unbelievers v. church

John MacArthur writes the following regarding the central point of the gathered church.

Making unbelievers the central focus when the church gathers together is a tragic reversal of the biblical pattern. The church is to come together primarily for worship, not evangelism; it is to collectively praise and worship God, not to entertain non-Christians. The church's goal is not to make unbelievers comfortable; in fact, it is just the opposite. When an unbeliever enters a church that worships God, "the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among [its people]" (1 Cor 14.25). Thus, worship is not an option, to be slipped into the church's life as inoffensively and unobtrusively as possible or ignored altogether; it is the very heart and soul of all that we are as Christians. In fact, my favorite definition of a Christian comes from Philipians 3.3, where the apostle Paul describes Christians as those who "worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus."

To the statement as it is written, I say 'amen'! Some of the words and implications however need a little unpacking and I'm confident MacArthur and I would disagree on some of the finer but significant points.

I'll start with the word "church". I know MacArthur understands that church is a people. However, he and his students are often critical of those that make what is done on Sunday morning a little less about believers and a little more about unbelievers. It's almost as if contrary to what MacArthur knows to be true, when critiquing seeker-sensitives, he defines church as Sunday morning gatherings. I must agree that some "seeker-sensitive" communities have simply forgotten why they gather. They equate Sunday morning with church and use that as a venue for evangelism. Others however have understood that the true church gathers frequently and in our society, Sunday morning draws out a lot of people that are not believers - they are only religious or looking for something, etc.. This community then consciously chooses to worship as believers another time and allow the Sunday event to be an environment for unbelievers.

I can appreciate the argument that even the latter concept is wrong but some Christians are ignorant of the thinking of others such that they presume all seeker-sensitives have sold out and have distorted the meaning of the gathered church. While this is true for some seeker-sensitives, it is not for all. And frankly, one would not have to look long and hard to find things wrong with Sunday morning gatherings in any stream of Christianity.

To me, the main thing for any community is to stop holding its traditions as sacred, to ensure that they are gathering as and for believers, and then to look at all of the meetings across the full spectrum of whatever it is they may be doing and to ensure that they are Spirit-led and doing it with excellence for the purpose God has called them to do it for.

Separately, I find MacArthur's use of 1 Cor 14 interesting as proof that the Church should confront the senses of the unbeliever to bring him to repentance. It's interesting because the text is first launched by a conversation about tongues in which Paul does not say there should not be tongues but where he prescribes that proper place of tongues - something MacArthur would say should have ceased. Secondly, and less speculative, is that the text starts with the reason the unbeliever's secrets are disclosed is because "all prophesy". Cessationists (MacArthur) will go through great lengths to explain that prophecy is preaching the Word but that just doesn't square with Scripture. Paul is clearly encouraging the normal demonstration of the gifts of the Spirit and here, and not just of for the building up of those within the body, but also for the building up of the body by adding new members to it.

In addition, the form of the gathering in this text is one that is foreign to the typical evangelical gathering and more common to those that many evangelicals condemn, i.e., the house church, the charismatic church and the emerging church. In that same passage of Corinthians:

When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

Interesting ...

Finally, MacArthur said, "worship is not an option, to be slipped into the church's life as inoffensively and unobtrusively as possible or ignored altogether". I find that a bit ambiguous. While MacArthur and his students are critical of those that worship in a way that they think is trying appease the masses, they also critique the wildness of the charismatic event. I'm wondering how it came to be that their form is the one that is pleasing to God? Charismatics would argue that the typical evangelical service is structure so it is pleasing to man. Seeker-sensitives could argue that the evangelical form is an affront thrown in the face of others as opposed to the Gospel of Christ being the only offense.

My take is again similar to the earlier point. It is not about the form. It is about what is behind it. Who is gathering why and what is the Spirit behind the motivation? This is what all groups must challenge themselves with because in fact, all may be right and all may be wrong. We need to seek God and not our tradition - and we need to stop condemning those outside of our tradition.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology