This post is the result of a comment made by Peter Kirk, who blogs at Gentle Wisdom:
My issue here is really not so much with translation as with your presupposition, and TC’s, that church services are for insiders only, and it is OK to make outsiders feel unwelcome. In 1 Corinthians 14:23-25 Paul may have been talking about “tongues”, but the same principle applies to use of jargon incomprehensible to outsiders. (emphasis mine; see post and related comments)
Yes, Peter, “church services are for insiders only.” Precisely because church leaders over the centuries have bought into your way of thinking, Why we’re partly in the mess we’re in and can’t seem to find our way.
So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!” (1 Cor. 14:23-26, TNIV, emphasis mine)
According to Paul’s words, an outsider’s entrance into our assemblies is only incidental.
Some of the mess could have been avoided: unnecessary debts and headaches and heartaches.
And neither am I saying that outsiders should not be unwelcomed at our Christian assemblies.
TC, thanks for responding to me, and making a new post, and I hope an interesting new thread, out of my off topic comments on the other thread.
I agree with you that the regular meetings of a local church congregation should not be primarily for outsiders. I am not a fan of “seeker services” on the Willow Creek model. Yes, the church should put on appropriate meetings for presenting the gospel to outsiders, and the “seeker service” format may be appropriate in some cases. But these should never replace the regular meetings of believers, which are not focused on outsiders.
Nevertheless, we must recognise that today, as in the first century, it is common for outsiders to find their way into regular church services for one reason or another. Their presence is indeed incidental, as Paul wrote in the passage I referred to and you quoted. But that does not mean that it should be ignored.
Part of the Apostle’s justification for his instructions to the congregation at Corinth was that they should not let outsiders who come in think that the believers are crazy. On the contrary, they should conduct themselves and their services in such a way that outsiders who come in are likely to recognise that God is among them. That is why I argued that in public church services we should be careful about using language that outsiders do not understand, whether “tongues” (Paul’s example) or theological jargon like “flesh”.
Peter,
My pleasure. I thought we needed to flesh things out some more.
Yes, we have an accord on the “seeker services” approach, esp. in the Willow manner.
At some point, outsiders who visit our assemblies will be lost and need to ask questions to find their way.
Think about the creeds and psalms and so on that were a part of the early believers gathering.
For any growing tradition of gathering people, developing a jargon is unavoidable. This is wholly natural.
But the use of jargon that is indigenous to a community actually invites an outsider to inquiry, which then leads to understand, and then praise, as in 1 Cor. 14.
When Paul went into the synagogues and proclaimed the Gospel was he an outsider or an insider to the synagogue? When James instructs in his epistle how a rich person should not treated preferentially when they come into the synagogue was this implying the rich person was a believer or not? Perhaps it is senseless to ask this question since it is impossible to determine the answer, but does James have any specific purpose in distinguishing between the synagogue and the ekklesia
J,
I would say both: (1) Paul, like every other faithful Pharisee, would have gone to the synagogue often. (2) But as a convert to the new Jesus Movement, he would have been an outsider, which is the case in the Acts-narrative.
Paul would have known those traditional readings and so on.
Regarding James, the point is to avoid the evil of partiality and so on.
The church meeting is first for the Lord, second for the body, and third for outsiders.
It is indeed backwards how many congregations reverse these priorities.
Bill,
I gladly accept the first two but would object to the third. I see the third as merely incidental.
“Incidental” still comes in at third place, doesn’t it?
Well, of course, the difference between today and NT times is when we expect evangelism to take place. In NT times it was at work and in the streets by ordinary believers. Nowadays, to our shame, we think it primarily happens within church walls, practiced by paid churchmen.
In fact, if we want to be really harsh (and I’m feeling that way), you could say many Calvinists and Arminians alike today expect God to sovereignly and magically drive people into churches to be saved.
Crown of stars, mansion of glory? Or crown of tin, mansion of cardboard?
Ouch! That hurts.
Chuck,
You’re absolutely right, and we’re paying for our missteps.
Bill,
Yes, “incidental” played right into your hands.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with a certain amount of “contextualization” in our worship services. If we know we have people coming in who are not followers of Christ, then it is appropriate to speak in a manner that they and the church body can understand. The problem I see is not as much about the presence of contextualization in our worship services as much as it is about the absence of transformation and reformation. Some church leaders contextualize things and never move beyond to the Romans 12:1-2 focus. We offer ourselves fully to God by not being conformed to the pattern of this present, fallen age and by being transformed by the renewal of the mind.
Meto,
Contextualization is unavoidable. It’s how we hand it.
I like to think of the church as “that strange gathering of people who are very different than everybody else I know.” When our gatherings (and lifestyles) are that strange/distinctive/disorienting to those caught up in the pattern of this dark age, then we will be up to something. Everything about us from the language we use, the attitudes we present, our behaviours, et. al. should illicit an “What’s up with that?” with any “outsider” who comes within reach. When they ask, we can be prepared to give an account for the hope that is within us.
So I am still wondering if you have any thoughts on James’ use of synagogue and ekklesia.
J,
At minimum James was referring to the gathering of believers. Is there something else you’re gettin at?
I agree with Bill Heroman.
Oh, such beautiful words!
It’s often hard to go against Bill.
I have been thinking about this discussion for a few days and now I have some time to write a few thoughts. The reason I was asking about James’ use of the word synagogue and ekklesia was because I am curious as to the meaning of these two Greek words as understood by the early Christian community. Both words were used to translate the Hebrew words qahal and edah in the LXX. The use of the term synagogue in the New Testament time seems to have become much linked to the building used by the Jews for the meeting. The term ekklesia was well established in Greek society particular with common community political meetings. In the Greek society the ekklesia did not have religious or cultic meaning. In Acts 19 the angry community mob which came together to protest Paul was referred to as an ekklesia in a community sense.
Since James is the only New Testament writer to refer to the assembling of the believers as a synagogue it seems that the writers of the New Testament, preferred to use the work ekklesia over synagogue (Mainly Paul and Luke). Perhaps the reason is that they wanted to distinguish their new faith communities from the synagogue that had such strong connections to the place of meeting and the legalistic emphasis of the Jewish community. Possibly they also preferred to de-emphasis the building as a meeting hall. James talks about the treatment of the rich man which comes into the synagogue and later about calling the elders of the ekklesia to pray for the sick. I am not sure if James is just using the two term interchangeable or if he has a specific purpose. I am wondering just how exclusive were these meetings of the early church. Even though Paul has a clear idea of a community of those called out by God that make up the body of Christ, I am not sure if the assembling of these people was so exclusive by design. Since the early church communities were primarily meeting in homes where in many cases the spouses and children of the believers were not yet members of the body of Christ, I would think the inclusion of these unbelievers in the assembly would be not only assumed but welcomed.
J,
I appreciate very much the effort you’ve put into this comment.
You do have a point about the Gk. synagoge, esp. its NT usage. But commentator Douglas Moo in his “James” in PNTC series cites Hermas, Mandates 11.9, where synagoge is used to refer to an “assembly” of believers (p. 103).
Another thing to keep in mind is James use of the possessive “your” to distinguish the believers’ synagoge from the regular Jewish meeting place.
J, I’m the house church guy on this thread but I don’t think that using ekklesia shows that Paul was opposed to buildings per se. He’d have a lot of reasons to avoid using the word Synagogue.