Part 2: Bible Studies for the Hungry Christian

A course of study for turning students into teachers

Lesson Three: Biblical Christianity vs. Religion

You can look up the standard definition of religion in any dictionary, but what it really amounts to is man's need for checking off boxes that prove our spiritual performance. We like to "do" religion, to give it lip service, as a kind of spiritual insurance policy. We tend to measure each other's spirituality not by evidence of the fruit of the Spirit or by knowledge of the Bible, but by how faithfully we attend services and volunteer for "ministries". Even so, people of other religions criticize us for our relative lack of public shows of religious devotion. But what does the Bible say about religious practice as it relates to Christianity? What's the "Christian life" all about?

Let's start by taking a look at the NT (New Testament) references for gatherings of believers:

"Woman," Jesus replied, "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." (John 4:21-24)

"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;" (1 Cor. 6:19)

Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!" (1 Cor. 14:22-25)

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church; let them speak to themselves and to God.

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord's people. (1 Cor. 14:26-33)

In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it... But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world. So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. (1 Cor. 11:17-18, 31-33)

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.(Acts 17:11)

We can deduce several things from these passages.

First, the Church is not a building but the believers themselves. Our physical bodies are called the "temple", and the physical buildings we've all come to associate with Christianity are not prescribed for the church at all. Jesus made a point of saying that the old way of a physical building would be replaced by worship that is done "in spirit and in truth" without regard for any certain location. Paul concurred by saying that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, who indwells each believer.

According to the church historian Unger, there were no church buildings for at least the first 200 years of Christianity. It wasn't due to poverty necessarily, but to the fact that neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles even hinted at construction of a special sanctuary or house of worship. So where did the idea of special buildings come from? That's right, the Roman Catholic Church, founded and designed by the Roman emperor Constantine. His goal was to blend Christian and pagan religions (sound familiar?) so that everyone would get along. The same people who filled the pagan shrines on one day would fill the "churches" on another, being in the familiar company of the gods they knew who were represented in the statues and icons-- which were given "saint" names for the Christians. It was a shrewd political maneuver which turned out to be wildly successful.

Second, the model of a single "head pastor" lecturing a group of pew-warmers is unknown to the NT. There were to be several elders in each church (local group of believers), and any number of prophets (those who give a divine message, not necessarily of the future) and teachers. The common people were to consider what was said and make sure it lined up with the scriptures (both OT writings and the apostles' teachings, aka NT). The pastors were not necessarily prophets/preachers either. The deacons were those who served the various needs of the church but were first approved as spiritually mature. This is completely different from the role of deacons in churches since Constantine, where the deacon is a kind of sub-pastor somewhere between the "laity" and the "clergy", terms we don't see in the NT.

Third, these gatherings of believers were not noisy free-for-alls but more like what we would call a Bible study, where people would teach and learn. This was not really what we'd call a "worship service". Did the early believers worship? Yes, at first in the Jewish Temple, but as they scattered this was not practiced, especially among Gentiles. Worship in the NT for believers is not really specified, except in brief side notes. The passage above mentions the inclusion of hymns, but I don't have documentation on what exactly that meant to the people of the first century. We should not automatically assume the somber, quite ones of 1800s America.

But consider this: in Revelation we get a few glimpses of goings-on in heaven, and what I see is everyone falling down and shouting and singing. No quiet reverence there! It's loud and nonstop, filled with expressions of praise to God. There is a time and place for introspection here and now, but as Jesus put it, "How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them." (Mark 2:19). Heaven will be a place of celebration, so why should we be somber and serious in our worship here? Since the NT doesn't specify how group worship should be conducted, do we have any right to try and dictate how it's done?

Then what should we do? We can't just suddenly overthrow centuries of tradition, can we? Hmm... There is a growing home church movement. We can slowly change the paradigm without overthrowing the old ways. We must be patient and considerate of those who have not been fed the meat of the Word and think "churchianity" is what the Bible teaches. But we can change it one person at a time. And it is important to keep the NT model in mind when discussing issues that affect the church body, such as how elders and deacons function and the responsibilities of the average believers. It's easy to get off-track if you think in terms of churchianity and not Christianity.

On the "offices" of overseer and deacon

What offices? Although many English translations use the phrase "office of an elder" in 1 Timothy 3:1, the Greek literally says "... if anyone aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work", and in verse 8, "Likewise, deacons must...". If we want to know the full NT teaching on these servants of the church (deacon is from the Greek word for "bond servant"), we must consult many references, beginning with the Gospels. Jesus made it clear to his disciples that to lead is to serve, not dominate (Matthew 20:25-28, John 13:13-17).

In passages such as 1 Timothy 3 we read of the qualifications for overseers and deacons, including not only a high moral standard and good reputation within and without the church, but spiritual maturity and proper handling of the scriptures. One might conclude so far that these two groups are almost identical, yet we see them treated as separate in various passages such as Philippians 1:1, which actually lists three groups as composing the entire church: overseers, deacons, and saints. (Saints refers to all believers, with overseers, deacons, and the rest of the believers as subgroups).

Both overseers and deacons serve the church, but only overseers are charged with guarding it, while deacons are serving in other ways (technically, anything that is done for the church as a group could be considered "service", so that anyone so serving could be called a deacon if meeting the qualifications). Formerly I have always equated the commission of the Seven in Acts 6:1-6 with the formation of the "office of deacon", but increasingly I am moving to the position that this was no more the establishment of a church office than any other commissioning of specific believers for specific missions. Looking at the context here, it seems obvious that this was not a universal sanction but the solution of a local food distribution problem that the apostles could not be distracted with. At any rate, it is never referenced in any of the (surprisingly few) NT texts dealing specifically with church service.

Clearly our attitude toward gender issues in the church is heavily influenced by our perception of church structure. If we keep the NT model in view, many of these problematic areas become much less so. After all, it could be argued that throughout church history more women than men have been servants of the church, and we see glimpses of this even in the NT when the idea of the equal woman was unheard of in almost all societies (more on that another time).

But the point I want to make here is that the NT church knows nothing of hierarchy, domination, or centralized rule. The authority of the church is Jesus, whose words are recorded in the Gospels, and whose teachings were given to the church through hand-picked apostles (the NT epistles). Those who know the teachings and live them are called to lead and protect those who are new in the faith or have not yet grown to the point where they can stand alone. Those who do not know the Word are to learn from those who do (and therefore are expected to grow!). This is the ONLY kind of hierarchy the NT knows for the church