I totally agree about being relevant. We need to be aware of what that means for our communities, and understand it may be different to our own personal preferences. I’m constantly learning this, as one of the few people in my church of Anglo heritage, and a good number who don’t have English as their first language, etc, etc.

Your point about the NT format appearing irrelevant and unexciting…I’m assuming you mean to us today rather than the early church? ‘Cos from my study & understanding, few things were more relevant than meals. And I’ve noticed that the fellowship created in our church small groups has helped make the larger corporate gatherings more intimate.

But that might not be the case for everyone. And that’s ok. We just gotta know the people we’re trying to reach out to – the old “meet them where they are at” thing, stay true to the message and not get caught up in the method…etc.

I think it important to note that generally when people speak of “new testament” church there can be this hint of thinking that every other model of church ever done is a perversion, and the Acts 2 model is what we must get back to. I find it interesting to note that the early church’s approach to doing church was not nearly this monolithic. There were groups that were modeled more after synagogues, there were meeting in courtyards for larger groups, and there was meeting in house churches like what is usually conjured up when speaking of the new testament church. I also think there was some wisdom in finding new ways of doing church, including the model that we have now. The question is, does how we are doing church work in our culture to be what the church is supposed to be.

What is more important than being a new testament church, an emergent church, a presbyterian, pentecostal, missional or methodist church is being a church that is agile towards it’s end goal of seeing people become disciples of Jesus and urging each other towards living in the reality of what Christ has done. If this is happening, there is much width in the models church can take.

I would say the simple act of eating a meal is “irrelevant” then and today. It isn’t anything grandiose or exciting. Just simple community and friendship.

In that context, I agree. The important thing (as Brian also mentioned…) is at the very end of vs 47 in that Acts 2 passage you referenced…”and people were added daily…”

I just wish our church had 30 min of music. Interesting post. TY for stopping by.

Interesting discussion Ty. A prof at Fuller said the “problem with the first century church is that we’re carrying 20 centuries of baggage.” If I were trying to establish or influence a totally new worship experience it would focus around the Word and prayer.

It would be a verse by verse teaching/discussion. Not a talking head. Not a bible study, but some good thoughtful questions in the area of application of the main point. It would also be the way I’d try to discern those who may have a gift for teaching and train them in how to interpret Scripture.

Prayer is something sorely lacking in many evangelical churches. I’m not talking about praying in worship but praying with other people. I had a very formative experience at Peninsula Bible Church under Ray Stedman and Ron Richie. During their Body Life Service on Sunday nights prayer could last an hour plus.

One person shared a concern or need and Ray or Ron would identify people they knew could pray for that person and they would stand up and pray for that right there and then. It was and is a powerful lesson in the priesthood of all believers.

Sorry for the long post. I’m not preaching this Sunday so I had to type something of length.

Peace
Alan

i’m definitely a fan of the in house gathering, w/ food, and fellowship and a sense of community. i find such gatherings more spiritually fruitful than the big 1 or 2 hour service on sunday. ….not that those are wrong. but the church is really is about when 2,3 or more gather in His name.

just yesterday i was hanging out w/ some friends in scarolina. and after a bit of filming and photography, we went back to their house where this is always people. we hung out, ate pizzas, talked about the power of God…and ya know? He was there. it was church.

i think it’s simpler than we make it out to be.

Hi Tyler, I’m trawling through your blog and enjoying the balance and thoughtfulness.

The funny thing to me about the NT church is that it was so culturally disruptive that the people in it were severely persecuted by the government. I’m pretty sure that’s NOT what people mean when they say we should be more like them, but it does bear some consideration.

As the evangelical church in the US has struggled to become/remain “relevant” (I mark this from the “seeker” movement in the late 70′s and early 80′s) it’s influence has actually waned. The more we strive to be like the culture at large, the more of a laughing stock we become to that culture. While we push for greater cultural sensitivity, emergence and moderation, other religious movements that have ignored these politically correct approaches and are increasing their numbers: Islam (legalistic), Wick-en (supernatural and superstitious), Confucianism (illogical) all increased their numbers significantly in the last decade.

Have we abandoned moral absolutes, supernatural acts of power and spiritual/intellectual mystery in vain? And have we focused too much on “style” over substance?

Just a thought that I’ve been bouncing around… I’m generally a big fan of being relevant.

From my blog:

Have you been to church lately? Interestingly, neither “going to church” nor “church services” appear in the New Testament. Both of these terms emerged long after the death of the apostles. The reason is simple: The early Christians had no such concept. They didn’t view church as a place to go. Neither did they see their gatherings as “services”. They had four main types of meetings.

Apostolic Meetings. These were special meetings where apostolic workers preached to an interactive audience. Their goal was either to plant a church from scratch or to encourage an existing one. There are two chief characteristics of the apostolic meeting. One is that an apostolic worker does most of the ministry. The other is that such meetings are never permanent. They are temporary and have a long-range goal. Namely, to equip the local body of believers to function under the headship of Jesus Christ without the presence of a human head. For this reason, an apostle always ends up leaving the church on its own. Acts 5:40-42; Acts 19:9-10; Acts 20:27,31

Evangelistic Meetings. In the first century, evangelism commonly occurred outside the regular meetings of the church. The apostles preached the gospel in those places where unbelievers frequented. The synagogue (for the Jews) and the marketplace (for the Gentiles) were among their favorite places to evangelize. These meetings were seasonal and weren’t a permanent fixture of the church. Acts 8:5 ff; Acts 14:1; Acts 17:1-33; Acts 18:4,19

Decision-Making Meetings. The meeting in Jerusalem described in Acts 15 was such a meeting. The chief feature of this meeting is that everyone participated in the decision-making process, and the apostles and elders played a helpful role.

Church Meetings. These were the regular gatherings of the church. They would be the first-century equivalent of our Sunday-morning “church service”. Yet they were radically different.

The first-century church meeting was primarily a believers meeting. While unbelievers were sometimes present, they were not the focus of the meeting. Unlike today’s practice, this was not a meeting where a pastor preached a sermon and everyone else passively listened. The notion of a sermon-focused, pulpit-to-pew, audience-styled “church service” was alien to the early Christians.

Why would someone like Paul, who was an eloquently trained Jewish religious leader, build the church so differently from what he was taught over many years? Why would the other Jewish apostles not continue with their religious systems of priests, temples, synagogues and more? What did they experience in Christ that was so attractive that they never looked back? Whatever it was, it must have been overwhelmingly beautiful. They saw a bride for the Bridegroom they knew so well. They were committed to see this bride like He saw her. It changed their way of thinking and doing.

I need to see. I need to listen. I need to change.

Inspired by Reimagining Church, Frank Viola – a must read.