Radical all you have to do is read history to learn that the first century church was liturgical, not centered on the sermon, and did not run a continual revival meeting. They were there for people who were already Christians.
Well, there is liturgical and then there is liturgical…Outside the NT we don’t have a whole lot of extant works from the 1st century….so let’s see how your idea of a liturgical service measures up against the historical record.
First, in those records, “priest” is only used for (a) the Jewish guys serving at the temple in Jerusalem: (b) Christ our high priest; and (c) the whole body of believers. As such, the innovation of having a priest offer some sacrifice on behalf of the congregation came sometime later (and still later came the separation of the priest from the congregation with his back to congregation and speaking a language unknown to the bulk of the congregation). The sacrifice that was envisioned was the believer’s righteous life and in particular his good deeds. As such, prayer itself was considered a sacrifice. The innovation of a real somatic presence arose out of Antioch and was unknown in the west even as late as Augustine
Second, if one looks at Paul’s epistles one finds that the Lord’s Supper was originally part of a meal that involved considerable food and drink (Paul’s objection is that some went hungry so he changed it so that everyone was to eat enough at home so that one didn’t need to eat for hunger). But still, it is everyone participating in a meal with no indication of a priestly consecration of elements.
Further, in Paul’s 1 Cor 14 we find full participation by the congregation. It reads:
*When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.
If anyone speaks in a tongue, two–or at the most three–should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.
Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way. *(NIV)
IMHO that is the description we must work from in understanding what the first services looked like (at least in the Gentile portion of the church). The Didache also speaks of the involvement of prophets and itinerant apostles. So please describe what you think that first century liturgical service looked like, incorporating the absence of any one serving as a priest, a number of men speaking in tongues, a number of men interpreting the tongues, a number of men prophesying, an agape meal (involving the Thanksgiving/Lord’s Supper) and everyone with a hymn, word of instruction or a revelation. Please also provide your 1st century sources for this as we don’t want your response to be the result of reading 2nd or 3rd century (or even later) practices back into the first century church.
If you would like to read more from respected historians regarding the above I would recommend Kilmartin (the Eucharist in the West), Witherington (Making a Meal of It), and Bradshaw (Eucharist Origins and Search for the Origins of Christian Worship).
(I take this emoticon to be used when being silly, not insult - but someone correct me if I’ve interpreted incorrectly, please).
