Do we gather to worship or to learn?
One of the slightly odd things about the Christian church building is that there is no agreed blueprint to what we should do when we come across together. In the Western (and probably the global) church, at that place seem to me to exist three different strands of accent:
- Nosotros encounter to experience an affective encounter with God (charismatic/Pentecostal)
- We meet to learn about our faith and be equipped (Reformed/evangelical)
- We meet to share as a customs in life-shaping ritual (liturgical/Orthodox)
These three are non necessarily mutually exclusive—but most traditions focus on one and marginalise the other two, and volition support one of these in whatever rationales they have for their meetings. Word about the relative importance of these 3 is non but an internal question, but besides has a significant impact on questions of mission and cultural engagement. In my previous posts, reflecting on the work of John Hayward in analysing church building refuse, I suggested that flexible engagement with culture combined with continuity of doctrine and theology were the two distinctive signs of an effective missional church.
Information technology is non hard to encounter that these three unlike emphases will equip churches in very different ways in relation to these two tasks. Churches which seek affective see with God might be sufficiently adaptable to offer cultural engagement, but volition they take continuity of doctrine? Those focussing on learning nigh organized religion have a better hazard of this—but how flexible volition they be in form? Those focussing on ritual will not be very interested in adapting to culture—and the relation of that ritual to doctrine could be variable.
The root crusade of these different views is that nosotros practise not have a definitive business relationship from the NT of exactly what the early Jesus-followers did when they met together. We take some hefty hints, such equally Acts ii.42–47 and 1 Cor xi.23–26, and these, combined with the synoptic accounts of the final supper clearly shape much Christian action when gathered. We have bear witness from the patristic period—but this has clearly developed considerably from the NT catamenia, not least in its clericalisation and focus on doctrinal development in polemical argue with its critics. It would accept been wonderful if Paul had appended to his Corinthian correspondence an outline club of service for meetings, so nosotros could know exactly what went on! Or perhaps that would simply take trapped u.s. in 1 form of coming together (very much as the Greek Orthodox church is now) and we would end up firmly in army camp 3.
More than 100 years agone, Roland Allen wondered how it was that most Western missionary activity could piece of work for years without producing a mature ethnic congregation—whereas Paul was able to spend eighteen months in a metropolis, and move on assuming that the church would not simply survive, but grow and plant other congregations in the area. 1 fundamental aspect was Paul's focus on pedagogy, and in 2012 Claire Smith published her PhD looking at the importance of teaching for Paul in ane Corinthians and the Pastoral Epistles. By studying the language in these letters, she seeks to answer only this question: what was the central focus of the gatherings of Jesus-followers according to Paul's expectations? There is a brusque review by Andrew Clarke in Themelios, and a longer i past Steve Walton on the Gild of Biblical Literature review site. Steve sets out the goal and arroyo of the monograph very helpfully:
The central question she addresses is how far the Australian scholar Edwin Estimate'due south description of the primeval Christian communities equally "scholastic" is accurate, and this takes her into a careful and thoughtful engagement with the New Testament'southward vocabulary of learning and instruction. Judge was a trailblazer in "social-scientific" work on the early Christian communities in their Greco-Roman setting; by "scholastic" he ways that the earliest Christians functioned in a fashion similar to a group of disciples learning from a rabbi or a group engaged in studying the torah or a "school" formed to study and preserve the pedagogy of a particular teacher (iv). Judge believes that the nearly characteristic activeness of the earliest churches was learning, rather than more typical "religious" activities (as ancients understood them) of sacrifice/cult, worship (still understood), and social welfare. It was these learning activities that informed believers' religion and lifestyle.
Smith's arroyo to assessing Judge's claim is to focus on the Pauline communities as the best exam case. She studies some 50-five words used for teaching and learning activities in four letters attributed to Paul: one Corinthians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. She is aware that the authorship of the Pastorals is disputed, but she defends this choice on the footing that she is focusing on the communities rather than the author and notes that there are key similarities betwixt the situations of these 4 messages, for they all address departures from orthodoxy in a polemical manner, and at that place are strong overlaps of content (see the substantial list on 29). The differences of recipients, geography (Corinth, Ephesus, and Crete), and dating allow Smith to claim that these four letters provide a broad enough sample of Pauline communities to exist representative.
Smith is clearly taking the whole notion of 'teaching' and 'learning' in a holistic way, and and then in the stop concludes that Gauge's terminology of 'scholastic communities' is as well arid to describe what was going on. But she thinks he was right in the essentials, and that we could justifiably call the Pauline churches 'learning communities'—a term which has re-emerged in initiatives like the Partnership for Missional Church and Mike Breen'southward scheme of '3D' church growth. For Smith, even language directed towards God has a didactic part; Steve Walton again:
The discussion of "worshipping" words is well-nigh words found "on a divine-human axis" (269) in the context of Christian meetings, almost all found (in her chosen texts) in one Corinthians (ch. eight). Smith draws attention to the fashion that whatever is spoken in the Christian gathering is to edify those nowadays, and this (perhaps surprisingly) includes speech addressed to God. This feature indicates specially strongly the educational nature of the believing community'southward gatherings—a tongue-speaker was to be silent if no interpretation was bachelor considering such spiritually inspired speech must contribute to the education of the customs by being intelligible (ane Cor fourteen:28). In consequence, she calls into question the supposition of Dunn and others that early Christian meetings were highly spontaneous and unregulated, particularly if that is contrasted with having "doctrinal educational activity" (272).
Here we can see in scholarship the divide betwixt the three groups I proposed at the starting time. Smith studied for her PhD through Moore College, Sydney, which is influential in the Reformed movement, whilst Dunn would exist more than sympathetic to the charismatic tradition. And there are some serious questions that could be asked of this approach:
- Steve Walton is not clear that Smith is consequent in following her stated methodology (shaped past James Barr'south idea of semantic range) and is at times taking besides elementary a meaning of terms shaped by their derivation.
- To what extent would any letter of the alphabet of Paul bedescriptive of what was happening in these communities rather thancorrective. If, for example, there was plenty of 'encounter with God' happening, then Paul might need to encourage teaching, simply his linguistic communication would non be representative of the social context and actions of the community. This is part of wider issue of letters being 'occasional' rather than systematic.
- What do nosotros practise with the other language in Paul, where in that location is clearly a sense of affective encounter with God, not least in the manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit, then that an outside might exclaim 'Truly God is here amid you' (1 Cor 14.25)?
So I am not clear that Smith'south argument gives united states of america a definitive respond to the initial question. Just information technology does demonstrate that education and learning, in a relational and holistic form, were essential to the early Christian communities. On his blog, Steve Walton takes from this the importance of relational learning, peculiarly in an academic context. Simply for almost churches the challenge is the complementary 1: do we see education and learning together every bit a primary reason for our meeting together? And for the Church building of England: do we all the same see discipleship as of primal importance for the church building? If not, we are going to struggle to be missional in an increasingly postal service-Christendom historic period.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance ground. If you have valued this mail service, would you consideraltruistic £i.xx a month to support the product of this weblog?
If yous enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
For other means to back up this ministry, visit my Support page.
Comments policy: Good comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek showtime to understand, and so to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/do-we-gather-to-worship-or-to-learn/
0 Response to "Do we gather to worship or to learn?"
Post a Comment