Official vs. Unofficial church events distiction legitimate

[Gwallard]

I operate upon the distinction that there are official church events, and unofficial church events. Official church events are those things which pertain especially to Lord's day worship, because official church events are those things which the officers have been given a charge to serve the church in enabling (circumstances) and doing (elements) by God's command.

Unofficial events are those things which could be made by an elder or any other member, but which do not have to do with Sunday worship directly - they have to do with the life of the church commonly. Even such events as the ever present Wednesday night study would not therefore be official, as it is not Lord's day worship, and therefore cannot be instituted by the elder's power as "official."

As you can tell, I am coming from the Regulative Principle of Worship for this view. However, I have gotten some pushback from people I trust.

Some have claimed there are perhaps these two categories (I would hold only the two), but that there might be Official-unofficial and Unofficial-official middle categories as well. The former being Wednesday night studies which are encouraged by the session, and the latter being something like an exclusivly church person made-up get together which is never announced on Sunday, etc.

I do not agree with those two added categories, as I think it would overstep the bounds of elder power to call anything other than Sunday Worship "official." However, perhaps a prayer meeting - as a necessary preparation for Sunday - could be understood as a so close to elemental thing, that it could hold a middle place. I would argue that would create perhaps a sliding scale in the "unofficial" category that - because of its holy nature - could push men and women by its nature to attend, but was not in a different category.

Why I bring this up is: if the idea that Wednesday or other day event attendance are either mandatory or like a "little Sunday" is unscriptural, then those things ought not be announced as if the righteous will attend them, and the unrighteous will not, as it is perhaps assumed by our culture. Let the believer feel the rightful pressure to attend Sunday night service (official), but I worry of the unscriptural weight these other middle-type services place upon others. I also worry these other "official-unofficial" services take away - by addition - from the weight of the Sunday service.

Thoughts?

 

[Miller]

I'm not sure the RPW has much to do with this.

I believe an official church event is something sanctioned by the session, and unofficial event is something sanctioned privately by a member. For example, Wednesday evening Bible study is an official church event vs. a deacon hosting a cook out at his home and invites the church.

Official church events don't need to be mandatory. Yes the session should make Lord's day worship official and mandatory, but it would be an unlawful binding of the conscience to make Wednesday Bible study mandatory, although it's an official event.

 

[Gwallard]

I'm not sure the RPW has much to do with this.

I believe an official church event is something sanctioned by the session, and unofficial event is something sanctioned privately by a member. For example, Wednesday evening Bible study is an official church event vs. a deacon hosting a cook out at his home and invites the church.

Official church events don't need to be mandatory. Yes the session should make Lord's day worship official and mandatory, but it would be an unlawful binding of the conscience to make Wednesday Bible study mandatory, although it's an official event.

Hey, Miller!

Yes, I think you've hit on something deeper there. I suppose my contention with the official vs. unofficial categories is basically if it is mandatory or not.

Only Lord's day worship is mandatory, all else is voluntary. Perhaps the middle category would simply be the "encouraged" category. But regardless, I'm trying to connect what the officers do with the Regulative Principle more directly - is their creating a Wednesday group (it etc.) part of their powers as an officer, or somewhere else? Just as you said, if it were from there power as an officer, it would be binding the conscience. Therefore, it is from somewhere else. Perhaps it is semantics, but it seems then that it is no longer an "official" event, because it does not have to do with the officers powers being applied. It is encouraged, with the stamp of approval from the session, which would include even unaffiliated events like lecture series.

But things such as Wednesday night function like a middle between these two by calling them official, when they might be confessed not to be mandatory.

 

[Edward]

I come down closer to @Miller 's view than @Gwallard 's view. Then there are the in-between events. Sunday School is under the authorization and supervision of the Session. A fellowship dinner for members of a Sunday School class is something of which the Session is aware, but may not have officially sanctioned, although it is conducted pursuant to the policies of the church.

 

[Gwallard]

I come down closer to @Miller 's view than @Gwallard 's view. Then there are the in-between events. Sunday School is under the authorization and supervision of the Session. A fellowship dinner for members of a Sunday School class is something of which the Session is aware, but may not have officially sanctioned, although it is conducted pursuant to the policies of the church.

@Edward and @Miller, I'm expressing my view, but I recognize there could be possible problems with it. What would the Scriptural justification for y'all's view be like?

A possible problem withy view, as far as I can see it:

Defining "official" by the RPW would - by the definition of the RPW - exclude all outside of elements and circumstances of worship as "unofficial." I would argue it is legitimate, because the RPW was to limit the elder in this exact way to do only as Good has commanded. However, I may be illegitimately excluding other events by using the RPW. That is to say, the elders have power to lead worship, but is that all their power is? The RPW is focused on that power, when elders may have others. Therefore, thinking of unofficial vs official through the lense of the RPW might be a category error, not unlike thinking of what powers a referee might have based upon his powers as a father.

 

[Edward]

I recognize there could be possible problems with it.

The biggest problem, to me, is the conflating of "official" and "worship". I would define official as that being done in the name of the church under the supervision of the session.

 

[Gwallard]

The biggest problem, to me, is the conflating of "official" and "worship". I would define official as that being done in the name of the church under the supervision of the session.

That makes sense, and I would like to agree, but I don't have much justification yet, or at least it doesn't feel like I understand the powers of the shepherd well yet. As far as I am able to define it right now, the shepherd is to feed and tend the sheep through a ministerial and declarative ministry which allows for preaching and teaching the Word, leading in worship, establishing the circumstances of worship, and representing Christ in judicial matters. In other words, the shepherd is to lead, feed, defend and mend especially in prayer and in the ministry of the Word. The elders have the power of the keys, and in each activity of their power they represent Christ. The other activities of ministry, like visitation, and more specific ministries like missionary works are aspects of one or the other of these activities of Christ for his lambs, and come mostly from the declaration of the Word. I hope I am not too far off base with this assessment.

It's striking that the early church "devoted Themselves (the lay people of Acts 2 just converted, I am supposing) to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." I would argue that things like Wednesday night should not be activities that the elders institute, but that the lay church should organize them on their own. The pastor's focus is in the Word and prayer. This is a work oriented toward worship and intercession, and I am not at all sure yet that the elder is given the right - or that it is wise - to make official things which distracts him from his Lord's day duty and his everyday duty of prayer.

This may be semantics only, so forgive me if so. Official may be a merely practical label for the things that the session approves of. If so, I'm only really trying to add that they can approve of those things, but that doesn't legitimize them as deserving of honor by the congregation by the powers of the office of elder, because (I'm arguing, I think) no power to make new institutions is given to the elders. We only uphold the institutions given to us: Word, sacrament, and prayer.