Real Worship: Part 10.1: On the Attractional Strategy

As so often happens, a comment by Guy got me to thinking. Guy wrote,

The issue is which sub-purpose(s) ought to dictate the content of the assembly.  That is, what does this general question imply about the particular design and function of an assembly?  (You post more or less just assumes that the assembly is for the attraction and retention of visitors, but i don’t see any evidence for that given in this post or in the NT frankly.)

There is a major controversy among evangelical churches that might be characterized as Attractional vs. Missional.

The Attractional camp goes back to the early days of the church growth movement. The idea is to have a church that is so attractive that people come to the services to visit, like what they hear, and join the church.

The Missional camp argues that the church can’t do mission inside the building. The goal is to get out the building to go wherever mission needs to be done: evangelism, serving those in need, etc

The Missional camp criticizes the Attractional camp by pointing out those churches that — at the extreme — offer door prizes and such like to draw a crowd. And much more commonly, they criticize the attitude of marketing Christianity as something that appeals to our consumer instincts. Thus, an Attractional teen ministry is all about great parties (fellowships, if you prefer), large crowds, fun games, and parents and other adults catering to the whims of 14-year olds. In an Attractional teen ministry, the kids wash cars to pay for a ski trip, which is given the veneer of serious Christianity because each evening ends in an uplifting devo.

And, quite frankly, that’s a pretty good criticism. Youth ministry is, on the whole, a failure and for exactly that reason. If we indulge our children and treat them as consumers to be satisfied, we’ll turn them into consumers who shop for churches to see what they can get from the church. And if they aren’t kept happy, they’ll leave.

We see the same problem among our very oldest members. Many have the attitude that they’ve paid their dues, worked hard, and now ought to be served. They want a church that sings the songs at their preferred pace, in their preferred style, with their preferred instruments (or lack thereof). You see, they are there to be made happy by the staff and elders. That want an attractive church — but they want it to be attractive to themselves.

And there’s the old-school preachers who insist that the goal isn’t to be attractive to visitors or members — it’s supposed to be attractive to God! But it just happens that what God likes is the same thing the older members like. You see, the whole “attractive to God” argument is just a dodge to tell those who lose the worship wars that they are wrong even to ask for change. And, quite often, it’s a cover for giving the powerful what they want.

So the Missional camp makes some pretty good arguments. The problem is that they are all negative. They don’t actually say how to conduct the assembly — much less how to select the music.  After all, they are all about what happens outside the building.

And, quite consistently with that perspective, some would say they really don’t care about the assembly, as it’s such a small element of their Christian lives, which they live 24/7. They care much more about the time they spend painting houses, or in Bible study, or in Bible studies. And that’s really good. I sort of feel the same way. The worship service is not the center of my weekly Christian walk. I’d rather be doing something for Jesus. But then, on the personality tests, I’m a doer, not a feeler. And so I have to careful not to turn my personality type into doctrine. (Have you even seen that happen?)

But there is this problem. You see, we live in America in 2011. And for most people, “church” is all about what’s in the building. When people move to town, they look for churches on the Internet and in the Yellow Pages so they can visit the Sunday morning assembly.  Most really can’t find a church home any other way.

Moreover, if a young couple has their first baby and decide that maybe they should start going to church, they’re going to visit the assembly. They may pick the places to visit by word of mouth, but they visit the assembly.

More importantly, we live in a culture where a lot of church members invite their friends to the assembly. And who would tell them not to do so?

Now, maybe it would be better if we invited our friends to the church’s latest Habitat for Humanity project or to a small group meeting. And members will do that, too. But there will always be evangelism done through the simple expedient of inviting a friend to church. It still works. And that’s a very good thing.

Sometimes we let the better become the enemy of the good. Sometimes we become so enamored of how we wish things could be that we forget how things are. And in America in 2011, church for the vast majority of people is centered on the assembly. And, yes, we should get out of the building and into mission, but we should also do mission in the building.

Before we get to serving the poor and seeking the lost, we must first be the church. And the church is made up of disciples —

(John 13:34-35 ESV)  34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.  35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

And discipleship is first about loving one another — just as Jesus has loved us, that is, with a submissive, sacrificial, servant heart. And I’ve argued that the foremost purpose of the assembly is to shape believers into the image of Christ, that is, to help us become disciples.

Now, here’s the cool thing: if we have the heart of Jesus, two good things happen:

* We’ll be known as true disciples of Jesus

* We’ll be attractive — but not to everyone.

Not everyone finds truly Christ-like people attractive, but those who are attracted will only have to be converted once — rather than once to the church and then later to Jesus.

And so, we are left to wonder what a church service that’s all about shaping people into the image of Jesus would be like. We need to start with some things it won’t be like.

1. It won’t be negotiated. There is no need to cut a compromise with crucified people.

2. It won’t be targeted to the tastes of the mature members. The most mature will be the most like Jesus and therefore the least concerned with their own preferences. They’ll be about what pleases others.

3. It won’t be targeted to the tastes of the most powerful members. This is church, not the country club. True power is found in being co-crucified with Jesus. Any other kind of power is the enemy of Christianity.

4. It won’t be targeted to the tastes of the richest members. The scriptures are pretty clear on this one.

Of course, neither is the service designed to exclude these people. It’s just that the goal isn’t to please them in preference to others. Even if they get mad. You see, if we keep them as members but don’t shape them into the image of Christ, we’ve accomplished nothing at all. We’d may as well close the doors and join a real church.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Real Worship, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Real Worship: Part 10.1: On the Attractional Strategy

  1. Darin says:

    What you do is grow really big with attraction until you have the building, staff, toys, slides, ski trips etc. and then look around and say I think it is supposed to be about something more and start trying to be more missional loving the neighbors around town. Seems to be what works for the successful ones…..

  2. Skip Gross says:

    Forget attractional or missional themes. These perspectives only reflect churches which are looking for a formulaic approach to Christianity. The goal is not to balance attractional or missional because the Bible doesn't break down the church into such sophomoric elements. Jesus clearly indicated his priorities in Mark 12 where he says the most important command is two: Love God and love your neighbor. Devoid of love we come up with themes and gimmicks and formulas and bus ministries ad nausea. However, when we are in love with God and love others, the church will take it's own correct course. Which by the way probably won't resemble most modern churches.

  3. "The worship service is not the center of my weekly Christian walk. I’d rather be doing something for Jesus. But then, on the personality tests, I’m a doer, not a feeler. And so I have to careful not to turn my personality type into doctrine. (Have you even seen that happen?)"

    Thank you.

    It is my wish and prayer that more leaders understand personality type and turning personality type into doctrine.

  4. alanrouse says:

    Church services shouldn't be targeted at any sub-group's tastes. Doing so would presume that the goal is to please that subgroup. Instead, the services should be targeted at the real goal:

    Eph 4:11-16 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

    If the world views church as what happens in the assembly, they learn that by observing Christians who think that way. You don't correct that problem by catering to it. Instead you change the mindset of the Christians, leading to a change in their behavior. Then the world will see something different.

  5. guy says:

    Jay,

    At this point, i'm just not sure what the criteria are for determining the purpose and function of the assembly. Are we obliged at all to look at or mimic what the 1st century church considered the function and design of an assembly?

    Your talk of "that's how things are in the 21st century, like it or not," sounds like endorsement of capitulation to things that are sub-par to NT teaching. i hope i'm just misreading you on that, so i'll leave it alone.

    i think we can use very soothing religious terms as a means to dress up something that is little more than ecclesial consumerism:
    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/ecclesia

    (Note especially just a couple paragraphs into the article Bryan Cross's list of how church's advertise themselves in the phone book.)

    And that, i find, is just not a defensible option.

    –guy

  6. Price says:

    In I Corinthians 9 Paul speaks of doing it the "jewish" way, the "law" way, the "weak" way…for the sake of the gospel…so that he might be able to save a few… Seems to me that Paul was trying to meet the need of the "consumer" in order to be able to speak to them about Jesus and the good news….

    And, while we might offer up a perfect world plan of every consumer liking church as we do it…it just ain't gonna happen… Throughout the history of the church, things have changed according to the customs and traditions of the time. So while some might prefer the New World Order..or perhaps the Ancient World Order…it is naive to believe that churches aren't going to change the way they do things in order to meet the need of the moment unless they want to fade from existence…The ones that DON'T change from time to time won't be around..Just look at how the CoC has morphed over time… My GUESS is that the CoC's that have gone under are the ones that refuse to change while the ones that do are growing and are much more effective at teaching about Jesus than non-existent churches…
    Thomas Jefferson once said…In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.

  7. Adam says:

    Guy,

    I don't want to speak for Jay, but I think it is incredibly important that we recognize that we are not the NT church – nor should we try to be. We should absolutely share the spirit of the NT church and many, many of its characteristics (love, service, prayer, fasting, humility, etc, etc, etc), but how it looks in this time and place should by necessity be radically different than a NT church.

    Maybe the failure comes in when we try to be "exactly like the NT church" – confusing the particulars of expression in time and place with the truth of spirit that the church is to embody and exemplify to the world.

    Of course none of this is particularly helpful in addressing your initial question, but it should be exciting, engaging, and entering into the heart of God as we, as the body, delve into these ecclesial matters and how they can be expressed appropriately in the world of automobiles, internet, fiat currency, high literacy, etc.

  8. Todd says:

    believers and unbelievers where appropriate above. Long day.

  9. guy says:

    Todd,

    "If i do X, people will tend to think Y" is not the same as "i do X *so that* people will tend to think Y."

    An effect does not necessarily imply design or function.

    –guy

  10. guy says:

    Adam,

    i honestly don't follow whether you mean to say our imitation of the NT church should be limited in degree or kind or whether you think there is no sense in which imitation of the NT church should constrain our ecclesiological approaches. (If the latter, then we have simply parted ways at a point more fundamental than the present discussion.)

    –guy

  11. Todd says:

    And so…?

    I think you are trying to put too fine a point on your argument. I think the teachings of Paul support attractional ministry, evangelism, education, edification, discipling, and other purposes for the assembly.
    A congregational leadership is well within the purposes of the scriptures if they keep these in view and it would be highly unlikely if they were ever able to keep all of them in balance.
    The text does not box us in to a single purpose or pattern for the assembly, why should we try to make one?

  12. alanrouse says:

    Designing services to appeal to the unconverted would be a huge mistake. You can get a really good picture of what attracts unconverted people by watching television. That's pretty much the opposite of what church should be about. The more we become like the culture around us, the more irrelevant we become.

  13. Adam says:

    Guy,

    I guess I am saying that I am much more excited to think about how we, the church, can copy the NT church in their level of giving, their level of love, their level of community, their commitment to purity, their commitment to break down social and political barriers. But how the NT church did this (in an era of no mass communication, short life expectancy, non-inflationary currency, etc, etc) should, by necessity, be radically different than how we do it in modern America.

    Said another way, how church looks in rich, southern America better be radically different than how it looks in sub-Saharan Africa, but they both better be filled with God's spirit as seen through love, sacrifice, and relation. And both of these modern churches better look radically different that how the NT church looked.

    However, if we could travel in time back to the NT church, or they could travel through time to ours, the Spirit should be the same. The love should be the same. The commitment to neighbor should be the same. The quest for purity should be the same. We should be exceedingly comfortable in their assembly and they in ours not because the forms are the same (which need to change to accomodate the cultures into which they are placed), but because God's Spirit is the same.

    Personally I find attractional churches offensive – not because they are attractional, but because so many of them are nothing but attractional. If you want to reach someone who is a materialistic, isolated, lonely, consumer, then what you build to reach them must reflect that. But it better not leave them there, as that is not where God wants us to be.

  14. guy says:

    Where does Paul teach that the assembly is *designed* to *attract* visitors?

    –guy

  15. guy says:

    Adam,

    i think i follow and i think i'm on board insomuch as i think i follow.

    i don't think changes in technology or culture will lead to any fundamental change in purpose or even function. –especially not in any way that caters to un-Christ-like values like consumerism, selfishness, or materialism as you mention. So far as i can tell, attractional churches are catering to and strengthening such values and even using such values as a means of manipulation rather than challenging such values.

    –guy

  16. 1 Corinthians 14 makes it pretty clear to me that gathered worship must take into consideration the believers and the unbelievers. It's not "for" one or the other.

  17. Todd says:

    That's what I thought I said, somehow it didn't wash. I want to know how giving consideration to a variety of needs – all expressed in scripture and explicitly pointed to within the context of the assembly is "designing"and therefore wrong?

    Paul says to consider the needs of unbelievers in your assembly. Seems that means we need to consider the needs of unbelievers in our assembly. Which would mean we need to consider the needs of the unbelievers in our assembly. So I think Paul wants us to consider the needs of the unbelievers in our assembly. (Saving myself the next few posts- I have to sleep sometime you know.)

  18. Todd says:

    Oh, at Valley we consider the needs of the unbelievers in our assembly, while we encourage, teach, challenge, et al the believers.

  19. guy says:

    i take 1Cor 12-14 to show that the assembly is *for* the mutual edification of believers in a way and to a degree that it is not *for* unbelievers.

    –guy

  20. Doug says:

    A church may be attactional or Missional but if it's not relevant, then it can't fufill it's primary goal which is to create new disciples. I think the NT Church was relevant for the NT time period but we don't live in the NT time period. The Church needs to find relevancy for the time that we live in and still ensure that it is true to the Word. If that means new music, or a minister dressed casually or a congregation that dresses casually or (insert your own ideas)… so be it. If we aren't relevant to those that we wantt to serve, we fail in our primary mission.

  21. arkie55 says:

    One purpose of our assemblies surely must be to, "stir up one another to love and good works". That's from Hebrews 10, ESV. Paul's cautions to the Corinthians do indeed sound as if he expected that some newcomers might be present in an assembly. The essential ingredient in any of our assemblies has to be just genuine Christians. That's the attraction – when people see us and want what we have…

  22. Skip Gross says:

    The essential ingredient for every church has to be Jesus Christ front and center. Having genuine Christians is a bonus but genuine Christians aren't the reason why people are impacted or saved. We are but a pale reflection of our Lord. If a visitor comes and sees a church of warm and friendly Christians that is nice and helpful. However they can find warm and friendly people at a lodge meeting, Kiwanis club, garden club or the Mormon church. What should most distinguish "The Church" is that we present Jesus clearly in all of his glory. As John says in I John 1:1

    1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

    Read through Paul's epistles and see how often he mentions and highlights Jesus Christ. Visitors should see that we are in love with Jesus and not just in love with our Church.

  23. Alabama John says:

    Skip,

    AMEN!

  24. Jay Guin says:

    alanrouse wrote,

    If the world views church as what happens in the assembly, they learn that by observing Christians who think that way. You don’t correct that problem by catering to it. Instead you change the mindset of the Christians, leading to a change in their behavior. Then the world will see something different.

    Exactly!

  25. Jay Guin says:

    Guy wrote,

    Are we obliged at all to look at or mimic what the 1st century church considered the function and design of an assembly?

    That would require —

    * Meeting in homes and not owning buildings (but was that apostolic method or Roman law?)
    * Greeting with the Holy Kiss (hugs aren’t the same)
    * The Love Feast weekly
    * No four-part harmony (that was introduced by Luther)
    * Wine, not Welch’s
    * Only one eldership per community (overseeing multiple house churches)
    * Nearly all scripture reading from the Old Testament
    * Questions in the assembly (clearly implied from 1 Cor 14:32-35)
    * The Lord’s Prayer
    * An order of widows (1 Tim 5 is explicit)
    * Meals for widows (Acts 6)
    * No age-group Bible classes (Sunday school is a 19th Century innovation)
    * No invitation (Again, 19th Century, maybe late 18th Century)
    * One cup (multiple cups is a late 19th Century innovation, accelerated by the flu and tuberculosis epidemics shortly after discovery of germ theory)

    But, then, as soon as Constantine permitted the churches to use public buildings, they abandoned their houses and met in the larger buildings. I’m aware of no objections from the leaders — or the wives, who were doubtlessly very tired of cleaning up for weekly (and even daily) meetings!

    You see, it’s hard to declare what is and isn’t doctrinal when it comes to the assembly, because the NT only mentions these things incidentally. There is no text on how to do the assembly. And that, by itself, is telling.

    The real First Century pattern, I’m convinced, is aiming everything at shaping the members into the image of Christ, so that they become truly co-crucified, self-sacrificing, servant-hearted people — rather than cantankerous people who expect church to be for them. Rather, our attitude must be that we are there for others.

    Yes, we’ll struggle to find the best way to change people in a self-indulgent, narcissistic, consumerist culture into Christ-like people, and we’ll have to experiment some and fail, but we should at least be able to agree on the goal and hold that goal fervently.

  26. Jay Guin says:

    Readers,

    “Adam” is “TwistersinBama.” (There’s more than one “Adam” here.)

  27. Jay Guin says:

    Guy wrote,

    i take 1Cor 12-14 to show that the assembly is *for* the mutual edification of believers in a way and to a degree that it is not *for* unbelievers.

    I entirely agree. But as a number of readers have noted, Paul is clear in 1 Cor 14 that the impact of the assembly on the unbeliever visitor is very important. And he assumes that visiting unbelievers will be there. Obviously, someone must have invited them! The purpose of inviting an unbeliever to the assembly is surely that the assembly will help that unbeliever become a believer — just as Paul indicates.

    But the believers are the focus of the assembly. An assembly of truly Christ-like, co-crucified believers, acting selflessly, in an assembly that’s all about serving others and meeting the needs of others will be attractive — even more attractive than a coffee bar — if done with sensitivity to both members and visiting unbelievers.

    Just how that happens will require some imagination and getting away from the Pattern. Somehow, the assembly must show forth the authenticity and relevance of that community of believers. This should be clear from the announcements, the testimonies, the songs … everything. And these all must be viewed through a missional lens.

    By “missional” I particularly mean life lived in the image of Christ. The attaction isn’t merely the music and the sermon — it’s the people, the atmosphere, the Spirit. It’s what the church is all about. It’s who the people are.

    Only one congregation in town can have the best music and only one can have the best preacher. But all can have the heart of Jesus — the very best heart. And that’s enough, if the assembly is all about the heart of Jesus.

  28. Jay Guin says:

    Skip Gross wrote,

    Visitors should see that we are in love with Jesus and not just in love with our Church.

    Amen, amen, amen!

  29. aBasnar says:

    Some things are just been overlooked or forgotten by the Restorationsts:

    That would require —

    * Meeting in homes and not owning buildings (but was that apostolic method or Roman law?)

    Since the Christians at first were viwed as Jews nothing would have hindered them to build synagoues as the Jews did. But they did not. And Rome was very liberal concerning the different cults – why should a Chrsitian worship building be irritating to them? In fact it irrtated them that they did NOT have such visible objects oftheir faith.

    * Greeting with the Holy Kiss (hugs aren't the same)

    Seems to be one of your favorites. Only because our church doesn't practice it, may we say that's obeolete? People still great each other with kisses outside the church, but we – who even have 5 verses calling us to do so! – don't. We don't do it in our church either. YET. Restoration is a slow process, but it is necessary if we want be consistent.

    As soon as we dclare on of the least commandments as disposable, we are on a wrong track.

    * The Love Feast weekly

    Do it, you'll enjoy it! Love has to do with eating together.

    * No four-part harmony (that was introduced by Luther)

    Come on, there is no verse fcondemning it in the NT! But OK, harmonies have not been developed in NT times, this actually was discovered in the late middle ages. So that's something we can save up for later times, when we have put in order the other things.

    * Wine, not Welch's

    Absolutely! We follow the legalistic doctrrines of the temperance movement more readily than the Word of God. We should use wine, mixed with water (as Wisdom in Prov 9 does).

    * Only one eldership per community (overseeing multiple house churches)

    YES!

    * Nearly all scripture reading from the Old Testament

    Would be healthy. If we keep ration of about 5:1 we'd be balanced; and we#d get a better understanding and appreciation for t he NT.

    * Questions in the assembly (clearly implied from 1 Cor 14:32-35)

    I'm sure you are not afraid of being questioned. Remember the setting of a house church – this is by far less embarrasing than being critized in front of 2000 people.

    * The Lord's Prayer

    I pray it regularly myself. I'd miss so much if I didn't …

    * An order of widows (1 Tim 5 is explicit)

    Yes. You could also look into the ECF to get a clearer idea of what their (important) ministry was.

    * Meals for widows (Acts 6)

    Or the needy in general. We in Austria enrusted almost all social help to the state, so we don't feel as responsible for the needs of others as we should. Let's get started with somethinbg like that!

    * No age-group Bible classes (Sunday school is a 19th Century innovation)

    Yes, it's better when the kids experience church as it is from the beginning – and become involved in it by receiving attention.

    * No invitation (Again, 19th Century, maybe late 18th Century)

    Yes. Evangelism takes place outside, on the streets, the workplace, …

    * One cup (multiple cups is a late 19th Century innovation, accelerated by the flu and tuberculosis epidemics shortly after discovery of germ theory)

    Absolutely. Then we don't have to discuss such fancy words as "metonymy" any longer.

    See, Jay, you know what ought to be done. If you want to change the churches of Christ, then let's do it the right way!

    Alexander

  30. guy says:

    Jay,

    You wrote:
    "That would require —

    * Meeting in homes and not owning buildings (but was that apostolic method or Roman law?)
    * Greeting with the Holy Kiss (hugs aren't the same)
    * The Love Feast weekly…

    This assumes that design-and-function are identical to or inseparable from form or practice. i'm not making that claim. i'm talking about purpose, ends, the same values and looking to maximize those values, etc. What forms (or means) are most efficient or perhaps permissible is a separate matter. It may very well be that we are obligated to all the forms of practice you mention-maybe, maybe not, but that's not what i'm discussing here. Saying that the assembly's function is primarily *for* unbelievers or *for* believers or *for* God is not the same as saying we are obligated to engage in x, y, z practices when assembled.

    –guy

  31. guy says:

    Jay,

    There's several sentences here i take minor issue with, but i'll let all that go. here's my main concern/criticism:

    Consider this:

    (1) If i am prayerful and giving, then generally the right kind of people will think that i am prayerful and giving.

    (2) I should behave in such a way *so that* the right kind of people will think i am prayerful and giving.

    (1) and (2) are not at all the same. (2) leads to hypocrisy.

    Once you start trying to convince others how authentic you are, you've already failed to be authentic. Once you start trying to convince others that you possess and adhere to a certain value, you've very likely already failed to possess and adhere to that value. Once we start doing what we do in an assembly *so that* visitors will think thus-and-such about us, we're already delved into hypocrisy and in-authenticity.

    If we do the right things for the right reasons, then generally reasonable people will think the right kind of things. That, i take it, is Paul's point in 1Cor 14. But aiming to get people to think certain things is *not* the right thing for the right reason. That, i take it, is Jesus' point in Matt 6. Once we adopt as the purpose or design of the assembly trying to get a visitor to think something, i think we've violated the latter notion.

    –guy

  32. aBasnar says:

    I also have the impression this one "hypothetical" visitor (remember, the sentence starts with an "IF") serves the same purpose as Deborah in the debates on women in ministry. Here we have one single verse that indicates the possibility of unbelievers in an assembly, and that in a hypothetical statement! And the "conclusion" becomes the opposite of what is written: "Visitor friendly worship". While it is clearly written that the focus are the believers, this is turned upside down in the "attractional strategy". I don't like any exegetical results that turn verses upside down.

    Alexander

  33. aBasnar says:

    then why does Paul ground so much of his discussion concerning tongues in the assembly around how "guests" or "visitors" feel?

    So much? Todd, there is one single hypothetical verse in the midst of all the teaching on how to edify the church! Put this into perspective, and you see that the reasoning of the "attractional strategy" distorts the balance given in chapter 14.

    Alexander

  34. Jay Guin says:

    Oh, and the early church —

    * Had the women wear veils (http://thirdwaystyle.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/roman-veils/) (not a bit of lace on their heads).

    * Met at night or before the workday began (Sunday was not a day off until centuries later)

  35. aBasnar says:

    Yes to 1Co 11:2-16 (there's no other option than to affirm God's word through obedience, is there? nice picture BTW). And if Sunday would happen to become a workday again, I see no other option. Boy we can learn so much from the ECF! And see – it's actually all in the scriptures – Acts 20:7 was a meeting after work.

    Alexander

Comments are closed.