Dra,
I do mean there is a difference between assembly and church. They are 2 different words/meanings. Church is a group of ppl. You are right, they are the "called out ones". Assembly is what the Church does together. Not all assemblies are church assemblies. People can't go to church, they are the church. Believers can assemble with non-believers, but this isn't "church".
As far as the issues about meeting on Thursday instead of Sunday, I was against that and still am. We are to meet on the first day of the week to partake in the Lord's supper. Meeting on other days are fine, but the first day cannot be replaced with another day.
I was against the videos. I'm against music in general.
I do hold to the Restoration movement's beliefs.
But here is my question.
Do you think that the RM didn't go far enough? I believe in the NT Church and that we should get back to that form of worship/fellowship. But where I think we fall into a problem is having buildings, pulpits, auditorium style worship. There is no fellowship looking at the back of someone's head. The NT model was house to house.
What are your feelings on the subject?
J.
Good. It appears we have some common ground on which we stand.
Let's consider things from a scriptural perspective. Assembling is commanded (Hebrews 10:25a). No specifics are given concerning the place or facility. Therefore, the command is generic. So, we have to decide what is best for the local church. This is where expediencies become a consideration (note 1 Cor. 6:12 in the KJV). Expediencies help us do what is authorized. Either the local church meets outdoors and is susceptible to the weather, insects, etc., or we meet indoors with some protection from those things. And, if we choose to meet indoors, do we use someone's house, rent a building, or build a building? Obviously, choices have to be made. And, we want to be wise stewards with the money contributed to the Lord's work. The size of the group makes a difference. Obviously, a group of 100 can't meet in a small house. A larger facility would seem to be the far better choice. Anyway, I hope these few comments gives a sense for the decisions that must be made with the best interests of the church in mind.
As for pulpits and/or auditoriums, teaching is definitely authorized. Therefore, we want to give the teacher the things that will be helpful in teaching the gospel of Christ. As a teacher, I know that having a place to lay my Bible, lesson/study notes, and reference materials is very helpful. And, after having feet problems for the past 5 years or so, I definitely can benefit from a place to sit down. Decisions have to be made about what is cost effective and its expected life with use. Chairs are a possibility, as are pews. For sure, we can't scripturally specify that someone can't use pews. God gave no such commandment. Rather, we realize that since God expects us to assemble, and NO specifics are given concerning the type of facility, we have to make choices about the facility we utilize and what basic human needs we supply e.g., water, restroom). Make any sense?
The church I attend utilizes an auditorium. Personally, I don't view myself as having fellowship with the back of the head of the person sitting in front of me. Rather, our fellowship is in our mutual respect for the Lord, our respect for His word, our willingness to give diligence to it, and our efforts to apply it to our lives. The seating arrangement is one commonly used so all in attendance can face the speaker ... focusing our attention on the speaker as the message is presented.
Anyway, that's my 2-cents worth.
