The Church of Christ: Yesterday and Today . . .

THE CHURCH IN CORPORATE WORSHIP

There is a growing awareness among us that worship is a life of faith, devotion, and dedication, and not an experience limited to “five acts,” or however many, that occur when we are “at church.” We are coming to see that worship embraces the whole of the believer’s life, everything he does, whether selling, plowing, cooking, or praying. Col. 3:17 gets close to this concept: “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” Acts 17:27 may get even closer: “God is not far from each one of us, for in him we live and move and have our being.” It is amiss, therefore, to speak of “going to worship” or of a “worship service,” as if worship were something that begins and ends for the child of God.

Still it is appropriate to speak of the corporate worship of the saints, referring to that experience of believers sharing together in assembly in the presence of Christ through his Spirit. Fishing can be, and for the disciple should be, a worshipful experience, with full awareness of the Spirit’s presence; but this is different from sharing in the Body of Christ in assembly. This is the Body at worship, with each member present, participating in all that is implied by such an assembly.

Just what difference the assembly makes is part of the burden of this essay. Christianity, except for Judaism, is the only world religion that calls for an assembly of worship for its adherents. We could have a religion so individualistic that each of us would “do his own thing” with the Father, making any kind of group meeting superfluous. God did not so decree. To the contrary, the saints in corporate worship is a vital aspect of the Christian faith. Why is this? To answer this is to lay groundwork for the understanding of Christian worship.

The assembly is not a matter of arbitrary command on God’s part, nor is it a matter of the saints fulfilling certain things that are required of them. There are rather three underlying principles involved: (1) the presence of Christ with his Body in a special way, different from his presence with us as individuals; (2) agape love is expressed, or should be, in a way not possible without the assembly; (3) the building up of the church (oikodome), which occurs in meetings where the saints mutually share, encouraging and strengthening one another.

Jesus is, of course, present with anyone of us, at any time and any place, and yet Matt. 18:20 says: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” —in some special way he seems to be saying. He is teaching the apostles about their authority to bind and loose sins, which none of us has, and so he says, “If two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.” But this seems to be drawn from the broader principle that follows, “For where two or three are gathered in my name” —whether apostles or not — “there am I in the midst of them” —in a very real and special way. When believers assemble for Jesus’ sake, a corporate aspect is present into which the Spirit of Christ moves, blessing the occasion with his presence.

This is especially evident in the Lord’s Supper, which is clearly central in corporate worship, for it is here that the risen Christ unites with his Body. 1 Cor. 10:16 describes the Supper as a participation (koinonia) in the body and blood of Christ. Jesus had said in introducing the supper, “I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” This seems to have found partial fulfillment in the church’s gathering for the Supper. Paul may be speaking of this mystery of Christ’s presence in his Body at the Supper when he says, “Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the same loaf” (1 Cor. 10:18). Is he not saying that we are one together in him, which is why we break one loaf with him? And so in 1 Cor. 11:29 the apostle warns against taking the Supper without discerning the Body,” that is, without realizing what the Supper is all about, that it is Jesus present with his one, united church (exemplified in the one loaf), and not a factious, divided Body, which was the inclination at Corinth.

The precious truth of Jesus’ presence in corporate worship as head of his Body, the church, should transform our concept of the assembly. If each of us could say meaningfully to himself as he meets with other disciples, “He is here. Through his Spirit Jesus is present as his Body gathers,” what a deliverance this would be from any arbitrary, legalistic view of fulfilling an obligation of going to church.

And this principle of Jesus’ presence relates to the principle of agape love in that it is in the assembly, in Jesus’ presence, that we show our love to one another as members of the Body. We are a family in love with each other, and we meet together because we love each other and want to be with the Father together. This is why the Lord’s Supper was at first part of a love feast. Here the wealthy shared with the poor, many of whom were slaves, and it was in the assembly that the needs of all were taken care of. Justin’s description of worship in the early church, which we shall be making several references to, speaks of “the gifts that have been brought” for the needy. Charity was a substantial concern in the early church, finding glorious expression in the assembly of the saints. This explains Paul’s concern in 1 Cor. 11:21, written to a church that was allowing the factious spirit to destroy agape love: “For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.

The principle of oikodome, building up the body, is basic to corporate worship because it was precisely for this purpose that the saints assembled. Even agape love, the love feast, and the Supper were all intended to edify the Body. This is the theme of 1 Cor. 14, an important source for information on early worship. Paul says prophecy is a more desirable gift because “he who prophesies speaks to men for their up-building and encouragement and consolation” (verse 3). Prophecy is more vital than tongues, for “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church” (verse 4), and in the same verse he gives the desired purpose for all that transpires in the assembly —so that the church may be edified. Verse19 shows the purpose to be “in order to instruct others,” and in verse 26 the grand design of the assembly is made clear: “Let all things be done for edification.”

In verse 6 Paul, in discussing whether he should speak in tongues, asked: “How shall I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? That question, How shall I benefit you?, is a key to understanding the nature of the assembly. It was for mutual benefit. It was the one area of acceptable competition between believers, for in verse 12 Paul says, “Strive to excel in building up the church.”

The early church thus assembled because it was in corporate worship that Jesus met with them, it was a fellowship of agape love, and it was for the building up of the Body that they might “grow up in every way into him who is the head.” All that they did, therefore, was to these ends. They were not an “audience” gathered to be ministered to. They were all ministers themselves, edifying and comforting one another, and there were neither pulpits nor sermons. There was some order and control, to be sure, but there was more spontaneity than prescription.

The church was a long time without either temple or property, perhaps more than two centuries. The simple and informal character of their places of meeting reflect the unpretentiousness of their worship. The historian Mosheim observes that “The places of assembling were, undoubtedly the private houses of Christians,” which conforms to the several references in scripture to “the church in thy house.” The intervening centuries have given us such concern for real estate holdings as to invite problems that they never dreamed of, and the modern church edifice makes meaningful Christian worship more difficult to achieve. We often have but few close friends in our large churches, and we may not even be acquainted with the family sitting next to us in the breaking of bread. A return to the atmosphere of family worship would simplify such problems as the place of women in worship, membership rolls, open membership, cooperation, budgets and treasuries, instrumental music. While our real estate has given us a lot of hangups, it does not follow that small churches, with or without buildings, are the answer to all our problems.

As we look more particularly at early corporate worship, we must ask ourselves if the point of our inquiry is to emulate what we find in as much detail as possible, or are we in search of norms, illustrations, and applications that will enable us to respond to our time as they did to theirs? Are our churches in Tennessee to worship as those did in Judea? In all the exact details? Are our congregations in California to follow the corporate worship of the Gentile churches of Asia? And did not the Jewish and Gentile churches differ in their worship? Really, were any two New Testament churches precisely alike? So, if we are to follow them as one would a blueprint, then which one?

An answer to this begins with a rundown of the component parts of primitive worship. Surprising as it may be, many of the things they did are seldom present in modern worship, while we emphasize things that were absent in their assemblies. The following list is hardly complete: public reading of scripture, the saying of Amen!, the confession of sins, various benedictions, praise and thanksgiving, spontaneous prayer (including the common Maranatha, Come, Lord Jesus!), the Lord’s Supper (often in conjunction with love feast), hymns and psalms (probably individually rendered rather than congregational), teaching (which was distinguished from preaching, which was not part of the worship), almsgiving (out of spontaneous needs and almost certainly not out of a common treasury), exhortation, tongues and their interpretation, prophesy, the holy kiss.

If some of us moderns who suppose we have “restored the primitive church,” were to enter TV’s time tunnel and suddenly found ourselves transposed to an assembly of the early church, we would surely be shocked over the difference between our “primitive” worship and their primitive worship. Their unrestrained love for each other, their closeness to the Holy Spirit, their spontaneity and joy, their separation from the world, their acts of mercy, and their common bond as antagonists to a persecuting government would cause us some discomfort, and we would probably be unprepared for the enthusiastic praise, prayer and thanksgiving without anyone ever being called on for anything!

This is not to say that we are to duplicate precisely what they did, if indeed this can be definitely ascertained, but folk who lay claim to being the restored first century church need to realize what they are claiming, and to face up to the fact that probably no modern church even begins to approximate primitive worship. The cultural and anthropological problems being what they are, there is a question as to whether such would even be possible.

Their assemblies were often daily (Acts 2:42), while the “fixed day” of Pliny’s letter the emperor Trajan is “the day of the Sun” of Justin Martyr and “the Lord’s day” of Rev. 1:10. Pliny tells us that the believers met before sunrise “to sing antiphonally a song to Christ as to a god.” This may refer to chanting to one another. All our early sources whether Pliny or Justin, or the Didache or the New Testament, make it clear that the Supper was central in these assemblies. Pliny says, “They shared a common meal together,” while Justin refers to the “bread and wine mixed with water” that was taken. Some sources mention honey as part of the mixture. But there is no known reference to cornbread being placed on the Lord’s table! Those who find the likes of coke and cornbread such notorious deviations for the Supper, illustrations long in vogue in our ranks, just might also be uneasy with the addition of water and honey. The water was added almost certainly for the sake of economy, and the honey to make the drink more palpable. Obviously such disciples did not look to the first Supper as legalistically as do some moderns. Cornbread or not, it is interesting that we moderns have been content with Welch’s grape juice in the face of the obvious fact that the early church used wine —sometimes mixed with water and honey! As for the bread, we are sticklers for the Jewish matzo, as if this is what Jesus chose. Jesus simply took bread, whatever was available. We presume it was unleavened since it was Passover week. A suitable counterpart in our day, I presume, would be a slice of Mrs. Baird’s. To be sure, no kind of bread is prescribed in scripture.

In any event the Supper was at first in connection with the Passover, between Jesus and the Twelve, and it continued for sometime to be part of a proper meal, called a love feast (Jude 12). Gradually the Supper became a memorial within itself, quite apart from any meal, as it is today, but always an expression of agape love.

Since Justin Martyr’s account of early worship is important, being the most definitive statement we have in or out of the scriptures, it is presented here. It was written about 150 A.D.

On the day called after the sun a meeting of all who live in cities or in the country takes place at a common spot and the Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read as long as time allows. When the reader is finished the leader delivers an address through which he exhorts and requires men to follow noble teachings and examples. Then we all rise and send heavenwards prayers. And, as said before, as soon as we are finished praying, bread and wine mixed with water are laid down and the leader too prays and gives thanks, as powerfully as he can, and the people join in, in saying the “Amen”; and now comes the distribution to each and the common meal on the gifts that have been brought and to those who are not present it is sent by the hands of the deacons.

The reading of the scriptures emphasized in Justin is adequately reinforced in scripture. Paul wanted his letters read in the assembly (Col. 4:16), and he urged Timothy to “attend to the public reading of scripture” (1 Tim. 4:13). Rev. 1:3 also says, “Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy and blessed are those who hear.” Revelation is, by the way, an important source on early worship, scholars believing that it preserves many doxologies, prayers, and songs of the early church (Rev. 5:9 is, for example, an old song). There is far more said about reading the scriptures than preaching sermons (none!), which is a severe contradiction to the modern church, which has become pulpit-centered and sermon-oriented.

The Justin passage is also reminiscent of the synagogue, which provides us insight into early Christian worship, the synagogue more than the temple. The synagogue emphasized the educational over the ritualistic, and it allowed for more openness and spontaneity. It is fairly well established that many synagogues became Messianic, which called for little change in terms of corporate worship except for the Supper itself.

1 Cor. 14:26 has traces of synagogal worship: “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.” Like the synagogue, the assembly was a place of learning, the school of Christ where disciples mutually taught one another.

What are we to make of all this, which of course is only part of the story? Certainly it is important to understand what they did, even when we see a diverse picture emerging. It is equally important to learn why they did what they did. We are nowhere given an exact description of corporate worship in the scriptures, nor is there any implication that we are to ferret out some pattern and make it our rule of procedure. The Bible simply does not tell us to worship like the Ephesians or the Corinthians, and if it did we would be at a loss to know just what they did.

Did they have weekly collections and a common treasury, the source of so much agitation among our people today? The only passage that even remotely suggests such is 1 Cor. 16:2, and one only needs to study the context to see that this was a temporary provision, and even then it was a call for money to be laid aside at home so that the believers would have the wherewithal when Paul came by. Even so, it may well be appropriate that we gather our funds in some such way as we do, though for our time a monthly contribution by mail would be an improvement. But we must outgrow this notion that in passing a plate on Sunday we are following some scriptural pattern.

The same for congregational singing. Our brothers have been fractured over the question of the organ all these years when it cannot even be established that the early church had congregational singing, with or without the instrument! There is an indication of solos in 1 Cor. 14:26 - “Each one has a hymn” —and if we follow that order we should be able to allow each one who sings to us to decide for himself how he’ll go about it.

But out of it all emerges a norm for corporate worship. The basic ingredients are clear enough, with the Supper as central. The principles of the presence of Jesus, agape love, and edification are gloriously clear. Already we know more than we are doing. The worship experiences of the early church encourages us to honor Jesus as they honored him, drawing upon whatever resources that are available to us to make that worship the most meaningful. Such norms as emerge — sincerity, mutuality, simplicity, sharing of the common life (fellowship), liberality, charity, agape — give us our discipline, and these coupled with the basic ingredients of the Supper and instruction give us our direction.

So our judgments need not be many. A church that does not share in the joy of the Lord’s Supper or teach its people the scriptures justly deserves our remonstrance, for these are basic to Christian worship. But they may do these things in ways that vary greatly, and this should be without remonstrance from those of us who see diversity in scripture. There is always need for more praise and prayer, more exhortation, benedictions, confession of sins, and the Amen, all of which have scriptural support.

Others are going to come up with the holy kiss, tongues, and foot washing - and congregational singing and budgets and collections! Here we need not offer remonstrance, and there is no need to argue about what is an act of worship. Let the principle of love rule. If some of our brothers find it meaningful to do these things that appear to most of us as peripheral at best, though with some scriptural warrant, then we need not remonstrate.

The norms do, of course, speak to us. I cannot, for instance, endorse any system, such as the minister system, that violates the principle of mutual sharing and the priesthood of all believers. There can, of course, be great variety in methods used, but a clergy system that prohibits the free exercise of every member of the Body, so basic to scripture, has to be opposed, with love and forbearance to be sure, but nonetheless opposed. Any system that denies any believer complete access to the “altar” is in violation of the Spirit of all that we have learned in this essay. —the Editor