Thoughts on Sunday Morning Church
Before reading further, stop and answer this question: If you were telling a friend about your church, how would you describe it? Would you talk primarily about the Sunday morning or Wednesday services? Would you talk about how nice the building is?
If you were to survey members of evangelical churches and ask them to describe their churches, I suspect a common response—perhaps from the majority—would focus on the worship style (the worship “experience”) or on the pastor’s preaching. Those who really like their church might be inclined to reference just how wonderful the music is or how good the preaching is. A second emphasis might be on the building, especially if it is new or “nice.” When people are looking for a new church, isn’t the primary focus on what a church offers—both in services and facilities—on Sunday mornings?
It seems that most churches are characterized and identified by the Sunday morning gathering and buildings. But it wasn’t this way in the New Testament—the churches were not defined in their respective communities by their weekly corporate gatherings (and the buildings necessary to house them), but rather by the organic presence and influence of people who had fully surrendered everything over to follow and serve their King.
My suspicion is that the current mindset is the result of the revivalistic influence of the 19th and 20th centuries. In the revival meetings that swept across the South, success was measured by numbers—the number of people who attended and the number who made “decisions.” Unfortunately, since success was so often measured by such numbers, it was easy for evangelists to make their objective high numbers in attendance and decisions. Of course, the inclination would be to adjust the message and methods in order to reach the objective. Tragically, in too many cases baptisms resulted from emotional pleas by effective and passionate communicators, rather than serving as a testimony of a person’s repentance from sin and rebellion and surrendering over to the Lordship—the rightful rule—of Christ.
It was an easy step from there for churches to adopt the same model, using the Sunday morning service as a means of attracting the lost in order to present the Gospel—in such a model it would naturally follow that methods, models, facilities, and budgets would be adjusted in order to reach the objective of increased attendance and baptisms. In fact, the church growth movement of the last 20 years was based on this model. Consequently, incredible resources have been funneled into these Sunday morning services and the facilities that accommodate them.
But that was not the nature of churches in the New Testament (for a contrast of evangelistic models between the NT and today, look at my blogs from May 8-13).
Consider these contrasts: A common model in our churches today is to reach the community primarily through our Sunday morning gathering—we invite the lost so they can hear the Gospel. Consequently, we shape the gathering (the music and sermon presentations) and direct the funds and energies to make it appealing and attractive. And remember, like it or not, we are inclined to measure success by the numbers reflected in attendance and baptisms. So we falsely conclude that the more we attract and baptize, the more successful we are. Tragically, even today baptisms so often follow emotional pleas from effective and passionate communicators, rather than following a person’s repentance of sin and rebellion and surrender over to the Lordship—the rightful rule—of Christ.
In the New Testament, however, it was not so. The church reached its community by taking the Gospel of the Kingdom to the people—they were daily proclaiming the loving truth of Christ in the public square and from house to house (this is the “message” of the Kingdom), and they were daily demonstrating the loving truth of Christ (this is the “ministry” of the Kingdom). Those who repented and placed faith in Christ were then incorporated into an ongoing, daily fellowship where they could be nurtured and strengthened. They were not identified primarily as a congregation that met once a week, but rather as a vibrant community of faith fully committed to the King and to each other—seven days a week. Their success was not measured by the numbers that attended the weekly service, or even the numbers that they baptized, but by their obedience to the Lord’s mandate to make disciples.
This is NOT to suggest that the weekly corporate gathering is insignificant or optional—the Scripture is clear that the churches gathered corporately for worship and instruction by the pastor from God’s Word—but this was merely one component of a much larger dynamic, not the sum total as it has become today. And its primary focus was not outreach (and certainly not entertainment), but rather genuine, God-exalting, Christ-centered worship and definitive, effective, and unadulterated instruction from His Word.
We see two contrasting paradigms here—one from the New Testament and one that has evolved over the last 100 years—is there any doubt which should be preferred? Also, consider this: Jesus commanded us to make disciples—the church in the New Testament obeyed that command effectively and successfully without such a heavy focus on the Sunday morning service. We, however, have spent billions of dollars on our Sunday morning services and the buildings to house them, but where are the resulting disciples? The church in the NT shaped an entire culture—it changed the world. With all of our billions spent on our present paradigm, what kind of return are we getting on the investment?
Our weekly gatherings are indeed essential (to the extent that they accomplish the God-ordained purposes spelled out in Scripture), but they are not sufficient, or even primary from a biblical standpoint (can you point to a biblical example in which it was identified as primary?). In a biblically balanced model, they are designed to complement and supplement the ongoing life and development of Christ’s Body. Oh that we would return to that balance.
Comments(1)