How to Gather

Whether we are to gather isn’t a question (Hebrews 10:25), but how are we to gather? As it is, we (my usual congregation) have:

• an early service for the more traditionally minded, where the small audience sings out of the hymnbook and the pastor delivers his sermon,
• a class discussion period of thirty minutes, where conversation is lead by the teacher, and everyone tries to stay on the specific topic,
• a second service, where contemporary worship music is displayed on a screen, the kids are released for children’s church, and the pastor gives his sermon,
• a night service, an hour of class discussion identical in format to the earlier thirty minutes,
• and a Wednesday night service, with fun activities and a sermon from the youth minister (I’m not sure what it is for everyone else).

It seems to me that the pastor would get slightly bored during the second delivery of the same sermon in the same morning, but I won’t take issue with that right now. However, I do want to examine the Scriptures on the subjects of:

• sermons,
• corporate song and orchestration,
• and discussion.

I expect it to be readily obvious that sermons themselves are Biblical, as “the sermon on the mount” is one of the most-spoken phrases in the Church, but their Scriptural context contrasts with our custom. I won’t reference every sermon in Scripture, but I assert that not one of them was scheduled; all were -to the audience- apparently spontaneous, and prompted by the fact that something really needed to be said (or a false prophet needed to ‘earn’ his bread). But now the pastors are expected to fill an allotted time slot every week. Christ replaced the priests, so why do we think we should invent unscriptural clerical duties?

I also assert that corporate song, where an entire congregation is expected to worship with predetermined songs almost like clockwork, is completely absent from Scripture. Orchestration, on the other hand, with a team of musicians and singers praising, was used in battle (2 Chronicles 20) and the Temple (1 Chronicles 16:4-6; 23:5; 25:1; 2 Chronicles 29:25), but (judging by the topical indexes at BibleGateway.com) was only mentioned once (Palm Sunday) in the New Testament as a form of worship (except Revelation 5:8,9;14:2,3;15:2,3). As we can see, musical worship didn’t cease in Israel at Christ’s birth, but the Church was never advised to use it. Shouldn’t it take a back seat to the thing(s) we were advised, maybe even commanded, to use?

Discussion is the main thing, if not the only thing, I had in mind while typing the previous sentence. Unfortunately, there remains a stark contrast between Scriptural specifications and current practice: teachers direct conversation according to their lesson plans. Paul (Corinthians 14:26-33) says to discuss in an open forum. Jesus spoke in such a format, and indeed the entire history of Israel shows this to be the general case, the only exceptions which I know of being when an authority captures the attention of all by means of the open forum. Paul (Acts 20) discussed with a group of people of unknown (likely immense) size, and they were so engrossed that it continued till midnight (verse 7), not noon as is the modern convention.

The Sabbath, whichever day one holds it on, sets the spiritual and emotional pace for the entire week. Just like a physical pace, this one slows as the weary -and, in many cases, sleepy- pilgrim advances, so shouldn’t we start out as briskly as possible?

The Emerging Church

Some Christians, known as “the emerging church,” incorporate the postmodern worldview, hermeneutics, and terminology, and I wonder if this movement has any Biblical merit. Before I jump into the actual topic, some people might want a background of what “postmodern” means. Wikipedia says of postmodern philosophy, “The essential point is that the meaning of all things is colored by subjectivity, and that for a philosophy or ideology to pretend full objectivity is not only deceptive but also in some cases politically abusive.” At the least, I must agree that some human perceptions (e.g., of color) are subject to the humans who have them, but hold that this doesn’t change the absolute truth of what is being perceived. Wikipedia also notes a common (supposed?) misconception “that postmodern skepticism appears similar to relativism or even nihilism,” and McDowell, on page xlii of The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, seems to equate postmodernism and relativism, i.e. “Christianity may be true for you but it’s not true for me.” To my knowledge, however, there’s a consensus that postmodernism emphasizes confusion. I suppose the debate is mostly over whether it generates this confusion or simply exposes it.

The emerging church incorporates postmodernism by noting that we cannot fully know God and regarding “concealment as an aspect of revelation” rather than its opposite. It also includes at least one aspect of mysticism, namely dualism (i.e., that God is both known and unknown). I think the core of the emerging church is explained well in this paragraph from the last link:

Following the postmodern understanding of man as subjective, Rollins advocates an understanding of faith that pays careful attention to our limited ability to describe the subject of our faith. By describing our talk about God as iconic, and our Christian discourse as a/theological, Rollins highlights our limited ability to objectively speak of God. By affirming the place of silence and doubt within our theology, he suggests we should be comfortable with our limited ability. His overall goal is to communicate a humble faith comfortable with uncertainty and subjectivity, not pressured into foundational thinking, but resting in faith and trust that God is God regardless of our failed attempts at describing him. A nonfoundational theology values the known and unknown elements of God, recognizing the need for humility when doing theology.

Does this movement have the right idea in general? If “yes,” does it have any bad points? If “no,” does it have any good points? And how should we react to it?