# Corporate Worship



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 27, 2005)

It seems that I have started a riot on my school forums involving the RPW. 

It's funny because it was not my intentions. I stated one small little thing about it in the background and now there has been an outburst of assertions and questions hitting me. I didn't mean to get myself in such an overwhelming situaton. However, I have a lot of motivation to study worship now. 

So the key issues come down to this.

What is corporate worship and how does scripture support it and construct it?

I have heard people mention that for something to be corporate worship it has to have a ordained minister, use sacraments, and such. So what is the meaning behind it that distinguishes it from our daily obligation of worship to God? 

I hear so many people say things like " if we can't use instruments in coroporate worship then we can't use it in anything because everythng we do is worship." 

For these people, in their ignorance, corporate worship doesn't really exists, it is just a nice practical idea to help give us a spritual surge before the week comes. But there is no difference between corporate worship and our worship outside of church.... 

Shed me some light, and pray for me as I am very frusterated at the moment!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 27, 2005)

Tim,
I already have addressed these points in the previous thread you started; The answers are on the way..........


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 27, 2005)

The parachurch mindset of modern Christians says that organized religion isn't needful or Biblical and worship is not defined by set times and circumstances. To address this adequately you really have to carefully define church and worship. A good place to start in terms of worship is the Westminster Confession, Chap. XXI, which speaks of the elements of worship and how they are regulated by God's Word. The Westminster Assembly was very careful in its written documents to distinguish between the three types of worship that are required of believers by God, and these three distinctions come from God's Word and the light of nature: 

Corporate or Public Worship
Secret or Private Worship
Family Worship

The following resources may be of some assistance in defining the differences:

Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God:

http://www.covenanter.org/Westminster/directoryforpublicworship.htm

Westminster Directory for Family Worship:

http://www.covenanter.org/Westminster/directoryforfamilyworship.htm

_Public Worship to be Preferred Before Private_, David Clarkson: 

http://www.covenanter.org/DClarkson/clarkson_pubwor.html


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 27, 2005)

Great links Andrew!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 27, 2005)

I sometimes like to describe the Public Worship of God as "the militant, visible advance of the kingdom of God against the kingdom of darkness." As a former military guy, I have some practical experience in the concept of fighting unity. A coordinated, disciplined fighting force is always going to defeat a rag-tag, divided, or otherwise weaker opposition, provided that it is using tactics appropriate to the situation.

The gathered body of Christ is nothing less than the army of God's people gathered for a public display of unity and solidarity (not only that, of course). By way of illustration, think of Israel poised at the borders of the promised land. The peoples quailed in fear. There is strength in numbers and unity. A team can accomplish more together than all the individuals separately. This is why there is power and meaning in Public worship beyond the _Coram Deo_ truth "all-of-life-is worship." Most people using the phrase are just sloganeering. As the hyper-individualistic church in this country downplays the importance of discipline and unity, the church as a whole is weakened in this area, as in so many others.

This is why I find anything that smacks of individualism in the church to be contrary to the unity-principle. Be that "silent prayer" in the middle of the service; or individualistic, wily-nily "amens" (as opposed to corporate, "expected" amens); or individualistic clapping, or hand raising, or "charis-mania" (whether "tongues", "holy laughter", dancing, rolling on the floor, etc.); you are welcome to add to the list.

The worship service taken as a whole is even more important as "visual drama" than the sacramental (baptism & L.S.) element of worship. Forget about the ornate medievalism of Rome or E.O.; forget about silly stage-plays in modern evangelicalism. Those are not what I mean. It is the power of heart-felt common engagement. I've lived in Egypt (as an MK). I've seen hundreds of Muslim worshipers hit their knees at once and prostrate themselves. They may be wrong--dead wrong, theologically. But they "get it" when it comes to the unity-principle.


----------



## lwadkins (Feb 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The parachurch mindset of modern Christians says that organized religion isn't needful or Biblical and worship is not defined by set times and circumstances. To address this adequately you really have to carefully define church and worship. A good place to start in terms of worship is the Westminster Confession, Chap. XXI, which speaks of the elements of worship and how they are regulated by God's Word. The Westminster Assembly was very careful in its written documents to distinguish between the three types of worship that are required of believers by God, and these three distinctions come from God's Word and the light of nature:
> 
> Corporate or Public Worship
> ...



Andrew makes a great point here, and you will find that those with whom you are having this discussion will likely have these nuances of worship confused. It is almost assured that you willl have to define the concept of corporate worship in order to even have a meaningful debate.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2005)

Tim, good for you for taking a stand for the right worship of God. A few distinctions:

(1) Not all life is worship. All life is to glorify God however not everything which glorifies God is worship proper. To put eating, drinking, even the most base intimate functions of life on par with the holy oblations of the priests of the temple or the lifting of the voice to God in Psalms is obscene. I've struggled to find an accurate definition of precisely what worship is though I do have a vague concept. On the CD cover I'm looking at J Owen is quoted saying "Worship... is preformed in heaven. Though they who preform it are on earth yet they do it by faith in heaven." Worship is approaching the throne of God and offering Him our praise. Sacrificing to Him, even if not bloody. Our songs are called freewill offerings of the lips. Our prayers are compared to the incense presented by the mediating High Priest-Angel. We should look to the typology to better understand the antitype. I wish I could express this better, but the point is a distinction needs to be made between the sacred and the profane, though both ought to be God glorifying.

(2) All worship is to be regulated by the word of God, ie, the RPW. Though there are many differences between private, familial and corperate worship the RPW applies to them all.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 28, 2005)

A lot of people get hung up on the phrase "pray without ceasing," as if that means that all of life is defined as worship. That's not so. All of life is meant to be in the service and to the glory of God, but worship is different from the ordinary activities of life. Worship on the other hand is our highest duty and greatest privilege.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 28, 2005)

I just completed an extensive survey of proper worship and the RPW/Sola Scriptura on my blog.

If you would like to have a .pdf or .doc copy of it, please e-mail me and I'll send it to you (with color, formatting, etc.) so it is easier to read.

[email protected]



[Edited on 2-28-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Tim, good for you for taking a stand for the right worship of God. A few distinctions:
> 
> (1) Not all life is worship. All life is to glorify God however not everything which glorifies God is worship proper. To put eating, drinking, even the most base intimate functions of life on par with the holy oblations of the priests of the temple or the lifting of the voice to God in Psalms is obscene. I've struggled to find an accurate definition of precisely what worship is though I do have a vague concept. On the CD cover I'm looking at J Owen is quoted saying "Worship... is preformed in heaven. Though they who preform it are on earth yet they do it by faith in heaven." Worship is approaching the throne of God and offering Him our praise. Sacrificing to Him, even if not bloody. Our songs are called freewill offerings of the lips. Our prayers are compared to the incense presented by the mediating High Priest-Angel. We should look to the typology to better understand the antitype. I wish I could express this better, but the point is a distinction needs to be made between the sacred and the profane, though both ought to be God glorifying.
> ...


Peter,


A few questions to be addressed and a few distinctions that need to be made:


Peter:
1) Is private worship the same as corporate; if not, why not?
2) Was the RPW engineered with both corporate and private in mind?
3) What then is the difference between private and corporate?
4) Does private worship ever become corporate?

Andrew Myers posted these links:

The following resources may be of some assistance in defining the differences:

Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God:

http://www.covenanter.org/Westminster/directoryforpublicworship.htm

Westminster Directory for Family Worship:

http://www.covenanter.org/Westminster/directoryforfamilyworship.htm

Public Worship to be Preferred Before Private, David Clarkson: 

http://www.covenanter.org/DClarkson/clarkson_pubwor.html 
I will add this Bahnsen paper:

http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v1n2/ant_v1n2_record.html

There is a difference between corporate worship and personal or private. They are NOT the same nor cannot be. In the same light as the Book of Church Order, the RPW cannot be applied personally or privately. Granted, there are things within the confines of the RPW that are biblical and can be gleened, however, the principle itself was rendered with corporate worship in mind and cannot rightfully be applied to other forms of gatherings. Worship is defined along certain lines. When I am praying to God in my prayer closet, I am not breaking the mandate set forth in Heb ch 10. This worship time cannot be confused w/ corporate worship that Christ says is binding when two or three are gathered in my name. My wife and I do not make up that percent of jury. It is an official call that only can be brought down from Heaven under the condition set forth as corporate, hence delineating the differences.



[Edited on 2-28-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott (Feb 28, 2005)

Bond Servant:

I think that you can make the point that the RPW applies outside of the corporate worship setting. I would ask your friends to examine Matthew 15 in some detail. That is the place where Jesus rebukes the pharisees for what appears to be an otherwise benign practice of ritual handwashing. The Pharisees´ oral tradition had developed a ceremonial handwashing before meals. This was part of their system of religious worship. It is still a part of the practice of Orthodox Jews. The purpose is to make one ceremonially clean. Jesus and His followers do not participate. Rather Jesus condemns the ceremony in the strongest terms. Quoting Isaiah he explains why the ceremony is worthless. "œThey worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men." The important point is that there is nothing inherently offensive about handwashing (contra, for example, ritual human sacrifice). Indeed, it is a good and sanitary practice. But when made into worship, it is in "vain" and a mere teaching of men.

The teaching that manmade worship is vain is found elsewhere in the New Testament. Colossians 2:20-23, for example, reads: "œTherefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations"”"˜Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,´ which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh."

Self-imposed religion, or manmade worship, is not acceptable to God, even though it appears to men to be good.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 28, 2005)

Scott,
Is corporate worship different from private worship?


----------



## Scott (Feb 28, 2005)

Yes it is different. I do think the RPW applies outside of the corporate setting (it does apply there definitely) and extends to other manmade forms of worship, even in private devotions. Ritual handwashing would be one example. of something otherwise innocuous.


----------



## Peter (Feb 28, 2005)

1) Is private worship the same as corporate; if not, why not?
>No. By definition corperate worship is the joint worship of God by multiple persons, private worship is the worship of a single individual. If corperate worship is public and officiated by a Minister of Christ preaching and administering the sacraments may take place.

2) Was the RPW engineered with both corporate and private in mind?
> Of course. God requires all worship to be regulated by His verbal revelation. The design of the RPW is to sheild the holiness of God from the sinful imagination of man. Is man any less sinful in private? It is arbitrary and senseless to make such a distinction between corperate and private worship. Another thing is that Scripture never makes a *qualitative* difference between worship. It commands us to worship together and it commands us to worship individually but never describes the 2 types of worship differently. There are also scriptural examples of private worship regulated by verbal revelation. Off the top of my mind, there is the eg of Cain and Abel. Both individually brought sacrifices to God. God had set a pattern of animal sacrifice by giving furs to Adam and Eve. Abel offered animal sacrifice in accord with the divine institution and his sacrifice was pleasing to God. Yet Cain gave plants w/o God's instruction and his sacrifice was rejected.

3) What then is the difference between private and corporate?
> Besides the amount of people, some elements of worship are restricted to public corporate worship with a minister.

4) Does private worship ever become corporate?
> Yes, when one more person joins.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 28, 2005)

Isn't the major difference the matter of proper, guided, and mutual oversight? Responsibility? Not lording it over others? Not arrogating authority? In a family, the father is the authority, but he may err, and he is only one man. In private worship, what keeps a man from going into all kinds of rabbit trails, thinking they are central to religion? We can convince ourselves of so many things, if we cut ourselves off from others' beliefs and convictions. But in formal public worship, excercise of responsibility is the widest. It can still err, and often does, but at least there no man is an island to himself, and he can hear what God has led others who are humble to the Word to believe. 

The foundations can be formulated, and commonly assented to. The excercise of discipline for mutual edification can be properly, Biblically asserted. Unilateral pronouncements inhibited, and submission to each other, as co-recipients of true grace, fostered. 

Is that not the main difference?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 1) Is private worship the same as corporate; if not, why not?
> >No. By definition corperate worship is the joint worship of God by multiple persons, private worship is the worship of a single individual. If corperate worship is public and officiated by a Minister of Christ preaching and administering the sacraments may take place.
> 
> ...



So then, please answer my question in regards to heb ch 10. If it is corporate worship when my wife and I meet, are the rest of the congregation in error as they are forsaking gathering with the church as it meets?


The Lord loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob. - 

PSALM LXXXVII. 2.


http://www.covenanter.org/DClarkson/clarkson_pubwor.html

[Edited on 2-28-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Peter (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> So then, please answer my question in regards to heb ch 10. If it is corporate worship when my wife and I meet, are the rest of the congregation in error as they are forsaking gathering with the church as it meets?



No. (1) A command not to foresake corporate worship does not necessarily mean you must be present at every instance of corporate worship. What God commands us is our duty yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times (WLC Q99) (2) Also something to consider is that you and your wife worshipping together is corporate worship though private. We have a greater responsibility to present for the determined time of public worship then to be at private gatherings.

DIRECTORY FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP: WHEN the congregation is to meet for publick worship, the people (having before prepared their hearts thereunto) ought all to come and join therein; not absenting themselves from the publick ordinance through negligence, or upon pretence of private meetings.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 28, 2005)

Peter,
I believe your distinction of the corporate church is flawed. For the church to be considered _corporate_ certain conditions must be met. For instance, a pastor must be present. The signs of corporate worship are the administering of the sacraments. Worship must be led by an ordained individual. Corporate worship brings heaven down to the body in that where two or three are gathered in Christ name there He is in the midst; binding what the corporation has indeed bound. My wife and I cannot do this. The keys to the kingdom were given to leadership, not my wife and I. 

What would restrict me from leading worship at my church if my wife and I are corporate? I am leading it when the two of us are gathered, and you say that we are corporate. Would I be breaking the RPW if I led 3 people at my church if they were w/ me and my wife?

In regards to the B of C. O: It states"ought all to come". How can one misinterpret this. It says, when the chucrch gathers, you should be there. 

???

[Edited on 2-28-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Peter (Feb 28, 2005)

Scott, you may stipulate whatever definition of "corporate worship" you like, but all worship must still be regulated by the word of God. If you read Mt 18 in context you will see it has to do with discipline not worship. The power of the Keys does not comprehend all acts of worship. As a priesthood of believers we have the right to sing psalms, pray, read scripture, hear scripture preached, and receive sacraments. Only teaching and administering the sacraments belong to officers only Mt 28. 3/5 elements can be preformed without a minister.


----------



## Peter (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> What would restrict me from leading worship at my church if my wife and I are corporate? I am leading it when the two of us are gathered, and you say that we are corporate. Would I be breaking the RPW if I led 3 people at my church if they were w/ me and my wife?
> 
> In regards to the B of C. O: It states"ought all to come". How can one misinterpret this. It says, when the chucrch gathers, you should be there.
> ...



Scott, you are obligated to lead worship with your wife as you are her head. I only say you are corporate b/c you are two people gathered together, if you prefer a different term that is fine. You wouldn't be breaking the RPW.

I'm not familiar with the BCO, and it isnt authoritative for me, but I would say its speaking of regular public worship not private meetings, esp. not family meetings.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 28, 2005)

Don't forget, besides Corporate and Private worship, there is a third category: Family Worship.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Scott, you may stipulate whatever definition of "corporate worship" you like, but all worship must still be regulated by the word of God.



I don't disagree with that assessment.



> If you read Mt 18 in context you will see it has to do with discipline not worship.



I understand. However, you are bound by your assessment that my wife and I make a corporation to transfer the same idea over in regards to discipline then, if you want to remain consistant.

[Edited on 2-28-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



The D. F. P. W states the same thing; You quoted it above.


----------



## Peter (Feb 28, 2005)

Agreed Andrew, I was addressing family worship as a subset of corporate worship. For clarity this is how I was using these words:
Corporate worship : more then 2 ppl united for worship
- Public worship : regular worship of the entire congregation
- Family worship : the family together privately
- Other private worship : prayer meetings, etc.
Private worship : closet worship, 1 person

"I don't disagree with that assessment."
>I dont think we have any disagreement then.

"I understand. However, you are bound by your assessment that my wife and I make a corporation to transfer the same idea over in regards to discipline then, if you want to remain consistant."
>Im not sure exactly what youre saying but, as you and your wife arent ministers you can't exercise discipline.

"The D. F. P. W states the same thing; You quoted it above."
> Then I say give the same answer, it has to do with public worship not private gatherings.

[Edited on 2-28-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Peter (Feb 28, 2005)

To be clear, I believe when the church has agreed to meet for worship as a congregation all members are obligated to attend under normal circumstances. When two believers meet together for fellowship and pray together, other Christians who do not attend are not sinning.

My understanding of Heb 10 requires Christians to regularly gather for the public ordinance (former) and occasionally meet for the latter.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Agreed Andrew, I was addressing family worship as a subset of corporate worship. For clarity this is how I was using these words:
> Corporate worship : more then 2 ppl united for worship
> - Public worship : regular worship of the entire congregation
> ...




Peter,
Just to clearify:

When I said I didn't disagree with that statement, here is what I was referring to: 



> but all worship must still be regulated by the word of God.



Corporate worship is not familial and familial cannot be corporate. Corporate is public, but private is not. Corporate worship is public; the term is synomous. Closet worship is private as it is in a closet and no one can see you.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Here the distinction is made:

WHEN the congregation is to meet for *publick worship*, the people (having before prepared their hearts thereunto) ought all to come and join therein; not absenting themselves from the publick ordinance through negligence, or upon pretence of *private meetings*.

If any, through necessity, be hindered from being present at the beginning, they ought not, when they come into the congregation, to betake themselves to their *private devotions*, but reverently to compose themselves to join with the assembly in that ordinance of God which is then in hand.

*READING of the word in the congregation, being part of the publick worship of God*, (wherein we; acknowledge our dependence upon him, and subjection to him,) and one mean sanctified by him for the edifying of his people, is to be *performed by the pastors and teachers.* 

[Edited on 3-1-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Feb 28, 2005)

So are those elements ordained by God and acceptable in worship suppose to beexplicitly connected to corporate worship in scripture? Because I can't find scripture supporting most of the elements as being involved with corporate worship in the verses cited through this website below. If these are the supporting verses they seem pretty weak and vauge, for example I see the word "œfellowship" being used to ordain the Christ giving the Lord Supper as a sacrament for the corporate church, but how do we know fellowship is defined as the corporate church? Some of these ordained elements seem to have pretty vague ordination. I can't find the need of an ordained officer to administrate the sacraments in these cited verses either.

I know corporate worship as being established in the OT with the temple. So are we implying that every element in the temples minus the ones that scripture omits after being fulfilled are to be used? That makes sense if so, but I'd like to see the OT verses rather than the NT verses that this site gives. Know where I can find these verses? I guess I´m starting to just gripe about the substance behind the ordained elements this site gives.

I´m slightly frustrated because I am realizing that I am a hypocrite in this issue. I am always spouting off not to make assertions unless we have convincing support behind it. I´m starting to realize I never really gave this issue enough study. 

I´m trying to construct from scripture where it explains corporate worship and what makes an element ordained. I also need to figure out how to explain the difference between an element and circumstance. (as some people view instruments as similar to circumstance, for example)

I´ve always used this verse to defend not adding or substracting to what God has commanded in corporate worship. 

2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.

I am in a hurry so what is the specific context of who he is talking too?

How does this relate to corporate worship specifically and not private worship or just living life in general?

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/indexf.html


----------



## Peter (Feb 28, 2005)

Scott, we've lost sight of the topic and are arguing over semantics. *You agree all worship is to be regulated by the word of God and that was the point of my posts.* I don't feel the need to defend my usage of those words because frankly that would be pointless. I was stipulating the above definitions for the sake of clarity.


----------



## Peter (Feb 28, 2005)

Tim, explicitly or by good and necessary consequence.

"You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you."

Deu 12 the context is worship. And its a great verse to defend not adding or substracting to what God has commanded in worship.

In order to prove an act of worship has divine warrant all thats needed is its insitution in Scripture explicitly or by good and necessary consequence. You don't need to also prove a connection to corporate worship. 

I recommend you read some of the free files available at Pastor Schwertley's website:
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/s36p93.htm#Message3598

Especially:
http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/sola.htm


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Scott, we've lost sight of the topic and are arguing over semantics. *You agree all worship is to be regulated by the word of God and that was the point of my posts.* I don't feel the need to defend my usage of those words because frankly that would be pointless. I was stipulating the above definitions for the sake of clarity.



Peter,
You are absolutely correct, we ARE arguing over semantics. You are redefining the historic definition of what _corprate_ means and has meant in the historic church.

John Piper uses the term _corporate_ below. It cannot be interpreted as you have defined it:

Ephesians 4:4-16

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN." (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
Typical American Christians' Church Experience: Organically Flawed?
My aim this morning is to persuade you and plead with you to get into a small group relationship with other Christians to experience the fullness of supernatural church life as the New Testament pictures it.

Sometimes I wonder if the frequency and seriousness of many problems that Christians face is not owing to the fact that most Christians in America do not experience relational, interpersonal, supernatural church life the way the New Testaments describes it. Psychological problems, marriage problems, parenting problems, self-identity problems, financial problems, career problems, loneliness, addictions, phobias, weaknesses"”I wonder if the edividemic of emotional and psychological woes is not the symptom of an organic flaw in the way most Christians experience corporate church life.

For most Christians corporate church life is a Sunday morning worship service and that's all. A smaller percentage add to that a class of some kind, perhaps Sunday morning or Wednesday evening in which there is very little interpersonal ministry. Now don't misunderstand me, I believe in the tremendous value of corporate worship and I believe that solid teaching times are usually crucial for depth and strength. But you simply can't read the New Testament in search of what church life is supposed to be like and come away thinking that Worship services and classes are the sum total of what church was supposed to be.

The inevitable effect of treating church as worship services and classes is to make the people of God passive and too dependent on ordained experts. And could it not be that this pervasive relational passivity and dependence of millions of Christians"”I mean passivity in interpersonal, spiritual ministry"”rob us of some of Christ's precious remedies for a hundred problems? If God designed the church to function like a body with every member ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit to other members, in regular interpersonal relationship, then would it be surprising to find that the neglect of this regular interpersonal, spiritual ministry cripples the body in some of its functions and causes parts of the body to be weak and sick? Isn't that what you would expect?

I wonder if the incredible felt need for professional psychologists"”with the common assumption: Where else could you possibly turn?"”whether this feeling is owing in large measure to an organic flaw in the way we experience corporate church life. Think about this for a moment. How do psychological counselors help people? (And many of them do!) It seems to boil down to three things: 1) personal one on one conversations, called counseling or psychotherapy; 2) personal group meetings with others facing similar struggles; and 3) medications, usually some form of antidepressant. Now I think we can be thankful for these things in many cases.

But isn't it amazing that when Christians are in distress and seek help from professional psychologists, short of medication, the help we get comes through one on one or group sharing. When confronted with the pain of people's personal problems where do professionals turn? They turn first to one-on- one conversation. And when more is needed they turn to small groups. Isn't that remarkable! That the multi-billion dollar ministry of psychotherapy that we have created to help hurting people is built almost entirely on the ministry of conversation. They talk. That is the ministry"”the power of conversation. In the best settings, wise, insightful, prayerful, loving conversation.

Someone might conclude from this: So the church has failed to provide for this and should now be providing support groups"”for all kinds of distresses and abuses. Yes, perhaps so. But the question that is troubling me more these days is more fundamental than that. I am asking whether generations of flawed organic church life is a significant part of the origin of some of our dysfunctions and distresses. It's the difference between asking whether the job of the church is to have programs to distribute vitamin C tablets to remedy a scurvy edividemic, or whether we should have all the while been eating oranges.

If I am anywhere close to the truth here, then we might ask whether those who experience church in small groups get victory over their problems more often than those who don't. Yes, perhaps that would tell us something. But the problem is deeper. Are most of the small groups that exist experiencing what the New Testament pictures as interpersonal, supernatural ministry in the power of the Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Let me give you an illustration of what may be the case in many small groups, and plead with you to move toward New Testament life together.

A visiting pastor in Auckland, New Zealand was asked by the pastor of a church to come to a small group to help it understand its function. He came early for dinner and the husband was not there. The wife was embarrassed and explained that the husband owned a construction company and worked late.

The group arrived after dinner and the visiting pastor taught for a while on how to use spiritual gifts to build each other up. Then he asked them to get alone for a few minutes to seek God for how each one might channel God's grace to the others for their upbuilding.

When they came back together he assumed they knew each other's needs because they had been together for several years. The husband came home, showered and joined them in a few minutes. When the opportunity was given to speak or to pray for each other there was an awkward silence. They had never done anything like this before"”seeking the Lord for how he might want them to minister to each other in that moment to build each other up.

The visiting pastor felt a fiasco was on his hands and turned the meeting back to the pastor to close. The pastor asked if anyone had a special problem they would like prayer for. The hostess said yes and showed the group the rash all over her arms. She said that the doctors had prescribed medicine but it hadn't helped. They invited her to put her chair in the middle for prayer. And as they prayed, Christ, the head of the church, did his ministry. The pastor said, "I sense in my heart the Lord is telling me your problem is the result of great anger."

She was silent for a moment then began to cry softly. Then she confessed, "I am so angry at my husband. He promises to be home for dinner , but night after night we eat without him. . . . He's broken his promises to me over and over, and I feel I am a widow as I raise our children."

There was an awareness that something had just been revealed that two years of small group meetings had not revealed. And the husband was blushing with embarrassment.

To make the story shorter, several of the men began to speak about how they had wrestled with the same problem in their homes and had almost ruined their marriages. One in particular spoke of a deep meeting with God in such a crisis and how God had made everything new.

By the grace of God the husband knelt down in front of his wife and wept into her lap, as the group prayed for them more earnestly than they had ever prayed. The visiting pastor commented later, "The Lord had invaded His Body, and the gateway into the supernatural world had been crossed by us all."

The following Sunday the visiting pastor was to preach and saw the small group gathered on the parking lot outside the church. When they found him inside the woman pulled up her sleeves and said, "Look, no rash anywhere!" The husband approached and said, "I've cut back my workday to eight hours. I took the kids to the zoo yesterday. We have a new home." (Ralph Neighbor, Where Do We Go From Here? p. 161-64)

In other words, it is possible to turn a small group into just another impersonal time where we learn some more about the Bible, but do not minister to each other in an interpersonal way in the power of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, it is possible to lay hold on the supernatural supply of the Holy Spirit by faith and minister to each other in ways that, over generations, might rebuild a healthy church body with less weakness and sickness and immaturity and fruitlessness than we see today.

So what I am pleading for this morning is a serious reconsideration of whether you are experiencing corporate church life the way Christ reveals it in the New Testament.


Dave Rastetter
of PCA news says in describing the error of Harold Camping:


PCANews - Harold Camping, president of Family Radio, claims the Church age has come to an end. He is saying that all true believers should leave their churches no matter how faithful to the gospel these churches may be. He teaches that the office of pastor, elder and deacon have ceased to exist, that the ordinances given to the church are no longer needed and are not to be practiced any more. Also, the Holy Spirit has left the Church, and ministers no longer have the blessing of God to bring salvation to the ears of the unsaved via the gospel. 
The gospel, however, can still save if it is heard over the Family Radio airwaves (and other formats). Fellowship still exists, not in a corporate church setting, but in a home around the radio. And missionaries can still go out but only via Family Radio and its tracts. 

His definition is clear. Corporate church is when the body gathers under the pastor/elders in the church building.

[Edited on 3-1-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Peter (Mar 1, 2005)

> Peter,
> You are absolutely correct, we ARE arguing over semantics. You are redefining the historic definition of what corprate means and has meant in the historic church.



EXACTLY, it was a **STIPULATIVE** definition, viz. ad hoc for the purpose of clarification. This debate wasn't over terminology it was over the scope of the RPW. Whether or not my definition is lexically precise is irrelevant. (But I do find it humorous you quote Piper and a PCA newspaper for the *historic* definition of corporate.)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > Peter,
> ...



I had nothing else........


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Mar 14, 2005)

I am writing my New Testament Survey research paper on What the church is and how it should be set up. Basically I plan on distinguishing the line between corporate worship and the church as the new Israel, and then focus on how the corporate church should be. 

Here is my layout thus far:

1. Parallel sunday gatherings to the temple

2. Briefly explain covenant continuty

3. Describe and explain the difference between Elements vs. Circumstances 

4. The issue of EP, no instruments, and Holidays

5. Conclusion

What do you think? What are good sources? I have a couple weeks to get this done. I thought of doing predestination since I already have a defense for it and thus the paper would be easy, but I chose this topic to force me to research it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 14, 2005)

Tim, I think you would do well to study James Bannerman's _Church of Christ_, which covers all of these topics. See this thread.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Mar 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I recommend you read some of the free files available at Pastor Schwertley's website:...
> 
> Especially:
> http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/sola.htm



Thanks for the link, and I found an interesting stat in the site.

"Many Reformed churches are following in the footsteps of Arminian, revivalistic, charismatic, and the church growth movement style of worship. An excellent example of the current deterioration is the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The following statistics document their declension. Twenty-five years ago the PCA had approximately 2% exclusive Psalms singing churches; 40% "œtraditional" (e.g., Trinity Hymnal with piano and organ); 50% "œtraditional" with a few "œScripture songs" and a variety of musical instrumentation; and only 8% had a "œtraditional/contemporary" mix. Today, approximately 70% of their churches have a "œtraditional/contemporary" mix. Hurst writes: "œIf [they] don´t have dance and drama, it´s only because there is no one to lead it; women and young people may lead worship as individuals praying and reading Scripture, applause [is] acceptable for [a] job well done; music may take the form of [a] performance."59 Less than 1% of PCA churches today adhere to exclusive Psalmody (i.e., biblical worship)."

If the RPW is a shield to keep out the influence of sinful man we should boldly hold our ground. Take a CONSERV(E)ative stance rather than a liberal one. The PCA cracked the door open a little, and now it's almost completely open. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

The PCA's worship is starting to look like most evangelical (Southern Baptist, Methodist, Nondenom seeker sensitive) worship services. 

As I go to seminary and study to begin a ministry in the future, I really want to help reform America. I think a *powerful* step in the right direction would be if the reformed denominations were to unify. However, as they modify and stray farther from the mark it almost seems as hopeful as getting the reformed baptist to become Presbyterian. Or to get any evangelical church to become reformed. Most likely we will just have to build up the RPCA.



[Edited on 3-23-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


----------

