Ok, so I'm now in chapter 4. Up to this point, I've read a lot about the liturgy of the modern-day church, and its origins etc. I've read about how the modern-day Sunday morning worship service isn't biblical and how it doesn't match the model of the 1st century church and so on. I've been reserving comment because I wanted to see if there would be any discussion (from the authors) relating to the ENTIRE church experience as it compares to the 1st century church. I may be wrong, but I'm getting the feeling that there won't be much discussion along those lines. Why? Because it would weaken the premise of the authors. Granted, the Sunday morning worship experience, in most cases, is more of a monologue. In some cases, the sermons rival the structure and appeal of the Greek rhetorical speeches. For the most part, the order of service doesn't leave room for input by anyone other than the pastor or guest speaker. But, that's just Sunday morning. I can't speak for anyone else's church, but my church meets multiple times during the week. On Mondays, we have a prayer service where, guess what? EVERYONE is encouraged to contribute. We have Bible Study on Wednesdays, where there is a facilitator, but again, guess what? EVERYONE is encouraged to participate. We have fellowships and gatherings where, again, EVERYONE is encouraged to participate. And by participate, I mean contribute meaningfully to the edification of each other by the use of our gifts.
My point is this: If the authors are going to compare the 1st century church to the church of today and promote the "organic" church, I think that all factors must come into play in order for there to be a good basis for comparison. Having said that, I am NOT saying that there shouldn't be changes made in the church today. What I am saying is, based upon what I've read so far, the picture painted of today's church is, in my opinion, bleaker than the reality.
