The Christian Synagogue

[mattrose]

I wrote a paper for school comparing Sunday morning in America to a 'Christian Synagogue.' I thought if any of you couldn't sleep at night, you might find it just un-interesting enough to change all that!
.................................
The Christian Synagogue

Re-evaluating Sunday
Morning in America

By Matthew Rose

THE CHRISTIAN SYNAGOGUE

Recently a parishioner (we’ll call him John ) came into the church office seeking permission (though not expecting it) to continue on a path of adultery. We had an unusually honest conversation. We agreed that this was not a righteous course. We agreed that such a decision would be in direct disobedience to the Lord. We even discussed verses that state that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Despite general agreement with all of these basic points, John insisted on following his feelings even if it jeopardized (or even sacrificed) his salvation. At the midpoint of this meeting John asked a question that was, in some ways, even more surprising than his admissions. John wanted to know if he could still attend church. He was committed to his path of adultery, but he also felt some devotion to God. He enjoyed the fellowship of Sunday morning. Why shouldn’t he be able to continue being a member of his faith community? After all, there were plenty of other people present on Sunday morning already living the double life John was about to pursue. As John left the office that morning I was not only saddened by his choice, but I also found myself struggling with questions on the nature of Sunday morning in America.

Sunday Morning in America

Sunday morning in America takes many forms. For many it is a day to sleep in and/or watch football. For others, however, Sunday morning is still a day to go to church. Churches come in small, medium and large sizes. I have the privilege of participating in two churches. The first is a very small church (usually less than twenty in attendance). The second church is a medium sized church (usually about two hundred in attendance). Over the past couple of years I have noticed some interesting differences in the dynamics of these two churches. Not surprisingly, the smaller church has a higher level of intimacy. Everyone knows everyone else. We have a time of sharing praises and prayer requests. When I preach, the people feel free (and are invited) to share insights or ask questions. An attendee of the medium sized church, on the other hand, has a higher level of anonymity (whether this is desired or not). Praises and prayer requests are generally given to the pastor in advance of the service so as not to become interruptions. The sermon is much more a monologue than in the smaller setting. Anonymity may reach its highest possible levels in the large megachurches. Of course, these are generalities. Some large churches have found ways to increase intimacy and some small churches have virtually no intimacy. But the point is that it is quite easy, on a Sunday morning in America, to be part of a church community without actually being a called-out follower of Jesus Christ. John, for instance, wanted to be part of the community without being kept to the standards of Christ. And John was right to point out that he is not alone. On any given Sunday, the church pews are speckled with people who have no intention (whether out of ignorance or because of another commitment) to live the kind of life Jesus has called his people to live.

What are we to make of the fact that, for many, the church is more of a community center than a place of worship? John has a desire to attend church. It’s a place to meet with family and friends. It’s a place to hear some music. It’s a place to contemplate some thoughts on their spiritual life. It’s a place that puts on special shows during the holiday seasons. It’s a place that will dedicate, or even baptize, your children. It’s a place to get married and later to be eulogized. On Sunday morning, especially the medium and large sized ones, the church can be a community hub. Like it or not, that is what the church is for many people in America. But is this sort of church community a good reflection of the early church? Or does it compare more with another first century setting?

1st Century Christian churches

Most conservative churches aim to model their gathering after the early church. They hope, in fact, that their churches are a faithful continuation of the church gatherings they read about in the New Testament. But what were these gatherings like? How do they compare to the typical Sunday morning in 21st century America? Thankfully, we have insider information about the nature of the 1st century Christian church in the form of surviving documents from leaders within that movement. So what does the New Testament tell us about the earliest churches?
The New Testament writings demonstrate that early Christian worship took place in the home. Jesus, of course, introduced the New Covenant in the upper room of a home. After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to the disciples twice in a home. After the ascension, the believers gathered together, once again, in the room of a home. They were filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost while together in a house. Amidst persecution, the early church gathered and prayed together in homes. It was in these house churches that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated. It was in these house churches that songs were sung, spiritual gifts were exchanged for mutual edification, and the believers were strengthened. And it was through the house churches that church discipline was enacted.

It was for political and theological reasons that the early Christians met in homes. Politically speaking, the early church was viewed as a dangerous sect by some authorities. They were not allowed to construct their own church buildings. But theologically speaking, the early church may have had no desire to build specifically designated church buildings. After all, Christianity was arguably the “first non-temple-based religion ever to emerge.” Jesus had put Himself forward as the temple of God in a way the radically altered religion as the Christians knew it. James Dunn suggests that what was unusual about the early Christians was not necessarily that they met in homes, but “the fact that Christians came together nowhere else.” Worship expert James White suggests that these house churches came with a sense of “hospitality and intimacy that was lost when Christian worship went public.” What marked the house churches was the fact that everyone participated in a genuine way through an exchange of spiritual gifts.

1st Century Jewish Synagogues

There was, of course, another place of assembly in the 1st century that some Christians utilized: the Jewish Synagogue. As with the ancient Christian house churches, we may learn much about the ancient Jewish synagogues from the New Testament. But because of the nature of these structures (more substantial than house churches) we have a much larger store of data through archaeological discoveries. Indeed, when synagogue remains from ancient Israel and the Diaspora are numbered together, we are dealing with information from hundreds of synagogue structures.

Both Jesus and Paul, specifically, made intense use of the Synagogues as a part of their mission. Jesus routinely taught in the synagogues. He also routinely commented on the hypocrisy that took place there. He rebuked the concern for social status in the seating arrangements of the synagogues. Paul seems to have treated the synagogues in the same way as Jesus had. For Paul, they were recruitment centers, places to teach about Jesus Christ and identify would-be disciples.
Synagogues seem to have developed during the Diaspora as the civic centers of Jewish communities. They were built to tower over surrounding buildings as a community hub. Rulers and a body of elders presided over the assemblies and maintenance of the synagogues. The ruler, specifically, made all the decisions in terms of who would read and speak during the gatherings. While they were thoroughly Jewish institutions, the synagogues often took on a more secular than religious flavor. Lee Levine, an expert on ancient Jewish synagogues, argues that “for some 500 years the synagogue appears to have developed parallel to the Temple. It served the religious and social needs of Jews, yet never during this period did it replace the Temple.” The synagogue was, essentially, a religiously oriented community center for people of a particular sub-culture in the Roman world.

Comparison of Ancient Synagogues and Christian House Churches

Ancient Synagogue vs. Ancient House Church
Hierarchical vs. Participatory
Mixed Attendees vs. Fixed Attendees
Highly Orchestrated vs. Highly Spontaneous
Focus on Earthly Citizenship vs. Focus on Heavenly Citizenship
Non-Sacramental vs. Sacramental

Given the above discussion and chart, we have cause to ask ourselves whether many contemporary churches (especially medium sized and megachurches) have more in common with the synagogue or the house setting? Is Sunday morning in many American churches really a continuation of the ancient Christian ekklesia, or is it more like a Christian version of the ancient synagogue? A strong case can be made for the latter.

A clergy member oversees Sunday morning services. He is largely in charge of everything that goes on during the assembly. He makes decisions about order and content of worship. He decides when to have a guest speaker and who that guest speaker will be (or not be). He ministers to the attendees and they receive ministry. And, in general, he alone gets paid. This is far more comparable to the hierarchical setup of the synagogue than the participatory style of the house churches.

A typical church congregation will include Christians and non-Christians alike. Most of the non-Christians in attendance might very well assume that they are Christians due to the very fact that they are in attendance. They may simply be ignorant about what it actually means to be a Christian. In any case, the mixed nature of the Sunday morning crowd in American churches better reflects the crowd attending the ancient synagogue than those gathered in the house church. The ancient Jewish synagogues were attended by Jews, Messianic Jews and God-oriented Gentiles. But because being a Christian in the first century involved the risk of creating enemies (whether Jewish or Gentile), house churches were attended almost exclusively by those fully committed to Christ.

Many contemporary churches pass out bulletins that give detail as to the order of the service. This order is kept closely and rarely varies from week to week. In megachurches the audio-visual presentations are highly organized, often being put together by a paid staff pastor. It is considered a disruption if someone speaks out of turn (or, in some cases, if someone other than the pastor speaks at all). In the early house churches, on the other hand, Paul sometimes had to rebuke the Christians because participation and spontaneity got out of hand. Most churches today tend more toward the highly structured synagogue style than the highly participatory house church style during their Sunday morning worship service.

Most churches have the American flag at the front of their sanctuaries. Patriotic holidays are kept nearly as seriously as religious holidays, if not more so. Churches are often hubs for community clothing and food pantries. But for whatever reason, the concept of the Kingdom of God has been largely ignored in many of these churches. Being a good citizen of America is emphasized to such a degree, in some churches, that being a good citizen of the Kingdom of God takes a back seat.

Baptism and the Eucharist are becoming less and less frequent parts of Sunday morning in America. Baptism services are often conducted at more lightly attended meeting times. In many mid-sized and megachurches the Lord’s Supper is never observed in the Sunday morning assembly. Ancient Jewish synagogues were not sacramental places. While the Temple was still around, at least, it remained the place for the covenant sacrifices and ceremonies. As sacramentalism becomes less and less a part of Sunday morning in America, the gathering becomes more and more like a synagogue.

Much of the evidence, then, indicates that the Sunday morning tradition in America has as much (if not more) in common with the synagogue setting than the early house church movement. The main difference, of course, is that these are Christian synagogues rather than Jewish synagogues. I label them Christian in the same sense that the Jewish synagogues were labeled Jewish. It had much more to do with cultural realities and religious orientation than true religion and religious vigor. If this is doubted, one could simply ask how many of the Sunday morning attendees would insist on meeting in homes if the American context changed to the point where Christian assembly was rendered illegal.

The Value of the Synagogue

One might assume that comparing the current Sunday morning practices to that of a Jewish community assembly hall is a rebuke of the contemporary church, but this is not exactly my intent. As mentioned above, both Jesus and Paul seem to have faithfully attended and utilized the synagogue for godly purposes. Just because the synagogue wasn’t where Paul went to experience body life doesn’t mean that the synagogue wasn’t a valuable place to go. Jesus and Paul used the platform provided by the Jewish synagogue to teach the truth of the Jewish religion. They treated the synagogue as a recruitment center; a place to identify those in whom God was making spiritual inroads.

The problem I am attempting to point out is that many of the churches that compare to synagogues think of themselves as the church. In other words, what we have here is a problem of confused ecclessiology. A church that on Sunday morning has all the characteristics of a synagogue may still consider itself to be a continuation of the churches read about in the New Testament. Meanwhile, many Christians who recognize that these churches are not like the early church demonize the synagogue setting, forgetting the value that Jesus and Paul found there.

What will be necessary to remedy these mistakes is a clearly defined distinction between a Christian synagogue and a Christian church. Those Christians who intend to continue the synagogue tradition must come to understand what they are doing. And those Christians who intend to continue the early church tradition must come to understand the value of the synagogue.

The Shape of Synagogue Sunday

If we are going to recognize the value of a Christian synagogue we must identify the characteristics of such a place and be able to explain why it differs from the church. Why is space used differently in the synagogue? How should a Christian synagogue utilize music? What would a synagogue sermon look like? Should the sacraments be kept at such an assembly? Should a synagogue have membership and, if so, how will that membership interact with the membership of the church? Should the synagogue ruler or elders discipline mis-behaving members or should discipline only occur at the smaller church-level? And, finally, by what process may emerging disciples be identified and connected to something that more significantly compares to the early church?

Space

One of the debates between Christian synagogue leaders and Christian church leaders has been on the topic of entertainment in worship. Church leaders often lament the fact that Christian synagogue services are more like performances than worship services. But Christian synagogues are un-apologetically built for exactly those purposes. When a new Christian synagogue is built, its architects have comfort, entertainment and performance in mind. Expensive audio and visual technology is utilized to maximize the experience of those who gather in these spaces. The platform is intentionally a stage. Rows of comfortable seating are directed toward the front. This is special space in the sense that it is the only place in town where the Christian message may be experienced in the language of the consumer culture. The aim of the Christian synagogue is to become a community hub where people come to take part in a broader community, but hear whispers of a deeper one. A good synagogue ruler has a definite plan to attract people to this cultural place so that they may have opportunity to be recruited into a radically different culture.

Of course, this strategy will not always work. Indeed, it sometimes backfires. It has been said that you win them to what you won them with. If the synagogue attracts consumers by putting on a show, it may only produce consumer Christians who put on a show of faith but experience no genuine transformation. Christian synagogues take this risk because they feel it has the most potential to reach the most people with the message of Jesus Christ in our contemporary world. If this risk is taken consciously it is understandable. When it is taken without much thought at all it is inexcusable. But at least Christian synagogues use space in a way that matches what they are (whether or not they are ignorant of what they are). There should, perhaps, be more angst against those who are consciously trying to parallel the early church and yet have more in common, in terms of usage of space, with the synagogue than the home.

Music

For Christmas our medium sized Christian synagogue puts on a concert. The concert is of a very high quality and, over two nights, more than 600 people show up to be entertained. The music is a blend of sacred and secular Christmas songs. Outside musicians are brought in to supplement those musically gifted within the local Christian synagogue community.

In the first year of this concert a small number of members of said community were upset about the nature of the concert. They didn’t like that it was a blend of sacred and secular songs. They didn’t like that some of the musicians weren’t known to be devout Christians. They didn’t like the style of the music (popular). As a result of the insistence by the synagogue ruler and elders that this concert was a good thing, these members left both the synagogue community and the church therein.

In looking back at that situation, I think what happened was a failure of communication. Either the synagogue ruler/elders hadn’t communicated clearly enough that this was a synagogue sort of event or, perhaps more likely, the departing members weren’t able to comprehend the value of a Christian synagogue. I remember meeting with those members and trying to explain that, in our culture, we have to reach further to draw people to Christ. Put in other terms, in this country and in this culture, the true church is so radically different from the world that we need to have Christian synagogues as a kind of go-between.

Synagogues, then, will use cutting-edge music to create an environment where non-Christians and nominal Christians may inhabit and, perhaps, have a barrier that’s keeping themselves from the church removed. The barrier may be something as simple as the idea that Christians don’t know how to enjoy good music.

Preaching

As a younger man, sermons often confused me. I remember wondering why so many pastors from various churches kept trying to convert Christians. Why were almost all of their sermons aimed at conversion? Didn’t they realize that people attending the church were already Christians? One reason could be that these preachers had realized that their churches were actually more like synagogues. They understood the mixed nature of their audience. Sure, some were Christians, but others only thought they were Christians.

I imagine the Jewish Paul going to the Jewish Synagogue to reach Jewish (in the general sense) people with a more completed Jewish message. And now I imagine the Christian synagogue ruler preaching at the Christian Synagogue to reach Christian (in the general sense) people with the true meaning of Christianity. Paul must have been very glad to have an institution like the Jewish synagogue to provide him with platform after platform to recruit true Israelites to join the churches he was planting. And Christian synagogue rulers today should be very glad to live in a country where there are so many Christian synagogues providing pulpit after pulpit to recruit Christians to join the true church.

Synagogue preaching will have some distinct characteristics. There might be less direct appeal to Scripture considering many of those in the audience won’t be biased to believe the Bible is inspired. There might be a reluctance to use theological terms. Lord and Savior, for example, could be replaced with Leader and Forgiver. And, yes, sermon after sermon may be evangelistic since the goal is to help people become Christians rather than help them grow into maturity. But only a synagogue ruler who doesn’t know he is one will attempt to provide nominal and non-Christians with Christian principles for godly living prior to their conversion.

Sacraments

It is often debated how often the Lord’s Supper should be served. Some Christian synagogues hardly ever partake on a Sunday morning. Church leaders will often point negatively to this lack of sacramentalism. The debate heats up as we neglect to distinguish between Christian synagogues and Christian churches.

The Lord, of course, initiated the Lord’s Supper. He was Jewish and he served the Last Supper to his Jewish disciples. He didn’t initiate this sacrament at the Temple or synagogue, but in a home. We have no record of the early church ever partaking in the Lord’s Supper at a synagogue. Now, someone will likely object to this point that the obvious reason they didn’t practice the Supper at the synagogue is because they were Christians and the synagogues were Jewish. But such an objection is a failure to understand the Jewish roots of the Church. The early Christians did not see themselves as practitioners of a new religion, but as practitioners of an old religion that had been fulfilled. The Lord’s disciples remained Jewish. Indeed, they were more Jewish than non-Christian Jews. The reason they didn’t partake in the Lord’s Supper at the synagogue was not that the synagogue was Jewish. More likely, they refrained from such an activity because of the mixed nature of those attending a synagogue service. They knew that Jews who were following Jesus and Jews who weren’t both attended the synagogue (let alone God-fearing Gentiles possibly in each category). And so they made it their habit to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the intimate fellowship of the house churches.

If we are to allow for the existence of the Christian synagogue, we must accept the possibility that synagogue rulers will agree with the earliest Christians and not serve communion in the Christian synagogues.

Membership

Let’s get back to John from our opening illustration. As it happens, John was an official member of our church. During our meeting, I alerted John to the fact that he could not continue to be a member if he was involving himself in willful sin. John agreed that his membership in the church should be removed. But, as mentioned, John still wanted to be an active member of the broader community (the synagogue). In what sense could or should John be a member of a Christian synagogue?

Our denomination has recently put more emphasis on a second tier of church membership. Those who are fully in line with the Wesleyan Church distinctives may become Covenant Members. Those who are truly Christian, but not distinctly Wesleyan may become Community Members. Since it is a Wesleyan Church, only Covenant Members can serve in leadership positions. But all members are encouraged to vote since they have something at stake.

This is somewhat, although not completely, analogous to what might be appropriate when a distinction between the Christian synagogue and the Christian church within a synagogue is granted. One level of membership would be given to those who confess and live out the truly Christian life. Another level of membership could be given to those who state a desire to be part of the Christian synagogue community, but make no particular commitment in regards to Jesus. Some might argue that non-Christians have no right to membership in a Christian synagogue, but that point only sounds correct because we’re still attaching the general word Christian to the name of the community. The Christian synagogue is really just an assembly place for religiously oriented people where a Christian or Christians happen to be in charge (this parallels the ancient Jewish synagogue). It should come as no surprise that community members might want representation considering they may be financially invested in the community. If John were to keep attending even after we removed his covenant membership, he would be a community member whether we admitted it or not.

Discipline

Having said that John might still attend the Christian synagogue despite having his church membership removed may lead some to question why we allow said attendance to continue. Wouldn’t it be more biblical to ex-communicate a professing Christian who has admitted to ongoing willful sin? No. This would be akin to Paul (or more specifically, a Christian synagogue ruler) trying to tell non-Christian Jews that they could no longer attend the Jewish synagogue.

Church discipline is for the church. Besides, synagogue discipline is nearly impossible considering the number of Christian synagogues within Sunday morning driving distance. Suppose I would have told John that I never wanted to see his face again at a Sunday morning service. John might simply switch synagogues. Even if our synagogue leadership diligently tracked him down and alerted this other synagogue to the fact that John was living in sin, they might not care (and even if they do care, there is always yet another synagogue down the street). Eventually John will find another place to be part of a Christian community. The only way John loses is if he felt an intimate connection to the truly Christian family that was present within the synagogue. I’ll say it again: Church discipline is for the church. Just as you can’t say synagogue without saying sin, you will never be able to effectively deal with sin at the level of a Christian synagogue unless the broader synagogue community develops its own standards of membership.

Discipleship

I have occasionally been referring to the church within the synagogue. While it is not within the scope of this paper to discuss the details of how this church would distinguish itself from the Christian synagogue, it is necessary to discuss the importance of such a group existing.

Too often Christian synagogue rulers have made the mistake of thinking they were leading churches. Their surprise that their churches don’t effectively produce mature Christians has been well documented. Synagogue rulers must recognize what they are and develop a strategy for bringing people into a deeper understanding and commitment to the Christian faith. This is essentially what Rick Warren has done in his book The Purpose Driven Church. His model aims to create a warm Sunday morning atmosphere where religiously oriented seekers can access the Christian message. He knows that, at this point, many of those attending aren’t committed Christians. His strategy is to move people from being members of the community, crowd and congregation toward being a member of the committed core. Evaluation of the effectiveness of his model is beyond the scope of this paper, but we should take Warren at his word when he treats Sunday morning like a service for seekers.

Three Responses to the Synagogue Concept

So far we have seen that, in many ways and in many churches, Sunday morning in America is more like a Christian synagogue service than a Christian house church gathering. Of course, there are a variety of possible responses to this reality. Below, I will discuss three such responses labeled as negative, mixed and positive.

A first response could be classified as negative in the sense that it considers the real similarities between Sunday morning and the synagogue to be completely unfortunate. Christian gatherings should be Christian gatherings. They should not be geared toward seekers. Those who take this view will attempt to keep their Sunday morning services pure and may even verbally speak out against Christian synagogues. The problem with taking this response is that it, perhaps, fails to recognize the growing gap between the culture and the true church. Whereas in somewhat recent American history many people knew the basics of Christianity and were one step, so to speak, from the Kingdom, many Americans today have a number of barriers between them and a commitment to Christ (the church itself being one of those barriers). What’s more, those taking this response often fail to see the level of similarity between their own Sunday morning service and the synagogue setting.

A second response is mixed. It recognizes the reality that Sunday morning in America has a lot in common with Saturday at the ancient Jewish synagogues, but it also recognizes that many true Christians can only make the Sunday morning service. Those taking a mixed response may attempt to accomplish dual purposes in their gatherings. The broader synagogue community should be able to enjoy the service and be given some spiritual food for thought. The smaller church core should feel free to truly worship and receive some teaching that will aid them in discipleship. It may even be the case that the worship of the church within the synagogue is what draws the synagogue community into the church. Obviously, though, this response comes with the most baggage to be sorted out. Is it really possible to be a synagogue and a church at the same time in an effective manner? If we try to do two things at the same time, don’t we end up just doing neither of them well? Nevertheless, this response seems to be the most popular. It is unclear whether the popularity of this response is intentional or simply the result of a confused ecclessiology.

A third response may be labeled as a positive response. It sees great value in the synagogue model. It recognizes that both Jesus and Paul were able to utilize the synagogues and prime recruitment centers for genuine disciples. Such a response would entail an intentionally designed seeker-sensitive service with a strategy for moving members of the synagogue community into participation with the church that exists within the synagogue. This participation may occur in the form of another service (perhaps Sunday or Wednesday night) designed specifically for believers or it may take place in actual homes throughout the week (small group model). This response also provokes some serious questions. Does the synagogue setting enable nominal Christians to continue thinking they are genuine Christians? How are potential church members to be identified at the synagogue level? And what about those genuine Christians that are only able to gather on Sunday morning because of the busyness of the American life?

Conclusion

It has been my purpose not to critique Christian synagogues, but to argue that they exist. I hope to have demonstrated that Sunday morning in America often has more in common with Saturday at the ancient synagogue than Sunday in the ancient house church. A level of awareness to this situation is necessary in order for us to consider its ramifications for missiology and ecclessiology.

..................
Sources

Banks, Adelle M. “Willow Creek Finds Limits to its Model,” Christian Century (Ja 29, 2008): 16-17).

Drumwright Jr., Huber L. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary: Synagogue. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 1998.

Dunn, James D.G. The Christ and the Spirit: Pneumatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Levine, Lee I. Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982.

Morgenthaler, Sally. Worship Evangelism: Inviting Unbelievers into the Presence of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Viola, Frank and Barna, George. Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of our Church Practices. USA: Barna Books, 2008.

Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Message & Mission. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

White, James F. Introduction to Christian Worship. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000.

[steve]

As usual, Matt, your thesis is well thought-out and thought-provoking. I think it has potential for becoming a germinal work which could spark fruitful discussions in American denominations and churches, if it could be brought to their attention. Perhaps you should submit it to Christianity Today, or some such magazine that is read by many pastors and church leaders. If they published it, it would probably become a catalyst for positive rethinking, and ultimately, for change.

[mattrose]

Hey Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to read my paper and for the feedback.

I may wait to see my grade before I take it much more 'public' than this forum!

[darinhouston]

I think it's fantastic, and would love to see it reprinted in something like Christianity Today.

[mattrose]

Thanks Darin!

[darinhouston]

I have to say it softened my spirit somewhat about my own church, which follows a synagogue format -- my only concern is if all we have are the synagogues, we may be "recruiting" folks to an "empty gym." If the smaller groups are functioning like a church, then I think it can be kept in perspective, but I note an intention to control those groups for evangelism and simple companionship also which seems to leave one without the "church" -- I guess that's what you meant by those leaders who fail to recognize they are the synagogue model.

[steve]

I think, if such a distinction is to be made, a word other than "church" should be used for the larger group ("Christian synagogue," or "Christian outreach/community center," perhaps?). It is too confusing to use the same descriptive title for more than one phenomenon. Since those who read the Bible will continually be encountering the word "church," it would be best if the thing that they associated this term with was the real thing.

[mattrose]

Yes. I think a Christian Synagogue is a fine thing when it is recognized as such. If the synagogue leaders recognize what they are and are passionate about having a 'church' within the synagogue then they better find a way to do that intentionally.

Of course, it's easier to differentiate things on paper than in real life.

I have 2 places of ministry: Lockport Wesleyan (small) & Hess Rd. Wesleyan (medium)

I would consider Lockport Wesleyan a church. It is only about 15 people (certainly not a community hub). Nor do we treat it like a synagogue setting. We're a fellowship of Christians. We interact during services, share concerns and praises, etc.

I would consider Hess Rd. Wesleyan to be a synagogue with a church inside of it. We have 2 services (8:45 traditional and 11 contemporary). The first service is only about 60 people. The second service is about 140 people. But I would consider them both to be synagogue services in the sense that there's a master of ceremonies (the senior pastor or myself), a mixed audience (certainly not all genuine disciples), a fairly strict adherence to the order of worship in the bulletin, and a heavy dose of patriotism.

We treat Sunday School, Sunday night, Wednesday night, church based small groups, and some home small groups as 'church' meetings. This means that our Synagogue is about 200 some odd people and our 'church' is more like 40-50. The tricky part is that there are some in those 150 people that are part of the synagogue but not the church that I do feel are genuine disciples.

[Homer]

Hi Matt,

A thought provoking paper! I am wondering how, in a practical way, a church might be distinguished from a "Christian synagogue"? By where they meet, the format of the meeting, or the number of participants, or some combination?

Those advocating house churches seem to take the church at Corinth as some sort of model, or Paul's instructions to the Corinthians as providing a paradigm, but it seems possible they might have been (or not?) a small house church due to their small number and lack of any other facilities. And can we be sure Paul's instructions to them were general, rather than only addressing their problems, of which there were many? For example, would his instruction to limit speaking in tongues to two or three persons have been given to the Ephesians who were not abusing it?

The problem, or rather the blessing, is that we have no book of Leviticus in the New Testament informing us of every detail to follow. Instead we have principles that regulate our assembly, as they do all of life, such as glorifying God, pleasing others rather than ourselves, edification, and pointing the unbeliever to God. (And let the women be silent ).

The church we attend is medium sized, averaging about 350 in attendance with three services each Sunday, two in the morning and a smaller one in the evening. Communion is served at each and the sermons are almost totally concerned with following Jesus. It is not seeker oriented in the least whereas a much smaller church might be. Size would not necessarily be the determining factor. I am sure some unbelievers attend our church but Paul anticipated that would also be the case at Corinth when he instructed them to consider that "some" unbelievers might come in. (1 Corinthians 14:23-24). If a house church is to be an "unbeliever free zone", that would seem to not be how Paul envisioned church.

As far as small churches where everybody participates, that is not likely to be the case for everyone. My wife will say something in our small home group but if there were 20 adults there she would be unlikely to ever say anything, but would whisper it to me and expect me to say it. She is shy by nature, and one of our regular participants here on the forum has expressed the same sentiment. I think Paul's statement about everyone participating was a general one. It must be admitted that smaller groups promote participation, but they can be a function of a very large church. There is one such megachurch in northern Idaho, Real Life Ministries (about 10,000 members), that started from scratch a little over ten years ago and has placed a heavy emphasis on small groups, and getting involved is expected.

Just some thoughts. God bless, Homer

[mattrose]

A thought provoking paper! I am wondering how, in a practical way, a church might be distinguished from a "Christian synagogue"? By where they meet, the format of the meeting, or the number of participants, or some combination?

Yeah, I really think the distinction needs to be made on a case by case basis.

It sounds like your setting would be a good example of a medium sized church that is still treating itself as a church. That's great! I agree with you that facility and size are not all-determining factors here. I think the determining factor is the mindset of the leadership. Are they designing the time to be one of discipleship or evangelism? Is it more of a presentation or an interaction? I think God can use both large churches and large synagogues (not to mention small churches and small synagogues) for His purposes. I think numbers and facility just make it 'more likely' that the service is one or the other (the larger the setting, the 'more likely' it is like a synagogue and the smaller the 'more likely' it is like a church).

I think the larger a group becomes, the more necessary it becomes to sometimes meet in smaller groups. This provides people the opportunity to grow more deeply through greater intimacy and interaction. I agree with you that unbelievers will sometimes come to 'church' (even small groups), but a non-synagogue setting has a way of weeding out many people who are just there for traditions sake. Thus, the 'church' setting becomes primarily a 'believers' setting whereas the synagogue tends to be more of a 'religious' setting.

And the level of 'Christianity' will differ from synagogue to synagogue. Some synagogues will have a very passionate disciple as the 'synagogue ruler' and will push hard for people to join the 'church' within the synagogue. Other 'Christian' synagogues may be quite content, unfortunately, to let the synagogue setting be all there is (in such a case, the 'church' within will have to initiate 'church assembly' on their own).