Ever Feel Like Quitting Church?

If you've ever felt alone and unimportant in church, there's a good reason: you are alone and unimportant.

From 11 to 12 Sunday, you're just another pretty face in the crowd.

Though surrounded by others, you're cut off. Custom walls you off in your own space and silences your voice - except for song and responsive reading.

Surrounded by an audience of trainee mutes, you can find it lonely as a solo trek across Antarctica. After you've eaten the sled dogs.

The service would be exactly the same without you. You know that. Your impact on it is like an extra gallon of water going over the Niagara Falls.

What's Wrong Here?

The heart of your church is the Sunday Service, where the typical communication pattern is about as useful as a jello telephone.

No mater what you have on your heart - the greatest joy or deepest sorrow - you are not allowed to share it during the service. Ever.

Fellowship is confined to the foyer afterward, please. (Unless you've figured out a way to fellowship with the back of someone else's head.) Try to talk, and the ushers will ush you out. Post hastily.

This, my friend, is not biblical. Saint Peter would have wept.

In fact, many of the early churches almost demanded you share something every week. They even expected you to sing for them (aaugh!) Even solos!

But now you can't say anything longer than, "Hallelujah!" - if that. As a result, you're often more of a spectator than a participant.

How did we ever get into such a fix? Well, around A.D. 300, the church made the worst blunder in her history. We voluntarily decided to give up three key freedoms that powered the early church to success:

-open worship (praising God) -open sharing (building up each other) -open ministry (serving others in the church and the world)

Throughout Christendom in the Fourth Century, we professionalized the local church and turned over our Sunday services to the pros, leaving them to do almost everything while we sat and watched.

Lay men found themselves stripped of initiative and power, like newly captured slaves. Lay women were quietly relieved of what little responsibility and leadership they had. (By about 450, even the congregational singing faded to zip, as we turned over the music to professional choirs of men and boys.)

All the laity suddenly found Sunday worship to be more distant from their personal lives and daily concerns. They fell into Spectator Christianity, where loneliness doesn't end at church - it starts there.

The Key Malady

Today, at the end of the second millennium, we're still fighting the fallout from that massive mistake. Do any of these sound familiar?

-apathy -shallowness -worldliness -failure to tithe -pastoral burnout -teenage dropouts -fear of evangelism -flabby self-discipline -maxed-out schedules -a chronic shortage of strong men

I'm claiming that all of these maladies and more are caused mainly by one master malady: the closed church, in which laymen tend to be passive observers while ministers tend to be overworked insiders.

The Reformation was a great start on fixing the church, but it fell way short in regard to our structures.

It succeeded marvelously in getting back to sound doctrine: sola scriptura (placing bible above the church), sola gratia (salvation by grace), and sola fide (through faith, not works).

But it never got us back to the New Testament church pattern that we see in Paul's letters.

Paradise Lost

All the major problems of the church today - other than sin - can be traced back 1700 years, to when the church became an audience.

When we switched from living rooms to church buildings and professionally staffed the local church, we lost all the momentum. Until then, it looked like the gospel would reach the uttermost parts at chariot speed. Or at least before McDonald's did. The local church became weak and cold.

Non-priests were termed "laymen," a word not even found in the bible - for good reason. Laymen today have regained the word of God, but not the work of God. The priesthood of the believer has been restored de jure, but no de facto.

The very earliest Christians had plenty of problems, but the pastor-centered church wasn't one of them. Their churches were elder-led and the burden of God's work was spread like dew on the prairie.

We didn't lose everything in the fourth century. Our doctrine survived well. But among the rights and privileges we lost, open worship, open sharing, and open ministry are the prominent by far.

In the absence of these freedoms, your church is a closed club, and you're back to the enervating strategies we've all used in the past.

Reopening your church would be infinitely easier.

Tertullian tells us what it meant in his day:

"In our Christian meetings, we have plenty of songs, verses, sentences, and proverbs. After hand-washing and bringing in the lights, each Christian is asked to stand forth and sing, as best he can, a hymn to God, either of his own composing, or one from the holy scriptures."

In Tertullian's time (160 - 230), there were many churches that were interactive powerhouses, not audiences. So how, then, did St. Murphy's Law derail the church from such a fast track to the millennium?

Simple. By abandoning house-churches, we ran afoul of a Murphy corollary, Gall's Non-Additivity Theorem.

"A large system, produced by expanding the dimensions of a smaller system, does not behave like the smaller system."

To Clarify "Open Ministry"

In a closed church, ministries are centrally planned by the leadership. (This does have its good points, but can fossilize quickly.) Functions are assigned. People fill slots.

In an open ministry church, the Holy Spirit is free to tap you on the shoulder. We absolutely must let each believer take full part in the heart of congregational life by speaking words of his own. (Try to imagine a home where only the father could talk, and the mother and kids could only chant in unison.) If we do this much, the Holy Spirit will take it from there.

James Rutz, The Open Church ISBN 0-940232-50-2

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

Answers

Mark Hillyard...and Brett.....

I never knew as a preacher I had so much power. I need to tell the elders tonight I've got all this "power" and I better start using it.

Both of you.....are you carry overs from the 60's????....you know the...."down with the establishment" mentality." Geez....it's old and tired.

Mark Winstead.....PLEASE.....tell me this was said in jest....

"Preachers have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo."

That is silly for two reasons.....

1) Most preachers spend their whole lives trying to move the church out of the status quo.

2) Most preachers I know are not in it for the money. Geez, I've had opporunities to double my salary many times in my 18 years of ministry by getting out of the ministry.

PLEASE.....clarify that statement.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

Mark....

Scripturally, I don't see a need to "preach my way out of a vocation."

I choose to make, as the N.T. states that I have a right to, my living by the gospel.

If you choose to push the house church thing.....more power to you.

But it is not "the" N.T. way, in the same sense that "baptism" is "the" N.T. way of coming in contact with the blood of Christ.

The churches of the N.T. met in houses for one reason.....meeting in large assemblies is not a good idea when Christianity is a persecuted religion.

As long as church buildings, and going to church is culturally acceptable, then I believe it be perfectly in line with N.T. Christianity to meet in a "large house" that Christians banded together and built. After all....that's all a church building is.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

Brett....

Thanks for your clarification.

You and I would have same different views of what the Holy Spirit does or does not do....but that is a different issue.

As far as "home studies"....whatever you call them....whether I see them as unnecessary or not is unimportant. They are simply one "methodology" among many.....that may or may not be applicable and helpful to any church situation.

Thanks again for the clarification.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

Brett,

In an earlier thread...

One day I asked the Preacher why he did not follow the Scriptures re: how to conduct a meeting of Christians. (Not "do Church".)

The Preacher replied, "Well, I would loose control."

(1 Cor 14:30 KJV) "If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace."

(1 Cor 14:31 KJV) "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."

IMO the church would be far more powerful if people were allowed to follow the Lead of the Holy Spirit rather than the control of the Preacher.

Fact of the matter is I never learned anything from the preachers, except that if you disagree with them you are no longer welcome.

Though most Christians disagree with what I post on this forum, and talk about in general, I still gather what I know from personal study and communication with other Free Spirited Christians.

BTW I will not "do Church" because it is a waste of time.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

Brett,

I don't know how much agreement you will get here on this issue.

Most posters here are actually paid preachers. They have a vested interest in the status quo.

I wonder if as the Internet grows that house churches and the like won't explode with it. The "support" and advantages the old styles brought with it will move to the internet and the church will move more and more to the living rooms.

Something to ponder.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

Danny,

The house church movement is a rapidly growing movement, not leftovers from the '60s. While I am not a part of it (where I attend is a congregation of about 200 members and another 400 attenders -- hardly a house church), I see "advantages" to it. Certainly, I have long had problems with our spectator services -- ask people I knew in the mid-80s -- ask those who were elders and paid ministers of Call Street Church of Christ in Tallahassee around 1985 -- I was annoying them to experiment on Sunday evenings with "open mike" services! Closest I got them to go for was an evening of about 3-4 short (5-10 minute) sermons rather than one long one.

These concepts espoused in this thread are in areas I have long been investigating and mediating over off and on for years. And I was only born in '64 to two conservative parents.

The vested interest line isn't about money, and is poorly conceived. What I mean is that most of the posters are heavily invested into the current "system" though not monetarily. If you were inclined to agree with the concept of house churches as the "preferred" way of restoring NT christianity, you wouldn't be in vocational ministry, would you?

Danny, in your attempts to move people from the status quo, are you trying to "preach and teach" your way out of a vocation? If so, I fully apologize for my statement and any misleading interpretations some may have. Otherwise, I apologize for my poorly worded statement.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

Danny,

I only see "house churches" as *one* solution to the problem most avoid discussing -- that there is a scriptural principle of everyone participating in services. I choose to push broader participation, not a particular solution (at this time)

"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" I Cor. 14:26

Note, it says "everyone has" not "everyone that has" (don't have my Greek with me -- so someone will dispute that if it is wrong). So this seems to say that any service that we have must be long enough for everyone to contribute. Wow, that either must be a small church or some mighty short hymns.

Ok, so you have two objections (more?) right?

1) This passage mentions spiritual gifts!

So? If one chooses to believe or not believe in the cessation of some or all spiritual gifts, does that negate a principle exposed by this passage?

2) We all sing (or welcome each other, or greet each other), so everyone participates.

I don't know, I feel like a spectator on that one. If that is a valid objection, why so much about order in worship (NOT order OF worship)?

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

Danny,

You said: Both of you.....are you carry overs from the 60's????....you know the...."down with the establishment" mentality. Geez....it's old and tired.

Actually no. I was born in 1964. The only thing I remember from the 60's is the astronauts reaching the moon.

If your church is wonderfully open, then that's terrific. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

The reason I enjoy Mr. Rutz' comments is that I see them line up with the bible and historical descriptions of the early church. I'm not sure why you took such offense... I'm not against pastors. I thank God that they serve the body of Christ. But I don't find any reference to pastor-centered churches in scripture. And the same 3songs-greeting-2songs-offering-announcements-1song-sermon-2songs service formula doesn't come out of scripture either. I doubt that a God so creative as ours would have us be so staid. That formula might be spirit-led once in a while, but every week? Wednesdays too? No way.

I don't know if you employ home groups as a means of ministry, but in my experience and everyone I've ever known to be welcomed into a home fellowship, the response has universally been "Why weren't we doing this sooner?" Do you have home groups? Or do you think this sort of thing is unnecessary?

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

I only see "house churches" as *one* solution to the problem most avoid discussing -- that there is a scriptural principle of everyone participating in services. I choose to push broader participation, not a particular solution (at this time)

"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" I Cor. 14:26

Note, it says "everyone has" not "everyone that has" (don't have my Greek with me -- so someone will dispute that if it is wrong). So this seems to say that any service that we have must be long enough for everyone to contribute. Wow, that either must be a small church or some mighty short hymns.

Mark: some problems I'm having with your use of this passage:

1) the passage goes further, and LIMITS the number of people invovled. It says, yes, that we all come together and everybody has a hymn or a word or a tongue, etc. BUT, Paul also limits the participation. He says, "two, or three, at the most should speak (in the tongues), and then only if there is an interpreter present to tell everybody else what was said. And then only two or three prophecies should be made, if there are any."

AND, if we're using this passage as the pattern upon which to build our worship gatherings, then NO WOMAN SAYS A SINGLE WORD. This is the passage, right in the middle of all this instruction about order and participation in the service, that says, "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."

Clearly, in this case, rather than giving license for everybody at church to pop up and be a public voice in worship services, Paul puts limits on what happens and how it happens.

What are we gonna do with all this?

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

I liked the original post. I think it has merit. The conclusions drawn from it, however, is another story...

I can glean insight from the post in this way... Strive to "get more people involved" in the worship service... change things around once in a while... encourage more individual testimonies... During our prayer request time, just before the morning prayer, I also ask for "praise reports"... I try to include the people in the worship as much as possible..

I sometimes ask more than just "rhetorical" questions in my sermons... I actually wait for someone to answer... other times I ask for a show of hands...

Far from these kinds of things threatening the preacher's role, instead they build up the body... In theory, I DO try to "preach myself out of a job" but in practice I know this will not happen, because there will always be more to do...

The early church DID have participation, but they also had an individual who read from scriptures and exhorted... I believe he was referred to as the president...

It is certainly Scriptural for every part of the body to contribute...it is also Scriptural for me as a preacher to be a facilitator of that "group participation" ... Since "worship" is a 24 hr a day, 7 day a week thing, our "home Bible studies" qualify as house church...

So, I liked the original post... no contradictions found...

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

"Both of you.....are you carry overs from the 60's????....you know the...."down with the establishment" mentality." Geez....it's old and tired."

What am I to do with this?

The Preacher who kicked me out of his church would not allow me to discuss the Kingdom of God, or the "Israel thing." Apparently anything he didn't know was useless information if it came from a "LAYMAN."

The preacher did alllow women to get up and preach on the virtues of EASTER EGGS and how the colors of these bunny eggs were symbolic of Jesus and the Gospel and other such BARF.

Now who is right GOD or YOU?

"but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;"

(Acts 5:29 KJV) "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Sam,

The passage limits the number of prophets speaking (revelations in v26), and the number of tongue speakers (tongue in v26), but how does that extend to limiting the number of hymns or words of instruction?

As far as the woman thing, I think that many of us have been guilty of misinterpreting that, since I Cor 12 gives instructions on women praying, etc. But that's another thread of thinking.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Hey Mark,

You mean I Corinthians 11, I believe...

"every woman who prays or prophesies..." (I Cor. 11:5)

And great reference, by the way. It could be said by some that the woman praying would be doing so privately, but here it also mentions prophecy, which is done in a group of believers, aka the church.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Brett,

Yes, you are correct. I must of looked back for it, looked up at the top of the bible page, and wrote what it said, not realizing there was most of 11 and the start of chapter 12 on that page.

That reminds me of a thread I wanted to start, if it hasn't been done before.

Mark

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Mark: The passage limits the number of prophets speaking (revelations in v26), and the number of tongue speakers (tongue in v26), but how does that extend to limiting the number of hymns or words of instruction?

Paul makes no segue from one to the other -- nothing like, "Now, on the other hand, tongues and prophecies . . .". It is a continuous thought. The natural way to read such a paragraph is to assume that he doesn't change subjects in midstream without so indicating in some way. He says that everybody has a word to say, and then he starts addressing how they are to handle the situation. The only passages that describe, or that MIGHT describe, worship gatherings in the NT describe a speaker talking at length to others, in a teaching mode. We have a couple of prayer meetings mentioned, but there is no indication of how they proceeded. To get descriptions of early church meetings, we have to go to the early church fathers. It's been a while since I read any of them extensively, but, as I recall, the overwhelming majority of them resembled most what we might call a "home church" gathering -- group singing, shared prayer, mutual encouragement, and a man teaching the Scriptures. Albeit not in a huge hall where all but a few sit and look in the same direction, at the front of the room. But that would be more a function of size and intimacy, and in larger meetings, as in the synagogues and other public places, you would see that happening as well.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Sam and Mark,

The way I read the "two or three" comes with I Corinthians 13; it's often not love to get up and minister through tongues/interpretation, songs, prophecies, teachings, when done ad nauseum. There's a Chinese proverb that says something like, "When the teacup is full, stop pouring." After mulling over all of these teachings, words, personal songs (Tertullian-style), love would be to allow people to digest rather than continue simply because a person wants to share.

By the same token, I also think it's not love to preach/teach once the audience is lost. While I'm not religious about it, in my experience sermons that go beyond 20 to 30 minutes lose many, unless you're Chuck Swindoll or (insert your favorite speaker here) who keeps an audience in rapt attention.

What is love? What ministers? I can overwater a plant, but in doing so I might just kill it.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Is the church only "The Church" on Sundays in organised worship services? Some of the ideas presented in this thread ("open" worship, with many participating, apparently at will, house churches, etc.) probably have merit, though some might also be hard (and/or divisive) to implement. But it seems to me that the focus is in the wrong place. It seems to me to perpetuate the idea that "church" is something we "go to" at a certain time on a certain day of the week.

I think the Bible teaches that all Christians should serve, that all Christians are given abilities by God in order to serve, and that one of the prime responsibilities of the leaders of the church is to "prepare God's people for works of service" (Eph. 4:12). I agree wholeheartedly that we should look for ways to involve more people in what goes on in our Sunday services, so they are NOT just spectators -- while making sure that "all things" are CLEARLY SEEN TO BE "done decently and in order" (I Cor. 14:40). But the primary arena for carrying out "works of service" ought to be in homes and places of work IN THE REST OF THE WEEK.

Benjamin Rees

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2000