve misplaced the thrust of Dallas Willard’s intention by quoting only part of the thought from his essay “Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation and the Restoration of the Soul.” Your emphasis on the “… little effect for soul transformation” in quoting, “Bible study, prayer and church attendance, among the most commonly prescribed activities in Christian circles etc.” leaves out the underlying reason why they have little effect, according to Willard. His point seems to be that these Christian practices bring little change because our bodies and our souls are “exhausted, fragmented, and conflicted (see full quotation below).” We are too tired, in effect, to benefit from them.
You have included that quotation and then used another Willard quotation, I believe intending them to complement each other in meaning. The first quotation is from an essay Willard published in 1998; the second quotation is from the book “Renovation of the Heart” which was published in 2002. Their meanings, taken in context, are not two sides of one coin, though they are presented that way in your essay.
Here is the fuller quotation of the first:
“Indeed, solitude and silence are powerful means to grace. Bible study, prayer and church attendance, among the most commonly prescribed activities in Christian circles, generally have little effect for soul transformation, as is obvious to any observer. If all the people doing them were transformed to health and righteousness by it, the world would be vastly changed. Their failure to bring about the change is precisely because the body and soul are so exhausted, fragmented and conflicted that the prescribed activities cannot be appropriately engaged, and by and large degenerate into legalistic and ineffectual rituals. Lengthy solitude and silence, including rest, can make them very powerful.
“But we must choose these disciplines. God will, generally speaking, not compete for our attention. If we will not withdraw from the things that obsess and exhaust us into solitude and silence, he will usually leave us to our own devices. He calls us to ‘be still and know.’ To the soul disciplined to wait quietly before him, to lavish time upon this practice, he will make himself known in ways that will redirect our every thought, feeling and choice. The body itself will enter a different world of rest and strength. And the effects of solitude and silence will reverberate through the social settings where one finds oneself.”
—Dallas Willard on http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=57
I appreciate the earnestness of this essay, but I want to make sure the integrity of the quotations we use are intact and stay true to their original intention.
Susan,
Grateful to have an English hat in the mix
Love what you did here.
Thank you.
So with the original quotation let me re-state what I am trying to say.
In the first Willard quote, I believe he makes a good case for exhaustion, fragmentation and conflicted spirits prevent our souls from being transformed by the common Christian activities (Bible study, prayer and church attendance, from here on BPC). He also suggests rest, solitude and silence as antidotes for the exhaustion et al in our souls.
My point is that perhaps we need to rest from church attendance, to come away from big church so that we can understand what it’s purpose is, and is not. Some will return to big church and some will not.
My observation is that the majority of “church” attendees are going to their big church services looking for the rest that this activity usually cannot bring. It becomes a sort of fill-up experience, to sustain us for the next 6 days. But big church cannot fill the role of all the things Jesus practiced and that I want in my life.
Does big church have to be exhausting? no, I hope it can change.
But for many big church attenders who are mature Christians, the service and ensuing activities spell nothing of rest, more of ineffectual, but necessary badges of honor proving their status as the faithful.
At the moment I find fault in the church leaders who promote big church as THE place to find rest, strength, Biblical teaching, direction, discipleship, social/fellowship/community. It is my proposal that all these things can be found in places beyond the big church service and even big church programs throughout the week.
For starters, I have found rest in visits to friends across the country.
I have found strength in talking with God for long stretches and listening to him to answer me.
I have found Biblical teaching in reading and calling leaders in the Church (notice capital “C”) to guide and help me.
I have found direction in listening to those older than me in my family and my hometown.
I have found discipleship in my marriage, my parenting, my friends who love me enough to suggest new place to grow.
I have found fellowship with like-minded friends in book clubs, blogs, Soulation Gatherings.
All without big church.
But all part of Church, by which I’m relying on Lewis’ Screwtape who talks about the Church triumphant, spreading throughout the centuries as a body that causes the demons to shudder. It’s much bigger than what happens Sunday or Saturdays in the buildings in our towns, but it’s also less showy, less well knowns and therefore harder to corral, raise funds for and spotlight.
Now this doesn’t mean big church isn’t a significant part of many people’s spiritual life. I’m grateful big churches concentrate funding and care enough to hire people to guide the hungry and thirsty. I’m glad big churches invite Soulation to speak to those they want to love better. I feel the benefit of many big churches.
My offering is that big church isn’t the only way, or main way, or even an essential way to grow in Jesus.
Jesus is the only way.
Big church isn’t.
Okay, how many toes have I stepped on?
Please level with me as I’m ready to be challenged on this.
What I like best about your reply (& I don’t think I dislike any of it; thank you for writing yet more
) is this:
“For starters, I have found rest in visits to friends across the country.
I have found strength in talking with God for long stretches and listening to him to answer me.
I have found Biblical teaching in reading and calling leaders in the Church (notice capital “C”) to guide and help me.
I have found direction in listening to those older than me in my family and my hometown.
I have found discipleship in my marriage, my parenting, my friends who love me enough to suggest new place to grow.
I have found fellowship with like-minded friends in book clubs, blogs, Soulation Gatherings.
All without big church.”
…Church attendance itself can’t do much for us if we have and practice nothing else.
Reminds me of getting & hearing complaints about the music in church (I am one of several church pianists and my husband Glenn one of a couple worship leaders). If people are relying on Sunday morning worship as their sole time to worship the Lord through song, then they will always be dissatisfied. And rightly so. Their church-led, Sunday worship through music should cap, not solely consist of, their weekly (daily) worship of the Lord through song.
Similarly, attending church services should cap, encourage, further cement, our worship of and obedience to God. But the attendance itself doesn’t replace, or supersede, them.
Agreed.
Thank you, Susan!
Thank you Susan!
Jonalyn,
I don’t think I can do justice to all of the comments and your thoughts expressed in this post so I want to make the very small point that I agree that “big church isn’t the only way” to grow in Jesus, but it is one way.
I do appreciate Susan adding the entire context of the Dallas Willard quote. I have found exhaustion can affect adversely my ability to hear God’s still voice at any time, and not only on Sundays. I have also found that consciously seeking solitude and silence with God has helped me to be more aware of Him and His love at all times – which also includes Sunday.
I don’t know if I am making sense, but this is the best I can do right now. Plus, I don’t want to write a treatise.
Thanks for a thoughtful post.
Dolly,
I couldn’t agree more! Yes, big church is one way, one very important, powerful, often life-altering way to approach Jesus, to find community and fellowship and like-minded, life-long friends.
I’m grateful you took time to share this, also as it helped me be clearer, too.
With thanks,
Jonalyn
I want to chime in one more time. I am really grateful for this thread. It has made me take a closer look at my own practices for worship and restoration. It even started a ‘big debate’ at my home as I read parts of the thread to my husband.
We are in agreement that this is a subject that should be discussed, as times are changing, and so are people. Methods that used to work in times past are no longer viable in some cases. The message is unchanging, but methods are not constant.
There is so much that has been said here that I agree with on both sides. I believe very strongly in regular church attendance, whether it be in large assemblies or small. BUT, for folks like us (my husband and me) who pour out ourselves each week in our Sunday morning service, and throughout the week in ministering CONSTANTLY to members and followers of our congregation, we CANNOT rely alone on Sunday morning worship to keep us going. We would be burnt out and absolutely useless!
As I said earlier, our worship on Sunday mornings is sacrificed to meeting the needs of others. We are worshiping, yes, but it is not the same as being fed. When I am at home in my personal time on Saturdays with my music and words of meditation, I fill up. There’s no other way for me to describe it.
So, here is my final observation. For me, the two (‘Big Church’ and Saturday ‘Sabbath’ go hand-in-hand). I enjoy ‘Big Church’, and would probably feel lost if I didn’t attend, but it’s not enough–not for me. Let me state also that my Saturday time is very different from my regular morning devotional time. I look forward to it, and it really helps.
Great comments from you all. Jonalyn, you’re on to something here. You should share more on this topic, because we are in an age where it is necessary.
Susan, thanks so much for the article and explanation. It cleared up a few things. And, Dolly, thanks for sticking up for ‘Big Church’. Although my roles are different now, I truly would not be who I am today had it not been for ‘Big Church’.
Nancy,
Appreciate your open heart to learning, sharing, growing with us. I also relate to the different ways different people fill up.
I often think of the OT ways the entire Israel nation gathered for feasts and enjoying God and his word… that, I believe, would fill me up, too.
Amen to the message remaining the same!
Gratefully,
Jonalyn
This may be a slight deviation, but it is something I kept returning to when I read this post.
I live in the south, and we have a very well-known reputation for establishing ‘mega-churches’, if you will. This is something I have had a little difficulty understanding, because I’ve always grown up going to churches that are (if not small) mid-sized at best, and when I attend services at huge churches like these I feel that it is difficult to truly feel close to God. Perhaps it is some level of snobbery on my part (I hope not), but the way these large churches look to one from outside of the congregation, they seem rather detached from their congregations, since they number in the several-hundreds (sometimes in the thousands, even). I was wondering, do you think that the size of the church can effect the way church-goers pray or feel close to God? And if so, do mega-churches make it easier or more difficult for people to regularly attend, considering how massive they can be?
Hope I haven’t deviated the conversation too much. Just thought I’d ask your opinion. -E
Erin R,
I’m glad you asked about this. While I do think snobbery can always cloud our ability to see the way the Spirit can use large or small, I tend to agree with you.
The size of the church does affect how people feel. Some people (extroverts?) want the feeling of being in a large en masse experience of singing to God. There is something incredibly awesome and inspiring about being among that many people singing or praying together. It’s rock concert material.
But it’s by no means all secular or wordly to want this. The kings of Israel, Moses, even Jesus led enormous groups of people to connect with God.
Every year the Jewish people would pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Passover and sustain that city for weeks with the tourism biz they brought. Jesus was a part of that pilgrimage when he was sentenced to death.
So while some people hunger for that (and the Jewish Scriptures or OT do tell us that God valued corporate, enormous worship and feasting times) it is by no means the only or the most legitimate way to connect with God. There is a tradition in American churches of the individualize, privatized and smaller corporate worship experience. This is something we also see in Scripture, but often a result of an oppressed minority (I think of Daniel praying 3 times a day in Babylon).
As far as regular attendance, I’m not sure what groups make it easier. I honestly have yet to see a good case made for regular attendance to a place of worship as a command from Scripture.
Love that you asked.
I am interestedly mulling over Jonalyn and Erin’s comments as I am at a conference of 60,000+ Christian college students.
Hi Jonalyn,
I don’t believe Christians are under the Mosaic Law, so I feel no obligation to follow the dietary laws, Sabbath law, tithing law, etc.
I’m wondering if you feel Christians are obligated to follow some or all of the Law, or if you just keep the Sabbath because you have found it to be beneficial in your life.
As far as weekly meetings, and questions about big or small…I’m still trying to sort this out : )
Hey Peter, I’ll take a stab at your questions and let Jonalyn follow-up if she wants to add more.
Talking about Mosaic Law and Christians is like poking a hornets nest. Plenty of people will start throwing the “h” word around (heresy) before you can say “burn him at the stake!”
So much has been uncovered in scholarship over the last 50-60 years regarding a historical context of the New Testament that some of thing things that were “standard” theology after the Reformation regarding the Law are being upended or at least nuanced. In part because the Reformers read the New Testament in light of the the ills of the Catholic church rather than reading in light of 2nd Temple Judaism in which was penned. It would be similar to us thinking that the context of the New Testament fit solidly between the white pillars of American politics today. Neither a Catholic nor an American context work in reading Scripture that is embedded in a Jewish context. Solid hermeneutics requires we understand historical context the best we can to understand Scripture the best we can.
The simple answer regarding the Mosaic Law is not that Christians are not under it. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 wrestled with this very question. Their question was not whether Christians were or were not followers of Mosaic Law. Their question was whether GENTILES were to be followers of Mosaic Law if they convert to become followers of the Jewish Messiah. At that Council, they decided four things from Mosaic Law that the gentiles should follow to consider themselves people of the Way. Keep in mind, those who ran the Council were all Jewish, believed in circumcision (later Paul circumcised Timothy) for the Jews and followed Mosaic Law while being followers of Jesus and his grace. The early church didn’t consider itself a new religion. It was a sect of Judaism.
These are historical facts in Scripture and sources outside of Scripture. That’s where the confusions start and raise a thousand more questions.
So, as for Sabbath, that’s a Jewish law, not a gentile one. And gentile believers were not told to follow it in Acts 15. So no Gentile Christian is “under it” in a manner of speaking, though many Jewish followers of Jesus do consider themselves to be bound to it.
Sabbath is a discipline for spiritual nourishment on one level. It’s good for body and soul, or “beneficial in your life” as you mention above.
On another level, Sabbath comes to the gentile believer by choosing to be aligned with the God’s chosen people, the Jews, both past and present. It is a choice. More gentiles would do it today if Israel wasn’t such a political topic. It harkens back to Abraham how his people will bless the nations (gentiles) and the nations would bless the Jews blessing. Part of that blessing is sharing the gift of rest, a sliver of time God called holy at Creation and gifted to us to participate in God’s presence. It doesn’t put one in better standing before God. But, like so many of God’s gifts, if we don’t receive them, we are simply missing out on relishing our standing before God.
This opens up many doors of theological perspective of which there is no space here to discuss. But I hope that at least points toward an answer to your question.
Hi Dale,
Thanks for your answer.
I just completed a study of that portion of Acts where James at the Jerusalem council proposes a light burden of just 4 things (after Peter speaks out against placing a hard yoke on the Gentiles).
After my study, I came to the conclusion that this action by the council is in line with what Paul teaches about sacrificing some freedom so as not to offend our neighbors (eating meat that has been offered to idols).
Paul tried to be all things to all people so that he could share the gospel with all.
When eating lunch with a Muslim, don’t order pork chops!
When eatring lunch with an Independent Baptist, don’t order a beer!
: )
Hey Peter,
If that is the case, then it still doesn’t explain why the Jewish Christians still followed Mosaic Law (circumcision, the feasts, dietary laws, etc). And then we’d have to explain why the gentiles are considered “weak” (Paul’s term). For if they are “weak” then they would be expected to grow “strong” (which would mean following Mosaic Law!).
I think the weak/strong distinction doesn’t explain the phenomenon with a coherent picture. The Jewish/Gentile distinction does (at least to me).
Another interesting detail historically is that the four laws that the Acts 15 Council lays out for gentile followers of the Way is that these are similar to the criteria already used for God fearing gentiles to become Jewish proselytes. And the reason for these four in general is that they all revolve around idolatry. For the greatest sin to a Jew is idolatry and a violation of the shema (“Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one.”) Worshipping and following the God of Israel was the utmost and clear thing.
In fact, along these lines, if you’ll notice the issues at hand in Romans 14 (the passage on loving the “weaker” brother), they all revolve around Mosaic Law issues (holy days and dietary laws). In that instances, the gentiles were told that if it would offend a brother who follows the Jewish law, that the gentiles should comply with the Jewish law for the sake of love. Theologian Mark Nanos has serious scholarship on this. He argues, quite convincingly, that the Gentiles were to demonstrate a love for the Jewish unbelievers in that passage so that the Jewish unbeliever would see clearly that the God of Israel as blessing the nations, just as the prophets had said. It was to “provoke to jealousy” as Paul says elsewhere in Romans because the gentiles were doing the work of the Jews to let the world know that the God of Israel is one true God and has sent his Messiah (Jewish King), Jesus, for the sake of the world. How unusual for Jews to see gentiles doing Jewish work and promoting a Jewish God!
That brings us back to the purpose of the Sabbath, not only as a gift, but a demonstration that the God of Israel has come near! And for those squeamish around the Jewish law, we can just say we’re imitating God on the seven day of creation.
But beyond all that, don’t order a beer around the Independent Baptist brethren! But don’t mention that it is the “weaker” brother who abstains from things God calls good.
Dale, you wrote: “And then we’d have to explain why the gentiles are considered “weak” (Paul’s term). For if they are “weak” then they would be expected to grow “strong” (which would mean following Mosaic Law!).”
I agree with you that the context makes it clear that it’s actually the opposite: The weak are those who think they…must…still keep the Mosaic Law. Since most Gentiles didn’t believe this (and were only taught this by false teachers), we can assume Paul was primarily referring to some Jewish believers–Judaizing Christians like the Pharisees at the Jerusalem Council.
I’m not sure why you say that the men who ran the Council in Jerusalem believed in circumcision for the Jews. Certainly the Pharisees at the council believed this, but Paul makes it clear in his teachings that physical circumcision means nothing in the new covenant–for Jew and Gentile. God wants circumcised hearts. Paul called Peter on the carpet for living like a Gentile but trying to force Gentiles to live like Jews. Both Peter and Paul were living like Gentiles since they refused to keep the yoke of the Law on their necks.
The apostles understood that Christ fulfilled the Law and they were no longer under it; this is why Paul accused Peter of being a hypocrite. “For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.” (Gal 2:19)
Paul did later circumcise Timothy so that Jews in the areas they were traveling to wouldn’t be offended. (Some believe that Timothy’s mother was a Jew, so Jewish unbelievers would be offended if he were not circumcised.)
Like I said before, this agrees with Paul’s teaching about becoming like a Jew to win Jews. We need to be careful that we don’t negate Paul’s teachings on the Law by assigning the wrong motive to Timothy’s circumcision. There is a big difference between choosing for the sake of the gospel to limit the freedom we have, and feeling that we must obey the Law.
Regarding the 4 requirements that were agreed on by the Jerusalem Council, it’s not clear how James arrived at these four requirements. They could all be related to idol worship as you suggest. (This is what Ben Witherington III and some others argue.) However, this is far from clear. Some argues that “abstain from blood” refers to bloodshed and violence, not the prohibition of eating and drinking blood. Arguments have also been put forward that “abstain from strangled/smothered things” (πνικτου) refers to the Gentile practice of smothering unwanted babies at birth.
Peter, I mentioned above this issue is much larger in scope than the article intends. And that these issues upend the paradigms of the reformation who build their theologies on Catholic doctrine and in protest to Catholic doctrine and practice. Jewish doctrinal history was not in view 500 years ago.
But I will give you a couple of notes in reply.
It isn’t clear how James arrived at those four commands in Acts 15, that is, according to Acts 15. I agree. But history is pretty clear, considering we find very similar requirements in other historical documents of the time period for gentiles proselytes to Judaism. Idolatry being the key motivation for choosing those four commands. This is also consistent since the early followers of the way believed Jesus the Messiah was Judaism and not some new religion on the scene. In fact, Jesus entire Messiahship concept is built on the premise of Judaism past and future.
Gal 2:19, on the surface, looks like was a knock-down argument against the Mosaic Law. But actually Gal 2:19 promotes the view that the Mosaic Law isn’t dead. Look at the words, “for through the LAW I died to the LAW.” So the law itself liberated Paul to die to the law. If the law liberates, why die to it? That would be a contradiction. If the law were dead, you would expect him to say “for through grace, I died to the law.” But he doesn’t. He must mean two different things by Law here. And here’s what he’s offering: Through Torah, I died through a zealous legalistic life in the law so that I ma live in direct relationship to God. (I’m borrowing from Jewish biblical scholar David Stern.).
Paul is consistent in this use of Torah in his writings. The problem of the Pharisees was not Torah but a legalistic observance of it that did not liberate people but enslaved them. Jesus quoted extensively from Torah and the Prophets. And Jesus himself said he did not come to abolish the Torah but to fulfill it. But fulfilling is not abolishing, else he would have said he did abolish it by fulfilling it.
Paul continues in Galatians, that great document of grace, to speak of the law. In fact, Paul uses the Torah itself to teach grace. If he is dead to Torah, then Paul is foolish to use a the document to teach life. But if his alive to Torah but dead to to the false ideas that legalistic observance brings life, then Paul’s argument makes a lot of sense. Paul is rescuing his readers from a legalistic approach to the law. The law cannot give life. It could never give life. Yet the legalizers were claiming it could! Torah says God is the only one who can give life. Paul is a Torah scholar and puts both God and the scripture back in their rightful place in the minds of his readers. Through Torah, Paul died to legalistic observance, that he might live to God. That’s the approach of all the great heroes of Scripture, from Moses to Daniel.
If you go back to Acts 21:17ff, you will see how Paul himself is upholding the Mosaic Law. In fact, rumors spread that he was teaching against the Mosaic Law and sought to abolish it. He put those rumors to rest through following the Law in their midst!
Again, as I mentioned above, these are not “Christian vs Non-Christian” issues but Jews vs Gentile issues rooted in history. Once we know the historical backdrop, so many of the puzzles of the New Testament fall into place more clearly.
This always opens up a million more questions and considerations. But that’s how paradigm shifts are supposed to happen. We are all seeking coherence with our view based on the information available. I think rooting scripture in its own history is vital to our theological understanding and moving more deeply in discipleship.
Thanks for the discussion.
Dale wrote: “But history is pretty clear, considering we find very similar requirements in other historical documents of the time period for gentiles proselytes to Judaism.”
If history were this clear on the issue, books wouldn’t be written debating this passage. You could also argue that other historical documents from the first century (b. Sanh, Didache) list 3 mortal sins:
• idolatry
• sexual immorality
• bloodshed
And these three are sometimes used with others to emphasize the gravity of these additions. Some say Rev. 22:15 is an example of this:
“But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.”
Dale wrote: “Gal 2:19, on the surface, looks like was a knock-down argument against the Mosaic Law. But actually Gal 2:19 promotes the view that the Mosaic Law isn’t dead. Look at the words, “for through the LAW I died to the LAW.” So the law itself liberated Paul to die to the law.”
This seems like convoluted reasoning. Why not say, “Paul died to the law because the law kills”? (2 Cor 3:6) Since it is impossible to keep the law, “through the law” comes death. (Rom 8:2-4)
The translators of God’s Word interpreted it this way:
“When I tried to obey the law’s standards, those laws killed me. As a result, I live in a relationship with God. I have been crucified with Christ.”
Or how about “Since Christ lived a perfect life under the Law and fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law, it was “through the Law” that all believers die to the Law.”
“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.” Gal 4:4-5
I think both of these arguments make more sense than Stern’s. Remember, Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9 that he was not outside the law of God, but he was now under the Law of Christ and not under the Law.
Dale wrote: “And Jesus himself said he did not come to abolish the Torah but to fulfill it. But fulfilling is not abolishing, else he would have said he did abolish it by fulfilling it.”
Jesus said this early in his ministry and if you’ll notice in the very next verse, he says that even the tiniest stroke of the Law will remain in effect until it is accomplished.
Has the Law been accomplished? Did Jesus accomplish it?
“After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” (John 19:28)
Jesus did not come to destroy the Law. He had great respect for the Law and obeyed it perfectly. He also taught others to obey the Law. However, by living a sinless life he fulfilled the law. It has been accomplished and is now obsolete. (Heb 8:13, Heb 10:1-14)
I’d also like to thank you for this discussion.
Hey Peter, there is debate because a zeitgeist switch is happening. We should expect and welcome debate. But not at the detriment at throwing out historical context.
As for Acts 15 gentile, it follows the pattern gentile converts to judaism established not only in the first century (Jesus death was early 1st century) but long before Jesus arrived on the scene. It was part of the hellenization of Jewish culture during the Diaspora. The gentiles Paul preached to were not “blank gentiles” (Acts 17 excepted) but “God-fearing gentiles” who desired the God of Israel but was not given full access… until Pentecost. That these Acts 15 requirements would be considered “mortal” sins by other sources would be consistent with this. Why would they not be considered mortal sins: idolatry and its activities stand up against the God of Israel.
Jesus did accomplish much concerning the law: he became the High Priest, the Last Lamb for atonement (as John the Baptist predicted), and removed the need for the temple in those regards. But that doesn’t cancel the Torah. Jesus saying, “It is finished!” on the cross can mean a great number of things. To say it means “the entire Torah is dead” is to simply overlay a theology over the passage and draw the meaning through that theology’s keyhole.
But the law isn’t completely fulfilled. The prophet’s words continue to echo through the centuries longing to be fulfilled. Israel has not returned to her glory. And Jerusalem has not yet become the seat of her King. The promised land, established by Torah, is still the promised land. God cannot cancel his promises to Israel.
I think this actually comes down to a theological construct driving the passage rather than historical context. And in some sense requires a worldview shift. Most protestant theology today draws its roots from the Reformation’s understanding of Scripture. Historical Judaism was not in view. What eventually happens with theology that renders the Torah dead is that not only are Christians foolish to read, live and hope in the Law and the Prophets (including the Genesis account, the call of Abraham, the promised land, all in the “law of Moses”), but the gentile church claims to “replace” the Jewish people and her promises.
That begs the question why Jesus would continue to be King of Jews after he returns. It would make no sense to take his role if the Jews, the Jewish law, and prophets are obsolete.
Yet Jesus said the church was a Jewish church (Matthew 18 says those excommunicated should be treated as “gentiles”… that is, those without the law and the God of Israel).
As I said above (twice) there is much to be said about these issues of which this is not the space. But I would suggest taking a hard look at those scholars doing historical work in this area (Soulen, Nanos, Skarsaune, etc… for more popularly accessible, Scot McKnight, or the one many love to hate, NT Wright).
The story of scripture was virtually rewritten, without intention, by the early apologists to fend off heresy… but buried in it those apologies were the seeds of replacement theology that came to be the standard narrative of the gentile church. Then all of scripture was read through that lens as the gentiles held the power and popularity. That is how we watched the Law later interpreted in light of the Catholic Church’s use of Law in the 1500s and why it *appears* Paul is abolishing Torah through that theological lens…
Yet Romans 9-11 looms large that the Jews nor their Scriptures that establish the Jews as a “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (written by Peter to the Jews, who quotes Torah as living commands!) have not yet ended.
Hi Dale,
I can see that one of the reasons we are not seeing eye to eye on this is because you are using the terms “Law” and ‘Torah” interchangeably. But it’s obvious that when you use the word Torah, you are referring to more than Mosaic Law. In some contexts this is fine, however, in the passage we are talking about, Mat 5:17-19, Jesus doesn’t use one all-inclusive term but instead speaks of the Law and the Prophets in v.17 and the Law in v.18.
I’ve never said that all OT prophesy was fulfilled by Christ, although much of it was and is now obsolete. Certainly there is still prophecy waiting for fulfillment.
I read Jesus statement about knowing that all things were accomplished the way I do because I believe this interpretation harmonizes perfectly with Jesus’ earlier statement that he had come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, and the scriptures that refer to Jesus being the substance (fulfillment) of the shadows.
The writer of Hebrews contrasts the New Covenant with the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. (Heb 8:8-9) It is this covenant that has been made obsolete.
I’m not a fan of big churches but they may have a place since they allow seekers to remain anonymous.
I prefer small churches, and I prefer discussing the Bible with others. This happens in most home churches, but not in churches with a pastor who delivers a 40 minute sermon after the worship time, and then dismisses everyone. (I suppose in some traditional churches this discussion might happen in a fellowship hall over coffee after the service, but I haven’t seen this.)
I read “So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore” and thought it took a lot of cheap shots (set up straw men). However, I do recognize that traditional church isn’t what it should be.
I think meeting regularly with believers is very important and I like Bible study to be a part of that meeting. I could pass on the singing, but my wife really likes that part ; )
I also think sharing what’s going on in our lives should be a part of this regular meeting (maybe 20-30 minutes?) This works well over snacks and drinks when there’s no forced agenda.
My family is currently involved with a small group that rotates homes every Sunday. Every week a different person facilitates the Bible study, plans the music, etc. Sometimes we finish with a lunch potluck, or order Chinese : )
Hi Peter,
I’m coming back to this discussion a little late. Good to see you going back and forth with Dale on Messianic ideas.
I hear you on the small group discussions. This is something Soulation cares so much about that we have 4 yearly Gatherings with no more than 10 people. We make sure we enjoy meals, clean-up, work and play together. And I’ve found this makes for the best change, learning about the Body and just a good time. You can read more about the Gatherings here: http://www.soulation.org/gatherings/
In my experience, this smaller group dynamic can be very healthy in learning and loving well. But it can also breed superiority (we really KNOW each other, big churches do not) and spiritual inbred-ed-ness (where most members are so similar in ideas and/or thinking they lose the capacity to think outside of their needs/theology/interpretation of Scripture). I think we see both in Scripture, the smaller groups learning, eating together (Passover was a meal shared with family or extended family and friends) and then the larger celebratory feasts and congregations meeting (I think of when David or Solomon gathered all of Israel to read the Law publicly).
I’d love to hear some of the examples of where you find the authors of “So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore” taking cheap shots. I’m all ears.
When I say cheap shots and straw men, I’m referring to the stereotypes the author uses to cause the readers to view local churches distastefully. He writes a fictional story about a horrible local church and then uses this church model to imply that all forms of institutional church should be abandoned for authentic relationships. That’s not to say there was nothing good in the book–just that I was a bit disappointed.
Frank Viola and Ben Witherington III go back and forth in this series of reviews of Frank’s books Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church. I think everyone interested in the big church/small church issue should check it out:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/06/pagan-christianty-by-george-barna-and.html
Scroll down to the last comment to access the 14 links.
Hey Peter,
Have you been to any horrible churches? I have. In fact, I’m surprised there is so much reticence to call out the horrible side of church culture. Why do you think that is? Paul did it, Jesus did it, but why don’t we when we see spiritual abuse or harboring of destructive men or women?
I believe that any institutional church that is cultivating a shame based ethic in the name of Jesus, or protecting abusive people in the name of “saving face” is causing more harm than good in the kingdom of God.
No where in this book did I see the implication that all institutional churches should be abandoned. In fact, I remember the John character pointedly refusing to tell his disciple to leave or stay at the church. Wasn’t the main point to be authentic and in relationships wherever you are?
Hi Jonalyn,
I’ve been to some pretty bad churches, but never a horrible one; however, I think you’re right on about calling out destructive teaching or practices when we see them.
“I believe that any institutional church that is cultivating a shame based ethic in the name of Jesus, or protecting abusive people in the name of “saving face” is causing more harm than good in the kingdom of God.”
AMEN!
It’s been a few years since I read “So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore,” but I’m quite sure you’re right about the character John never telling his disciple to leave “institutional church.” You say that you didn’t see this implication; however, I felt like the author wanted the reader to infer that “institutional church” was inferior.
Maybe you’re right and my impression was wrong. I’m not sure.
Peter,
Thank you. I appreciate your openness to maybe mis-remembering. But, I’m in the same boat. Maybe I’ve mis-remembered.
I’m just glad we can agree that we want less shame-based motivation no matter which (larger or small) body we participate in.
Good points about guarding against feelings of superiority and inbred-ed-ness! (I think larger churches and even denominations can also fall into these traps.)
Turnover can help stave off inbred-ed-ness, but if it doesn’t happen naturally, it’s hard to force: Ok, Bill, time for you and your wife to find a new small group so we can get some new blood in here ; )
The iron sharpens iron concept has proved so true in my life over the past 6 years. Meeting regularly in small groups and discussing scripture (and life) has caused me to see and understand God in new ways. It’s also caused me to discard old perceptions that were based on experience rather than scripture.
Just to clarify, the feelings of superiority would take different forms in larger churches and denominations. Instead of “Unlike big churches, ‘we really KNOW each other,’” it might be “We are the One True Church,” or “We have the most famous/best pastor,” or “We have the correct doctrine.”
Yes, Peter, you are right, there is pride everywhere. Though I have found it’s easy to be prideful when you think you’re more unique than others.
Hi Jonalyn,
It may be true that those who attend home churches are more likely to think of themselves as “more unique” and therefore may struggle more with pride, I don’t know. I haven’t seen this, but my experience is quite limited.
I think we all should consider what the best fit is for us locally in the body of Christ. I’m convinced that followers of Christ benefit from meeting together regularly with other believers to encourage each other in the Faith and love each other as family. Beyond that, I think we need to be careful throwing out “shoulds” and “oughts” regarding things like when to meet, and how these times should be structured.
What I really enjoy is visiting different local churches that belong to different denominations as well as home churches. I think it would be fun to make rounds and attend many different churches (like in
Girzone’s “Joshua”)–maybe a month at each one. This would probably drive some people nuts–the ones who really want a name on a membership card : )
Peter,
I love the freedom you are sharing here. Yes, I’m also convinced that “shoulds’ and “ought’s” cripple us.
Meeting with those who love Jesus is important, whether formally or informally. I suppose I would also, as an extrovert, enjoy visiting different churches as well. It’s a fascinating opportunity and makes us aware to the differences to learn from. I suppose I often do this with speaking and traveling on the road. I always enjoy being a guest.