Traditional/formal church services are good things. Sermons are edifying. Corporate worship is biblical.

But so is the following:

• Discipling our own family (Deut. 11:18-21; Titus 1:6; 1 Timothy 3:4–5; 2 Timothy 3:15-16)
• Confessing sins to one another (James 5:16)
• Holding each other accountable (Galatians 2:1–21)
• Bearing one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:1-2)
• Going out to share the gospel, then discipling the new converts (Matthew 28:19-20)
• Caring for practical needs in our community (Matthew 25:31-46; Acts 6:1-3; James 1:27)
• Mentoring/discipling younger believers and being mentored/disciples by more mature believers (1 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; 2:3-5)
• Participating in Bible study/studying God’s Word (Acts 17:11; John 5:39)

As good as it is, a formal church service (a sermon and songs) is insufficient to fulfill many of the biblical commands regarding faith community for Christians. The above commands require relationships, two-way discussions, vulnerability, life-on-life discipleship, and going beyond the four walls of our church’s sanctuary.

There’s liberty to attend as many formal church services a week as you’d like to, 3, 4, 5… There’s nothing wrong with frequent church service attendance in and of itself, especially if you still are making time and finding ways to fulfill the other biblical commands, as well.

Realistically though, most Christians don’t have time for both (the above and *more* than 1-2 services a week). And in hyper-fundamentalist groups, replacing the midweek service with a community group, or the Sunday night service with local outreach, or (in some areas) the Saturday night service with intentional family discipleship, is unthinkable. So instead, they continue to attend 3–7 formal church services a week, content with not finding ways to fulfill the other biblical commands. Afterall, they don’t have time.

Some of these Christians are hasty to call into question the devotion—even the salvation—of believers who attend any fewer than three weekly services. “Don’t they love God?” “If they were really saved they would *want* to go to 3+ services a week.” It’s overlooked that attending fewer formal services may be what gives these other Christians the ability to participate in a community group, Bible study, local outreach, mentorship/discipleship relationships, and/or to disciple their own family (not to mention, taking space to heal from spiritual abuse and/or burnout).

Although believers in the Early Church likely spent time together throughout the week, observed Sabbath rest (along with their culture), and may’ve gathered for other purposes, the tradition of the Early Church was to hold one formal service a week. They held this service Saturday night (which was the beginning of the first day of the week in their minds), it lasted around three hours, and it revolved around the Lord’s Supper/Communion (which ironically, is often neglected within hyper-fundamentalism).

One formal service per week has consistently been the norm throughout Church history. Historic church groups can be found that gathered more often, but typically, the function of the second gathering was different (e.g. specifically for prayer, evangelism, Bible study, etc.). This is not so different from churches today that only have one Sunday service, but also host community groups, Bible studies, local outreach, etc.

The hyper-fundamentalist insistence on having three or more mandatory, highly similar, formal services per week is a relatively modern American trend.

The midweek service was originally a prayer meeting, popularized in the 1800s by men such as D.L. Moody and Charles Finney. In the 1900s, it evolved into being yet another Sunday service, but on Wednesday night.

It’s thought that the Sunday night service was originally for factory workers, especially in the 1940s, who couldn’t make the Sunday morning service due to their work schedule. The spread of electricity is what made this nighttime service feasible. Somehow, it shifted from being a second, overflow service to everyone being expected to come to both services.

And now, here we are, patting ourselves on the back for “serving God” by attending 3-7 nearly identical, formal services every week, but finding ourselves with little time or energy to participate in a community group (which is a context for relational faith community), lead a Bible study, mentor a younger believer, meet with an accountability partner, share the gospel, or find ways to meet practical needs/show Christ’s love in our community.

And, yet, we’ll harshly criticize Christians who attend one service a week (and then partake in faith community in other ways throughout the week) as “not really loving God,” “backsliding,” “not prioritizing the things of God,” “compromised,” “heart’s in the wrong place,” “dead and dry,” etc.

There’s nothing wrong with attending 3-7 formal church services a week; there’s liberty for that. In some situations, it may be the healthy and right thing to do. But when it gets to the point where we’re emphasizing one good thing at the detriment of neglecting other biblical commands entirely? And if we fancy ourselves as highly spiritual due to our high-frequency church attendance, while calling into question the salvation of believers who choose a more balanced approach?

Come now, let’s reevaluate.

Resources:

BH Facebook Post

What Was a Church Service Like in the Second Century?

2,000 Years of Christ’s Power: The Age of the Early Church Fathers

In recent years, there’s been some pushback against “going to church.” Those pushing back will point out that “We are the Church, it’s not a building.” They’ll also point to the fact that Early Christians met in houses and that the New Testament doesn’t give any requirement to meet in a certain building a certain amount of times per week. No outline of how services should be conducted is ever mentioned in Scripture; pews, pulpits, platforms, and prayer altars weren’t part of the Early Christians’ routine. And in all these facts, they are mostly correct. 

“Mostly” because many of the houses Early Christians met in were actually converted into churches. Take “The World’s Oldest Church” for example, the Dura-Europos church (c. 241). Michael Peppar writes, “The Dura Christian building is a true [house church], insofar as it was a converted private house, which after remodeling ceased to be used for domestic functions.”  (The World’s Oldest Church, (Yale University Press 2016), p.16, from https://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/viola-pagan-christianity-full.php) This isn’t to say house churches are in the wrong, of course, but only to offer balance to the notion that they are best and/or most biblical.

But if it’s true that “we are the church,” is it possible that we don’t need to go to church at all, house church or otherwise? Anytime that we interact with other believers is that a sufficient fulfillment of the command to forsake not assembling? 

I would answer this question by reflecting on the biblical functions of a healthy church and asking in return if the interactions check those boxes. In those interactions, was sound doctrine taught? Was there discipleship? Encouragement in Christ? Accountability? Worship? Fulfilling the Great Commission? 

I would hope that some of the functions of a healthy church would be fulfilled during organic/spontaneous interactions between believers. For example, it shouldn’t be a rare thing for believers to ask each other how we’re doing and offer encouragement and prayer. But at the same time, I would suspect that other functions would occur less often. The likelihood of an one-on-one, in-depth exposition of Scripture/sermon alternative is much lower. Spontaneous interactions here or there aren’t conducive to that. In contrast, regular gatherings in church buildings are conducive.

One of the biggest questions I have for those who advocate not going to church, but rather fellowshipping with believers in everyday life, is how does church discipline work in that model? How is sin brought to the leaders and to the church? How does disfellowshipping work? Even as I write this, I can think of hypothetical scenarios and ways this could work, but that’s not the most important question. The important one is will it work, will this happen. While there may be some amazing, very organized, people out there who will make sure that they are often discipling, being discipled, have accountability, are worshipping with other believers, are encouraging people, are receiving great Bible teaching, and more—all while not attending regular gatherings of believers (aka going to church)—the fact of the matter is that this spontaneous interaction model would never work for 99%+ of Christians. 

Just like “unschooling” is criticized as being a nice idea that winds up as “no schooling” for most people, this unchurched “be the church” idea usually ends up as no church. I suspect that’s why the New Testament Church, quite early in its creation, began to assemble regularly (likely once a week on the first day of the week: Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:1–2), and why Christians all throughout Church history have continued this custom. 

Last but not least, without regular gatherings, it’s hard to imagine how leadership would work without “going to church.” What would be the role of elders and deacons in this model? How are they chosen? Which believers do they serve? What do they do for them? The fact that these roles are clearly outlined in Scripture is a strong indication that believers, who are the Church in one sense, are still intended to “go to church,” in order to be led and discipled in a regular, group context.