July 10, 2005
Worshiping as a New Testament Church (Or, what should Sunday church look like?)
When I was a Southern Baptist, the preacher often commented that we were creating a worship service that returned “to the way church worshiped in the New Testament.” This was more than a simple belief, it was an ideology. So, the question is clear: what do we know about church gatherings in the New Testament? Surprisingly, we know very little, but there are a few passages that cover this topic. This article is an attempt to look at the early Church and discover how it functioned.
When we look to the Bible, it is clear that we should start with the book of Acts, which is a historical text that covers the early church activities. So what does Acts say about what should happen in church? Well, it’s important to note that Acts was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. For Christians, that moment represents the clear line when the Old Covenant is no longer valid. Up until that point, Christians continued going to the Temple on Saturdays, the 7th day of the week. This continues to happen in Acts – see the start of Acts 3 for an example of this.
Acts does lay out the groundwork for early Church worship. First, we know that church involved three activities:
Acts 2:42. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
The structure of this verse breaks out the key aspects of the early Church’s worship: the apostles’ teaching (oral at that time), the Eucharist (breaking of bread), and prayers. We also note that they gathered on Sundays, not Saturdays:
Acts 20:7. On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.
This verse also emphasizes the Eucharist in worship and preaching – apparently Paul was a little long-winded ;-) 1 Corinthians 16 seems to suggest this was a weekly gathering that included collecting donations.
So, in looking at Scripture we come up with a weekly service that includes:
- Preaching of the Apostles
- Eucharist
- Prayer
- Donations
That’s not a lot of detail – of course my old Southern Baptist church is already out of the mix because they didn’t even do the Lord’s Supper weekly (note: the Bible actually requires the Eucharist as the Catholic Church teaches, not just a symbolic Lord’s Supper – for more read: Understanding the Eucharist).
This isn’t a lot of detail. If we look into the early Church fathers, especially those that wrote around the same time, we see similar points:
Didache 14,1. On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled, lest your sacrifice be defiled. For this is that which was proclaimed by the Lord: “In every place and time let there be offered to Me a clean sacrifice. For I am a Great King,” says the Lord, “and My name is wonderful among the gentiles.”
The Didache was written before 140 A.D., which puts it just after the New Testament was complete – the writer (who is unknown) is likely a contemporary of the Apostles. Note the emphasis on the Eucharist and on Sunday being the day of worship. Also, this passage puts the Sacrament of Confession outside of Sunday worship, just as Catholics do it today.
Justin Martyr takes the time to explain formally what worship was during that time (remember, this is several hundred years before the Bible was compiled by the Church):
Justin Martyr First Apology 67. On the day which is dedicated to the sun, all those who live in the cities or who dwell in the countryside gather in a common meeting, and for as long as there is time the Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read. Then, when the reader has finished, the president verbally gives a warning and appeal for the imitation of these good examples. Then we all rise together and offer prayers, and, as we said before, when our prayer is ended, bread is brought forward along with wine and water, and the president likewise gives thanks to the best of his ability and the people call out their assent, saying the Amen. Then there is distribution to each and the participation in the Eucharistic elements, which also are sent with the deacons to those who are absent. Those who are wealthy and wish to do so, contribute whatever they themselves care to give; and the collection is placed with the president . . .
This was written about 150 A.D. and pretty explicitly describes the Roman Catholic mass of today. Notice that the Eucharist is the central aspect of worship and is even sent to those who cannot attend – this emphasizes its importance. The service starts with reading of the Bible (again, the works of the apostles weren’t made Scripture until 395 A.D., so they are simply called the writings of the apostles). The sermon is understated here and mainly consists of appeals to imitate the apostles. Then the community prays and celebrates the Eucharist as Christ told us to in John 6. At the end, we have a collection. The only difference in Roman Catholic mass is that the collection is taken up just before the prayers. Imagine that! For 2,000 years the mass has hardly changed – praise be to God!
When looking for details about early Church worship, the Bible doesn’t cover the details, just the main aspects. However, we can look to other writings just after the Bible was written to get the details of how Christians worshipped during that time. Now look at your church, do they follow the early Church? Do they even follow the general requirements of Scripture?
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I really enjoy your site, God Bles you and keep up the good work.
Posted by: Frank at July 11, 2005 10:15 AMI can't say much on your church's interpretation of the church in Acts. But our church, sounds like the church in Acts. But does yours?
Did the church in Acts pray to saints or talk highly of Mary? Did Mary have a high position within the church. Was she sought after for aid in prayer. Did they teach about communion of saints?
No.
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at July 12, 2005 9:13 PMSandT,
Obviously, you're confused. Everything we have on the early church is a "minimum" requirement. These are the basics they did - they aren't listing every single thing the early Church did. However, if you're interested please read the early Church fathers, where they do talk highly of Mary and the Saints as well as seek them in prayer.
By the way, does your church receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist weekly? This is one of the things we know they did.
God bless,
Jay
Just an observation, I went to messanic synagogue recently and was struck by how much it resembled a catholic mass. It was much longer but the ceromony, hebrew (instead of Latin), Canter, etc was all really similar. If you guys ever have a chance to check one out do so.
In response to SandT and Jay, there is nothing wrong with tradition. Most protestants don't realize they we have a lot of tradition. Crosses on buildings aren't exactly Acts. When it comes to bible there is a difference between something that goes against scripture and something that is not in it. The latter is not neccesarly wrong. I really think our Lord cares more about how we treat each other than what order we worship in. Sometimes my bretheren either gloss over scripture or focus in on a few verses. Verses are there so that we can keep our place not form doctrine around, if you are reading an epistle read it like a letter. Try to grasp the whole message not just the parts you want.
Posted by: Stan at July 13, 2005 11:19 AM"But our church, sounds like the church in Acts. But does yours?" This is an awful lot like asking us if we still talk the way we did when we were three years old. Might I ask you the same?
Posted by: ELC at July 13, 2005 1:53 PMJay,
If you are talking about the early church in the Bible, then the early church fathers don't count. However, not all the early church fathers spoke highly of Mary. We discussed this on a previous thread. Not all the early church fathers were in union on every item that is uniquely Roman Catholic. Yes, some did speak highly of Mary, no where near the level you do today, but did indeed speak highly of her. And other church fathers do acknowledge Mary to have sinned.
At my church we break bread on a weekly basis. We don't believe that it is Christs actual blood and flesh that we ingest, but we do symbolically break the bread.
I have shown you an example of an early church father regarding Mary to be with sin. In addition, I can show you many who did not even speak of Mary. Does that mean they thought Mary to be with sin? No...but it does not mean that they thought Mary to not be with sin.
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at July 13, 2005 8:41 PMIt is true that some Church Fathers postulated that Mary may have sinned. Through history, theologians have debated the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, etc. However, Church Fathers and historical theologians are not infallible. They may help to shed some light on how the early Church interpreted scripture and understood the faith, but they did not define doctrine. To try to define exactly what the Church believed from their writings is dicey. Articles of faith are debated until they are defined by an ecumenical council or by papal teaching. This was true regarding the acceptance of Gentiles into the Church. It was true about defining Christ as fully God and fully human. It was true about defining the Trinity. It was true about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. By the way - it was also true of which books were finally accepted as inspired scripture to be formed into the Bible. However, you may safely conclude how the Mass was celebrated by reading the Church Fathers - you'll find that it is very consistently described.
See my blog at http://faith-matters.blogspot.com
Posted by: Jeffrey at July 14, 2005 2:44 AMJeffrey,
I'll agree that the early church fathers were fallible. That is why we practice using the Bible as the setter of the rule of our faith. It is ok to write books, which is what the early church fathers did. However, whatever that book is about ought to come into agreement with the word of God. Not only was there disagreement among many of the early church fathers on various items, but alot of what the early church fathers wrote, did not agree completely with the Bible. Items such as Marian doctrines and communion of saints are absent from the Bible. These are especially important because they deal with our focus. Meaning, are you focused more on God or something else.
However, whether or not you read writings outside of the Bible in regards to the early church fathers and Mass is irrelevant to this discussion because we are talking about the church in the Bible, which is very different from the RC church.
God Bless
Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at July 17, 2005 9:23 PMDid Mary sin? What does God's word say? ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Was she human? If not, maybe she didn't sin.
David
Posted by: David at July 18, 2005 12:45 AMGoing back to the topic...
A new testament church that ignores the old testament is like icing without the cake - only the sweet stuff on the surface and none of the substance on which the icing is supported.
What should church be like on Sunday?
It should focus on Christ's words (in red), and their foundation in the old testament. Some churches, especially in the protestant tradition, are all about feeling good. Nobody wants to be held accountable for their actions. It's guilt-free religion, focused on praise and charity in lieu of pennance and obedience.
Paul preached until midnight on the first day of the week. The first day began at sundown, which means midnight would have been what we now call Sat. night. You can count 84 sabbaths that Paul kept. Jesus said...believe upon me and keep my commandments...also if you love me keep my commandments. God made the 7th day holy and he does not change. Study the Sabbath. Study God's commandments. Paul: do we void the Law though grace abides..God forbide. Only the animal sacafice was nail to the cross, nothing else!
Posted by: cc at December 10, 2006 10:42 PMcc
I take it you are an adventist? Do you really follow all of God's commandments?
In Love
when we were one
Posted by: when we were one at December 12, 2006 10:22 AM
