Repeat, retreat or reform

In a cough syrup induced epiphany, I came to the conclusion that we are really faced with three possible directions when it comes to what ails the church (and I think everyone of every stripe in every camp agrees that something is wrong with the church). We can repeat, retreat or reform.

In the repeat camp are the mast majority of Christians, stubbornly refusing to even consider that the model of church we have been immersed in for 1000 years might be the problem. Cherished traditions are lifted to the level of apostolic commands and Scripture is twisted to fit our traditions, instead of our traditions bowing to the Word. When you step back and look at the Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries, we see a radical rediscovery of the authority of Scripture and of justification by faith. What I don’t see is a parallel radical change to the expression of the local gathering. The songs are different in some cases, the rituals have been changed but is the local church gathering that dramatically different from a Roman ceremony? Less formal? Probably. More Word focused? Hopefully! As steeped in tradition and ritual? Most certainly.

Case in point. On the last episode of the White Horse Inn, at around the twentieth minute, Kim Riddlebarger said of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11 that it was "a settled liturgy" and a "liturgical service" using the exact words that Jesus used. The Lord's Supper, according to Dr. Riddlebarger, is "not a celebratory meal". The words that are recorded are the specific words you should utter. What Paul received from Christ and passed on to Corinth was a liturgy? Is that what Paul said? Is he commanding them to repeat these words before the Supper or is he recounting the Words that Christ said in making a point? Is there anything in the Last Supper or in 1 Cor 11 that would indicate that these words were part of a settled liturgy to be repeated like a mantra before we could partake of a legitimate Lord's Supper? In other words, if a body of believers is gathered and in fellowship breaking bread together, that is not a celebration of the Lord's Supper but a bunch of people in a particular building, people who are united only by their "membership" in a church organization eating a morsel of bread and a sip of wine after the utterance of these words is a legitimate observance? You must come to a particular building, say the right words, follow the proper ceremony led by someone with the proper authority. Gee, that sounds kind of...Roman Catholic to me. We meet in buildings at a set time and place, following a schedule. We hire men to be paid leaders in the church, distinguished from the laity. We invest in the clergy the control of the ordinances of the church, baptism and the Supper, and in many ways have reduced both of those sacraments into religious rituals divorced from their Scriptural example and meaning. With that model entrenched, it is hard to see how the downward spiral of the local church is going to be arrested.

There are a lot of people who just stubbornly insist that this is the way we must do church and nothing else is possible. Whatever the solutions proposed, they all amount to tinkering around the periphery: make the service more fun, make it more relevant, make it more liturgical, have more expository preaching, have less preaching, change the service times, and on and on and on. None of these solutions deal with the fundamental question of what is the gathering for and how does that look.

Then there is the retreat camp, which would be those people fed up with the failures of the institutional church who are then disengaging from the assembling together completely. I don’t mean people who are in house churches, although there are some people who see the house church not as a more Biblical way to gather but instead as a way to exert control and exclude people, to be against the institutional church. The people I am referring to are those that are completely checked out, who never gather with the Body, who are not engaged in serving one another. Ironically, these people are the polar opposite of the first camp but are a direct result of their methods. While not advocating this response, I can see why some people react to the rituals of institutional church in the way that they do. Some would say that such people must not be real Christians but I would argue that the local church can often be such an impediment to fellowship that we cannot dismiss those who don’t show up on Sunday as being out of compliance any more than we can label those who make an appearance as being in compliance with the assembling together.

I don't think that either of those options is really appealing. Repeating the same tradition encumbered way of gathering as the church certainly isn't smart and disengaging from the rest of the Body is not Biblical either. We are lifted up by one another and we are unhealthy when we are separated from one another. On the other hand, going through religious rituals isn't really fellowship either so you can understand why so many people are tossing it aside. In order to break this cycle of repetition that is simultaneously leading to many people disengaging entirely, we must do what we should always default to doing: turn to the Word. Reform must always been centered on the Word, not on traditions or creeds or confessions.

What is the point of the local gathering? It is not to engage in empty rituals to fulfill a religious requirement for the week. It is not to provide gainful employment for seminary graduates. I would say it is not even primarily an evangelistic enterprise. The local church gathering is about the church, and the church is not the building or the organization, it is the people of God worshipping God by…

Loving one another.
Serving one another.
Fellowshipping with one another.
Praying with and for one another.
Teaching and being taught by one another.
Correcting and being corrected by one another.

We often see elements of the above, but in such a ritualistic, formulaic manner that it ceases to fulfill the spirit intended.

In a lot of circles, asking certain questions is forbidden. Railing against liberalism or secularism or evolution or gay marriage or abortion, all fine. Questioning the traditions of the church? Those are questions that dare not be asked. I am not talking about rejecting traditions just to stick your thumb in the eye of the old fuddy duddies. “Hey look at me, look at me! I am wearing a T-shirt to church and drinking beer! In your face!” I am talking about asking serious questions about why we do what we do in light of the Scriptures. Until we are willing to ask the questions, submit to the Word and really examine what the church is all about, we will continue to see multi-million dollar entertainment complexes and gatherings of “spirit-less shufflers” shuffling in and shuffling out but deep down yearning for Christian fellowship.