Does Modern Church Structure Closely Model the NT Church?

[Starise]

Thoughts? Do you think  NT church structure looked similar to modern day church structure? If not, what are the differences? 

[Michael37]

6 hours ago, Starise said:

Thoughts? Do you think  NT church structure looked similar to modern day church structure? If not, what are the differences? 

The main difference would be scale.

The ideal is much the same but the real and the ideal didn't always match back then and still don't now.

Social media allows us to assemble online without being in close physical proximity, but streamed services tend to follow the same Greco-Roman model of one elevated presenter, often an apex orator addressing many passive viewers, and stylish venues often provide elaborate special effects to attract less than discerning consumers of hysteria, hype and hoop-la.   

[Starise]

I maybe falsely picture a small assembly back in the very first churches with a chosen man or men periodically speaking. 

In order to avoid disorder it would have been necessary to develop some order of assembly. Possibly this is where having one respected speaker came about. I am thinking it must have been very simple as compared to some modern churches. Smaller. more quaint and simple as opposed to complex and big.

I believe more people will show up to the church with the coffee bar and free coffee in the vestibule, or for the more current surroundings, yet is this really what we want to be doing? It clearly works in terms of drawing people in. The idea seems to be to pull them in with the external so they can reach them internally. "What if" they never develop or show interest in the internal and instead only go for those external trappings and the social connections?

 

[Michael37]

2 hours ago, Starise said:

I maybe falsely picture a small assembly back in the very first churches with a chosen man or men periodically speaking. 

In order to avoid disorder it would have been necessary to develop some order of assembly. Possibly this is where having one respected speaker came about. I am thinking it must have been very simple as compared to some modern churches. Smaller. more quaint and simple as opposed to complex and big.

I believe more people will show up to the church with the coffee bar and free coffee in the vestibule, or for the more current surroundings, yet is this really what we want to be doing? It clearly works in terms of drawing people in. The idea seems to be to pull them in with the external so they can reach them internally. "What if" they never develop or show interest in the internal and instead only go for those external trappings and the social connections?

I've been caught in the crosshairs of "church culture" since the day I was born, living in Anglican Vicarages until I left home at 18 years old. I traded the Anglican Communion for Charismatic/Pentecostal fellowships when I was 30, which is 37 years ago now. At the time I was promptly told by a zealous Home Group Leader that Anglicans can't be Christians and I needed to say the sinner's prayer right then to be saved. I had actually done this hundreds of times since childhood as the issue of whether I was a Christian or not would repeatedly surface wherever I went. On many occasions when hitch-hiking between cities as a teenager I was picked up by Christians who would witness to me. Often I would not reveal my background as an altar server and preacher's son because that seemed to polarise people, and to this day there has been very, very little empathy and positive feedback in Charismatic/Pentecostal fellowships in this regard. 

Rather than dish the dirt on any particular denomination, stream, or movement, I like to focus on the gathering together for Scriptural edification and sanctified mutual benefit that I have experienced along the way.

Many times, even as a child, I have been sought out by disgruntled church-goers who want a listening ear and in some cases, advice on how to proceed. The established style of the Anglican services was a brick wall for malcontents to bang their heads against and my father was not actually at liberty to deviate from the uniformity of procedure imposed by the administration.

I'm happy to fellowship informally these days and steer well clear of "Church Administration & Organisation", a subject that was included in both the theoretical and practical Diplomas of Pastoral Ministry I aspired to in 1989-90.

[Who me]

11 hours ago, Starise said:

Thoughts? Do you think  NT church structure looked similar to modern day church structure? If not, what are the differences? 

 

From the NT it is clear that the early church would have been like a small house church.

Paul organised groups of Christians in a city into a 'church' appointing leaders. From early apologetic letters the actual service would have been similar to the average small churches service.

Group singing of a hymn, someone leads in prayer, a reading of scripture, which is explained to the best of th speakers ability and closing with singing and a prayer.

 

The closest today to the early church would be churches in countries with no Christian background or history.

[Billiards Ball]

18 hours ago, Starise said:

Thoughts? Do you think  NT church structure looked similar to modern day church structure? If not, what are the differences? 

There are many churches with small groups inside them, modeled after the Acts house churches.

 

The main (upsetting) difference are all the ranks of professional clergy when there should be many working pastors.

[Heleadethme]

What I've gleaned from the scriptures is that we need to remain in the SIMPLICITY of Christ.  We do not see anything in the epistles of the apostles that indicates the church getting together to have a thing called "services".   But rather....God's house shall be called a house of prayer, and wherever two or three are gathered in His name there is Jesus in the midst of them.  SIMPLY gather to seek the Lord together and let Him orchestrate the proceedings by His Spirit as much as possible.   In scripture, we see prayer (which I believe should be No. 1) in the Father's house, we see hymn singing, we see praise, we see words being brought, we see revelations being shared, we see prophecies being given, we see people being healed, we see the hungry being fed and we see the Lord's supper for self-examination and renewing of His cleansing blood to us, since we "offend in many things all" (James)

 And I believe we need to have our minds renewed to be thinking in terms of Body ministry, not a one-man ministry.  Priesthood of all believers, not just one class of believer.  There is to be no schism in the Body.  That notion (Levite priests) was supposed to have passed away with the old covenant.  Spiritual gifts of various kinds and operations have been given to EVERYONE.  When you come together EVERYONE OF YOU HATH something to contribute from the Lord.   The bible says the Body edifies ITSELF but that only happens when the Body participates, not just one gift (pastor).  There should be more than one pastor/elder/overseer in most groups anyhow.  It isn't seminary school that qualifies pastors/elders, it is the LORD......whoever He has given that gift to....they can exercise their gift informally along with the rest of the Body exercising theirs....but they should be matured and seasoned and know the word of God well before taking up leadership responsibilities.  And the Body needs to be built up also through discipleship, not just talking at folks....as Jesus was our example.

Ancient Jewish synagogues had the right idea I think.....from what I heard they formed their seating in a circle or semi-circle and whoever's turn it was to speak or read etc, SIMPLY stood up to do.  No going up onto a "stage" to put on a performance or dominate the whole shebang.  We're not supposed to be respecter's of persons and reserve special seats for anyone, yet this is done as a matter of routine in most churches.  It's amazing how we can be so blind to blatantly do what scripture explicitly says not to, but that often happens since we are in a spiritual war.

But change needs to happen from the inside out...to begin with we need to have our minds renewed to understand what the bible is showing about this, to understand the will of the Lord and how He wants to do things.  And the more the Holy Spirit is present without being quenched, the more He will do things according to His will.  Flesh is always what gets in His way...the priests bear rule by THEIR means and the PEOPLE love to have it so......the worldly ways of the flesh and how corporations and earthly kingdoms do things.  But the more our flesh is crucified the more we will get out of His way and let Him be Head of His Body.   In an ideal world, which we don't often see.  Paul did what he could to keep the early church on track, a constant battle....but he did say that things would go downhill after he departed.  The early church had "much grace", but the reality is that we only seem to see much grace in various pockets of the church from time to time ever since.  But I believe a change in mindset to conform more to scripture would be a good start at least.

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Heleadethme

[Starise]

I have been in both very small churches and larger churches. My experience has mostly been in smaller churches until recently though. I say 'small' as in 50-100 members. 

I believe size as determined by the local population does make a statement. What that statement is exactly might be something for further examination.

In one church I attended people would rotate in and out of there. They would attend for awhile and then just stop attending, so even  while we were getting new people, others were leaving. That church to this day has never built up to any large degree. There are the regulars. I won't go into why I think this was happening, but if you looked and prayed about it, you could see it.Those who stayed were willing to accept it for what it was.That church has never gone to above 100 attendees. Granted in a lower populated areas one would not be surprised to see a healthy congregation at 20 people. Probably the smallest congregation I attended ever had more than 20 people on a Sunday. It was a small building out in the country. Led by a man who also worked a full time job.

My church now has grown. Even during COVID we gained over 35 new members. Gained a new pastor after one retired, Sunday school is overflowing. We have dedicated check in for the kids. We have church security. Great organization from the top down.Lots of activities for members to get involved in. Men's groups, women's groups etc. A youth director with a large percentage of young families and youth. Just invested in a top of the line streaming and A/V system. We have Sunday meals in the church fellowship hall. Having one this Sunday. Home groups once a month. This is in the SAME town the other church I mentioned is in. Some churches seem to thrive. This church is even bringing in a decorating team and hiring professionals to evaluate the 'aesthetics' of the church to make it more appealing to a more modern crowd.

As a person who has never been involved in anything like this before it seems almost overwhelming.My background was never having enough help and the core group, of which I was a part, was constantly juggling responsibilities because help was spread too thin.

I was also a part of a church startup that met in a rented public school auditorium. They were there for 5 or 6 years and could not raise enough funds to make it self sustaining. The mother church decided to discontinue it. That was a weekly setup church that was very labor intensive with setting up a PA system for a band and coffee area. Sermons were largely A/V presentations based on pre cut topics.

I think this all causes me to question what church prosperity all looks like. If God is blessing a church is it all external? I don't believe it is. If not, then is it possible for a church to be blessed both internally and externally? Or do churches blessed in this way tend to loose focus? This is one of my main concerns here.

I could care less about aesthetics. Yet maybe God uses people gifted in these areas to assist in the goals. It seems very superficial I'll admit.

We could maybe make an argument for the church evolving over time to accommodate differing conditions and environments. A church in India will probably not minister best to Australians. 

If anything, I feel less freedom and more limited in churches with high levels of management. I never thought I would say this because I have lived at the other end of that spectrum and have begged for some sense of order. For instance the WT does not ask for song suggestions. The leaders enforce what they want the teams to play. There maybe be 2000 songs out there but we only play the ones they select.

I'm sure this carries to everything else like the SS materials etc. This is GOOD, but it can also be limiting IMHO.

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Starise

[Starise]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

If you mean "the body of Christ" then I do not think it looks much different than it did in the NT era.... structurewise. If, on the other hand, when using the term "structure," you mean the institutional, organizational, hierarchical, and/or liturgical aspects of Church life then the modern Church looks enormously different from the NT era. While some of the changes are either not helpful or perhaps even damaging my view is that most of them are either immaterial or positive. 

This brings me to ask when we began to make a separation? It seems man's natural propensity for organization just carried over into the church until the church was seen as an organization instead of a spiritual body of believers. Or maybe seen as an organized spiritual body of believers. Not that all churches haven't been organized on some level. Someone needs to pay the electric bill, clean the toilets and support the pastor. The "body of Christ" is just people with spiritual gifts who have titles,  pastors, elders, deacons, deaconesses, trustees, nursery and Sunday school workers, accountants and those who use their gifts elsewhere.

I don't see a divisional separation in many churches. The spiritual gifts carry over into the operational. organizational gifts.

Whether the changes are positive or not depends, for me, on what they are doing in the services. Above all what the people are like. Are they spiritual Godly people? Many people attend church for years and don't realize the need for salvation.How could this be?

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

For an example of the former, our practice of the Lord's Supper is an abysmal and wretched shadow of what was practiced in the NT era. We call it "Communion" or the "Eucharist" (which means "thanksgiving"), and the priest doles out pieces of bread, crackers, or wafers and thimbles of wine or grape juice while leaving the individual parishioner to contemplate whatever it is they do. The Lord's Supper was a supper, a full meal with all kinds of food, not just bread and wine. It was a full meal with fellowship.  Similarly, the notion of one man (or woman) pastoring scores (hundreds or thousands) of people, being the one guy solely responsible for their spiritual well-being is completely without root in the NT. That was not the sole role of a priest, minister, or pastor in the NT era and he was not the only one in leadership thusly responsible. Stages, pulpits, special garments? None of them existed in the NT era, but neither do I find them particularly problematic. Another's wearing a collar backwards does not affect my worship of God one way or another. The practice of singing songs and listening to one man teach and then calling the service quits before heading back home is also not an NT-era practice but it can be a very beneficial practice. Most non-denominational congregations practice this wholly unscriptural practice every week but it's not a destructive practice (it's ironic because the non-denoms are the ones most likely to protest the modern Church practices and call for a return to NT-era precedents). 

I agree. I will in contrast to you though, say I think some of it detracts. If it distracts, takes away attention from something more important towards something less important, changes focus from the Lord, I see it as a hindrance.

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

And what shall we say about television, cable, and the interwebs?  

My church sits next to a retirement community who are tapped into our video feed on Sunday mornings, so maybe we are different in some ways than the average church who has a video feed of their services. Their entire feed only counts as one on our social media so numbers are misleading. I think it's a good thing for shut ins and those who can't get out. I don't believe it can replace Christian fellowship.

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

Although I disagree with the author's conclusions, I recommend the book, "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola and George Barna. It is a brief, easy to read summary of changes that have occurred in the way we organize, especially on Sundays (or Saturdays), and how the Church has assimilated practices that were Jewish and non-Jewish (ie., pagan) in origin, not something Jesus instituted, or the early Church practiced. Plot reveal (stop reading now if you don't want to know why the book was written): The book is an apologetic for the house-church movement, the de-centralization of Christianity by the forming of smaller gatherings that meet in homes. I have nothing wrong with that expression of structure and worship, but neither do I think it necessary or required. Everett Harrison's "The Apostolic Church" is also a fairly good read if there's an interest in early Church politics and its effects of organization and structure. Those with an academic bend and an interest in the sociological aspects of Christianity might find Wayne Meeks, Gerd Theissen, and Peter Berger of interest. The first two have written about the sociology of the early Church and Berger has written about more contemporary matters.

Thanks for this information. I will check it out. 

[Heleadethme]

Except the LORD build the house they labour in vain that build it.  It's so important to remain in the simplicity of Christ rather than man-made versions of what He wants to create.  God is longsuffering and merciful, and will bear with us to some extent, He will sometimes be present and minister to individuals in various churches, just because He is merciful, but man cannot create life, only God can.  Everything that man creates is artificial and unable to beget life. 

We can always find justifications for what we do against His word, but if a congregation is too big to be able to obey the instructions and example of scripture, then apparently it must be time to form another congregation, not make a mega-church.