Do you think something is missing from church? Maybe you have about read how the assembly is for edifying, which is to build up and uplift the mind with the spirit (1 Cor 14:4–5, 12, 15, 17, 26). You may also read Hebrews 10:24 about the assembly being “to stir up love and good works.” However, you may often be told that it is you and what you put into worship, but you know that you put your whole heart and mind into worship and your whole heart into living the Christian life.
How can you teach your friends and family about restoring the gospel, church government, and worship, and then bring them to a church that provides good worship, a little edification, some encouragement for good works, and a very loving congregation at its core? While they shouldn’t expect perfection, they should actually be edified and worship in spirit as well as in uth. Some may try to describe worship as about God and not us. While it is true that the assembly is not about entertaining in worshiping our desires, the worship and edification of the assembly is for us according to scripture. The rock concert churches and traditional choir churches certainly do not provide a model for the worship and edification established by Christ’s Spirit in the Scriptures. The churches of Christ certainly do not need to go the way of dramatic talent shows in place of the assembly presented by the inspired writers. Let us restore the pattern of edification in the assembly
This is a living article to present and consider the words of past leaders in the churches of Christ. First, note Burton Coffman’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:26 (1992), who states,
“The spontaneous, informal nature of the early church services is clearly visible. There could have been no set program in advance, with even the words that people would say written down a week ahead. There cannot be any doubt that formalism, which is the current religious style, and which certainly corrected the shameful disorders like those at Corinth, has nevertheless left many a congregation in a state of abiosis.”
Does that sound like our churches? There may be some, but Coffman is right that our assemblies can become lifeless when we deprive it of edification.
Next, in his 10th essay entitled “Primitive Mode of Teaching” within his book, “A Treatise on the Eldership” (1870), J.W. McGarvey brings to light some lost blessings of the mode of primitive Christian teaching. His plea is for a focus on edification rather than “preaching.” He presented a scriptural order of two or three speakers rather than just one. By two or three speakers, he means 2 or 3 singing a song, 2 or 3 reading scriptures, 2 or 3 teaching, and 2 or 3 preaching. However, not specifically in any order or with all the readings at one time or the all singing at another. He defends the scriptural basis for the men are to rotate in leading the assembly with singing, reading, teaching, and praying. McGarvey noted that these men would have been approved to lead in the assembly by the elders’ oversight. In his conclusion, he makes with a powerful statement, “That they do not, is a manifest departure from apostolic precedents, and like all departures from the original standard, it brings forth evil fruit.” Here are are McGarvey’s words,
“In the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians, Paul gives the church directions upon this subject, and concludes by remarking that ‘God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints’ (v 33). This remark, in the connection which is sustains, requires the supposition that the same mode of avoiding confusion and securing peace which he had just prescribed for the Corinthians, was the mode established in all the congregations. This conclusion is confirmed by the consideration that the apostle could not be supposed to establish, in different congregations, methods in any great degree different from each other.
After having stated the threefold object of prophesying, that it contemplates edification, exhortation and comfort; and having pointed out the impropriety of speaking in tongues unless an interpreter were present, the apostle proceeds as follows: ‘How is it, then, brethren? When you come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done to edifying.’ The expression ‘every one’ in not to be taken strictly; for it is not true that every member had each one of the exercises enumerated; but the apostle means that they have these among them; some one; some another. Singing, then, in which some were specially gifted; teaching, in which others excelled, and which is here used as the equivalent of prophesying; speaking in tongues which belonged to still another class; and interpreting tongues, which belonged to still another, constituted the exercises under consideration. Having thus stated the different exercises, the apostle drops the subject of singing, and proceeds to give the proper mode of conducting the public speaking both by tongues and by prophesying. He says, ‘If any man speak in a tongue, let it be by two, or at most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church.’ The meaning of the expression ‘by two or at most by three,’ is, that two or at most three persons shall speak at one meeting. So say the commentators, and so the context requires us to understand the expression. Two or at most three brethren, then, possessed of the gift of tongues, might speak at one meeting, provided an interpreter were present; otherwise, they were forbidden to speak at all in the assembly of the saints.
Advancing now to the other class of speakers, he gives the same direction as to number; saying, ‘Let the prophets speak, two or three, and let the others judge. If anything be revealed to another who sits by, let the first hold his peace; for you may all prophesy, one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.’
From this it appears, that, as in the case of the tongues, only two or three prophets were to speak at a single meeting and that no one was to occupy the time to the exclusion of another who wished to speak. While one was speaking, and had occupied sufficient time, the Spirit would move another to speak, and upon his making this known, the first must hold his peace. It appears, also, that liberty to speak in rotation was extended to all those who possessed the prophetic gift. The expression, ‘you may all prophesy, one by one,’ means, not all the members, but all the prophets; for only a part of the members possessed the gift of prophecy. The judging mentioned is doubtless that by which the prophets, who were listening, decided as to the reality of the inspiration claimed by him who was speaking.
From these directions, we determine the order of exercises in the primitive churches as follows: When brethren were present who could speak in tongues, two or three of them would speak, each following by his interpreter; and after or before these, or perhaps intermingled with these, two or three prophets would speak, thus making from four to six speeches at one meeting. Singing was also introduced in such amount and at such time as would best promote edification, and the Lord’s supper, together with suitable prayers, found an appropriate place amid other exercises. We need not pause to furnish the intelligent reader with proof as to the services last mentioned.
So great a variety of exercises at a single meeting imposes the alternative of protracting the meeting to great length, or of greatly abbreviating each exercise. But long continued meetings have never, in any age, been found profitable, and therefore, the strong probability is that the individual exercises were very brief. If each one of the six speeches occupied ten minutes, and the various services connected with the Lord’s supper half an hour, these, together with singing and prayers, would doubtless protract the entire services to two hours, as much time probably, as they usually occupied.
In the primitive churches, very generally, if not universally, the teachers possessed some spiritual gift imparted by imposition of apostolic hands. It is for this reason that the directions which we have on record are given with reference to the exercise of such gifts. But when these gifts passed away, there is no doubt that the order of exercises instituted for the inspired was perpetuated by the uninspired teachers. The former would naturally be the mode for the latter; and the latter would argue that if it were necessary for inspired teachers to follow the directions of the apostle, much more would be necessary for the uninspired to do the same. A perpetuation of this mode of conducting the worship was, therefore, a necessity, so long as men continued to be governed by apostolic precedents.
Although the above was the order prevalent in the primitive churches, we have evidence that it was sometimes interrupted. When Paul met with the brethren at Troas, he occupied the whole time of their meeting with his long speech and subsequent conversation. This shows that when opportunity occurred for greater instruction or edification than the ordinary exercises afforded, the rule of doing the greatest good to the greatest number prevailed, and this might justify the appropriation of the most favorable hour in the week to the labors of an evangelist.
The wisdom of this apostolic method of imparting public instruction to the disciples, is attested by the experiences of the present time. It is almost universally conceded by those who have opportunity to judge, that well conducted prayer meetings, in which brief alternate songs, prayers and exhortations fill up the time, are more edifying than most meetings for preaching; and when a large number of preachers are convened on some great occasion, it is found that meetings for social exercises of this character are more devotional than those in which the most eloquent speakers occupy the entire hour. Why, then, should not the churches, under the guidance of their Elders, depend more upon such meetings, and less upon preaching? That they do not, is a manifest departure from apostolic precedents, and like all departures from the original standard, it brings forth evil fruit. Churches which can not be supplied with preaching are languishing and dying, when, by this method, they might be full of life and power. Churches are far more numerous than men who can speak an hour to edification, and they will always be so in a religious body which is rapidly increasing. If you try to check this disparity by ceasing to multiply churches, the zeal of the body will die, and it will cease to multiply preachers also. Our only alternative, therefore, is to return to primitive practice. Let the Elders, in the absence of the evangelist, assemble the congregation every Lord’s day, and instead of allowing one or two to occupy the time, call forth from four to six with other established exercises of the Lord’s house. There are many other considerations in favor of this method, but I will not pause to enumerate them” (emp. added. P. 557-616).
Your comments are welcome.