So I was listening to “Theology in the Raw” (Preston Sprinkle’s podcast) in an interview of Nijay Gupta. Gupta has recently published a book, “Strange Religion: How the the First Christians Were Weird, Dangerous, and Compelling.” I have only read a tiny bit of the book so far, but it looks very interesting.
During the conversation, they were discussing the primitive first century church and how it contrasts with the church(es) of today.
One of the things Gupta spoke of was an article written by I. Howard Marshall (1934-2015). Marshall believed that churches (communities of believers) gathered together regularly but NOT for the purpose of worshiping God. They came together for “mutual up-building” and practice “reciprocal spiritual gifts to invest in one another personally.” <I have not been able to find this article, that apparently came out in the 1980s, by Marshall, but it is reference in the April 15, 2024 episode of Theology in the Raw>
Gupta did not agree with Marshall that the gathering of the early church did not involve worship. When using the term worship, I think what is meant is traditional ideas of ritual or group activity to demonstrate adoration or proclaim the greatness of God. And I would have to agree with Gupta. The early church did sing and if Philippians 2 is indeed an early song, it sure sounds like worship. They did do baptism and love feasts and eucharist as a community. However, the ritual of love feast does not feel like it is an act of worship. Rather it seems more like a ritual (or activity) of support and living out the Kingdom.
Gupta does agree with Marshall, however, that the primary purpose for the gathering of the church in the first century was mutual edification and supporting with mutual blessing of spiritual gifts.
This view resonates with me. I have long wondered whether the recent Evangelical focus on worship, regardless of how spiritual it sounds, is an unbalanced perspective.
Consider Acts 4.:32-35
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (NIV)
We see here community (heart and mind). We see sharing. We see proclamation and training. We see God’s sustaining. We see no mention of worship. This of course does not imply that worship did not happen in community gatherings. Consider a few verses before this. Act 4:23-26
On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
“‘Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the Lord
and against his anointed one. (NIV)
Here we see a prayer that includes thanksgiving and adoration. Later it moves into a request. Certainly this fits, broadly at least, under the umbrella of worship.
In church, I would hear so many sermons where Hebrews 10:25 is used as a reminder that we are supposed to come to church every Sunday. However, looking at verses 23-25:
Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
What is NOT said, keep meeting together because God needs more worship. I fully accept that worship was part of the gathering of the church, but the reason for doing so was for our own sake’s more than God’s. broadening the context on that passage further… God has given us a great gift, but also a great burden. We need to come together to provide support for each other to persevere in the way we are to go.
I might argue that the key part of the gathering is to support living out the reign of Christ through mutuality supported by the giftings of the Spirit.
In missions a similar question comes up. John Piper has a famous quote:
Missions exists because worship doesn’t. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over, and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity. (John Piper, “Let the Nations Be Glad)
Again, I can’t really argue with this completely. The basic premise that worship is greater than missions because worship is eternal and missions is not, is compelling. Still, is worship Ultimate? Did God give the Great Commandment and the Great Commission(s) because He did not have enough worshipers?
Maybe… or maybe the focus on the Reign of God (the Kingdom of God) is ultimate, and worship is ONE of the characteristics of being an active participant within His reign.
But if that is true, what are other characteristics of being under that reign? Living according to the commands of Christ (Matthew 28:19-21), love of God (Great Commandment), and love and care of others (Great Commandment). Love, however, suggests a certain relationality. In fact, I John 4:19 notes that our love of God is a response to God first loving us. The church is where the Great Commandment is to be lived out in mutuality. We love God in response to His loving us… and we demonstrate love for each other in mutuality. Obedience to God’s commands is certainly important in all of this, as is thanksgiving, adoration, praise. I struggle with seeing, however, that worship (regardless of how one defines it) is “ultimate.” in either missions or in church.
But since I spent several paragraphs “hemming and hawing” on this, you may wonder if I am wasting my time… and yours. Perhaps… but I do think there are important questions if the church (as it was initially envisioned) was more about mutual support and communal use of God’s giftings for the benefit of the body.
#1. Is today’s focus on performative worship in church really what the focus should be? In fact, should worship in general be the focus of the worship services?
#2. Is today’s “worship services” more like “worshipers being served” (by ministerial professionals)? Is that a problem?
#3. Is the ability today of someone coming to church participating passively in the gathering and leaving without talking to anyone an evidence that something is broken?
#4. Has the focus on the “worship experience” enriched the church or left it relationally shallow?
While I certainly have my opinions… I have to admit my uncertainty of what would be better. I do believe that recreating the first century church is not our call. We are to create the 21st century church. Still, if we get the purpose of the church (“raison d’etre”) wrong, it is pretty unlikely we will get much of anything right.
