Reasons Why Churches of Christ Are Not 'The Church You Read About in the New Testament'

"What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up" (1 Cor. 14:26, NIV).

"Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged" (1 Cor. 14:29-31, NIV).

"It is a universal tendency in the Christian religion, as in many other religions, to give a theological interpretation to institutions which have developed gradually through a period of time for the sake of practical usefulness, and then read that interpretation back into the earliest periods and infancy of these institutions, attaching them to an age when in fact nobody imagined that they had such a meaning."--Richard Hanson

The liturgical assumptions which form the basis for hierarchies, the truncated Lord's Supper, governmental style church buildings, and mandatory collections--none of which are found in the first century church--also apply to the style of preaching that we inherited from previous generations since the close of the first century.

OLIGARCHY, MAN MADE LAW & CHURCH TREASURY INSTEAD OF EQUALITY & PRIVATE COLLECTIONS

The hierarchical idea of one Christian group within a church ruling other Christians is forbidden in Mark 10:42-45, Matthew 23:8-12, and 1 Peter 5:3. (See Being Examples). The Lord's Supper of the first century is the common banquet consisting of the "evening meal" (deipnon) and "symposium" where the cup was taken "after the supper" (Luke 22:20) and discussions followed during the symposium (Luke 22:23-30; cf. John chps. 13--16). There were no public buildings where assemblies met, and certainly not where mandatory attendance was the determinate factor of faithfulness. The Scriptures that show that the early church assembled in homes are Acts 2:2, 5:42, 8:3, 16:15, 18:7, 20:20,  Rom. 16:3-5, 1 Cor. 16:19, Col. 4:15, Phi. 1:2, 2 John 1:10. See also Going To Church in the First Century: Part Two.

In Hebrews 3:13, we are told to "exhort" one another "daily." In Hebrews 10:25, we are told to "not forsake the assembling of ourselves" for the exact same reason--exhortation. Hebrews 3:13 is specific about when to exhort. Hebrews 10:25 says nothing about when to assemble. Must we assemble daily to exhort in order to be considered "faithful?" Does this not show that our dualistic and legalistic hermeneutic is based on flawed assumptions? Why is Hebrews 10:25 viewed as mandatory on Sunday when Sunday is not even mentioned, but Hebrews 3:13 where "daily" is specified is not bound? The church assembled "every day" in Jerusalem (Acts 2:46). Is this not an "approved example?" What is "unapproved" about it? The word (parakaleo) for "exhort" (KJV) in Hebrews 3:13 is the same word translated "exhort" in Hebrews 10:25, yet one verse has been traditionally interpreted as mandatory, but not the other.

Also note that neither 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 nor Hebrews 10:25 say that we are to assemble for the purpose of "worship." The false assumption that the Bible says we are to assemble "for worship" is based on the assumption of a sacred/secular dualism that did not exist in the first century but has evolved since in the western church. Dualism is manifested in a number of ways, primarily by clergy/laity behaviors, hierarchies, and the misunderstood relationship between "separation of church and state." The primary terms that are used to sustain dualism in the church are "physical" and "spiritual." If you will notice the next time you are in church, "physical" things like "this life on earth" are viewed separately from "spiritual" things. What is meant by "spiritual" is usually 'going to church' and conducting 'worship.' Why are things like feeding the poor or working in hospitals not considered "spiritual" especially when Jesus said this is why He came? (Luke 4:18).

The ancients did not view life in a dualistic manner like we do today. Christians assembled in homes for common meals and edification (14:26) and encouragement as a way of life (14:31; cf. Heb. 10:25)--not "to worship God and if we don't do these 5 sacred acts on a certain day of the week then we are not faithful." Also, Paul did not command that the regional, temporary, and specific collection for poor saints in Jerusalem be put into a church treasury and deposited in a Roman bank.

The phrase "by himself" (par heauto, 1 Cor. 16:2) means "at home" (See The Collection for the Saints). Each Christian home was to build a personal treasury that Paul would collect when he came. The "collections" that he did not want occurring after he arrived were the incremental sums set aside weekly. Did you notice that? The collections that he did not want occurring after he arrived (1 Cor. 16:2). How can this be a universal and mandatory 'act of worship' by which one determines his faithfulness if Paul said that he wanted the personal collections being gathered "at home" to stop upon his arrival? The only "place" mentioned in 1 Cor. 16:1-4 is "at home." Paul also refers to this specific collection as a "gift." (see also Acts 11:27-30; cf. Gal. 2:10; Romans 15:25-26; cf. 2 Cor. 8--9).

Institutionalists want to bind the "place" of collection as the "church building." Many institutionalists also view the church as a "place where" people are saved and not a people as the New Testament defines us. Institutional assumptions are projected back onto the Bible to maintain hierarchical control, because it is commonly believed that chaos would erupt if people were not controlled from the top down, or if decisions were not made by a few for the majority of people. This assumes other Christians are dependent and sustains a system that keeps Christians immature. In reality, the model governing the modern church is a "sacred," or religious, version of our "secular" government. This interpretive approach may be well intended by good people, but it is inherited Catholic/Protestant institutional behaviors that we have simply modified and which hinder Christian growth that only occurs through personal responsibility and participation--not dependency.

I am repeating this information about the hierarchy, Supper, mandatory church building attendance and mandatory collection in order for us to see how institutionalism is an organized system superimposed on the text of the Bible that rises and falls in toto. If any one of its parts is removed: the hierarchical mindset, the mandatory collection, the monologue sermon by a salaried, "professional" Christian, or the public building, then the entire system crumbles. A few years ago a well-known preacher told me that an even more well-known preacher told him that he is advising preachers to get a secular job based on his vision of where the church is headed. So am I, but our reasons are different. I do find it interesting how a "sound, faithful" man can recommend preachers get a "secular" job and be viewed as wise, but others who recommend the same thing are viewed as in error.

My proposal is the same as the well-known preacher. Preachers get "secular" jobs. Why? Because the church will grow and prosper. Why will the church grow and prosper? Because it will remove the dependency mindset created by the institutional hierarchy and allow all Christians to mature as commanded (2 Pet. 3:18). Growth requires increasing independence and taking on more personal responsibility. Chaos will not reign if we teach about gradually removing the institutional and clerical hierarchy, while at the same time, teaching people to take personal responsibility, because we have come to see that what we are doing is not Scriptural because our interpretations from a select few have been based on false assumptions.

What I am proposing is illustrated in the following quote by Dave Ramsey in his book The Total Money Makeover. Simply substitute "Christian" for "American," "institutionalism" for "debt," and the "church" for "economy."

"Let’s pretend for the fun of it. What if every single American [Christian] stopped using debt [institutionalism of public buildings, truncated Supper, mandatory collection to pay for institutional expenses] of any kind in one year? The economy [church] would collapse. What if every single American [Christian] stopped using debt [institutionalism] of any kind over the next fifty years, a gradual TOTAL Money [Church of Christ] Makeover? The economy [church] would prosper, although banks and other lenders would suffer [public buildings would be sold and preachers would get secular jobs]. Do I see tears anywhere? What would people do if they didn’t have any payments [dependency mindset]? They would save [grow] and they would spend [propagate themselves more often--Acts 8:4], not support banks [institutionalism of public buildings and salaried, professional Christians]. Spending [Growing] by debt-free people [more independent minded and maturing Christians] would support and prosper the economy [church]."

"PREACHING" IS DISCUSSION NOT A MONOLOGUE

The preaching in Acts 20:7 and the "prophesy" in 1 Cor. 14:29 are both "discussion" settings--not the "monologue" preaching we have today. The reason our assumption concerning modern day preaching, or the professional sermon, is false is because the first century church did not meet in public, government style lecture halls as we do today. They met in homes around the Lord's dinner table. Pulpiteerism has virtually gone unchallenged because we are unaware of how we inherited Reformation Era practices and that they are being projected back onto the text of the Bible. We also have been conditioned by the "military rank" interpretation of passages like Hebrews 13:17 which makes us afraid to "rebel" against the hierarchy. It is not rebellion against God to demand what Paul wrote!

The "preaching" that Paul conducted in Troas is defined by BAGD as "discussion, conduct a discussion" in which they cite Acts 20:7. Preaching here is not a "monologue" as is done today every week in every public building. The second definition given by BAGD is "speak, preach." This, however, does not exclude others from speaking or preaching which is clearly stated in 1 Cor. 14:29 and implied in Acts 20:7. Are we to suppose that Paul "preached until midnight" means that nobody at the dinner table said anything for hours? No. Paul "conducted a discussion" with them until midnight because he was departing the next day. The Supper they attended was a meal with discussion (see Luke 22:14-30; cf. 1 Cor. 11:17-34).

We are simply projecting today's inherited Catholic/Protestant institutional practices back onto the text when we view "preaching" as a monologue and not the discussion that the Bible says it is. The problem with how we do it today is not that one man "speaks or preaches," but that others are not allowed, or expected, to speak by the unscriptural system we have in place where a "professional" does all the talking and which system is maintained by the power of hierarchical control. Our modern practice is not Scriptural according to 1 Cor. 14:29 and Acts 20:7.

First Corinthians chapters 11--14 reveals the only other time the New Testament describes in any detail an assembly of the church in the first century besides Acts 20:3b-12. Paul's words there are clear enough to contrast what was done then with what is done today in our assemblies, but just to drive the point home: the modern interpretation--monologue sermon by the same professional speaker every week--of the specific word in Acts 20:7 for "preached" is a mischaracterization of what the Bible says. I am not saying that "no one can speak for a length of time." Any edifying discussion which increases understanding, which is what Paul's concern was in 1 Cor. 14:26-40, allows one person to finish speaking before another starts, but that is not the system we have. We do not allow, or expect, others to speak at all. Only the "preacher" is allowed to "proclaim the word of God." Where does Paul say anything like this in 1 Cor. 14:26-40?

Our practice of monologue sermon instead of discussion shows that we think the Bible needs no interpretation or discussion and/or that the preacher is not interpreting it, or that he is incapable of misinterpretation if he is "sound." It also shows how we basically show up for creed rehearsal instead of being encouraged and edified by increased understanding and growth. How is this behavior not the same as the infallibility of the pope or performing a ritual sacrament? This is not only not wise behavior. It is not what we find in Acts 20:7 or 1 Cor. 14:29, because others were to "weigh carefully" or "pass judgment" on what is said and "two or three prophets were to be allowed to speak in turn." All were told that they could "prophesy" at some point. Why is this not our practice today?

Paul's concern was not that the Corinthians "did not mess up worship by being irreverent." His concern regarding the disorder in Corinth is specifically stated over and over in 1 Corinthians 14 as being a problem because it hindered "edifying" or "encouraging"--not that he wants us to be fearful of making a "mistake in our worship of a tyrannical God" therefore be quiet and somber and don't dare question your "higher ups." We inherited these practices from the Middle Ages and have simply imitated and propagated them, being ignorant of first century culture through which to properly interpret passages like 1 Cor. 14:26-30, Acts 20:3b-12, and Luke 22:14-30.

In Acts 20:3b-12, Paul is assembling with his "apostolic workers" (and others) for the purpose of eating a meal (See Breaking Bread). Not only did Paul assemble with his apostolic workers who had authority to appoint elders in multiple cities (which shows that they were not "gospel preachers") and who would naturally need to be supported (not salaried indefinitely) for the temporary time they were on Crete or in Ephesus, etc., but his discussion with them ("preached" KJV) is not the style of "preaching" done today.

We passively listen and our modern system forces one to play the "role of the heckler" if he were to obey Paul (not to mention be viewed as an "unsubmissive rebel," because he is violating the "authority of the elders" or "irreverently interrupting the word of God." Why does what we do not resemble what Paul said was to be done in 1 Cor. 14:29? What we listen to is a monologue--not participate in a discussion. How can we claim to be practicing the "worship" "just like they did in the NT?"

The "dependency mindset" that I said that I believed is the cause of the sustained divisions in the western church is maintained by an institutional hierarchy, mandatory attendance to a public building, a mandatory collection, and "position" of "gospel preacher." Trusting in the dualistic idea that preachers and elders serve a clerical role to "get us to Heaven" is not wise behavior on any Christian's part. God commands you and me to "mature" based on serving others not ruling them (Eph. 4:11-16) and to "grow" in grace and knowledge not fear of disobeying men "above" us (2 Peter 3:18). The institutional church is a hindrance at best, and disobedient at worst.

GOING TO CHURCH IN THE FIRST CENTURY: PART 4 (CONCLUSION)