I’ve been proposing several things about our church assemblies:
- The main focus of our assemblies shouldn’t be worship. In the same way, God shouldn’t be the exclusive focus of our
worshipassembly. If we are people whose very lives are worship, then worship will naturally occur when we come together. If we are people who put loving God at the center of our lives, then we will seek to please God when we gather. But if we make focusing on God our exclusive goal, then we will fail at making the assemblies what they were meant to be. - Church services are primarily for the edification of the body. By doing so, we will please God. And as a body of worshipers, we will naturally worship when we are together. But what is done during the times we are together is done primarily for believers.
- Our assemblies should be intelligible to outsiders. We don’t tailor the service for them. Instead, we invite them to come and see who we are and what we do. The assembly is not primarily about evangelism. It’s not about selling the church, either. As outsiders see us love and edify one another, they should want to know about the God that makes all that possible. Our hope is that what outsiders see in our assemblies will make them open to hearing the gospel message.
So, in short, we seek to build one another up in a way that is pleasing to God and makes sense to outsiders. We don’t expect non-believers to perfectly understand everything that goes on; we do hope that what they see will convey a message of love and mutual edification.
Although I agree with this balanced focus which utilizes key words (“exclusively” about God” and “primarily” about edification) that establish appreciated parameters, I am a little concerned with the connotations of the word “edification” that might overly focus our attention toward “education of each other”. I think that it is unfortunate that the assembly/ worship times have become our primary foci for education. Hopefully, we might strengthen the reality of daily interactions in the Word both individually and with believers within a congregation.
That’s interesting, Harland. Surprisingly, education doesn’t enter my mind when I think of edification. I guess it should, but when I think of spurring one another to love and good works, I don’t picture that being accomplished by learning more information.
Maybe it’s just semantics, but I’m having a little trouble with the idea that “God shouldn’t be the exclusive focus of our worship”. I have no desire to worship anything else because I think that would be idolatry. To me, having God as the exclusive focus of worship does not mean that the assembly is a time for a mystical one-on-one interaction with God or a dimmed-lights candle burning emotional experience. Rather, having God as the exclusive focus of worship means that I am always asking the question “What does God want me to do? What would be pleasing to him?” Answers to these questions include edification of the body, encouraging one another, singing together, and the other activities that should be in our assemblies.
In contrast, an assembly whose focus is on ourselves rather than God has the potential to become self-serving. We choose to do things in worship because it pleases us and is “encouraging” to us, regardless of whether it pleases God.
Let’s always make it our goal to please Him.
Dan, I’ve had surprising difficulty in avoiding using the word “worship” when I mean assembly. I have made the correction above.
Here’s where I go back to my three-legged stool illustration from Friday. There has to be some awareness of all three elements. I’ve been in awful, depressing assemblies where the brothers excused what went on by saying, “Well, we’re trying to please God, not men.”
If you bring together a group of people that have God at the center of their lives, that make worship a part of every day, then an assembly focused on them will never be displeasing to God.
If our goal is to please God, then I contend we should focus on edification in our assemblies, as the New Testament writers taught.
Dear Tim,
Thanks so much for this article. I have been saying this for years but not as eloquently as you did.
Eleanor