Are we doing church wrong?

Ken Anderson

Greeter
Staff member
What is the primary purpose of the gathered church?

Meetings of New Testament believers appear to have been overwhelmingly oriented toward the edification of existing Christians, not the evangelism of outsiders.

For example:
  • Acts 2:42 describes believers devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer.
  • 1 Corinthians 14 focuses on orderly worship so that the church may be "built up."
  • Ephesians 4 describes leaders equipping the saints for ministry and building up the body of Christ.
  • The pastoral epistles are largely concerned with doctrine, discipline, leadership, and spiritual growth within congregations.
When Paul writes to Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, or Rome, he is generally addressing people who are already believers. His concern is their doctrine, conduct, unity, generosity, and perseverance.

In Acts, we see evangelism occurring outside of the gatherings of believers:
  • In synagogues.
  • In marketplaces.
  • In homes.
  • Along roads.
  • In lecture halls.
  • Before civil authorities.
  • In an informal conversation.
Paul's missionary strategy was mobile and public. He went where unbelievers already were rather than inviting them to a church service and hoping they would come.

The modern model of bringing friends to church and letting the pastor preach the gospel to them doesn't seem to be the dominant New Testament pattern.

Early Christian gatherings weren't necessarily closed to outsiders. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul envisions unbelievers entering an assembly and hearing what it said. He argues that intelligible worship could convict an unbeliever and lead him to acknowledge God's presence. So conversion within worship services did occur.

However, this passage treats unbelievers as visitors to a gathering that already exists for believers. The meeting itself is not described as an evangelistic event.

More importantly, the New Testament model places responsibility for witness on the entire body, not merely its paid staff and a few willing volunteer leaders.

The Great Commission was given to the disciples, but the pattern of Acts suggests broad participation. After the persecution following Stephen's death, Acts 8 says that ordinary believers who were scattered "went about preaching the word."

The apostles mostly remained in Jerusalem.

The language of Ephesians 4 is also significant. Pastors and teachers are not described as doing all the ministry themselves. Rather, they are to equip the saints for the work of the ministry.

The modern model in most Christian churches is one in which the pastors and staff perform ministry, while the members consume ministry.

Even churches that reject this idea tend to drift into it practically. People attend services, contribute financially, perhaps volunteer occasionally, but do not view themselves as personally responsible for disciple-making or evangelism.

Christianity's growth in the first three centuries was driven less by large public worship events and more by countless ordinary Christians influencing family members, neighbors, co-workers, travelers, slaves, merchants, and friends through everyday relationships.

The New Testament pattern appears to place the primary evangelistic responsibility on ordinary believers as witnesses in the world, while the primary purpose of the gathered church is the worship, instruction, discipline, and strengthening of those who already believe. Conversions could and did occur in church gatherings, but evangelism was not ordinarily centered on the gathering itself.

Perhaps the modern attractional church model came about because the clergy became professionals, while congregations became audiences. The New Testament reads more like a movement in which every believer is expected to be an active participant in both ministry and witness.

There are exceptions, of course, but the exceptions don't negate the rule.

Church bodies that are known for placing the responsibility of evangelism in the hands of regular church members are, for the most part, outside of mainstream Christianity, such as the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and some Pentecostal churches.

Many, and I would suggest the majority, of mainstream Christians consider overt proselytizing as socially awkward or even impolite. Statements such as "I don't push my beliefs on anyone" are offered as a virtue.

In the Early Church, there is an assumption that Christians will speak about their faith, not necessarily by standing on street corners, but neither by remaining silent. Followers of Christ are described as witnesses, ambassadors, those who proclaim the good news, and those who make disciples. The expectation seems to be that faith naturally spreads from one person to another.

The New Testament does not prescribe a single evangelistic method, however.
  • Paul reasoned in synagogues.
  • He debated philosophers in Athens.
  • Philip spoke to a single Ethiopian official on a desert road.
  • Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos privately.
  • Ordinary believers spread the message wherever they were scattered.
The method varied, but the participation was broad.

Many mainstream churches agree with this principle in theory. Pastors will often cite Ephesians 4, where leaders are to equip the saints for ministry.

The difference is in practice. Many congregations effectively operate on a come-and-see model:
  • The church creates a welcoming service.
  • The pastor preaches.
  • The music program attracts visitors.
  • Members invite friends.
Evangelism has been reduced to bringing someone to church with you.

In contrast, the New Testament model is a go-and-tell model:
  • Believers are scattered throughout society.
  • They engage people where those people already are.
  • The church gathering then strengthens those who believe.
Modern churches might simultaneously lament the decline of evangelism while unintentionally reinforcing a model in which the average member's role is largely attendance, giving, and volunteering.

In contrast, the early church expected nearly every believer to be a participant in the spread of the faith, even if not everyone had the same gifts or effectiveness.
 
Last edited:
I dunno Kenny...


I have seen some ppl say Church is a form of control.. Trying to stop people from just doing anything..

I think just loving God in our own time IS BETTER THAN SOME RELIGON trying to control how we do it...
 
To answer the thread topic question, since the are 100's of ways different churches hold services, etc., I say folks pick a church that they feel best aligned with and feel that church is doing it right.

I don't think any of the churches today resemble the early church in the slightest. Several periods of changes from the original church and then churches that were born out of leaders claiming miraculous revelation. No one spoke English in the early church established in the mid East.

With all the instant forms of communication and ability to travel we have, we don't understand that the major reason early Christians gathered was otherwise they had no way of fellowship. There was strength in numbers and fellowship.

One thing I think the early churches did that is lost today, is their gatherings were more informal. Anyone could speak or sing and it was improvision, not studied or memorized. It came from the heart. They didn't have songs that all sang from books, one just started singing from what was on their mind. Praying was more of a personal thing, than a group thing, where a pastor prayed and the rest listened.

Churches are businesses these days and everything is organized, choregraphed, and carefully scrutinized.

I think why western Christian churches don't resemble the ones of old, is the western world doesn't understand the culture of the people in the early church, where oral tradition and observation, were before the written word that has been studied to the point of resembling beating a dead horse. Churches today are about their own doctrine.
 
Back
Top