• Share

• Print
• Email

Comments

• Tim Jul. 18, 2012 at 2:49 PM

  Excellent questions given by the Puritans to foster spiritual mutuality and intimacy. I wonder what percentage of the Puritans actually participated in this kind of conference to the reproductive levels God asks for? I wonder what % of them were also casual, superficial, passive as we see today? The reason I wonder is because they had the same main focus of church life as we do, the pulpit and pew oriented worship service on Sunday. Today, even churches that preach, and hire an expert "small group pastor" to push the call of God to a "one another" driven church life, maybe only 25% will show up, and even less will actually come prepared to articulate spurring, exhorting or teaching one another.
  
  Why? It is a massive step from a spiritual life that walks in a door to sit in a pew with nothing prepared to offer their fellow believers and with all expectation that they get something from an expert that worked 30 hours on what to say to a gathering totally driven by marketplace and home workers. Recognizing this huge leap and seeing the repeated call in the NT for a relationally deep, participative kind of faith to increase "love and good works" and for "the word of Christ to dwell richly", I decided to examine the NT as to whether sitting in a pew every week for an expert driven lecture was important to God. I could not find it anywhere. Even "preach the Word, in season and out..." does not mean lecture the Word for 30 - 45 minutes with zero participation from anyone else. I gave up the pew sitting. Building faith with 100% mutuality, participation, intimacy and reproductivity that flows from 24/7 fellowship with God is all I or any believer needs, according to the Word. Did I miss something? I haven't found it yet. Do we really need a Bible lecture every week or is it traditions of men and our flesh calling for this? Is our comfort zone distracting from God's real design for every member participating mutually in every gathering?

• Joanne Jung Jul. 18, 2012 at 4:05 PM

  Thanks, Tim.
  I resonate with your questions and comments. Percentages would be nice to have, but from my research, especially from Richard Rogers (1551-1618), he devotes time and space to those means of grace that people were less acquainted with or that he observed needed more engagement. Conference was one to which he gave less attention. Puritans appeared quite familiar with conference. The puritans held the Scriptures, private Bible reading, and the sermon in high regard. What's interesting is how pastors prepared for their sermons and how congregants engaged with the sermon message during, after, and well after its delivery.
  
  I hear your disappointment and I hope your giving up on pew sitting might turn to pew searching and discovering the community and the mutuality you desire and describe.

• Tim Jul. 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM

  God always provides saints eager for mutuality and reproductive community for those who refuse to go the path of least resistance. It has been an amazing journey of faith which points to further steps of faith not yet taken, maturity not yet accomplished.

• Ken Berding Jul. 23, 2012 at 12:09 PM

  Tim,
  I wonder if one possible hidden assumption in your question is the thought that first century churches had some amazingly high level of participation in church than modern churches do. My reading of the New Testament (think 1 Corinthians, Hebrews, or 1 John) suggests that New Testament churches--analogous in some ways to today's churches--were mixed churches of actively-engaged believers, less-engaged believers, seeking unbelievers, and professing believers who weren't actually regenerate (hypocrites). Perhaps the biggest differences between then and now were the size of the congregations and the hostile environment in which first century believers lived which helped to weed out (but only to some degree) those who were not truly committed to Christ and to the life of the church. Still, I think that in all periods of history, whether in the first century, the 16th century, or the 21st century, there has been in our churches a mix of committed, less-committed, seeking-unbelievers, and hypocrites. Remembering this might help you as you continue to think through what we should do in ministry in the 21st century.

• Tim Jul. 23, 2012 at 4:27 PM

  I have no hidden assumption about the behavior of first century churches. It matters to me little at all compared to what is instructed and admonished by the Apostles. (think virtually every letter) Add to that what we are instructed about our identity adds specific power to what we are to do. I care a whole lot about function because God does. We also know very well that size of gatherings has a great deal to do with function in very distinct and contrasting ways. I would suggest that the size of the gathering, added to 1000+ years of traditions of men, added to that 99% of American churches functioning in one distinct pattern, add to that all seminaries and Phd experts following suit, you now have the power to completely nullify very obvious, simple instructions for gathering complete with amazing reasons for doing so, and stern warnings if you forsake such instructions. What you do (function) clearly demonstrates to the judge whether one believes at all what he professes to believe. I am thinking specially of Hebrews 10 (the whole chapter). My heart shivers for all American believers no matter what maturity level they think they are at, in view of this one chapter. This impacts me as I think through ministry in the 21st century.

Post a comment