i preach ye MUST BE BORN AGAIN glad you asked i am by far a writer
Theology and Politics
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
-
- Tags
- corruption mad max thunderdome
For the sake of conversation, that's a phenomenon, f61, that I've been struggling over. If the purpose of the church service is to evangelize, then there's no need for me to attend, given that I am saved and born again. All the saved saints really have no reason to be there if evangelizing the lost should be the purpose for that program and the guy they hired to do all that ministry. That's like going through new employee orientation for a new job, and then hearing that all employees must continue attending new employee orientations each week, even those who know their job and have been there 20 years, knowing inside-out the company policies, etc.
Is it not better and more effective for evangelism to happen out there on the streets, taking the Gospel out there to the world so that, when we come together in the gathering of believers, we can edify one another as Paul stated:
1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
How many churches allow for what Paul of Tarsus, an apostle of Christ Yahshua, to actually happen? Evanglising as a part of the programs forces out even more the potential for mutual edification among the believers present in that place.
Some have told me that the people can talk among themselves before or after the 'service', doing all that edification stuff, or leave it outside the 'church' in the 'cell group meetings'. Really? Hmm, that has a rather hollow ring to it, or so it seems. What are your thoughts?
In other words, how do the saints learn to be functional toward one another when relegated to passive silence in the main gathering, also in the midst of evangelization squeezed into the mix of the time allotted for the 'service'? How do they ever get the freedom to function as Paul expressed in the above quoted verse? He said "...WHEN ye come together, EVERY ONE OF YOU..." To whom is Paul speaking? Just the leadership, or all the people in Church in Corinth?
I would very much like to hear your thoughts about this, because what I'm reading in scripture, the same scriptures all those churchianity organizations out there claim to believe and follow as best they can (since no 'church' is perfect, which we both agree), why are the people relegated to passivity in the gathering?
You see, I've been a part of what some would term as being an "OPEN CHURCH." There was a book written years ago with that title. I forget who the author was. That book started 'fires' of opennes of some churches, one really large one over in southern California, decades ago. Because the people were allowed to function in the way Paul described, their services lasted sometimes 12 hours on Sundays. The open sharing and edification poured out like a river, with the people not anting to leave. Most would leave to go and get something to eat, and then go right back until it all ended. The elders ensured things didn't get out of hand, and never really had to tell adults to settle down and let others speak. All the adults in that place functioned like adults rather than the children stringent control to silence paradigms seem to assume into otherwise mature, grown men and women.
We had an OPEN CHURCH here in my neck of the woods, and it was wonderful. The place became packed, with people standing in the outer isles, ONLY because of the word of mouth that got around to the community, revealing the openness for each believer allowed to be an actual functioning believer in the midst of MUTUAL edification.
Many of those people came from other, traditional churches with stringent control over their audience and their functionality, and it REALLY ticked off the 'pastors' of those other churches. Rather than to copy that openness, they started using their monetary resources to get lawyers involved to go to the city officials, and thus trying to drum up a legal and political assault against that open church's leadership for such things as violating the local fire code by allowing so many people to be in that place at one time.
Rather than for those 'pastors' (and this is not a smear against ALL pastors) to give praise to God for the people they were overseeing having such excitement at being in 'church', they were jealous and vindictive. The city sent the fire Marshall and police officers to run all the people out on a Sunday morning, and chained the doors closed, with stickers declaring that the place was no longer deemed safe for public use since it was an older facility with LOTS of solid wood walls and furnishings inside. It was very ornate, but declared a fire hazard to any and all.
The enemy uses all kinds of things and people against the people of God if and when there is any danger of the believing populace becoming an effective force against the plans of the enemy of our souls. The enemy even used local pastors...of all people...prompting them to jealousy masked behind a concern for fire safety. Oh, and it turned out that some of those 'pastors' were sitting members of the city counsel...go figure...
Sorry. I did a little side-path venture there...
So, in the scheme of things, what do you see in light of that verse in 1 Corinthians? How do you see that instruction from Paul playing out in the face of modern, and yet traditional, church services handed to us from the RCC? Are we consistent with what Paul instructed, or are we other than what Paul instructed? How do you see it all? You being a pastor, I like hearing the thoughts of other ministers.
MM
Let's take this one more step forward:
DISCIPLESHIP
I was told years ago that discipleship is an additional purpose for the gathering of believers.
You know, the most effective discipleship ever demonstrated is what Yahshua did with His disciples. They walked, ate and slept together through thick and thin, with them learning from our Master through daily instruction, experience and life together rather than some sort of silent spectator arrangement once, twice or even three times a week.
When I disciple new believers, I do so a number of times a week, when time allows. Sometimes schedules get in the way of as frequent as is desirable, but giving the disciple of Christ insights and study to do on their own, AND having that personal, one-on-one relationship, THAT is what true discipleship should be. Being an audience member only is inferior, and entering a cell group meeting is inferior when we consider that not all attendees are at the same level in their growth.
When I disciple new believers, I pattern the substance of our session based upon the level of where each new believer resides, thus taking a personal stake in their growth and well-being rather than to leave it all to a generalized message to a body of people too large and too varied than anything I could ever do for each individual what will touch them deeply and profoundly. The only way to overcome every man's inability tp to touch each congregant member profoundly is for me to cultivate in their minds the idea that they need to come there with the most positive attitude possible so that they then leave with a warm fuzzy of the idea that they got much from what I rhetoricalized to them, and then them going back to their usual, mundane existence of their lives with no personal stake in their daily and weekly growth and spiritual well-being. No one man can do that, and the band-aid of cell groups still does not reach down into that level of the deeply personal lives of the individuals.
This is where functionality of each believer in a congregation can really sprout into a flourishing and vibrant outreach to individual, new believers that no one man can possibly hope to ever achieve within the historic deadness of group-think and band-wagoneering that has failed to raise up generations of spiritual giants.
If someone disagrees, agrees, or has some alternatives, then we'd love to hear from you.
MM
DISCIPLESHIP
I was told years ago that discipleship is an additional purpose for the gathering of believers.
You know, the most effective discipleship ever demonstrated is what Yahshua did with His disciples. They walked, ate and slept together through thick and thin, with them learning from our Master through daily instruction, experience and life together rather than some sort of silent spectator arrangement once, twice or even three times a week.
When I disciple new believers, I do so a number of times a week, when time allows. Sometimes schedules get in the way of as frequent as is desirable, but giving the disciple of Christ insights and study to do on their own, AND having that personal, one-on-one relationship, THAT is what true discipleship should be. Being an audience member only is inferior, and entering a cell group meeting is inferior when we consider that not all attendees are at the same level in their growth.
When I disciple new believers, I pattern the substance of our session based upon the level of where each new believer resides, thus taking a personal stake in their growth and well-being rather than to leave it all to a generalized message to a body of people too large and too varied than anything I could ever do for each individual what will touch them deeply and profoundly. The only way to overcome every man's inability tp to touch each congregant member profoundly is for me to cultivate in their minds the idea that they need to come there with the most positive attitude possible so that they then leave with a warm fuzzy of the idea that they got much from what I rhetoricalized to them, and then them going back to their usual, mundane existence of their lives with no personal stake in their daily and weekly growth and spiritual well-being. No one man can do that, and the band-aid of cell groups still does not reach down into that level of the deeply personal lives of the individuals.
This is where functionality of each believer in a congregation can really sprout into a flourishing and vibrant outreach to individual, new believers that no one man can possibly hope to ever achieve within the historic deadness of group-think and band-wagoneering that has failed to raise up generations of spiritual giants.
If someone disagrees, agrees, or has some alternatives, then we'd love to hear from you.
MM
i a sorry but i dont want to discuss this subject as per areas i cant agree with . i really don't know what or where you experienced that turned you off to church attendance. but that is between you and the good Lord
f61, nothing specific turned me off from the traditional 'church service' model apart from the lack of most church organizational lack of adherence to the instructions Paul gave in 1 Corinthians 14:26. The power of tradition has demonstrated its superiority to most people's regard for scripture. We don't have to agree on any one particular structure, per se, but I thought that we could at least agree that Paul meant what he said when stating the purpose for the gathering of believers, which is mutual edification, and the need for such that simply isn't allowed in most church organizations around the world.
But, that's cool. I simply was seeking an explanation as to why you disagree. I want to be convinced onto your side of this issue if I'm wrong.
MM
But, that's cool. I simply was seeking an explanation as to why you disagree. I want to be convinced onto your side of this issue if I'm wrong.
MM
Hello Musicmaster;
In 1 Corinthians 14:26, 26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
I still support the truth that there still remain thousands of churches around the world that are following Paul's teaching. But we still cannot overlook the thousands of churches around the world who have lost the heart of worship in 1 Corinthians 14:26 and making the gathering other than true worship of God in His own house.
Verse 26a, What then, brothers? refers to men, women, youth and children, all contributing for the benefit of God inhabiting our praise to Him. He then graciously sprinkles His glory to the worshiper allowing us to take the worship at the end of service and back into the community.
God bless you, MM.
Just one thing I'd like to point out, Bob, if I may:
The Greek noun adelpho in verse 26 is masculine, not neuter. If we apply neuter, especially to that particular masculine noun, then we run into considerable trouble in many other places throughout the Greek NT, such as Matthew 19:29, etc. The one grammatical construct whereby that Greek word can be inclusive of females is when it is blood relations. Jerome and Augustine had other thoughts about all this, but, then, Augustine is known to have been severely anti-Semitic in his views, and so I don't trust his lingual skills as compared to modern scholarship when it comes to the nation Israel.
Dare we look further into the context, we read:
1 Corinthians 14:33-35
33 For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
This is restrictive of the items mentioned in verse 26. So, in relation to authoritative teaching function within the Church, it cannot be expanded at will into the arena of neuter without creating a plethora of violations for the commonly accepted rules for interpretation.
Granted: In this feminized culture of ours, these observations of this caliber are poo-pooed as being anti-woman and door-matting women back into the dark ages, etc., etc., etc., all as battering rams to try and keep what is actually written from being discussed for what it actually says. Some have even told me that women in Corinth were being disruptive and talking out loud in the meeting, etc. (rolling eyes to the ceiling) This kind of eisegetical meandering only solidifies the post modern warps and twists to scripture. One can even find commentaries out there who validate post modern feminism and feministic interpretations of the passages in 1 Corinthians 14.
If we pay close attention, the foundational clue to the context is 'TEACHING'. That chapter has the unmistakable groundings in the arena of teaching authority, and it points out that the wives should learn from their husbands. Yes, this is definitely going to rankle the feelings of some, or perhaps many, but I'm always willing to discuss the particulars in scripture, and continue to learn.
Now, I'm not saying that those of you who sit under, for example a woman pastor, are living out the typical evils of post modernism, yadda, yadda, yadda. You folks just keep on doing what you're doing if you so choose, and as the Lord leads you. I will stick to what's written, observing the historically accepted rules for interpretation and lingual governance for meaning.
In verse 34, where it says they are not permitted to "speak" (from the Greek word laleō), that too has a meaning beyond the weaknesses of our English language, for it seems to be saying that woman cannot speak at all in the gathering. NO! That is not what the Greek says. The grammatical usage in the Greek actually means this, as stated in Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
"Many of the examples already cited show that λαλεῖν is frequently used in the N. T. of teachers, — of Jesus, the apostles, and others. To those passages may be added, Luke 5:4; John 1:37; John 7:46; John 8:30, 38; John 12:50; Acts 6:10; Acts 11:15; Acts 14:1, 9; Acts 16:14; 1 Corinthians 14:34;"
Therefore my pointing out the foundational meaning of that chapter having to do with teaching authority within the Church.
So, Paul is essentially trying to kick the sets of the pants of the spiritually mature MEN in Corinth to engage mutual edification in the arena of teaching.
Bob, if I may ask, what churches are you aware that allows the congregant members to share openly in the main gathering of believers, or was that not what you were saying?
Thanks
MM
i should not get in this as per the bulk of this discussion i am very much in disagreement with . when some one is speaking be it from a pulpit preaching or someone talking .it impolite to just break in . the format your suggesting is a dynamite setting for Sunday school class . allow the teacher to bring out the teaching point. then discuss pro cons . it makes a very interesting class in fact when i did teach class. i always allowed any one to speak..
know then as per Church service with preaching . the preacher should not be interrupted and questions should be after the service or set time to discuss. paul write quench not the spirit . if some one is standing or siting trying to make their point in the preaching hour.. all it does is create headaches and disrupts the speaker .
as per women silence in church.. my church i pastor the women have a say so ! i was just told of a business meeting in church where woman sit on one side and say nothing... the men gather on the other side make all the decisions.
next time they need a grade school s.s teacher let the men do it . people complain about women preachers majority of the church is made up by the women . the solution to women preachers. men step up and do your job .
that is my 2cents i have done replied more than i should have God is not the author of confusion let the preacher preach the word
Thanks, f61. I certainly appreciate your thoughts on this.
If I may ask about more of your thoughts on this, do you have a scriptural reference that says preaching should only be a on-way method of communication? I'm asking because Paul preached much, and the Gentiles asked questions of him in his preaching, and he did not seem to take offense to that. Why would anyone take offense today in the event someone stands up to ask a relevant question on a point being covered at the time? Is this a modern thing, or does it have historic precedent besides what roman catholicism handed over to protestantism? The priestly class certainly did not ever countenance anyone daring to ask questions during their sermons, so I'm wondering if you are aware of any other authoritative source that defines what you have stipulated?
Thoughts?
MM
Hello brother MM;
You brought up a great point on the Greek adelpho, or adelphi which means brother or masculine. But to answer your question twofold;
It reminded me of a term I studied years ago regarding the gender and pluralizing used in the Testaments. This particular term stumps me only because I don't remember, but it leaned toward including both genders in a given passage. This caused a shift and problem in the translations, leaning more toward English grammar about 40 years ago. I'm digging and when I find that term I'll get back to all of us.
In reference to 1 Corinthians 14:26, 26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
What I was saying is the bonding of all coming together during the worship and contributing for the benefit of God as He inhabits our praise to Him. This is what I meant, brother.
Does this help?
God bless you, MM.
Greetings, Bob.
Yes, there are a small hand full of instances where that Greek word can be understood as applying to women as well. The lexicons point out that the only instance is familial, not in general.
I think I understand the scope of your context when it comes to those who are edified. Yes. I agree. I thought you were including women and children in the scope of teaching authority. I was skeptical about that being your meaning, but I wanted to clarify.
Thanks
MM
well a person could say the same about your post... everything should be done decently in order . when a preacher is bringing the word it takes full concertation . at least it does with me once again a class is best way for the method you prefer . anything i preach questions are welcome after i finish there are preachers who do book by book chapter and verse preaching start at john 1 end last chapter john . i do not preach like that i am evangelistic and use titles . time and place for everything i can respect your views. but can not agree with them. i dont mind making a few comments on post along the way. but honestly in forums you will get more replies to post like this.. than say compared to the plan of salvation
I'm not sure why many men don't take sunday school.
It's a bit disappointing, there were also not many bibles in school male teachers, or even primary school teachers that are male. In my primary school years, I only had one male teacher and the principal and that was it.
Maybe men are just discouraged from teaching younger children, or they don't have the patience, I don't know. They sure missing out on a lot of fun.
It's a bit disappointing, there were also not many bibles in school male teachers, or even primary school teachers that are male. In my primary school years, I only had one male teacher and the principal and that was it.
Maybe men are just discouraged from teaching younger children, or they don't have the patience, I don't know. They sure missing out on a lot of fun.
teaching little ones is a tough job patience yes . i am thankful for the women of the Church they make some good teachers !!! after i got saved they started up the young adult s.s. class . a woman teacher ekkkkk you realize
there are denoms WHO will not allow women in teaching in older adults. this lady was special to us all for me she was my 1st grade teacher . she broke the Bible down taught us some strong meat .
i have sat under men who knows the Bible they simply didnt put forth the effort / i started out teaching the young adult class .i tried the teen class but soon seen .i was not the one to teach. i have taught younger kids in summer Bible school
f61, questions generally have some sort of assumption(s) in the mind of the questioner. So, it seems that you are assuming that an open service where the people can stand and share, one at a time, ultimately leads to some sort of chaos. Having been in a congregation of 900+ where all the people were allowed to share during the service, no measure of disorder ever happened. The elders didn't have to step in once to restore order.
What that showed to me is that adult believers in Christ Jesus can and do function like adults rather than unruly children. In other words, my experience has shown to me that most adults don't need iron fisted control over them to retain decency and order.
MM
my last reply as per i said early the bulk of this i dont agree on when peter yes peter preached on the day of Pentecost . people were saved note it was not peter who saved them. he was just the one chosen to bring the message all through out the Bible there was meetings with a speaker . i like the book of Ezra and Nehemiah if not mistaken the first pulpit is found that book . both were speakers in there own time. i am not opposed to A open meeting.. but not every meeting .. i am a big boy and take many things ..but the iron fist remark BRO is tad bit much .
i have been in many spirit filled meetings one where the preacher stood up said. he was drunk in the spirit ( spirit was very strong up on him ) he could not preach he then said he had discernment and could come down lay hands on those the spirit told him to. people come up out of the pews . seeking prayer
i do not hold Irion fisted meeting and the pastors i know do not.. i have seen song services where folks used the altar and in the end the pastor had very little to say.. the preacher had done spoke . granted services like that are not very often as . we don't always allow the anointing to move like it should..
the pastor should control of the service provided he was in control by the Holy spirit ..
to each there own this is my last post might i add i am assuming nothing if you prefer services like that. then you need find churchlike that and attend
Generally speaking, there is no biblical direction nor definition anywhere in the Bible whereby Aristotelian Rhetoric, today called the sermon, is what must take place in every gathering of believers, and that it must be the dominant feature of each and every gathering of believers.
Now, those who want to attend gatherings where sermons are the dominant feature attraction, then go for it.
Blessedly, when it comes to a gathering of believers, nowhere does the Bible legitimize the institutional gathering as the only acceptable form for the gathering of believers, even when it's in a special purpose building with a professional pastor. Mature believers, as elders in the faith, even those who don't have some sort of degree from an institution of higher learning, can facilitate a gathering even in the outdoor countryside, and be just as legitimate a gathering of believers as any other modeled expression alive and well today.
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
These words of Jesus give to us the total of what we need to know as to what legitimizes a gathering of believers.
MM
Now, those who want to attend gatherings where sermons are the dominant feature attraction, then go for it.
Blessedly, when it comes to a gathering of believers, nowhere does the Bible legitimize the institutional gathering as the only acceptable form for the gathering of believers, even when it's in a special purpose building with a professional pastor. Mature believers, as elders in the faith, even those who don't have some sort of degree from an institution of higher learning, can facilitate a gathering even in the outdoor countryside, and be just as legitimate a gathering of believers as any other modeled expression alive and well today.
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
These words of Jesus give to us the total of what we need to know as to what legitimizes a gathering of believers.
MM
Thanks, f61. You do indeed provide what your congregation wants. Otherwise, it would not have support this long.
Blessings to you and yours.
MM
Hello Lanolin;
Are you asking why men don't take Sunday school, meaning, why don't they "attend" Sunday school, or why don't they "teach" Sunday school? If so, then I'd like to respond.
It could be the situation in your community in Auckland that doesn't have many men attending or teaching, but that is the case in many other parts of the world.
In our Christian community (San Francisco Bay Area) we have the same problem but we also have an imbalance of men and women of God in church, meaning, some of our churches have more women than men and some have more men than women.
On a good note, we have seen a healthy number of men attending and teaching here. But there still men who won't attend a Sunday school or Bible study, as well as women who won't attend either. This remains a concern all over.
God bless you, Lanolin.
appreciate it and blessing back to you and yours i would be a liar if i said it was easy . sundays i ahve said to my self close it down had guy give a dev he spit it out church should stay open .i never said anything to him about it.. pastor got his toes stepped on