Round tables, Bible study groups, are much, much better, at some point, for many of us.

When you take the eucharist celebration out of the church, nothing make sense–why are we all facing the same way? What is this supposed to be for? When do we know it is over? Why go to church once a week?

Growing up Southern Baptist, the Sermon was the climax of the service. Now attending an Episcopal church, the Body and Blood of Jesus is the climax of the service–the sermon is usually a 10-15 interpretation of the Gospel reading, nothing more. And then, just in case someone’s said something heretical, we recite the creed directly following it: “We believe…”

If you *really* want to inject some controversy into your service, use the Lectionary. Then you have to have read all of Scripture, even the parts you don’t like. It seems like every other Sunday we read Scripture in church that makes everyone squirm. And we don’t get to gloss it over, get to hide it–we sit there and listen and say “The Word of the Lord–Thanks Be To God.”

The one word that evangelicals and emergents cannot accept is the idea of “obedience”–of submitting yourself to others. Becoming someone else’s slave makes us writhe. Everyone wants to start their own church, everyone wants to design church, everyone wants to write a book about how church ought to be–no one wants to submit to the Body of Christ. No one wants to accept the Church! Jesus’ body is never good enough for us. It’s never acceptable–it’s got too many sinners, too much folly, too many mistakes.

When Emergent Church folks can wash the feet of James Dobson, when James Dobson can wash the feet of Gene Robinson, when Gene Robinson washes the feet of the third world fundamentalists…

was I using corporeal or should the word be corporal? I meant to say “collectively as one body”

I am not sure what the Emergent Church is, the last new popular movement I was explained about was the CCM…or Church Community Movement. Now I have attended a variety of churches and not all were designed with the same worship structure.

Many churches in the south allow for anyone who wants to sing to sing…”he that hath a psalm let him sing”. It did not matter to them who was singing. Then I saw a some churches where there was a soloist, but no one seemed genuinely affected emotionally by the song. I have been in “formal” and “informal” so I can see there are many ideas regarding the proper way of worship. And most were following the teachings of their traditions.

The two best examples from the Bible are when Solomon dedicated the temple and the singers and musicians were so in tune, the power of God came down as a cloud and it was so heavy they could not stand anymore under it because the power was so great.

The other example is the Upper Room. Incidentally they had the same number of people in each instance. 120. But the fundamental idea in both was that they were in agreement to worship and unity to worship. Without unity, there cannot be effective corporeal worship as a body. But worship should be an individual part of our own daily life.

The posting of prayer lists…this is something my church has never done. Our pastor has always asked in church if someone needs a request to be made public, and also if there are unspoken requests. This allows the individual at that moment to make a petition. These are again corporeal prayers. We need to make prayer a part of our daily life, but at least this gives a person an opportunity. We are part of the corporeal Body of Christ.

Now I know in some churches there are the small groups. This is something I can agree with to a small degree. It should never be a replacement for the appointed time to worship corporeal. But I can very well understand if a person who has job keeps them from being able to be in the regular service. We forget that in our homes…we are small groups and we should in our homes worship and study and converse with God as families should.

One of the problems we have in our time is that we do not understand what the worship service or worship is. So it is no surprise that there are calls for something different.

We need to begin with the fact that a worship service is not intend to give us a warm, fuzzy, content and happy feeling. That may happen and often does when true worship happens. But the main focus, intention, point is to give worship to God PERIOD!!!(emphasis added).

From the Old Testament to the New you do not find an instance where worship was intended to build up a believer. Like I said before it may be a side effect but it is never the primary purpose.

I hear it all the time that a christian goes to worship to be feed. Worship is not being feed but going to God and giving to back to Him from what He has provided.

And since it is for God we need to conduct ourselves in a manner that honors him and as commanded in scripture is orderly.

I am not in favor of a system that controls every aspect and allows no time or room for what is going on to sink in. As I mentioned before one of the secondary purposes of the worship services is the effect that true worship has on others.

There needs to be a worship service, a prayer service and a service for study of the bible. And all three need to be in each church. Oh and the last two are never to be pushed to small groups.

Small groups are important and should be apart of each church but they should never take the place of services that are part of the function of the church.

Caveats first

I’m not as smart and educated as most folks on this board. But I am interested in this issue, so take what I say as from a neophyte.

I didn’t read everyones comments. So, I’m sorry if this tracks over what others have said.

End caveats.

Let me back up a bit on the questions. The latest trends in the church, as far as mainstream structures go, are about creating connections and relationships in the pew. I believe church leaders have long known that a Sunday service is a one-way, two-dimensional aspect of Christianity. To accommodate for this we have increased our willingness, or at least opportunities, for people to “get involved” and participate in ministry. We have also adopted the small group models. These are among other things.

For some these have and are working. But for others they are merely an extension of the same stale structure. They are manufactured or artificial constructs to “facilitate relationships.” In other words, they ain’t natural.

But man has been built to have three different types of connections — man to God, man to man and man to himself. Perhaps one might add a fourth which would be man to the environment.

How do we, as Christians, do these? Which, to me, really gets at the heart of your questions.

The assumptions underlying your questions (at least thats what I’m seeing in them, I apologize if this is not the case) is to start with the service and modify it. Then ask the questions about whether these modifications are good.

For me the whole paradigm has to be scraped. Yep, scraped. And when I say for me, I literally mean for me. I don’t put this out as a theological position. Its just where I’m at right now. Have mercy on me.

I start with the believers I have made natural, real and deep relationships with over the years. Yes, some through a structured system of church, but mainly just from meeting people in different circumstances.

This is my sphere of influence, this is my circle, this is my community, this is the body to me right now.

We as a group usually do things throughout the year together. We stay in constant communication with each other. And we arrange one-on-one situations as well.

Through all this Christ is interwoven in all that we do. He comes up in our conversations, we quote scriptures, we pray for each other, we challenge each other, we sometimes have to confront each other and we bare the burdens of each other.

I have been a believer for 17 years. And it hasn’t been until recently, that I’ve finally started to feel both spiritual and real at the same time. Not with my believing friends (I’ve always felt natural there), but with non-believers. I am who I am. I have a beer, perhaps use a profane word, talk about how hot that chick was. But also talk about my faith without pretense, worry and any facade. No mask. No fig leaf. Just me. Like it or not. I don’t care. I’ve finally been able to share my testimony with people at work without feeling like “I’m doing IT.”

For me it is about those connections I guess. I really don’t care about that other junk.

P.S. Wow, I really didn’t expect this comment to go this route. And I’m sorry it went so long.

Amen BrotherE!!

Michael:

I think somehow you are missing the point. Before making those questions to emergers some other questions most be made at first:

1- Why are emergers trying to modify the present services structure?

2- Does exist biblical reasons to belive first christians did their services in a different fashion than we do it today? if the answer is yes, does this different approch to services had a positive impact on early church?, do we need such an impact in order to influence our culture today as they did?

A more profound approach on this issue is needed on your side. I am used to the excelence you display on your posts. What do you think?

In the church where I am, we do not have a traditional sermon. Instead, we have what would be considered, in most other places, a testimony time for about 1.5 hours each Lord’s Day.

All the believers are encouraged during the week to come with some content to share for the encouragement and building-up of the others. Despite being small (<100 people) we do not have one or two dominant speakers. Usually 20+ people share something each week. Their speaking is usually from a combination of the Bible and commentaries with a dash of personal experience thrown in. There are some members who rarely speak (once a year or so.) But, in general everyone participates.

Each week, to facilitate this, we have a daily devotional book that most of us in the congregation read. Further, we have recently started a reading schedule for a commentary. This is read less widely, but there are a few households who get into this material as well and they have shown great benefit.

We usually do not have a problem with people sharing inappropriate personal details. The only time I have heard of the elders asking someone to leave was when he was making divisive accusations against another member of the congregation (I was out of town that day.) We do have some people with idiosyncratic interpretations of Scripture, but our general policy is toleration of things that are not outright heretical. And I have watched at least one case improve over time.

As far as solos by people who can’t sing, our order of worship is a little different. We do not have solo singing in general. Nor do we have a pre-set list of hymns. Instead, during the meeting, one can request that we sing a particular hymn from the hymnal. Then we all turn there and sing it. If no one knows the hymn, sometimes the person who requested it will try to teach it. (This is our unique occasion of solo singing.)

There is no encouragement of shocking or disturbing things. Rather, there is a commitment on the part of all the attendees to order. We take turns sharing and seldom interrupt. (Though at times, someone will interject a comment while someone else is speaking.) The hymn requesting is also done in a turn-based manner. Similarly, when we pray, we take turns. Occasionally two people will start speaking at the same time, but in 14 years, I have only seen one occasion where one did not stop and wait for the other one to finish. (In that occasion, everyone waited for them to finish, then we continued on as if nothing had happened.)

However, this type of meeting did not come out of nowhere. Instead, the churches who practice it have been experimenting and laboring since the 1930′s to build up a culture of church practice which was closer to what we saw in the Scripture. We started the all-speaking meeting in the 1980′s and it took several years of practice and training of the congregations for us to be able to carry it out. Now, newcomers can just follow what they see others doing. However, if you have never seen anyone doing it, it would be much more difficult.

The benefits of this type of meeting are several-fold. First, topics are covered from the life-perspective of several different members. Second, when you listen, you retain only a little. When you speak, you retain much more. Third, there is a need to spend time getting into the Bible during the week in order to have something to speak. Fourth, we do not lose the speaking of those trained in theology – the elders speak also, and can speak for 20 minutes if they like. Fifth, the elders (and the rest of the congregation) can get some sense of the general state of the church from the testimonies – and adjust their speaking to take care of issues that are not clear or that need more emphasis. This is in addition to the normal channel of one-on-one shepherding.

P.S.

One might consider that this is only one congregation, and it is not doable elsewhere. However, I have seen this practiced in several congregations in both the USA and in other countries. It is a workable and sustainable model for the practice of church meetings.

We were part of a congregation for several years where there was open dialogue during a teaching or message. It worked quite well overall, and the interaction resulted in growth and community. The emphasis of the service was placed on that idea of community and of sharing our burdens with each other. So the core time was sharing prayer requests and praying for each other. The congregation acted like a family.

Particularly regarding the sermon, if the time is not designated as one man standing on the alter preaching, then an “interruption” wouldn’t be of concern. Certainly, if I went to a traditional service today and asked the pastor/preacher to clarify that last interpretation of what Paul wrote to the Galatians, that would be an interruption. But if you do away with the formality, and set the sermon up in a way to interact with the congregation, then you wouldn’t have interruptions but participation from the body.

Now, you can label the congregation I mentioned above, or even myself, whatever you like. And I know even saying that will make many traditional Christian folks say, “Yep. He’s emergent.” But the bottom line is the traditional way the majority of evangelical Christianity conducts services is very much tradition and very little Christianity. But that’s just my 2 cents.