1 Corinthians 11 and 14 - descriptive or prescriptive?

Steve Senensig wrote:

“As I was talking in that discussion about biblical accounts of New Testament church activities being descriptive or prescriptive, a question came to my mind that I have not allowed myself to fully deal with in the past couple of years. It’s one of those “am I really being honest with the text here” questions, and I thought I would throw it out here for discussion.


“Many times in discussing principles related to simple church, I reference 1 Corinthians 14:26. Now, please understand that my beliefs about simple church do not all hinge on this one verse, so it’s not a “make or break” issue for me. Quite honestly, open participatory meetings are described throughout the rest of 1 Corinthians 14. However, I want to be honest in my dealing with this particular verse.


“Let me quote the verse here in various translations so that we can get a feel for it, and then I’ll ask my question:


What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. (NIV)


What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification. (NASB)


So here’s what I want you to do. When you gather for worship, each one of you be prepared with something that will be useful for all: Sing a hymn, teach a lesson, tell a story, lead a prayer, provide an insight. (The Message)


What then, brethren, is [the right course]? When you meet together, each one has a hymn, a teaching, a disclosure of special knowledge or information, an utterance in a [strange] tongue, or an interpretation of it. [But] let everything be constructive and edifying and for the good of all. (Amp)


How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. (KJV)


Well, my brothers and sisters, let’s summarize what I am saying. When you meet, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in an unknown language, while another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must be useful to all and build them up in the Lord. (NLT)


“Now, my question relates to the part where Paul says something to the effect of “When you come together….” Is this statement a description by Paul of what was currently happening in Corinth? Or is it what he is telling them should happen when they gather? In other words, were the Corinthians overemphasizing the idea that everyone could participate? Or was Paul saying that everyone should participate? Is it descriptive or is it prescriptive?


“In favor of it being descriptive, there is a similar use of the “when you come together” phrase in this same letter. That is in 1 Corinthians 11, specifically verses 18 and 20. (It also appears in verse 33, but that actually falls under the next idea of being prescriptive, so hold that thought.) In 11:18,20 it is obvious that Paul is describing their current condition. In fact, he even says explicitly in verse 18 that he has received word to this effect (“when you come together…I hear…”).

So, this would lend possibility to the idea that Paul is describing a current situation. In this case, he might be issuing a correction to them when he says, “Let all things be done for edification.”


“On the flip side, however, we have a prescriptive use of this phrase in 11:33 where Paul is correcting the problem identified in 11:18,20. In this interpretation, then, 14:26 would be seen as prescriptive. Additionally, we have the word “whenever” in 14:26, which does not exist in any of the uses in chapter 11. The uses in chapter 11 (from my very limited remembrance of Greek) carry the idea of “coming together…”, whereas 14:26 is more of a “whenever you do come together…” idea.


“An additional aspect of 14:26 which might possibly lend itself to understanding is the way the verse starts. Paul says, “What is the outcome then, brethren?” In other words, this verse ties in very much with what Paul had just discussed. In the context immediately preceding, Paul has discussed tongues and prophecy very specifically. And in the verses following 26, he is again going to speak about tongues and prophecy very specifically. Prior to verse 26, he uses the phrases “if all speak in tongues” (14:23) and “if all prophesy” (14:24). Verse 26 then provides a contrast very much in keeping with his discourse on the gifts in chapter 12. It is a description of the varied gifts that should all be exercised for the edification of the body.”

~ Steve Sensensig, 1 Corinthians 14:26 – Descriptive or Presecriptive?, Theologicalmusings blog

Participative’ worship

“It is unfortunately true that this open, free and spontaneous meeting, where joys can be shared and burdens can be borne, is sadly lacking in the contemporary church. There is a great deal of organization and formality, but little opportunity for open ministry and enthusiastic sharing of God’s gifts, and the result is that the majority of Christians have become silent spectators, contributing only the correct liturgical response and singing and occasional hymn.


…Much has been said in recent worship literature about ‘participative’ worship. In my view, some authors identify participation too narrowly with scripted congregational prayers and responses. Participation is something much more than that; it is a whole attitude toward the service. In my opinion, that attitude may well be lacking in churches that have elaborate patterns of responsive sentences, and it may be intense in churches that have a relatively simple pattern of singing, prayer, and sermon.”

~ Gary Inrig, Life in the Body 71

Worship as trinitarian participation

For paid clergy and worship leaders, worship as trinitarian participation means their contribution is measured by the extent to which worshipers are equipped to become participants. If pastors and worship leaders take this role seriously, then the church will continuously reevaluate the accessibility and theological veracity of worship.

Following the Reformers’ model, a contemporary plan of ‘education and adaptation’ would be a regular feature of worship life. While adaptation can and does lead naturally to contemporizing worship, education reminds us that the meaning and significance of some of the most basic elements of the ser-vice of worship (Lord’s Supper, doxology, ‘passing of the peace,’ Lord’s Prayer, giving, etc.) will need to be continually taught.

~ Ted Bolsinger, It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian, p.97

We must open up our meetings says one pastor

“In order for us to obey Paul’s clear teaching, we must open up our meetings so that people can share their burdens, or rejoice together in God’s blessings. In many churches, if a brother comes to a meeting with a wonderful blessing from God he wants to share, he must scurry around after the meeting, in order to communicate it to five or six others before they drive home. Similarly, in most churches, if someone’s heart is breaking with sorrow, there is no place in the meeting for them to unburden their hearts and receive the prayer and ministry of the body. Why not open our meetings so that the whole church can rejoice with us in our blessings, and minister to us in our sufferings? In this way, all may be encouraged by the joyful, and minister to the sufferer.”

~ Brian Anderson, Discovering Participatory Church Meetings, Milpas Bible Fellowship

Church among the Waodoni

In the book End of the Spear by Steve Saint, I came across something that jumped out to me. It would likely have been breezed over if I had not been doing this on-going study. Steve wrote:

When the Waodoni get together to discuss ‘God’s thing,’ they don’t have a formal program. They just let what happens, happen. Sometimes people will tell how their lives have changed since they started walking God’s trail. Other times someone will lead in chants or translated songs with outsider’s melodies — rough facsimiles of those melodies. Others tell stories from God’s carvings about God followers from long ago. No one is ever in a hurry to end the meetings, which often go on for hours.

~ Steve Saint, End of the Spear, p. 206

Unbelievers and church meetings

Tim Keller writes about unbelievers coming to the church gathering:

A look at both Acts chapter 2 and 1 Corinthians 14.24-25 will teach us the following:


1. Non-believers are expected to be present in Christian worship. In Acts 2 it happens by word-of-mouth excitement. In 1 Corinthians 14 it is probably the result of personal invitation by Christian friends. But Paul in 14.23 expects both ‘unbelievers’ and ‘the unlearned’ (literally ‘a seeker’ — ‘one who does not understand’) to be present in worship.


2. Non-believers must find the praise of Christians to be comprehensible. In Acts 2 it happens by miraculous divine intervention. In 1 Corinthians 14 it happens by human design and effort. But it cannot be missed that Paul directly tells a local congregation to adapt its worship because of the presence of unbelievers. It is a false dichotomy to insist that if we are seeking to please God we must not ask what the unchurched feel or think about our worship.


3. Non-believers can fall under conviction and be converted through comprehensible worship. In 1 Corinthians 14 it happens during the service, but in Acts 2 it is supplemented by ‘after meetings’ and follow-up evangelism. God wants the world to overhear us worshipping him. God directs his people not to simply worship, but to sing his praises ‘before the nations’. We are not to simply communicate the gospel to them, but celebrate the gospel before them.”


~ Tim Keller, Worship Wars, Evangelicals Now site (http://www.e-n.org.uk/)

Don't stifle fellowship

The tendency of leadership is to stifle fellowship — which means, “to share in common” — by gravitating toward vertical rather than horizontal relationships; professor and student, teacher and disciple, pastor and parishioner.”

~ Howard Hendricks, Some things Every Church Must Do web article

Mutual edification is the hallmark of corporate worship

Certainly it is true that mutual edification is the hallmark of corporate worship . …And edification must not be understood to be merely the cognitive reception of biblical truth through preaching. Of course, it is true that mutual edification takes place through preaching. But congregational singing, sitting together under the Word as it is read, contemplating god’s Word sung, uniting in Word-centered congregational prayer, corporately confessing our faith, and rebuke and exhortation — all these edify.

~ Kent Hughes in Worship by the Book, 141

Sally Morganthaller on worship

“Essentially, Christian worship is the spirit and truth interaction between God and God’s people. It is an exchange all relationships revolve around response.”
~ Sally Morganthaller, Worship Evangelism, Page 47

“Corporate worship does not just inspire and hope that people will do more than he activate their brain cells. It provides definitive opportunities for response.... The problem is, we are living in a culture that breathes spectators... As pastors and worship leaders, our job is to enable that, to make participants out of spectators. We have to help people pour out what God pours in. Spectator worship has always been and will always be an oxymoron.”
~ Sally Morganthaller, Worship Evangelism, Page 49

“Worship has more than praise, Thanksgiving, and celebration. It is also a lament. It is making ourselves known to God and crying out to God about our fears, questions, needs, hurts, and greed. Worship that witnesses makes room for the brokenness in all of us. And it heals by the power of the gospel.”
~ Sally Morganthaller, Worship Evangelism, Page 113

Worship that is interactive, both vertically and horizontally, is biblical worship. …Interactive worship not only provides pathways of contact with a holy and loving God, but avenues of nurturing, uplifting relationships with those who are called in God’s name.
~ Sally Morganthaller, Worship Evangelism, p. 123

Kent Hughes gives an excellent study of Christian worship. He states:

“ …true worship is demonstrative: it pours from your heart, it infuses your inclinations to please God, and it directs your will to serve him. True worship is not the outcome of a moderate feeling or emotion. It galvanizes your whole being. In a word: it is encompassing!”

~ Kent Hughes in Worship by the Book, p. 161-2

Worship is the proper response

D. A. Carson defines it like this:
Worship is the proper response of all moral, sentient beings to God, ascribing all honor and worth to their Creator-God precisely because he is worthy, delightfully so. This side of the Fall, human worship of God properly responds to the redemptive provisions that God has graciously made. While all true worship is God-centered, Christian worship is no less Christ-centered. Empowered by the Spirit and in line with the stipulations of the new covenant, it manifests itself in all our living, finding its impulse in the gospel, which restores our relationship with our Redeemer-God and therefore also with our fellow image-bearers, our co-worshipers. Such worship therefore manifests itself both in adoration and in action, both in the individual believer and in corporate worship, which is worship offered up in the context of the body of believers, who strive to align all the forms of their devout ascription of all worth to God with the panoply of new covenant mandates and examples that bring to fulfillment the glories of antecedent revelation and anticipate the consummation.

~ Don Carson, Worship by the Book, 59

Why the NT church gathered

Peterson…examines afresh just why the NT church gathers, and he concludes that the focus is on mutual edification, not on worship.

Under the terms of the new covenant, worship goes on all the time, including when the people of god gather together. But mutual edification does not go on all the time; it is what takes place when Christians gather together. Edification is the best summary of what occurs in corporate singing, confession, public prayer, the ministry of the Word, and so forth. . . .Peterson, of course, allows that when the people of God gather together corporately, they are still worshipping. What he insists is that the distinctive element of their corporate meetings is not worship but edification.

~ Don Carson, Worship by the Book, referring to David Peterson’s Engaging with God, 1992.

Why Not Ecclesiology? - excerpts

It is an extraordinary thing that those who profess to care so much about Christ should seem to care so little about what His Word says about the church.

Ought we not to concern ourselves more about this great doctrine than we do? Most certainly!

Christ died for the church. It is His bride, His building, His body. When He left the world He commissioned it to disciple all the nations. How, then, can we conclude that the way we view the church is inconsequential in His eyes? We do not honor the Lord Jesus by ignoring His instructions.


Today, vast stress is laid on the thought that the gathered church is to reach out to the lost in such a way as to minimize the difference between believers and non-believers. But if you will read the New Testament you will see that the purpose of the gathered church was not evangelism. Indeed, it was not even worship.

To be sure, worship can and must take place when God’s people are assembled. But worship, as it is taught in the New Testament, is a daily activity, not something that is relegated to Sunday. The modern habit throughout the twenty-first century church is to downplay this subject. After all, we have our “worship” services, our “worship” guides, and our “worship” leaders. Clearly, however, the New Testament knows nothing about these man-made terms. When, then, should we worship? Anyone who has read Rom. 12:1-2 will know the answer.


In 1 Corinthians the apostle Paul is very careful to lay out principles governing Christian gatherings. He makes it plain that believers did not gather for public witness to the outside world. These were not evangelistic services at all. Rather, the church gathered for fellowship and mutual edification. It was a type of gathering in which believers came together with differing gifts. Just read 1 Cor. 14 and you will see that this was a bona fide fellowship meeting. Everything that was done was done in order to build up the church. Whether you came to this meeting with a psalm, a teaching, or some other contribution to make, you exercised your gift in the interest of those around you. “Let all things be done for edification” was Paul’s watchword. This same view of the church is to be found in Ephesians 4, where Paul emphasizes that the church is built up only as each member of the Body does its part. He is emphatic that the fullness of Christ can never be attained by any one Christian. Each believer has a gift, and each one must give that gift away to the whole church.


Paul’s teaching sheds a flood of light on what the gathering of the people of God looked like in the early church.


1 Co 14:26 clearly states [writes Steve Atkerson] the prerequisite for anything that goes on in a church meeting: “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.”

The word “strengthening” is from oikodome and means “edifying, edification, building up.” Certainly as we worship God corporately we are indeed strengthened. However, the ultimate focus of the meeting is to strengthen the church. It is not the Lord who stands in need of strengthening, but the Lord’s people. In this sense, the weekly assembly is for the benefit of the people present. A church gathering is to be designed to edify believers and to this end it is to be man-centered as well as God-centered.

~ David Black, Why Not Ecclesiology? web article

Church meeting implications

From blogger:

After reading many of the quotes on this site and considering the New Testament, I would offer these thoughts for consideration as implications for church meetings in our time:
1. It seems clear that God's idea for the church when it met was to strengthen, encourage, and enable each other to grow stronger, face the world about them and reach out to the lost.
2. It seems clear that the concept of community building was paramount in God's mind -- not just preaching and singing.
3. Obviously, preaching / teaching is necessary and a part of the meeting, but it seems it was not the primary purpose. Today it seems everything focuses around the preacher and his sermon. In fact, it looks like the communion remembrance was more important than the sermon back then.
4. It looks clearly like everyone was to have an opportunity to participate as lead by the Spirit, not just when the song leader and the preacher said stand, sit, or give.
5. A serious implication for today's leaders seems to be, at a bare minimum, to work in times and opportunities for the church family to interact, share, offer words of wisdom and encouragement, share what God is doing in and through them. A small group offers that on a "small" scale, but, at least in my church, the church body is largely kept in the dark about anyone outside its small group.
6. Singing is not necessarily worship -- it seems more natural and likely a natural outcome of the worship of the early church gathering and sharing. Isn't there a song about worshipping without music? Our church has never tried that, but some other church has.

That should be enough to get some of the readers thinking. Maybe more later.

One reason most do not want a NT church meeting

…most Christians want to be spectators. Most Christians are content to attend church give their money and allow professional staff to “lead in worship” and provide the religious entertainment Sunday by Sunday.” Web blog article. Cp. America’s this does choose churches on the basis, what affirms us, entertains us, satisfies this or makes us feel good about God and ourselves.

~ Sally Morganthaller, Worship Evangelism, Page 19

Care needed in interpretation of NT

It is important in our honest search for NT truth to be open to the fact that we all read into documents from our cuclture and perspective. We have printed this before, but it needs to be a constant reminder.

The sheer diversity of the current options not only contributes to the sense of unrest and divisiveness in many local churches but leads to confident assertions that all the biblical evidence supports those views and those alone. . . . we unwittingly read our ideas and experiences of worship back into Scripture.

~ Don Carson, Worship by the Book, 13

The purpose of the gathering - to build one another up

Jon Zens, Building Up the Body - One Man or One Another?

The King James translation has in v.12, “for...for...for.” But there is in the Greek a change in prepositions not reflected in this rendering. The Greek original has pros ...eis...eis [“for...unto...unto”]. Thus, this verse can be rendered, “He gave... pastors-teachers for equipping the saints unto the work of ministry, unto the upbuilding of the body of Christ.” In other words, the function of the pastors-teachers is to equip the saints so that they can minister.

This construction is further borne out in the context. Verse 16 reveals Christ as joining the whole body together. The emphasis here, as in 1 Cor 12, falls on the total body ministry, not the exclusive ministry of pastors.

The elders’ function is a crucial part of the edification process. But the broader body ministry unto edification is specifically mentioned two times in v.16: (1) “every joint supplies”; (2) “in the measure of every part.” Thus, edification is not conceived of as being achieved by the ministry of one part (the “pastor”), but by a mutual ministry of every part. . . .

I am not suggesting in all of this that the elders do not teach in the church gatherings, or, conversely, that all must speak. Obviously, the teaching of the elders is to give backbone and guidance to the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim.3:2). But it is clear that speaking words of edification in the local church is not limited to one “minister.” Where is any opportunity given to others to speak unto edification in our services? What grounds are there in the N.T. to limit public speaking to the elders, especially the “pastor”? 1 Cor.14 teaches the exact opposite of such an idea. Are the basic principles of this passage now obsolete because the canon of Scripture is closed?

. . . Heb.10:25, of course, is cited as a basis for people to “come to church.” It is probably the strongest passage on such a responsibility in the N.T. But what, according to 10:24-25, is to occur in our assembling? Where in 10:25 can you find the idea that we are to come to hear the ministry of one man? We probably assemble together, but do our services allow for the exhorting of one an other? If we are going to employ 10:25 to press the duty of assembling together, must we not also use it as a guide for what transpires in our services? In light of our practice, it appears that we use about half of the verse rightly (“assemble”), but think little about the other half (“exhort” one another).

For example, Thomas Goodwin, in discussing the “communion of saints, which the members of a church ought to have with one another,” states that, indeed, mutual care “is a constant duty, and that we ought to seek all occasions of acting it” (Works, Vol.11, p.355). However, conceiving of the church gatherings as focusing on the minister and the sermon, and believing that “in private occasional converse, one member may not have opportunity to discourse with another once in seven years,” Goodwin suggested that a separate “fixed meeting” was necessary, where the brethren could “know one another’s cases and experiences” (Works, Vol.11, p.353).

“The duty enjoined” in Heb.10:24, he says, “is a duty distinct from assembling together, which follows in the next verse [10:25]” (Works, Vol.11, p.354).

Thus, while the N.T. connects mutual ministry and our gatherings as a church, we have in our practice separated them without exegetical basis. Why? Because we have structured our “corporate public worship” around the “pastor,” and thereby relegated any mutual ministry to occasional meetings, perhaps “once a month” (Colin Richards, “Fellowship,” pp.91, 96, 97).”

God’s divine intention - community

God’s divine intention is not, as we so often declare, to save people from their sins. At least it’s not the ultimate intention. God’s purpose in election is that we’ll become like Christ. And not just you or me, but all of us, so that Christ might be the firstborn within a large family. The purpose of election is to have a whole family of the human family look like our big brother (who looks like our heavenly Father). God’s intention from the beginning of time was that every human would look, in character, like Jesus.

This being, the case, the divine intention for our churches is to be a community of conformity, transforming all people into the image of Christ. I often tell my church, ‘The purpose of San Clemente Presbyterian Church is to ensure that all people who come in here alienated from God find a relationship with God, take on the very character of God, and eventually look like God.

~ Tod Bolsinger, It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian, p.45

Mutual edification - the focus of the NT church

Don Carson, Worship by the Book, referring to David Peterson’s Engaging with God. He offers other references of those who support a similar view that I have not read on page 25.

Peterson…examines afresh just why the NT church gathers, and he concludes that the focus is on mutual edification, not on worship. Under the terms of the new covenant, worship goes on all the time, including when the people of god gather together. But mutual edification does not go on all the time; it is what takes place when Christians gather together. Edification is the best summary of what occurs in corporate singing, confession, public prayer, the ministry of the Word, and so forth. . . .Peterson, of course, allows that when the people of God gather together corporately, they are still worshipping. What he insists is that the distinctive element of their corporate meetings is not worship but edification.

What was the purpose for gathering?

“What was the specifically Christian aim of the gathering for worship? The occasion served for the ‘building up’ of the community as the Body of Christ, the spiritual body of the risen Lord . . . Everything that furthers a ‘building-up,’ so understood, and only this, belongs to the Christian service of those elements which serve only to satisfy profane, egocentric human needs, but at the same time excludes all excessive enthusiasm which would empty the service in its attempt to purify.”
“It is an extraordinary thing that those who profess to care so much about Christ should seem to care so little about what His Word says about the church. Ought we not to concern ourselves more about this great doctrine than we do? Most certainly! Christ died for the church. It is His bride, His building, His body. When He left the world He commissioned it to disciple all the nations. How, then, can we conclude that the way we view the church is inconsequential in His eyes? We do not honor the Lord Jesus by ignoring His instructions.

Today, vast stress is laid on the thought that the gathered church is to reach out to the lost in such a way as to minimize the difference between believers and non-believers. But if you will read the New Testament you will see that the purpose of the gathered church was not evangelism. Indeed, it was not even worship. To be sure, worship can and must take place when God’s people are assembled. But worship, as it is taught in the New Testament, is a daily activity, not something that is relegated to Sunday. The modern habit throughout the twenty-first century church is to downplay this subject. After all, we have our “worship” services, our “worship” guides, and our “worship” leaders. Clearly, however, the New Testament knows nothing about these man-made terms. When, then, should we worship? Anyone who has read Rom. 12:1-2 will know the answer.

In 1 Corinthians the apostle Paul is very careful to lay out principles governing Christian gatherings. He makes it plain that believers did not gather for public witness to the outside world. These were not evangelistic services at all. Rather, the church gathered for fellowship and mutual edification. It was a type of gathering in which believers came together with differing gifts. Just read 1 Cor. 14 and you will see that this was a bona fide fellowship meeting. Everything that was done was done in order to build up the church. Whether you came to this meeting with a psalm, a teaching, or some other contribution to make, you exercised your gift in the interest of those around you. “Let all things be done for edification” was Paul’s watchword. This same view of the church is to be found in Ephesians 4, where Paul emphasizes that the church is built up only as each member of the Body does its part. He is emphatic that the fullness of Christ can never be attained by any one Christian. Each believer has a gift, and each one must give that gift away to the whole church.

Paul’s teaching sheds a flood of light on what the gathering of the people of God looked like in the early church.

1 Co 14:26 clearly states the prerequisite for anything that goes on in a church meeting: “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.” The word “strengthening” is from oikodome and means “edifying, edification, building up.” Certainly as we worship God corporately we are indeed strengthened. However, the ultimate focus of the meeting is to strengthen the church. It is not the Lord who stands in need of strengthening, but the Lord’s people. In this sense, the weekly assembly is for the benefit of the people present. A church gathering is to be designed to edify believers and to this end it is to be man-centered as well as God-centered.”

~ David Black, Why Not Ecclesiology? web article

The purpose of the NT church meeting

Most Christians assume that the purpose of church meetings is to worship God. That assumption is understandable when we consider that most churches refer to their meetings as "worship services." It is important to note, however, that the New Testament never speaks of a worship service, although it does mention a "service of worship": "I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship" (Rom.12:1). When Paul urged the Roman believers to present to God their service of worship he was not instructing them to meet together to sing hymns and songs of praise to God. On the contrary, he was urging them to continually offer to God their bodies as living sacrifices. That was to be their service of worship — the daily and continual dedication and surrender of their lives to God.

. . . Please do not misunderstand me to be affirming, however, that the church should not worship God through song when it assembles. The Scriptures declare that one important aspect of our gatherings should be "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with our hearts to the Lord" (Eph.5:19; Col.3:16). However, the New Testament never identifies the main goal of the gatherings of believers as worship. Consequently, neither should we.

~ Brian Anderson, Discovering the Purpose of church Meetings (web article)

More talk about worship today than in NT

We are talking more about worship today than possibly ever before in Church history, certainly more than the Scriptures do. We need to remember that when we make worship too much the subject, we risk destroying the very thing for which it is intended. The subject can never be worship until the subject is first of all the Lord. To the extent that attention is overly drawn to worship, to the extent that it becomes the primary object of our work, the overriding protocol, within which the Lord and His work are subjects, we can only assume that we have begun to worship worship, or at least, to worship about worship, therefore to worship about God.

… While, interestingly enough, there are no definitions of worship in the Bible, there are innumerable ones in just as many books and tracts, many of them sheer poetry. Useful and rich as they are, and with due respect, virtually all of are limited, to put it bluntly, to what goes on in church. This misses, or at most pays lip service, to a fundamental law of worship, which is the beginning of the secret to the difference between authentic and inauthentic worship. It is this: Worship is not a special event or any sequence of them. Worship is fundamental to humankind itself, so much so, that we must assume that it goes on all the time, all around us, inside of us, and, in a paradoxical way, in spite of us.

~ Harold Best, Former dean of Wheaton conservatory, on the topic, Authentic Worship & Faithful Music Making

John Newton's comments

John Newton made the following observation:

The Apostle, Paul addresses the Corinthians as a Church of Christ; and we have from him a larger and more particular account of the practices of their Church than any other. In chap. xiv. of his First Epistle, after censuring and correcting some improprieties which had obtained in their public assemblies, he gives them this direction: Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be comforted.
“The general practice of congregational Churches in our time seems not to comply with this apostolic injunction, I think, my friend, in your assemblies, especially in your solemn stated worship on the Lord's day, there is seldom more than one speaker. The same minister who preaches, usually begins and ends the service.

~ John Newton, Apologia, Letter 3. Works of John Newton, Vol 4, 1822 Pp. 33-34

Brian Anderson wrote:

The traditional Protestant worship service today strongly resembles a show business performance. In both we find ushers, programs, music, costumes, lighting, a chorus, a stage, a script, an audience, and a master of ceremonies. (Christian Smith, Going To The Root, p.88.) The congregation sits passively as the audience while the pastor performs. When the congregation is permitted to participate in the meeting, they are restricted to singing in unison, antiphonal readings, dropping money into the offering plate, and taking notes during the sermon. The ordained clergy are expected to perform all significant ministry. Meanwhile, ninety-nine percent of God's people attend worship services Sunday after Sunday for years on end, without ever contributing any true spiritual ministry to the body of gathered believers.

. . .The modern day “sermon” lies at the very heart of most contemporary “worship services.” It comes replete with many distinguishing characteristics. It often takes the form of a lengthy gospel message, being a “preaching” rather than a “teaching.” Additionally, it is usually delivered in a monologue lecture format, with no opportunity for feedback or dialogue from the congregation. Furthermore, there is no opportunity for anyone to question the teacher, evaluate the teaching, or spontaneously contribute an insight on the subject being taught. Moreover, many believers today tacitly assume that the pastor is the only one who is uniquely qualified and gifted to teach the Word of God to the congregation. Finally, we assume that the way pastors deliver their teaching to the church is virtually the same as the way Christ, His apostles, and the early church taught their congregations.”

“First, let’s examine the commonly accepted supposition that states when the church gathers preaching should take center stage. After examining all the New Testament passages which list the words ‘preach’ and ‘teach’ and their derivatives, I made some interesting discoveries. The first discovery was that the New Testament speaks far more of ‘teaching’ than “preaching.” There are only fifteen references to Jesus preaching, while we have 58 references to Him teaching. In the pastoral epistles, where we would expect to find that which should characterize the ministry of God’s Word in the church, there are three references to preaching and fourteen references to teaching believers. Of the three verses which speak of preaching in the church, only one actually refers to preaching. The normal Greek word for preach (kerusso) occurs only in 2Tim.4:2. The other two references in the pastoral epistles which speak of “preaching” are translations of different Greek words. For example, in 1 Timothy 5:17 Paul refers to elders who labor in preaching and teaching. The Greek word for ‘preaching’ is logos, which means ‘word.’ Actually, Paul was merely describing elders who labor in the word of God. In Timothy 6:2 Paul urges Timothy to “‘teach and preach these principles.’ The word for “preach” is the Greek word parakaleo, which means “to exhort, comfort, or encourage.” Paul was actually urging Timothy to teach and exhort by means of the principles he had just enumerated. Thus, it appears that our emphasis on preaching in church meetings has been misplaced. The New Testament gives a far greater emphasis to teaching than to preaching.”

"Preaching" is a Biblical term more akin to "evangelism," or the announcement of the Good News in Christ. Entrance into the Kingdom by people is the goal of evangelism or "preaching," while the building up of those in the kingdom is better called "teaching" (although in a few N.T. passages this distinction is not hard and fast; cf. Hans-Joachim Wiehler.

~Brian Anderson, "Preaching in the Church?" Searching Together, Autumn 1982, pp 35-38).

Two different kinds of meetings in Scripture

There are two different kinds of meetings in Scripture—the church meeting and the apostolic meeting (my emphasis).

…In the latter only one man spoke, and all the others constituted his audience. One stood before the others, and by his preaching directed the thoughts and hearts of those who sat quietly listening.

~ Watchman Nee, Normal Christian, p.118

The variety of forms the basic biblical elements

John Frame in Worship in Spirit and Truth:

…shows how great a variety of forms the basic biblical elements can take. Some have argued against the use of choirs and solos on the basis of the ‘regulative Principle.’ Namely, that they are not prescribed by Scriptures.

But Frame asks, ‘If some are allowed to pray aloud while the rest of the congregation meditates, why can’t some be allowed to sing or play aloud while the rest of the congregation meditates?’ (p.129).

Why would song be regulated in a different way than prayer and preaching? Some have argued against using hymns and non-scripted songs on the basis of the Regulative Principle.

But Frame also asks, If we are allowed to pray or to preach using our own words (based on Scripture), why can we not sing using our own words (based on Scripture)?’ (p.127).

Why would song be regulated in a different way than prayer and preaching? Some have argued against the use of dance n worship, but aside from many apparent references to dance in worship in the Psalter, Frame asks, If we are exhorted to raise hands (Neh. 2:8; Ps 28.2; 1 Tim 2:8), clap hands (Ps 47:1), and fall down (1 Cor 14:25), is it not expected and natural that we accompany words with actions? (p.131)

We can’t preach, surely, without using our bodies to express our thoughts and words, so how can we arbitrarily ‘draw the line’ to exclude dance? Frame points out that the real way to make decisions about these issues (such as dance) is wisdom and love — namely, what will edify?

In other words, if you think that the dancers in leotards will be too distracting and sexually provocative for your congregation, just say so — don’t try to prove that the Bible forbids it. It is a bad habit of mind to seek to label ‘forbidden’ what is really just unwise.

~ Tim Keller in Worship by the Book, p. 199

Church in the first century was different from church today

Something similar can be said about historical and sociological study. For example, Robert Banks wrote a book, Going to Church in the First Century, an excellent example of taking what can be discovered about first-century house churches and turning it into an imaginative narrative. This illustrates two things.

First, church in the first century was different from church today.

Second, there is a lot of information about his social circumstances that Paul never intended to communicate but that can be teased out of what he does say by those who know about the social and historical context of the ancient world. We note, on the one hand, that this information is very useful. The more we know about the context of Paul (or any other New Testament author) and his readers, with whose lifestyle and social situation Paul was undoubtedly in touch, the better we are able to understand the communication between them. Knowing that the churches were house churches, for example, explains why the “elect lady” (KJV) of 2 John (probably a church) is not to receive false teachers “into [her] house” (v. 10). This is not referring to allowing false teachers to enter someone’s home, but to receiving them into the gathering of the church where they could do damage.

On the other hand, this sociological and cultural information is not Scripture. We have not added to biblical authority by discovering this information, but we may have clarified what it was that the author was trying to communicate (and what his first readers probably understood instantly) and therefore what message the authority of the Bible stands behind.

This distinction becomes important in that at times there is a tendency to try to imitate the social and cultural situation of the early church. That the early church met in houses is information that we now know. But because we know this does not mean that the Bible teaches that churches should meet in houses. That the early church celebrated the Lord’s Supper as a full communal meal we also know (in fact, it was the mid-third century before the final shift to a symbolic meal was made), but because the Scripture makes no point of this means that there is no biblical command to return to this practice. Something similar might be said about baptismal practices. In other words, just because Scripture gives incidental evidence that the church did something in a certain way or that a person held a certain attitude does not mean that the author was making any attempt to communicate that information nor that we should imitate it. It would certainly be permissible to meet in houses and celebrate communion as a communal meal; it might even be advisable for any number of reasons; but the most we can claim biblical authority for is that the Scripture gives evidence that this or that was done in the early church, not that it teaches that this should be done.

~ NT Criticism and Interpretation, Edited by David Black and David Dockery, p.28-9

The problem trying to understand the NT church

After reading many books on the church, worship, and downloading many, many internet studies and sermons, I find it interesting how so many cherry-pick scriptures and arrange them to elaborate their own church cultures and traditions.

This reading into Scriptures our culture and tradition seems to be pervasive even among acknowledged biblical scholars and really good and effective preachers. Note the acknowledgment by a very good and famous present day church scholar:

The sheer diversity of the current options not only contributes to the sense of unrest and divisiveness in many local churches but leads to confident assertions that all the biblical evidence supports those views and those alone. . . . we unwittingly read our ideas and experiences of worship back into Scripture.

~ Don Carson, Worship by the Book, 13

What Paul taught the churches to do

In 1 Corinthians 4:14-17, we read that Paul planned to send Timothy to Corinth . Paul wanted Timothy to remind the Corinthians of his way of life so that they could imitate him. The immediate context concerns Paul’s faithfulness in service and his humility as an apostle. Paul wrote, “I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

Notice the obvious uniformity of practice that is reflected by Paul’s words. His way of life in Christ was consistent with what he taught everywhere, in every church. There was integrity. There was a uniformity of practice that grew out of Paul’s teachings. His belief determined his behavior. His doctrine naturally determined his duty. In similar fashion, the apostles’ beliefs about the function of the church would surely have affected the way they organized churches (form follows function). Though the direct import of 1 Corinthians 4 is far afield from church practice, to also imitate the apostles’ ways regarding church life would be a wise choice for any fellowship.

~ Steve Atkerson, Apostolic Tradition: Obsolete? (web article)

Listen to John Piper:

For most Christians corporate church life is a Sunday morning worship service and that’s all. A smaller percentage adds to that a class of some kind, perhaps Sunday morning or Wednesday evening in which there is very little interpersonal ministry. Now don’t misunderstand me, I believe in the tremendous value of corporate worship and I believe that solid teaching times are usually crucial for depth and strength. But you simply can’t read the New Testament in search of what church life is supposed to be like and come away thinking that worship services and classes are the sum total of what church was supposed to be.

The inevitable effect of treating church as worship services and classes is to make the people of God passive and too dependent on ordained experts. And could it not be that this pervasive relational passivity and dependence of millions of Christians—I mean passivity in interpersonal, spiritual ministry—rob us of some of Christ’s precious remedies for a hundred problems?

If God designed the church to function like a body with every member ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit to other members, in regular interpersonal relationship, then would it be surprising to find that the neglect of this regular interpersonal, spiritual ministry cripples the body in some of its functions and causes parts of the body to be weak and sick? Isn’t that what you would expect?

~ John Piper in his sermon How Christ Enables the Church to Upbuild Itself in Love, September 17, 1995

Not everything in the NT church is copyable

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 sandals, writing on parchment, studying by oil lamps, wearing togas, etc.). The key is to focus in on New Testament church practice. Of course 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.

~ Steve Atkerson, Apostolic Tradition: Obsolete? (web article)

There is a difference between the NT church and todays

…a large gap has clearly opened up in the two thousand years between the teaching of the NT and what we customarily do in church Sunday by Sunday.

~Mark Ashton in Worship by the Book, Carson, ed. 69



D. A. Carson says we cannot go back to the NT church meeting style:

…what would happen if we could somehow put all out histories and traditions to one side and begin from scratch and then tried to label and speak of our corporate life, judging only the terminology and theology of the NT. I take his point — but that is precisely what we cannot do.

~ Don Carson, Worship by the Book, 62

Why do we go to church?

The Reason for Church Fellowship
by Andy Neckar (portion of his sermon)


The real reason you are here today.

You are not here primarily to worship God, although you may think so. This may be why you come to church, but this is not the real reason God commands his Children to assemble together.

In Heb 10:24 we are told to not forsake or cease the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

The verse preceding this Scripture tells us WHY we should " go to church"

Heb 10:25 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
We are to prod, that is to urge and encourage each other to obedience to God. We are to meet primarily FOR OUR GOOD and GROWTH IN FAITH

1 Cor 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

We are to have fellowship meals together. ALL believers are in the Family of God and we should treat each other as family whether we be "blood" kin or "marriage" KIN or kin "IN CHRIST"

1Thes 5:11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.

We are to assemble for the good of each other. We are to comfort each other. This means to encourage one another and give relief to a brother in distress and have compassion on each other. ALL these things can bring comfort to the believer and we should do anything else that can cause comfort to a brother in the Lord and that includes a LONG LIST of comforting things.
We are to edify and that is to teach each other. EACH ONE of God's children has a gift or gifts of the Spirit and we should USE them. YOU know something I don't know, or perhaps YOUR understand of a scripture or of an error in God's house may be more clearer or keener than mine. SPEAK IT

We are to meet TOGETHER to teach and comfort and provoke EACH OTHER. This job does NOT fall on ONE MAN ONLY. Pay attention now. Hear what I say.

I am admonishing you now and this is what scripture tells you to do about this.

1Thes 5:12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
1Thes 5:13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.

You see, I am not butting into your business. I have been called by the Lord to do the Work of the Lord. As the Father sent Jesus Christ, He, Jesus Christ sent me.

I DO expect the personal salvation testimonies from you in a few days like I asked of you last week.

In the letter to the Thessalonians Paul is speaking to the CHURCH, the whole assembly, not to JUST church leaders.

1Thes 5:14-15 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

1 Thes 5: verses 14-15 are some of the thing YOU are to do when you come together.

Trouble is most folks were brought up in a "traditional" church and NOT in a New Testament Church, regardless of the New Testament name on the sign out front. The church is not what you call it, it is the way it is operated that identifies it for what it REALLY is. That is what you are used to and "old habits" that is the "old way" of doing things, and that includes the assembling of yourselves together, is hard to break.

What of New Testament Worship?

By Daniel Thompson

There are few doctrines in the New Testament that give us as much surprise as the doctrine of worship. One might even say we are stunned. Although there are references to worship in the Gospels, the book of Acts and Revelation, the New Testament Epistles -- the doctrinal/explanatory part of the New Testament - -is completely silent as to worship. This is all the more incredible when we consider: First, 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 is an extensive treatment of church life and interaction with no mention of worship. Second, 1 Timothy was an epistle written to make known "how thou [Timothy] might behave thyself in the house of God." Surely one would expect a reference to worship here, yet there is none. Third, our Lord tells the Samaritan woman that "the hour is coming ... and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such to worship Him" (Jn 4:21-23). With such a definitive statement of future devotion, it is inconceivable that worship would be passed over completely in the instructional part of the New Covenant, the Epistles, yet this is exactly what we find.

A quick examination of "worship" in the Gospels and Acts finds worship of individuals to Christ, deceitful or false worship and, with reference to Acts, worship directed towards Jerusalem. But there is no direction as to Christian worship. This leads us to one of two possibilities; either the church was to continue Old Testament worship (or the "synagogue" worship developed in post- exilic Israel, ca. B.C. 200), or we might be looking in the wrong place for our direction regarding New Testament worship.

The difficulties with the first option are that the issues of "place," "time," "sacrifice," and such terminology in the law which formed the essential ingredients of Old Covenant worship ceased to have meaning because God has established a New Covenant. Now, under the New Covenant, a holy place is where two or three are gathered (Mt 18:20); time is always special, such that God calls upon us to redeem it (Eph 5:16; Col 4:5); and our sacrifices are ourselves (Rom 12:1), giving (Phil 4:17), and praise (Heb 13:15).

Paul Preached Unto Them

by  Beresford Job

Today most church sermons, messages, or preaching consists of monologue. But the apostle Paul's preaching style at Troas involved interactive dialogue.

For over one thousand years Christian church practice has been largely based on sources other than the Word of God. This has left us with a legacy that desperately needs to be corrected. Part of that legacy is that we have departed quite drastically from the way Bible teaching and corporate instruction was done in the early church. By far the most serious departure in this regard is the virtually universal practice of focusing the gathering of the church on the Lord’s Day around preaching and teaching, usually by one person.

In the New Testament, however, we see something rather different. We find there churches meeting on Sundays, in people’s houses, and with a twofold purpose. First, they had completely open, participatory and spontaneous sharing together and worship which, by definition, wasn’t led from the front in any way. Second, they ate the Lord’s Supper together as their main meal of the day. Given such a set up, and it is indeed how the apostles universally set churches up to be like, then certain things would subsequently, and quite logically, find no place.

. . . The apostles set churches up in such a way that when they came together on the Lord’s Day the rule was strictly, “each one has . . . for you may all prophesy one by one” (1Co 14:26, 31). They set churches up in such a way that would positively encourage all those gathered to participate, and therefore brought about a situation where the Lord would be free to move by His Spirit through each part of His body. Any idea of the Lord’s Day gathering of the church revolving around the ministry of any one individual flies completely in the face of scripture and contradicts it outright.

This is not to say, however, that there isn’t a place for the type of teaching amongst God’s people whereby one person predominates in giving it. The Lord does indeed provide people in churches who are gifted in this very thing, and the New Testament makes it clear that teaching is a calling and gift of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, in the church of which I am a part we meet for Bible Study on Tuesday evenings, and we work very hard at furthering our understanding of God‘s Word. But in the New Testament the coming together of a church on Sundays was not the time when such gifts were exercised in that particular way, and the push was always for mutual participation; for lots of people to share something, including a short teaching, rather than for one person to predominate or lead in any way.

And this helps us to at last take the emphasis away from leadership, and from our inclination to just revolve around those who are gifted in teaching and public speaking ability and to consequently make big men of them. It helps to keep us safe from the evil of the whole clergy/laity divide thing, and from the completely unbiblical two-tier system of leaders and led which creates hierarchy. Hierarchy is something no church should ever have, and the only hierarchy found in the pages of the New Testament, pertaining to church life, is simply Jesus and everyone else. Even elders - for that is what a biblically based church will either have or be moving towards, a plurality of co-equal, male elders who have been raised up from among those they serve - are strictly in the everyone else category.

Moreover, this biblical way of doing things creates a set up in which people feel free to question whatever is being taught in order to test and understand it more fully. It also makes those who teach realise that the onus is on them to do so in such a way as to persuade people that what they are saying is actually biblical. It helps minimise the danger of those who are taught being expected to just passively accept things because it’s what the leaders teach, or because of some daft idea of ‘accepted church policy’ or something. It brings about a situation wherein people are much more likely to actively and questioningly understand rather than merely passively accept things as being the case and just agree. It creates, in short, what many leaders in many churches fear most, people with open Bibles and free-thinking minds who don’t accept things merely on the authority of a leader’s say-so, but who question and challenge until they are persuaded that something is or isn’t biblical. It further releases the corporate insight and wisdom of all in the church, and engenders an atmosphere of humility and the willingness for everyone to learn from anyone. It recognises the vitally important fact that the Lord is in all His people, and can therefore speak through any of those in the church and not just some chosen and verbally gifted elite.

But I must deal now with what might, in some people’s minds, be perceived as a real and biblically-based objection to what I’m saying here: Paul’s preaching. Take a look at a particular Sunday that Paul the Apostle spent with the church in Troas : “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight ” (Ac 20:7).

Here we have the believers in Troas coming together for their main weekly gathering, and we can note certain things. (By the way, no Bible scholar would disagree with any of the following observations I am going to make. They are a simple matter of textual fact.)

• The church is gathering on the first day of the week, on Sunday.
• They were gathering together in someone’s house.
• The Greek text here conveys that the main purpose given for their coming together was for the breaking of bread.
• The phrase breaking of breadrefers to eating a full meal, here the Lord’s Supper.

Now the thing I want to focus on here is that Paul “spoke to the people” and “kept on talking until midnight .” That certainly makes it sound as if Paul is doing the talking and that everyone else is just listening. So if that is the case then there isn’t much open, un-led participatory stuff going on here as we might expect to see, assuming of course that what I‘ve written so far isn‘t complete nonsense. But there’s worse to come, because in some translations of the Bible this verse actually reads, “Paul preached unto them . . . and continued his speech until midnight.”

That doesn’t just sound like a Sunday sermon, that sounds like the very mother and father of all Sunday sermons either before or since! Paul, if this verse is to believed, not only preached to the church, but continued to do so until midnight . What on earth can I say to that in the light of the burden of this article? Well, it’s actually very simple. The original Greek doesn’t say here quite what the English translation conveys. Luke doesn’t use any of the various Greek words for preach at all. He rather describes what Paul was doing here until midnight with the word dialogemai. And dialogemai, as any Greek scholar will tell you, means to converse, todiscuss, toreason or dispute with. It denotes a two-way verbal trafficking between different parties and is actually the Greek word from which we get the English word dialogue.

Preaching is a monologue, and in certain settings of church life that may well be fine. Midweek Bible studies, for example, may very well be conducted at times by one person doing a monologue followed by questions. But in the New Testament, when the Lord’s people come together on Sundays as a church, it’s strictly dialogue that goes on, and this is precisely what Paul is doing here. He is most certainly teaching the church, and it goes on most of the night because they wanted to learn all they could from him, but it was a discussion-type format and not a monologue of some kind. It was participatory and interactive, and therefore completely in keeping with the way the apostles set up Sunday gatherings of churches to be like. In short, Paul was simply conversing with them. It was a dialogue, and he and the assembled church were reasoning together. It was two-way mutual communication. It was question and answer, point and counterpoint, objection and explanation! Paul isn’t here standing on some raised platform with everyone sitting silently just listening to him speaking to them. No, he is rather sitting on the sofa in the lounge talking with them.

There is of course a time, as I have already said, for something of a more formal lecture type format, but even then let it be clear that whoever is teaching must be completely and fully open to questions concerning their subject matter. I don’t by that necessarily mean in the middle of the teaching, but when the speaker has finished then let the questions and comeback flow. Let it be clear as well that whoever does do teaching, and the more brothers amongst whom this task is shared out the better, is just one of the brothers, and is not special or spiritually elevated just because they are gifted in a particular way. (At our Tuesday night Bible Studies at the church of which I am a part we also do lots of discussion and interactive type teaching sessions as well, and use the lecture type format as just one of various approaches.)

Let me end by making clear that I am not in the slightest down playing Bible teaching in the life of Christian churches. Far from it! Indeed, none of us would be going on about any of these things in the first place were it not for the fact we are into good solid Bible teaching ourselves, and keen to both receive it and to pass it on to others. No, we are simply saying that we have got to start doing things biblically. We must in this, as with everything else, get back in line with what the Word of God teaches rather than just sticking with age-old, yet completely unbiblical, traditions.

Among the many gifts Christ gives to his people, some are gifted as teachers (Ep 4:11 ). James says, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (3:1). Paul says, “if a person’s gift is teaching, let him teach” (Ro12:6-7). And in 1 Corinthians 12:28 -29 Paul underscores the fact that Christ never intended for everybody to have the same gifting by asking, “Are all teachers?” On the other hand, the writer to the Hebrews chides all the brethren for their lack of growth by saying, “though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again” (5:12). So while it is clear that only some are gifted as teachers, all of Christ’s people are to be “teachers” in the broad sense of contributing to the overall edification of the body according to their spiritual gifts.
Obviously, groups of believers will vary greatly in their giftedness, but if the Lord has brought them together, they can be sure that “in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be” (1Co12:18). Some assemblies will have several gifted at teaching, some will have one person, and others may feel that they have none. The central thing to keep in mind is that all believers have the Holy Spirit (the “anointing”) and are capable of some level of sharing Christ, of manifesting discernment, of caring for one another, and of understanding the Scriptures. When they come together in His name, they have every reason to expect Christ’s presence (Mt 18:20 ). In a body meeting, each person present has the responsibility to make sure they do not dominate and thereby stifle others. If there are multiple teachers, none should dominate. If there appears to be only one teacher, care should be taken that that gift should not end up being in the limelight. If there appear to be none gifted as teachers, then the body must work hard at trusting the Lord for edifying multiple participation. We are so used to the artificial thinking that assumes that teachers must have a background in a Bible School or seminary. This is not a Scriptural mindset. We must neither succumb to the cult of the expert, nor mute any eminent gifts in the body.

In Acts 20:7 we are specifically told that the purpose of the saints’ gathering was to “break bread,” not to hear teaching. However, in the course of that particular meeting – which was to be Paul’s last appearance in their city — the apostle “dialogued” with them for a long time. What Paul had to say was the meat of the meeting, but it was not a monologue. It was discourse with interaction. This shows that while the raison d’etre of the meeting was to eat (the Lord’s Supper), it was still possible for teaching to take place.

The Corinthians evidently felt that everybody should speak in tongues. They were focusing on certain visible manifestations of the Spirit. Paul corrects this in 1 Corinthians 12-14. In chapter 14, he wants the spontaneity and multiple participation to continue, but in all of this he desires for prophecy to be central, and for everything to be done for edification. Prophecy by “all” results in strengthening, encouragement, comfort and instruction (14:3, 31). In verse 26, Paul mentions a few of many possible contributions that the saints can make to the meeting, and one of them is “a teaching.” So, just as we should not forbid tongues (if there is interpretation), neither should we forbid teaching!

One thing that would help assemblies in all these issues surrounding “teaching” is if they would learn how to study the Bible together with a view toward discerning the Lord’s mind and acting upon it. Since there is so much false teaching floating around, it is vital for the ekklesia to search the Scriptures to see what is actually so. For example, on a host of topics — prayer, angels, body-life, humility, and love — it is certainly possible for a group of believers to photocopy from a concordance or print out from a computer a selection of verses to go over together in discussion and prayer. In the early church apostolic epistles were read to the assembly. That is something congregations should do with regularity. It must be stressed that any handling of God’s word by an ekklesia should not be approached as a stale, intellectual, academic exercise. Our goal must be to exalt Jesus Christ together and obey what he reveals in his word.
Congregations will have their strengths and weaknesses. Some will be grounded in sound teaching, but weak in prayer. Some will excel in mutual caring, but be weak in some gospel truths. The general trend I have seen is that churches tend to be all doctrine with little body-life, or focused on subjective experience with little sound teaching. Why do we sever what God has joined together? We should strive to be caring, practical fellowships who, as Paul exhorted, wish to hold fast to healthy teaching. Therefore, brethren should always be evaluating their life together in light of a summary text like Acts 2:42 , and openly discuss areas they need to grow in.

James 1:19 exhorts all of us to be “quick to hear and slow to speak.” In any group of saints there will be those who tend to talk a lot, those who are reticent, and others inbetween. Those who are always ready to speak must be cautious and be sure they do not stifle the input of others. They must be careful not to dominate or to intimidate by a dogmatic tone that shuts down discussion. Those who are very hesitant to speak need an atmosphere of acceptance and love where they can be encouraged to share as the Lord leads them. If our meetings are truly open, then we must be sensitive to the direction of the Spirit’s leading. We must each be willing to defer to the needs of others. For example, if a body has new converts, or people who have just come out of a cult, or people who just experienced a major life-altering trauma, it will be necessary to focus on their special needs.

A big issue for all of us is the ability to listen carefully to the concerns of others in the body. If we really love each other, we will want to process the issues on other people’s hearts. We may think their question or concern is misplaced, irrelevant, or a non-issue to us, but if we value them we will take their every word seriously. Thus, if you find yourself internalizing thoughts like, “this place is becoming like an arid seminary,” “I can’t keep up with the fine theological points that are being made,” “all we talk about are people’s experiences and we never get into the Word,” “we study the Bible a lot but do not pray much,” “we go through pretty much the same rut every week,” “I’m feeling depressed and not encouraged when I leave the meeting,” “So-and-so seems to dominate the meeting every week,” “I sense a doctrinal imbalance is taking place,” etc., you need to talk with the brothers and sisters. The problem may be you and your wrong perceptions, but when people have concerns they must be openly addressed. That is why is appears wise for an assembly to periodically discuss how their life together is going, so imbalances can be nipped in the bud.

Observing The Lord’s Supper

By Brian Anderson

. . . I had read testimonies of saints in centuries past who found deep and intimate fellowship with Christ through this holy ordinance. I had believed and taught that the observance of the Lord's Supper was a very special and significant occasion in the life of every local church. Why then, wasn't it more powerful in my own life? The stark reality was that my own observance of the Lord's Supper was neither very special nor significant. It's not that we had grown lax in our observance of the Lord's Supper. On the contrary, we observed it like clockwork on the first Sunday of every month. Rather, I believe it was that we had unthinkingly embraced a manner of observing it that was foreign to the Scriptures.

It's amazing how much the church does because of man-made traditions, that when closely scrutinized, simply can't be justified from God's Word. On the first Sunday of every month, miniature plastic cups of grape juice, and broken crackers were made available at the front of the sanctuary. While the worship team led the congregation in praises focused on Christ's sacrificial death, the participants would file to the front of the sanctuary to receive the elements. Once everyone had been served and returned to their seats, I would read a passage of Scripture (usually 1 Corinthians 11), offer a prayer of blessing, and then invite everyone to eat and drink together. The entire event could not have lasted more than ten minutes. Although it is always good to spend any length of time remembering the precious sacrifice of Christ, the experience usually left me feeling a bit empty and dissatisfied. I couldn't help but wonder why the observance of the Lord's Supper was not more meaningful in my own life. I found myself wondering if perhaps the problem lay in our own faulty understanding of the sacrament, and secretly hoped that God had more for us in this special event than we had ever dreamed. That hope has not been disappointed.

Changes in the life of a church are never easy. In fact, even if the changes are more Scriptural than its current practices, they are still very threatening. Thus, the status quo, no matter how barren it leaves us, is usually preferred over change. However, we at MBF had long ago adopted the motto, "we are committed to understanding and obeying God's Word." We had determined that if we became convinced that our practices as a church were unscriptural, we would change them - plain and simple. With that as our philosophy of church life and a gnawing sense of dissatisfaction with our observance of the Lord's Supper, the elders decided that we needed to examine the issue afresh to determine what God's Word actually taught.

As I began to dig into God’s word I had no idea how much our practice of observing the Supper would change as a result of those teachings!

The first thing I noticed in Scripture was the tremendous importance which the early church attached to the Lord's Supper. Suprisingly enough, it appeared to be the main focus of their gatherings. "And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight" (Acts 20:7). That which I found so intriguing was that the Bible did not state what I thought it would. It did not declare that the church met to listen to Paul preach. I would have thought that whenever the apostle Paul was at a church meeting, the purpose of the gathering would be to drink in the apostle's instruction. After all, it wasn't very often that the church had the privilege of an apostle ministering in its midst. Nor does the Scripture state that the church met to worship, to receive an offering, or to evangelize.. According to holy Scripture, the stated purpose for which the early church met was to break bread. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 11:20 & 33, the purpose of the gathering of the church is again said to be the eating of the Lord’s Supper. Additionally, Acts 2:42 records that the disciples were continually devoted to the breaking of bread; indeed their commitment to it was as great as their commitment to apostolic teaching, fellowship, and prayer! This simple truth was like a new revelation to me. I had always thought that the purpose the church gathered was to worship, hear the preaching of the Word, and evangelize the lost. It had never even crossed my mind that the primary purpose for at least some of the gatherings of the saints was to partake of the Lord's Supper. Nevertheless, there it was in Scripture in black and white. I sensed that God was calling the people of MBF to give much greater significance to the Lord’s Supper than ever before.
The next discovery was just as radical as the first. I found, much to my surprise, that the Lord's Supper was intended to be just that - a supper. Though this ought to have been obvious to me, in reality, it was a completely new concept. I had never partaken of the cup and the bread as part of a full meal. Yet, Scripture refers to the event as the Lord's Supper (1Cor.11:20). A more apt description of the way we had observed it would have been to call it the Lord's Appetizer! Wouldn't you be a bit dismayed if a friend invited you over to supper, but offered you only a morsel of cracker, and a shot glass of juice?!

Furthermore, the apostle Jude writes about certain ungodly men who are "hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves" (Jude 12). Most Bible commentators, I learned, identified these love feasts with the early church’s practice of observing the Lord's Supper as part of a full meal. In addition, Paul's words to the church at Corinth began to make sense, "Therefore, when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk" (1Cor.11:20-21). I had read those verses countless times in the past, without it ever making much sense. I was unintentionally seeking to make that statement fit into my traditionally accepted understanding. However, how could eating a tiny piece of cracker satisfy a man's hunger, or drinking an ounce of wine make a man drunk? Clearly, the early church was partaking of a common meal on those special occasions. That really shouldn't have surprised me, for hadn't Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper at a full meal with His disciples? Additionally, hadn't He said that He would never again eat of the Lord’s Supper until it was fulfilled in the kingdom of God (Luke 22:16)? I began to understand that our observance of the Lord's Supper not only looked back to Christ's atoning death, but also forward to the marriage supper of the Lamb that we will enjoy with Him in glory (Rev.19:7). Only a full meal can adequately symbolize that heavenly feast. I was quickly realizing that our observance of the Lord’s Supper was going to need more than a minor tune-up; it would need a complete overhaul!

The third discovery I made was that the Lord's Supper was celebrated in small and intimate settings. For example, Acts 2:46 describes the new converts breaking bread from house to house, taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart. Obviously, if these believers were observing the Lord's Supper from house to house, they were doing so in small, intimate settings. Moreover, Acts 20:7-12 describes the breaking of bread as taking place in the intimacy of an upper room of a private home. Furthermore, Paul instructs, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf" (1Cor.10:16-17 NIV). Notice carefully that the apostle speaks of "the cup" and "the one loaf." The single cup and loaf, according to Paul, were used in order to portray the precious truth that the church of Christ, though made up of many members, is one. Clearly, Paul had in mind a group small enough to partake of a single loaf and cup. This was all very foreign to me, for I was accustomed to partaking of the Lord's Supper in large, impersonal and somber settings. In fact, I was quite suprised to find that the only passage in the Bible which described the mood of the Lord’s Supper portrayed it as a glad, joyful, and intimate event (Acts 2:46).

The final discovery God gave us had to do with the close connection between fellowship amongst the saints and the Lord’s Supper. At [our church] we had emphasized our vertical relationship with Christ, to the exclusion of fellowship with other believers. In fact, the whole observance was carried out without anyone uttering a single word to anyone else. However, now 1Cor.10:16 took on new meaning for me. When the Scripture says, "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" I had assumed that the sharing was between an individual believer and God. I learned, though, that the Greek word for "sharing" is koinonia, which is usually translated "fellowship" and could just as easily speak of the saints’ fellowship with one another. I began to understand that the purpose of the Lord's Supper was not only to commune with Christ, but also to fellowship with my brothers and sisters around the body and blood of Christ. This also appeared to be born out in Acts 2:42 which uses the word "and" to divide up the disciples' spiritual activities. "And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." In this grammatical construction, fellowship and the breaking of bread seem to be coupled together as a related activity, with "the breaking of bread" an expanded description of their "fellowship." If this was the intention of Luke in writing the Acts, the early church was committed to three things: apostolic teaching, fellowshipping together around the Lord’s Table, and prayer.

When we began to discover these new insights we believed God had given to us, at first we were not sure what to do with them. None of us had ever observed the Lord's Supper where it was the primary reason for the meeting, part of a full meal, and celebrated in an intimate, personal, and joyful manner. Furthermore, we didn’t know of any other church which observed the Lord’s Supper in this way. However, as we experimented with several different methods of observing the Lord’s Supper, God gave us wisdom in weeding out those which did not promote the Biblical discoveries we had made, and clinging to those that did.

In order for you to get a feel for the celebration of the Lord's Supper at [Our church], allow me to describe a typical Agape Feast for you.

Folks begin arriving about 5:30 on a Sunday evening for the monthly event. As the menfolk push all the chairs against the wall and assemble folding tables into a large rectangle, the women bustle about in the kitchen making last minute preparations. About 6:00 one of the ladies gives the signal that all is ready. [Our church] family gathers in a large circle of somewhere between 40 and 60 people, holds hands, and asks God to bless the evening. Large bowls of tossed garden salad, buttered french bread, and steaming pots of spaghetti are placed on the tables, so that the meal can be eaten family style. While the meal is being enjoyed, lively discussion, banter and laughter resonate throughout the room. Clearly, the folks at [Our church] have looked forward to this gathering, and are enjoying being with one another.

After dessert has been served and the dishes and food have been cleared away, two or three brothers and sisters break out their guitars. There is even an occasional banjo or piano. Songbooks are distributed, and for the next twenty to forty minutes the church sings, praises and prays with an occasional interspersing of Scripture reading augmenting the worship. Next there is an opportunity for anyone to share a spiritual contribution in the spirit of 1Cor.14:26 that they have brought for the edification of others. One woman sings a song the Lord has given her recently which focuses on the greatness and majesty of God. A young man exhorts the rest to faithfulness to Christ in the midst of trials and tribulations. Another woman reads a poem on the importance of abiding in Christ. Two or three brothers follow with a brief word of instruction. One brother focuses on the fact that Christ's death was intended to produce a holy people, zealous for good works. Another teaches that Christ's death was effectual, actually purchasing the salvation of all God's people. Finally, one of the elders stands and offers a brief teaching focused on the heavenly communion with Christ that we will enjoy one day which our Supper has been portraying.

In the midst of the sharing, people feel free to ask a question or share an insight of their own. The scene is much more akin to a family gathering around the dinner table with many excited to speak, than a group of acquaintances engaging in a formal worship service. Finally, at the climax of the evening, one of the elders breaks a loaf of bread in two and passes each around the tables. In like manner, he pours grape juice from a large container into another jug and passes both to the eager participants. Each one takes the container of juice, pours a portion into his cup, and passes it to his neighbor. After everyone is served, one of the elders offers a joyful and sincere prayer of thanksgiving for the person and work of Christ, after which all eat and drink in remembrance of Him. The meeting is spontaneous, enthusiastic, and joyful. The meeting usually lasts somewhere between three and four hours, with folks lingering sometimes for an hour or more to fellowship with one another.

Our attempts to apply God's Word to our observance of the Lord's Supper have not been without problems and difficulties. We have had children hungry for attention sing a cute little song in order to draw the expected applause of the group. At other times, the sharing has seemed more like a performance than spiritual ministry. On still other occasions, I fear, we have been guilty of not treating the Lord’s Supper with the seriousness it deserves -- a byproduct, perhaps, of the informality of the dinner. However, we have sought to address each of these problems. We have instructed the young children to talk with their parents or one of the elders before sharing at an Agape Feast to make sure that it is appropriate and that their motives are right. The elders have spoken frankly with the church, discouraging applause after someone has shared a song, and exhorting all to seek a ministry mindset and approach the Supper with the importance and seriousness it warrants.

In spite of the problems that we have had to face, the changes we have made in observing the Lord's Supper have been among the most spiritually profitable we have ever made. I can truly say that the Lord's Supper for me now is one of the most exciting, invigorating, and spiritually significant events in my life.

In Defense of Biblical Churches

In Defense of Biblical Churches: A Response to the Critics!
by Beresford Job
(A strong English advocate for house churches. www.house-church.org)

So, the apostles established churches to specifically be located in people’s houses. And far from being merely some accident of history, this was actually a part of the apostolic, and therefore biblical, blueprint. And given that Paul emphasises in his writings that apostolic tradition, as passed on by them to the churches from Jesus Himself ,was binding and a command of the Lord, then why on earth would anyone want to do things differently? Yet sadly some church leaders eventually did, and now some of us don’t want to any more.

You see, the real problem is that when most churches come together on Sundays they are functioning, albeit with an infinite number of variations, according to the teachings of the early church fathers, the fellows who rather unhelpfully made the changes, and not the New Testament at all. And the contrast is amazing. Churches today aren’t just different from the New Testament ones, they are virtually their opposites. Think about it! The Bible shows that the believers came together as churches in people’s houses on the Lord’s Day for unled, open and spontaneous worship and sharing together, which involved most people present bringing teachings and revelations and the like. Further, they also ate a meal together; indeed, the very Lord’s Meal! (That’s what the Greek literally means, the main meal of the day towards evening!)

So what do we do instead? We meet on Sundays (at least we get something right) with those attending sitting in rows,  in a service, in a public building (whether ‘sacred’ or not), led from the front by someone who, usually, is paid to do it as their job. Contrast further a leadership of plural, co-equal and locally grown elders with an imported professional ‘one man pastor or priest’ type leadership and you begin to see, if you are honest, just how in contradiction of the Bible’s teachings we actually are. And of course in such a setting a shared main meal, to say nothing of each person being free to participate, becomes a complete nonsense; which is why the Lord’s Supper was eventually jettisoned in favour of bread and wine services instead.
So I see from the Bible that churches should be house based because of what is supposed to happen when they come together; and what better setting is there for participatory worship and sharing and then eating a meal together? And of course no-one who really knows their biblical stuff would challenge that this is indeed the blueprint upon which churches were shaped and formed under the teaching and care of the apostles in New Testament times.

So how, my old friend, can you then possibly go on to liken what I teach and practise in this regard as “the virus of legalism creeping it’s way into the bloodstream of even undoubtedly godly communities of Christians”? How on earth do you conclude that my contention that we ought to establish churches today in the same way the apostles did is “a legalistic bondage“, and is further “the pride of self-assertiveness hidden behind supposed concerns for the truth“? My understanding of legalism, and do correct me if I am wrong, is that it is the imposition of teachings and practises on believers that aren’t in the Word of God: and in what possible way am I doing that?

Biblical scholars of all shades are agreed that the New Testament churches met in the way I am describing, and all I am advocating is that we do things according to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles rather than going along with what the early church fathers later replaced it with. And although I fully understand that any one of us can assert what is actually biblical and true in a proud and sinful way (and may God forgive me if that is what I am doing), is it not also the case that it must, by very definition, be prideful for believers to assume they can better the Lord’s ideas and teachings in any way? Now come along my dear friend, just who is actually being proud here: those who submit to the scriptures, or those who think there is a better way outside of them?

Church life - More than Sunday morning

By Mike Weeks

Brothers

. . . maybe you’d like to know who it is that dominated the stage in the Body as described in the New Testament. It can be summed up in one word: BROTHERS. Or, to use the modern vernacular: laymen. (By the way, this distinction between clergy and laity doesn’t exist in scripture.) That’s right, the common, everyday, 9-5, non-seminary educated, ordinary brother in Christ. Let’s take a very cursory look at Scripture. When an important decision had to be made in the church, it was typically the brothers who decided upon it. ( See Acts 9:30; 11:1; 11:29; 15:2; 15:33; etc.) When an important journey needed to be made, it was the brothers who sent off those who left, and often accompanied them themselves. (See Acts 10:23; 11:12; 15:2; 15:33; 15:40; etc.) When Paul writes the churches he planted, who does he address his letters to? Pastors? Elders? Deacons? Never! However, in almost every case he addresses his letters to the brothers, and the saints. (The word saints means ‘holy ones,’ and it refers to the common every brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ.)

Folks, we are dealing with a way of talking and a way of speaking that was just natural to those in the early body of believers. Why, of course it was the brothers who did everything in the church. It didn’t need to be instructed in scripture, it was just natural, organic. Today, when we read the New Testament, we miss this entirely. Why? Because it is so foreign to our way of doing things. It is the pastors and elders who make important decisions regarding the church. When a representative needs to be sent somewhere on ‘church business,’ don’t expect a brother or sister to go. When a Christian leader from outside of town comes in, does he meet and share first with ‘laymen’ or ‘clergy?’

There’s something crucial to understand from all of this: brothers and sisters in Christ are not meant for Sunday morning pew-warming and mid-week Bible Study. We are not meant to merely receive instruction by ‘professionals.’ We were created for full participation in the Bride of Jesus Christ. The Lord has given us Himself in all of His fullness, and He has done marvelous and wonderful things inside of all those who have believed. We all have burdens that we would love for others to bear with us. And most people in the church, especially brothers, would like to play a part in the life of the church that goes far beyond being a spectator. However, on Sunday morning, and throughout the week there is little opportunity to share in the blessings of the Lord with other saints. And, by the same token, huge numbers of believers have nobody to help shoulder the burden’s of life that the Church is supposed to bear. And for a normal every day group of brothers to make an important decision affecting the life of the church, it probably won’t happen. And what about having an opportunity to teach, share, instruct the rest of the Body? Don’t hold your breath.

Organic

What then, does the Church, as described in the New Testament, look like? I think one word describes it best: ORGANIC. It had a chance to grow naturally. A church planter would enter a town, impart the very life of Jesus Christ to a bunch of pagans. After, spending several months instructing them and further imparting the life of Christ to these people, he would leave, allowing them to grow, struggle, and eventually find their own expression of Jesus Christ. Without the church planter present, the most important person in the Body does not become the pastor or elder (there were none at first), but the individual believer. All the saints get to share the life of Christ with each other. This includes, sharing, teaching, bearing each other’s burdens, and making the important decisions regarding the Body. Instead of spectating, one is participating.

Thoughts On The Mandate For Corporate Worship

Thoughts On The Mandate For Corporate Worship In The NT (or lack of it)
Unknown author

The dynamic of our relationship to God—that it is a corporate one, not just an individual one (1 Cor. 12)—necessitates a corporate expression and the corporate dialogue of revelation and response.

It’s inconceivable that believers would gather together, those whose only real unifying link is the One who redeemed them, and would then talk only to each other and not to Him.

Hebrews 2:12 (quoting Psalm 22:22):

I will proclaim Your name to my brethren
And in the midst of the congregation (ekklesia!) I will sing Your praise.

The use of “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) implies a corporate gathering.

Perhaps the problem in our age is that the gathering has been institutionalized, whereas it seems to have been quite natural (even daily!) in Acts.

The testimony of 1 Corinthians 12 & 14 and Hebrews 10:19-25 speak pretty clearly of gatherings which at least included worship.

Romans 15:5-6: How else but gathered together could we “with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”?

Perhaps another reason for our difficulty is how so many Protestants (probably as an overreaction to Catholic abuses) have played down the importance of the Lord’s Supper (which for most of church history was celebrated in some fashion every Sunday, if not more often). The Lord’s Supper is by definition a communal act (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 11:17-18, 33-34; 14:23: “come together;” Wainwright says that this expression became a technical term for the corporate gathering). Could not our neglect of the Supper be one reason we have trouble justifying our “coming together”?