Link in response to Gary Osborne,Gary wrote,
>Greetings Link. It seems as though a nerve has been struck, my
>friend. To be frank, I was quite surprised that you could glean so
>much from my VERY brief post.
Sorry if I flooded your screen, brother. I prefer to call this the 'springboard' approach. 
>First: "The Pulpit is central in my church." By this I mean that the
>WORD is central in my church. The pulpit is sacred, because it is
>the place where the Word of God is taught. Without the Word
>coming forth, we have no business calling ourselves a church.
I took this as a reference to the word coming forth from the pulpit. 'The pulpit' is that box the lone speaker speaks behind. It is the place from which the clergyman speaks.
>Second: "The meeting should be directed from the Pulpit, not the
>Pew." By this I mean that in EVERY meeting, there must be
>some ultimate authority that decides what is and is not acceptable.
> Saying that the Holy Spirit is in charge, while true, cannot be
>taken at the face value you assign to it. More on this in a bit.
I do believe that the Holy Spirit must be in charge in a very real way. I think we can agree that God can use certain gifted members in church to keep order.
My concern is over unbiblical assumptions that come from our church tradition. For example, there is an idea that one leader must give a monologue. The gifts of various other gifted ministers in the congregation are often given little chance for expression, unless the gifted member has entered the clergy caste by going to Bible school or gotten into traveling ministry or some other sort of professional ministry.
The preacher and the congregation, because of the tradition they were raised up in, just assume generally only one man (though sometimes two or three take turns) is supposed to speak a sermon every week while the rest listen. This is a cultural assumption, and it doesn't line up with what the scripture teaches.
>Of course the meeting should be directed by the Spirit (i.e. God
>Himself). But HOW does God go about directing the service? He
>must use human agents. This is a given. The problem with your
>statement is that it ASSUMES everyone in the service will agree
>as to how God is directing. The reality is that this is seldom, if
>ever, going to be the case.
Just from my own personal experience, I'd say that most meetings flow according to tradition. In a Protestant church, someone prays, then everyone sings, then the offering, then sermon, then offering, with communion (optional in some traditions) followed by singing. Different churches have singing and prayer interspersed in different parts. Pentecostal liturgy is more or less the same with longer singing in particular styles, and perhaps more enthusiasm in some churches. We know what to do next because of tradition, or habit, or just because we are used to it. So our own order of service is maintained through tradition. The format perpetuates itself. One generation learns the format from the previous generation.
Here is the big problem- this format is not in the Bible. And from reading the Bible carefully, we can see that the format for meetings was DIFFERENT from the one described above. This is plain in I Corinthians 14.
I notice from reading your message to me that you seem to assume that our format is the right one, and seem to think that the Corinthians would have been better off just to follow our format. The Corinthians had a very open format, apparently. Their problem was that they apparently had people speaking in tongues without interpretation. Perhaps they had disorderly things going on like prophets who kept on prophesying, claiming their 'spirits' were subject to them. (If I understand correctly, 'spirits' here was the pagan Greek terminology which was roughly the equivalent of 'spiritual gift' and referred to such things as uncontrollable pagan prophesying. Correct me if I am wrong
So think about it. The Corinthians had an open format for sharing gifts with one another. But some people who being disorderly or doing a lot of talking (in tongues without interpretation for example) which took up time and didn't edify the assembly. Perhaps people who talking in tongues at the same time. Perhaps more than one prophet would talk at the same time because the speaking prophet did not want to hold his peace for the next prophet to continue a message.
What was Paul's solution? Did he tell them to let the pastor do all the talking? Wouldn't that have been your solution for the Corinthian's problem, Gary? Stronger pastoral control? that's the impression I get from your post. But this was not Paul's solution.
But Paul's solution was not to put one man at the front and have a liturgical meeting! What he did, instead, was lay some ground rules that he Corinthians needed to follow in heir meetings.
One rule was that everything was to be done for edification. If uninterpreted tongues didn't edify the assembly, then they were not to be spoken out in the assembly. Tongues with interpretation could be spoke out, in turn.
About prophets, one prophet was not allowed to hog the floor. Prophets weren't to speak out their messages at the same time. If a prophet were speaking and one who was sitting by, the first speaker was to hold his peace. (perhaps the one sitting by here is a non prophet because Paul continues on to say _FOR_ all may prophesy one by one...)
So what did Paul do? Did he take away the Corinthian open format? no. He kept it. Notice that in I Corinthians 11, Paul commends the Corinthians for holding to the traditions that he had passed down to them. Discussion was apparently a part of the synagogue tradition. So was shuffling around speaking/reading/commenting ministry among different members of the congregation. The Corinthians didn't develop these practices in a vacuum. Paul commended them for following the traditions he handed down, and then rebuked them and corrected them for the traditions that they had wrong.
What did he do with the Corinthians mistakes in mutual edification in meetings? He gave them a couple of ground rules. Mutual edification has Pauline approval. The type of meeting Paul taught the Corinthians to have in this chapter is God-approved. Paul described what he wrote as the commandments of the Lord.
Also, notice that Paul's good example of a meeting was one in which all prophesied. Why would Paul give such an example if a good meeting was one in which one man spoke and all the rest sat quietly and listened?
Why would Paul tell the Corinthians to covet to prophesy if the really important thing in the meeting was to sit and listen to one preacher? If sitting and listening to ONE man preach ONE sermon was the important thing in the meeting, why didn't Paul even mention this idea? If having one MC was so important, why doesn't the Bible teach us that this is central to meetings?
Many of us want to read our OWN format from our OWN tradition into such passages. The RCC people may think of someone with a fancy robe up front with little wafers. The Pentecostals think of people clapping and raising their hands before the preacher comes up and shares a message.
When you read I Corinthians 14, keep the context of the book in mind. In chapter 12, Paul had already started addressing some of the issues facing the Corinthians. He told them that no man, speaking by the Spirit of God says that Jesus is accursed, and then he lists several gifts of the Spirit. He talks about the interdependence of the parts of the body- how we minister our gifts one to another. He even lists various gifts. Apostles, prophets, teachers, and then various non speaking gifts, and tongues and interpretations. Then he talks about the importance of love.
So Paul has already laid a foundation here of the idea of a functioning body. He doesn't present the picture of a few ministers doing all the main ministry, while the body just sits there. He doesn't present the picture of a man with no functioning body part except his arm.
The man lies on the ground face-down while his legs do nothing. Using his arm, he drags himself around. His arm, the senior pastor, gets really strong, but the rest of the body doesn't.
No, the whole body is supposed to function. We are to minister to one another with our gifts. When can we minister to gift of healing to one another? Isn't it when we come together? Can someone minister the gift of healing to you from across town? I suppose its possible, but it doesn't seem to happen that way much. When do people edify others with gifts of words of wisdom, knowledge, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation.
So, after reading about this picture of a functioning body, with many body parts ministering to one another, we read about love, the right motivation, and then chapter 14, where we read about their meetings.
Should we be surprised that their meetings were full of 'every one of you' sharing something? Isn't that consistent with the idea of the functioning body Paul talked about in chapter 12?
Is I Cor. 12 the only bit of evidence? No. In I Peter 4:10-11, we also see Peter command saints to minister their gifts one to another. He that speaketh should speak as the oracles of God. how can the saints minister their gifts to one another, especially speaking gifts, if they do not meet? How can the body function with one part ministering to one another if these gifts do not function in the meetings? When else can the gifts be used? How can we use the gifts to edify one another if we do not MEET some time to edify one another?
What should we do, just throw out I Corinthians 12, I Peter 4:10-11, Hebrews 10:24-25, and Romans 12 out of the Bible?
Notice Paul's instructions in Romans 12. We all have different gifts. If someone has a gift of teaching, what does Paul say- 'let him teach.' This makes perfect sense in the type of meeting we see in I Corinthians 14. If someone has the gift in that type of meeting he is FREE to use it according to the Lord's leading.
But what do we do in the modern church? Do we say he that has the gift of teaching let him teach? No, we say he that has the gift of teaching, let him sit down and listen to the preachers gift of teaching. Why? Well, that's just the way we have church. That's the way my parents had church. It's our tradition. It goes back to the Roman Catholic church. Isn't it time that we went back to the Bible?
Before Azusa street, many people didn't believe in the on-going gift of prophecy. So of course their church meetings wouldn't allow for prophesying. Their liturgy had been developed not to allow for this gift.
What happened at Azusa street? Different people from the assembly would share a message. They really cared about the moving of the Spirit back then.
What happened after Azusa street. Apparently the people at Azusa street recovered some of the EXPERIENCE of having a Biblical meeting, but if they had the TEACHING about it, it didn't stick too well. I've heard about old-timers having 'believer's meetings' for expression of the gifts. This type of meeting revived in the Charismatic movement. But people keep going back to traditional church liturgy- liturgy that developed in a vacuum of expression of the gift of prophecy and other gifts. Liturgy that the Bible doesn't command us to have. Liturgy that is different from what we see the believers in the Bible doing in their Christian church meetings. So why should we follow this liturgy in the first place?
>Some will say the song service was too long. Others will say it
>was too short. Some will say we should have sang that hymn
>once more, another not at all. Some will say the "Spirit was
>quenched" because we didn't allow for more "freedom" (whatever
>that may mean). There is simply no way that everyone will agree
>on HOW God truly desired to direct any given service. It is too
>subjective an issue.
One major problem is that people rely on tradition rather than the moving of the Spirit. Relying on tradition isn't always to horrible thing, but the problem comes when the tradition doesn't have scriptural basis, and is actually different from the traditions we see in the Bible
In an open meeting like the ones Paul told the Corinthians to have, believers ministering to one another with their gifts? No, of course not. Paul even encourages believers to prophesy. The format for meeting that Paul gave in the chapter tells how to keep the gift of prophecy flowing in the right direction. The example of a good meeting that Paul describes is one where all prophesy. Paul says that all may prophesy one by one. Paul really emphasized prophesying. He also mentions other manifestations like tongues and interpretations and singing.
Of course, some Pentecostal churches allow prophesying, but they squeeze it into a church format which does not come from the Bible- the hymn sandwich with the sermon in the middle. Also, the interpretation of a max of two or three prophecies in a meeting, imo, contradicts other parts of the chapter..
One retired Greek professor on the net thinks the 'speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' refers to one person speaking to a group. Perhaps there were some prophetic type songs given by the Spirit of the Lord back then that could be sung out in the assembly. The translators of the Indonesian Bible translated these verses to say that we should speak one person to another., so they apparently agree with this Greek prof's view on the passage.
In Tertullian's day, after the supper, members of the church would stand up and sing songs from their hearts or from the scriptures to the Lord. This was as late as the 300's. It's in his Apology. Was that in his pre-Montanist days?
>Let me shorten this up by saying it this way, Link. ANYTHING
>WITH MORE THAN ONE HEAD IS A MONSTER. There must
>always be someone who makes the final decision and call.
If Christ is the Head of the church, and one man in the assembly, pastor or no, tries to assume Christ's position, has he created a monster?
I think you have the idea that one person must MC the meeting because you lack other kinds of church experience. You probably haven't seen an open meeting that functioned well.
Most of what keeps church meetings going, as I understand it, is the format or tradition, or whatever you want to call it, that everyone is trained to follow. Some liturgical churches have more than one MC. A deacon may lead scripture readings, and then the preacher speaks, and someone else leads another part of their liturgy. The liturgy is sometimes written down, so everyone knows what happens next.
In Pentecostal churches the liturgy is usually unwritten, but most people know what happens next, because it always 'happens next' every week, week after week, year after year. Everyone knows the special song and the offering comes at a certain point in the sermon. Habit keeps the service going. Pentecostal meetings may offer a little bit more variety than other Evangelical meetings, but they still follow the same pattern. You can put a guest speaker in charge in a lot of churches, and meeting goes on about the same as usual, because the hymn sandwich is so universally accepted. But the hymn sandwich is not in the Bible. Liturgical churches with deacons doing a lot of the leading function even more rigidly. So having one leader is not the only way of insuring order.
Like I said in my previous post, I've been in a meeting in which everyone reads a chapter of scripture, and different people stand up and comment. They have a liturgy that keeps things going. They sing first, then read a pre-chosen passage, and then different people comment. You don't know who will be commenting (except that a lot of the same people do the commenting) and anyone is free to share something to edify the group. This group does have an elder in the meetings that I've seen, and he usually handles announcements, things related to the Lord supper, and other administrative matters at the end of the meeting. He may share something as well. The meeting I went to had 300 people.
A meeting with this type of liturgy doesn't even especially have to be Spirit-led to function normally, of course. But in a more open where anyone may express the gifts of the Spirit according to the leading of the Spirit, there is more chance for the Spirit leading through His body, than in a church meeting where everyone strictly follows an unscriptural liturgy where only one person is allowed to minister the word.
>I am reminded of the numerous times the people of Israel
>complained that God only spoke thru Moses. Need I remind you
>how their contentions were meant?
I've seen this idea- that he senior pastor is like Moses- in different places. It seems to be Calvary Chapel teaching, and the teaching of some other Charismatic groups. But I think we need to examine the Bible a little more carefully on this issue.
Moses is a type of Christ. We see this in Stephen's testimony, and in the epistle of Hebrews. Jesus is the Pastor (Shepherd) and Bishop (Overseer) of our souls. In I Peter 5, we can see that Christ is the Chief Pastor or Chief Shepherd that the elders, his undershepherds, must appear before.
So Moses had 70 elders ministering under his authority. Christ also has many elders ministering under his authority.
We see in scripture that the apostles appointed ELDERS plural in churches, to tend to the flock. Scripture doesn't show us Paul appointing one Moses in every flock to be the local 'covering.' It does show him and Barnabas appointed elders in every church.
The Bible does not say that an elder is to MC a meeting. But we do see that this took place in early church history. Elders are to be leaders in the household of God- leaders in our Christian community. It makes sense that elders gifts will get used in meetings- that some elders will do a lot of teaching. Sometimes they may blend into the woodwork. If there are plenty of mature saints ministering, the elder may not have to carry as much of the load. If the elder has been successful in raising up saints to do the work of the ministry, he may have less of the teaching to do himself in a meeting.
Notice what Paul wrote to Titus about elders. Elders have to have sound doctrine so that they can contradict the gainsayers. An elder, as a leader in the church, should be a mentor and a line of defense against false teachings. If someone is teaching wrongly, an elder should deal with it. There is a difference between being a leader and doing all the work. The Bible says that elders are to be ENSAMPLES (examples) to the flock. They should model ministry well that saints are to do.
Imagine a farmer who wants to raise his son up to be a good farmer. When his son is a teenager, he could have the son work with him in the fields and in the barn, so the son would learn. But, the son is a teen. He might mess stuff up. So, what does this farmer do? He ties his son up to a dolly, one of those pushcarts you use toe move the refrigerator, and drags him around from the field to the barn so the son can watch the father in action. The son learns really well how to WATCH farm work, and here his dad TALK ABOUT farm work. But can the son do farm work?
The father cuts the sons ropes, and he slumps over. His muscles are atrophied from being tied to the dolly. He knows how to watch and hear about farm work, but he can't do farm work.
Wouldn't it be wiser for the father to let the son learn to do farm work by doing it? If he makes a mistake, the father can correct him. But if he doesn't make a mistake, there is no need to correct him.
The father in the analogy corresponds to an elder/bishop of the church (popularly known as 'pastor;' and the tied up boy corresponds with a 'layman' growing up in the Lord.
A better analogy might be a father who NEVER WANTS his son to do farm work, but just wants the son to watch him do all the farm work, and ties the son up for the rest of his life. Why? Because a lot of professional pastors have the mentality that only a small elite percentage of saints are called to speaking ministry. Does the Bible teach this? No.
The author of Hebrews thought that, for the time, they ought to be teachers. So, should the number of 'teachers' be great or small? If saints are truly mature (c.f. perfect, James 3) then there should be many teachers.
If a church is sterile, and decreases in number as the young people move off to other cities, and there is no evangelism, we see this as cause for concern. But if the elders/bishops of a church don't raise up a new generation of leaders from within the congregation (the way the early church must have done) then we think that is okay. Why is it okay for elders to be 'sterile' in this sense, but not churches? Why is it okay to only have Bible school graduates as church leaders, instead of raising up new leaders in church? Maybe this applies more to the country I'm in than the US, but it seems to be the case in a lot of churches in the US. There are still plenty of people from different backgrounds pastoring in Pentecostalism.
One myth that causes problems is the idea that only professional pastors in ordained bishopric positions in the church, or else traveling evangelists, should do much speaking in church. Many don't consider that God can raise up many teachers within a mature congregation. Many preachers think its their responsibility to teach and minister (do farm work in front of others) instead of also helping TRAIN UP others to do these same ministries.
The picture in the Bible is of a functioning body, not a big giant that doesn't move, being serviced by a small number of ministers. We are all supposed to be ministers. Those with the gift of teaching are to teach, according to Romans 12, regardless of whether or not they are in the clergy caste (with ordination, pastoral responsibility, a suit and tie, and 'preacher' on the card.) Plumbers can be teachers. Prophets are supposed to prophesy according to the proportion of faith. Waiters can be prophets.
What does Ephesians 4 says. That the 5 ministries are to EQUIP THE SAINTS TO DO THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY.
Paul wrote to Timothy to commit the teachings he had heard to faithful men, so that they might be able to TEACH OTHERS ALSO. Notice Timothy's work to raise up teachers who taught others also. Shouldn't ministers of the Gospel have this attitude of equipping others to do the work? Shouldn't they realize that every member of the body has some kind of calling. Paul encouraged people to seek the gift of prophesy, a speaking gift.
>I am also reminded of the times of the Judges, when all in Israel did
>what was right in their own eyes. We are living in such a time as
>that now, IMHO. I have never seen people that were so certain
>they had the Spirit's insights into how the church was to be run,
>and how services were to be conducted. And nowadays, people
>will get up and leave the church at the drop of a hat if things are not
>done exactly as they see fit (can I get a witness from some other
>pastors on that statement?).
Can't your observation also apply to some church leaders as well? Don't
many church leaders follow the hymn-sandwich tradition of how to have a
church meeting, which dates back about 500 years, and ignore what the
scriptures have to say.
'Every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.'
>I Corinthians 14 is NOT the sole chapter whereby we receive
>instructions on how meetings are to be conducted. The reality is
>that this carnal group, fueled by tremendous pride, was always
>looking to show off. BTW, I'm not convinced that Paul isn't being a
>bit sarcastic with them when he states:
Many people speculate on the Corinthians motivations. Do we know that many
spoke in tongues in a disorderly manner because they wanted to show off?
That is an assumption. Paul tells them not to be childish. Maybe they
thought that tongues were so special and holy that they should speak in
tongues more because it was more holy that anything else (the type of
teaching I've heard around here some.) Paul didn't say they wanted to show
off. He did give them the principle of all things being done unto edifying.
Where does he say their motivation for unedifying behavior was a desire to
show off (rather innocent than ignorance.)
>1 Cor 14:26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come
>together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue,
>has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for
>edification.
>Perhaps Paul is stating that EVERYONE believing that they had
>an appropriate psalm, teaching, tongue, etc. for each service was a
>bit much. I think this is possibly his meaning. But whatever he
>means, it is obvious from the next several scriptures that Confusion
>and Disorder did reign in Corinthian services!
But look at what he tells them to correct the situation! He tells them how to prophesy in turn. Paul's solution is not yours- having everyone be quiet while the preacher talks. If this is a great solution, why didn't Paul give it?
Do you agree with me that Pentecostal churches do not generally follow Paul's instructions about prophesying? I'd like to see a detailed response on that issue.
>Yet you wrote:
>
> Paul didnt' say this was disorderly.
>I disagree in the strongest terms possible. He is clearly rebuking
>them and trying to correct the abuse of the gifts in the services.
>Things were not being done for the mutual edification. On the
>contrary, everyone was doing what they wanted to. You can bet
>that if you had interviewed the Corinthians they each would have
>told you that while others in the church were NOT obeying the
>Spirit's direction, they were!
Sorry for being unclear. Let me reword that. Paul did not say that everyone sharing a psalm, doctrine, etc. was disorderly. What he did tell them was to let all things be done unto edification. All of these types of things could be done for edification.
Also notice that Paul did say that ALL may prophesy.
>Paul wrote other epistles besides I Corinthians, Link. In fact, he
>wrote a few "pastoral" letters to Timothy and others. In 2nd
>Timothy, Paul's last letter, he writes this:
The letters were labeled 'pastoral' in the past 200 years or so, if I remember correctly. I think this is an unfortunately label? Why? Because 'pastor' has been redefined as 'bishop.'
Timothy was not a local settled church bishop at this time. He was an APOSTLE appointing local bishops. He was a part of a traveling ministry team that took the Gospel to new places and set the new churches in order with the gifts that God had given him (along with Paul and others. Timothy's authority extended to areas where he had helped bring Christ to those who had not heard. We see this in II Cor. 10, co-authored by Timothy.
Most local elders do not have this type of position in their assemblies. Paul didn't appoint someone to have his same role in the assembly. Corinth had many teachers, but not many fathers. In the Gospel Paul had become their father. He had already laid the foundation there, and he had that special measure of rule from being the first apostle to lay a foundation there.
Timothy was a part of the team that ministered to Ephesus in the early days of evangelization there, and he was working with Paul's direction.
>2 Tim 4:1-5 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of
>Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His
>appearing and His kingdom: PREACH THE WORD; be ready in
>season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great
>patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not
>endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they
>will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own
>desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn
>aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship,
>do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
This is a letter written to Timothy - not to every member of the assembly.
From my study of the contexts in which the word 'preach' is used, it generally refers to evangelism. In this case, some of the verbs there seem to refer to things done among believers. 'Preach' does not mean, in Greek, talking specifically behind a pulpit, in a church)
If you assume that because timothy was to preach, that no one else was to minister, you are reading your own conclusion into the passage, begging the question. In fact, Paul write to Timothy about men teaching the wrong things about the Law. We can learn a lot about the way the church functioned from the problems they faced. Here, bad teaching about the law was a problem. Again, Paul's solution was not to muzzle the mouth of all but a few key leaders. Instead, he wanted Timothy to charge people not to teach wrong doctrine. He wanted elders to be appointed (in Titus 1) who knew sound doctrine and could defend it.
An apostle or elder shouldn't do all the ministry, but should encourage others in their gifts, model good ministry, and take care of problems when they arrive. He shouldn't tie people up, but rather let them be free to grow, and correct mistakes.
'Five-fold ministry' is to equip saints to minister, not to do all the work for them while they watch from the pew.
>Notice Link, that Paul didn't tell Timothy that everyone, at every
>meeting, was to preach the Word.
The letter was written to Timothy. It is obvious from the letters to Timothy that others were to teach besides Timothy. In fact, Timothy was to teach faithful men, so that they might be able to teach others also.
Besides, Timothy was 'heralding' an announcement, the Gospel message, to the people. If you read 'preach' and you imagine that it means 'speak behind the pulpit on Sunday morning all by yourself while everyone is quiet' then you are just reading your own conclusion into the passage. The fact that Timothy was to use his gift does not negate the other scripture that teaches that other believers besides Timothy are to use their gifts.
> It was Timothy, a Preacher
>called of God, who was to do this. Paul goes on to insist that the
>time will come when THEY... Who is the "they"? The laymen in
>the Church. Thus is was the minister's job to bring forth a
>message to keep these selfish attitudes in check.
Paul says men. Read the 'pastorals' carefully, and you will see that others were teaching. Paul doesn't lay down a law muzzling these men either. His solution is for leaders to deal with people who err, when they err. But Paul does not tell Timothy to stop the body from functioning in order to keep there from being mistakes.
Tying up the farm boy will keep him from spilling the cows milk, but it isn't a healthy situation, and it isn't productive.
>[Preach], [Keeruxon (NT:2784)]-`Herald.'
Interesting definition. The herald might come to town after a battle and announce who the new king is. He has news that others don't know till they hear it. Timothy had knowledge of the Gospel that others didn't have. He was one of the ones who introduced the Gospel to the area. He had a special apostolic role that is not quite the same as that of a local minister.
In fact, the requirements for elders in I Tim. and Titus don't even mention a 'special call' as a requirement. Paul wrote that God made some elders into overseers, so we know God works in this, but this emphasis on the special call for bishops doesn't even show up in the epistle.
> After "Scripture" (2 Tim
>3:16) comes `preaching,' to be based on it. [The term for
>discourses in the synagogue was Daraschoth; the corresponding
>Greek, dielegeto (NT:1256) (implying dialectical style, dialogue,
>and discussion, Acts 17:2,17; 18:4,19), is applied to discourses in
>the Christian Church].
This word is used quite often. If I remember correctly, it is used of Paul teaching (or talking with) the saints all night when the man fell out of the window. I suppose some people visualize a long sermon, when he was likely having an interactive discussion about the Gospel before he left the next day.
If the church meeting is based on the synagogue, why don't we have the interaction and mutual exhortation found in the syagoguge.
From what I understand about the synagogue, a regular member of the synagogue could read and give commentary on the synagogue. They also allowed for religious specialists, like rabbis and scribes, to give commentary on the law. I've heard that during a part of their liturgy, they offered for priests and Levites to come and read before offering to other people.
How different this is from our own meetings where we just have the religious specialists do this type of work! the irony is that the instructions left to us in the New Testament appear to be even MORE interactive than the synagogue! Yet our church meetings are LESS interactive than the first century synagogue. The instructions we give allow for MORE room for mutual edification in the meetings. Ironic, isn't it, that are meetings are more closed than theirs were.
I do wonder sometimes if some of the the churches had meetings which were a mix of the synagogue meeting and the meeting in I Cor. 14. Perhaps some reading of the Law followed by commentary, and then flow of prophesy and other gifts. I don't know. Perhaps the men Paul wrote Timothy about were doing this and commenting wrongly, or something along those lines.
Somehow, the patterns from the synagogue got into the church. Perhaps from the Jews, proselytes and God-fearers that Paul won to Christ. Perhaps from the Messianic Jews in Israel.
Early on, there were great battles with heresy, and it perhaps during that time, some of the early bishops dealt with the problem by emphasizing the power of the senior elder as a bishop, and only allowing ordained ministers to minister in the body. One of the posters here on CPI said that there is no evidence that any church ever had the type of meetings Paul instructed them to have in I Cor. 14 after that time. Sad.
Muzzling all the mouths of believers may stop the rapid flow of heresy. But it is not what the Bible prescribes to stop the flow of false teachings. Paul wrote that elders had to know the truth and be able to contradict the gainsayers. He told Timothy to charge men not to teach any other doctrine. He repeatedly told the church as a whole to withdraw from false teachings. Muzzling the mouth of the saints is a man-made way of dealing with false teachings. And it produces a number of problems.
Within a few hundred years, many churches were having liturgical meetings, with little room for the expression of gifts. When we read about prophets during that time, many of the ones referred to as prophets. how could anyone have known about other prophets? They couldn't talk in church.
I read some quotes in _Evangelism in the early church_ from the early first century. Some of the quotes dealt with traveling prophets who would minister. The Didache, written during this time, deals with the issue of true and false prophets. There was also a quote giving instructions for how to run the liturgy. The author of this document gave instructions for reading the scriptures, and giving certain prayers, and said that at a certain point, the prophets should be free to offer up whatever prayers they like.
Hmm. The Bible gives much more freedom to the prophets. But it seems churches turned to formal liturgy, and the leaders gradually began to restrict regular believers from ministering their gifts like scripture commands. Prophets went from being able to speak two or three in an environment where all may prophesy and traveling from place to place, to being restricted to praying prayers and ministering in a restricted liturgy, to basically being phased out. Bishops in later centuries could be prophets. Other prophets probably couldn't speak in many the churches unless they were ordained in some other role.
If believers can't exercise their gifts, is it any wonder if they don't grow in their gifts? If they are not faithful to minister what measure of grace they have, will God give them more grace? is it any wonder, with such restrictive liturgy that limits body ministry, that gifts of the Spirit like speaking in tongues, interpretation, prophecy, healing, etc. would phase out from the scene? One reason the Montanists were able to get support is for going against this institutionalization of the church.
>Link, I also think a clearer understanding of early church operation
>is in order at this time. Justin Martyr ( in `Apology' 2) describes
>public worship like this: "On Sunday all meet; the writings of the
>apostles and prophets are read; then the president delivers a
>discourse; after this all stand up and pray; then there is offered
>bread and wine and water; the president likewise prays and gives
>thanks, and the people solemnly assent, saying, Amen."
Justin Martyr is not scripture, of course. I've read this quote before. (Btw, do you know of any quotes from Justin with more detail on the Lord's supper?) Notice how different Justin's meeting is from what we read in the Bible. There are other quotes about prophetic ministry continuing in the early first century, though. I had to return the _Evangelism in the Early Church_ book to the library though. If anyone has _The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity_ it probably has a lot of these kinds of quotes.
Reading of the scriptures may just be one advantage a liturgical service has over a Pentecostal one. If a believer goes to a liturgical service enough, he may hear a Gospel read through. Some evangelical preachers practice 'scripture hopping' and jump back and forth between favorite topics, never dealing with many important issues. Some Christians _don't_ read the Bible on their own. For much of history, many believers were illiterate. Try taking 'scripture hopping' patterns for teaching into an illiterate mission situation, and you end up with people who don't hear the Bible taught, and can't read it for themselves.
> Eusebius (`Ecclesiastical History,' 6:19) says "The bishops and
>presbyters had the right to preach; but they sometimes called on
>deacons, and even laymen."
Eusebius is kind of late- 300's. Formal liturgy was well set-in by then.
>In answer to your inquiry about the structure of meetings, and
>specifically why a "pulpit centered ministry" is used today, I say
>very frankly to you that the church imitated the synagogue (Luke
>4:17-22; Acts 13:15-16) in it's manner of conducting corporate
>meetings. There is solid biblical ground for ministers to bring
>messages to the congregation.
I agree that ministers should be messages to the congregation. My concern is
with only one minister, or only two or three, repeatedly giving messages to the
congregation, while all the other ministers in the congregation are not given a
chance to use their spiritual gifts, and function as a healthy body, with one
part ministering to the others.
>A few other Scriptures that indicate the need for a specific
>messenger/preacher to bring the Word are:
>Rom 10:14-15 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they
>have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they
>have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And
>how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written,
>"How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good
>things!"
Please get out of the pulpit-pew mentality for a second. 'Preache' in the Bible is generally used to refer to words that refer to evangelism, not 'speaking in a church building behind a pulpit.'
Paul probably did a lot of his speaking behind a podium- but in a synagogue. But he also ministered in places of prayer, open-air markets, the Areopagus, and other places. His 'preached' to unbelievers.
>Col 1:28-29 And we proclaim Him, admonishing every man and
>teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every
>man complete in Christ. And for this purpose also I labor, striving
>according to His power, which mightily works within me.
These are great verses. But notice Paul does not say that he was the ONLY person to admonish others. In fact, he tells the Romans that they are able to admonish _one another._ the fact that Paul used his gift of teaching doesn't mean that others were not to use their gifts. We know that Paul wasn't the only person preaching among the Collosians because they hadn't even seen his faith. They heard the Gospel from Epaphrus.
>Paul also instructed Timothy to appoint elders for the different
>congregations. An elder is needed to both bring order and direction
>to a body of believers. Without one, chaos rules.
Keep in mind that Paul and Barnabas preached and left churches without elders, not once, but repeatedly, on their first missionary journey. Later, they came back and appointed elders. But in the early stages, these churches were able to actually be churches without elders.
Elders are to be examples, apt to teach, lead the house of God, stand up against false doctrine, but where does the Bible teach that one elder alone should give a speech every meeting, and that the rest should listen? These are not the instructions the scriptures give in I Cor. 14, Hebrews 10:24-25, I Peter 4:10-11. I Thes. 5:14, and Rom 15:14. This idea of the one elder, 'pastor' or whatever label you want to put on him, doing all the talking in the meeting just isn't in the Bible. This type of meeting is not the type of meeting we see described in the passage which actually gives us some detailed commandments of the Lord about church meetings.
So, what should we follow? Scripture or later tradition?
>But there need not be a conflict between individual members
>exercising the gifts God gave them, and a Pastor bringing order
>and a teaching from the Word at the same time.
I think this is something that we can agree on. My question is, how can you do this and have a typical pulpit-led meeting, which is in line with scripture?
> Link, why do we
>need Pastors at all if the members of the congregation can/should
>always bring the message? As you later stated, the minister
>would be nothing more than a glorified MC.
The elders of the church are not the only ministers. An elder is to be apt to teach. Many elders will have teaching ministries themselves. But as leaders of the church, they should take responsibility to encourage others in their gifts and ministries. As pastors and teachers, elders should equip the to do the work of the ministry.
They can exercise their own gifts as well. If an elder is very mature, and is surrounded by brand new believers who know nothing, they may be able to do little more than say or sing words of praise to the Lord, give simple exhortations, and pray. If he is dealing with babes, he may have to do a lot of the ministering.
But if elders have responsibility for a flock full of gifted saints- prophets, teachers, and others, they may not need to do as much of the teaching. A shepherd doesn't usually have to pluck up the grass from the roots and put it to the sheep's mouth. He just provides some general direction to a place where the food is, and the flock feeds itself, because God made sheep to be able to eat.
> But is this the portrait
>the Bible paints of a Pastor? Hardly!
Keep in mind that 'pastor' is used a lot more in what we say about church than it is the KJV. 'Pastors' shows up once in the whole NT. Elders are told to pastor the flock in two different places. Jesus told Peter to pastor his sheep. Paul used pastoring a flock as a metaphor for his ministry in I Cor. 9.
In I Peter 5, Peter tells elders to shepherd/pastor the flock, and then speaks of their receiving a reward from the chief metaphor. This passage also tells elders not to lord over the flocks (even if the word 'shepherd' is used in the OT to refer to kings.)
Someone with the pastor-teacher gifting can speak to a congregation, give leadership and direction, and exercise his pastoral gift to give directions to sheep in other ways as they lead it.
The modern notion of 'pastor' carries with it the idea of giving a speech to a group of people every week. But the word just means 'shepherd.' The Greek word doesn't mean 'a weekly religious speech giver.' We shouldn't' read that idea into the Bible. Do literal shepherds meet with their sheep once a week and give them a 40 minute speech, or do they spend a lot of extensive time with them during the week, taking care of each sheep's needs, and providing direction for the whole heard when it is needed?
A group of shepherds can also shepherd a flock in real life. Did angels appear to a group of shepherds? (Yet another argument from scripture for plurality of elders, though perhaps the weakest one.
>Eph 4:11-12 And He gave some as apostles, and some as
>prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and
>teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to
>the building up of the body of Christ.
>That the "pastors" here are the superintending rulers and bishops
>or presbyters of the Church is evident from Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter
>5:1-2, where the bishops' and presbyters' office is said to be "to
>feed" the flock. The term `shepherd,' or `pastor,' is used of guiding
>and governing, not merely instructing, whence it is applied to kings,
>rather than prophets or priests (Jer 23:4). So your contentions are
>not scriptural.
I don't see how this disproves anything about the Biblical instructions for meetings. Shepherds are supposed to lead and take care of the sheep. 'Church' is supposed to be more than a 1.5 hour meeting on Sunday morning. It's supposed to be a community, and elders are to use their fatherly skills in this community. this can show up in a meeting, but nothing about this verse indicates that the pastor is supposed to make a 45 minute speech every week while the others are silent, and that this is the model for church liturgy.
I've heard or read that prophets priest and kings are referred to as shepherds in the OT. I don't know any references off the top of my head. If that's right or wrong, maybe someone else could comment.
NT elders also correspond with OT elders. The NT commands elders not to lord over the sheep.
The pastors and teachers here are to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. If the pastors do all the talking, how are the rest of the saints ever going to do the work of the ministry? If only one teacher talks every week, how will the others exercise their equipping gifts?
Having one person give a speech every week also muzzles the mouth of other five-fold ministers in the church. I think you are operating with the assumption that FEW are to be five-fold ministers. The author of Hebrews thought his audience _should have been_ teachers by that time.
Also, you are assuming that because elders should be pastors and teachers, that all pastor-teachers are ordained ministers. The Bible doesn't draw this conclusion.
The current popular church liturgies, even Pentecostal ones, severely restrict the ministry of the prophet, unless he also happens to be in an elder/bishop type ministry.
Gifted evangelists who work in the light bulb factory, instead of preaching from church to church may also be sitting their in the pew, mouths muzzled by liturgy and tradition, while only one brother exercises his gift. Ephesians 4:"11 is a strong argument _against_ traditional liturgy.
Men have these gifts because God gives them to them. Not all people with these gifts are church pastors or are in 'full-time' professional ministry.
>On top of the definition, for what purpose are these ministries given,
>Link? Same basic purpose as the gifts of the Spirit - for the
>BUILDING UP of the body.
And equipping the saints to DO the work of the ministry. How does a farm-boy learn to farm? By listening only, or by doing? Paul gave Timothy on the job training. Jesus gave the 12 on the job training. If just lecturing the 12 was the best way to teach, why didn't Jesus do that? Why did He send them to preach and have them help Him feed the five thousand?
>Therefore, I submit to you that both sets of "gifts" must be in use
>for the body to function properly. And the CLEAR mandate of the
>pastor (shepherd) is to "feed the lambs." After all, this is what
>Jesus told Peter. And how are people fed? Thru the preaching and
>teaching of the Word from a God called minister.
those in eldership should definitely use their gifts. But so should all the other God-called ministers in the congregation that aren't in eldership. That is the issue, should God-called ministers in the pews be allowed to exercise the gifts they are called to minister in or not? If not in the meeting, then where? The example we have from scripture, and the accompanying commands, are about exercising gifts in the meeting?
>> The purpose of the meeting is not to hear the preacher preach, or
>> to follow the order of service on the buliten. Rather the aim
>> should be mutual edification. Let all things be done unto
>> edifying.
>I just proved, from Jewish custom (the synagogue), church history,
>and the Scripture itself that the above statement is incorrect. The
>exact opposite is true. When we come together, we are edified by
>the preaching and teaching of the Word brought forth from the God-
>given leadership of the church.
Which part are you disagreeing with? That the order of service should follow the order of service on the bulletin? Are you disagreeing with mutual edification? What about _exhorting one another_ in Hebrews 10:25?
I don't see how you've proved any of these things. Justin Martyr is not scripture. The synagogue, from what I've read, allowed for regular people to minister the word as well. Besides that, it is not scripture. Scripture _does_ show leaders preaching and teaching the word, but teaching the word is not limited to bishops and apostles, either. So the issue is that the Bible does not teach that ONLY bishops and apostles are to do the teaching, prophesying, etc.
>Wrong. I have proved otherwise. Your only place of refuge (so-
>called at that) is I Corinthians 14. And this is a church where there
>were divisions that Paul had to rebuke. In fact, I wonder aloud if it
>wasn't because of the carnal Corinthians divisions that Paul doesn't
>make mention of the Pastor or Elder in the church there. He
>makes some references to the "prophets", but other than that, I
>find it a glaring omission that none are mentioned.
Most of the epistles to the churches don't mention elder or bishops. Interesting. There are plenty of general instructions to the churches. Maybe Paul wasn't as fixated on telling the leadership to keep everyone in line as he was with a 'brethren' mentality of the whole functioning body being obedient and working as it should. Perhaps Paul wasn't as much into the idea of an authoritarian 'top-down' system with one man acting as the 'covering' of the congregation, to borrow a third wave term.
Another thing to think about is the possibility that Corinth didn't even have appointed elders yet. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders relatively fast on their first journey. Some guess without about 2 years at the most of founding a church (with the churches at the end of the journey have a shorter period of time for elders to be raised up.)
By the time Paul got to Corinth, he had a group of men following him around, and there were a number of Christians who could be sent back and forth. maybe appointing elders right off was not as big of need, and he could allow them to mature more first.
i Corinthians does mention the household of Stephanus as having addicted themselves to the work of the ministry, but the passage doesn't say any of them were bishops. It is positive toward his household, so I don't see Paul snubbing them as divisive leaders here.
Whatever the case, Paul's solution to the Corinthians problems of disorder was not to have one leader keep everyone quiet. Rather, it was to lay down some ground rules based on love. I suspect there might have been some problems with prophets. The man who considered himself a prophet was told to acknowledge that Paul's commands were from the Lord. Perhaps the prophets did want to 'hold their peace' when another spoke.
This comment of Paul's may leave open the possibility that one might think himself a prophet while others did not. perhaps the congregation just recognized prophets by their gifts and ministries. So instead of being a carrying, clergy cast member, with a suit and tie and 'prophet' on his business card, and ordination paperwork in his pocket, many prophets may have been just regular 'laymen' who had a ministry of prophecy.
>When you realize just how proud these people were, it is of little
>shock to me that there was NOT some mention of leadership in
>Corinth. And look at how many issues had to be dealt with in that
>church. IMHO, that is evidence of a lack of leadership. Their way
>of conducting meetings was indeed CARNAL and disorderly.
But Paul's answer was not to tell them to have one leader in the front. instead he set down commands of God about how tongues and interpretation should be handled and how prophecy could flow so that all could prophesy. Interesting, huh? Who are we to think that we could come up with a better solution than God did?
>Oh my. Let's just leave it at this - we strongly disagree. Paul does
>indeed limit the number of "words" given.
Could you please explain what you mean by this? The passage says let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
Now, I know there is one retired Greek prof who believes that the 'two or three' here refers to 'words by the prophets. Perhaps a prophet spoke two or three words before judgment.
But to say that the number of prophetic words PER MEETING is limited to two or three contradicts other statements in the passage. If the number of messages is limited to two or three, then it would not be true that all may prophesy one by one (unless only two or three gathered, but if that were the case, but that doesn't fit the scenario in the passage.) Also, Paul's positive example of a church meeting has everyone prophesying.
> And where in the world
>do you get the "prophecy is superior to teaching" thought from?
IN Paul's list in I Cor. 12, he lists apostles as 'first,' and after that he ranks prophets, and then teachers. He tells the Corinthians to covet especially to prophesy.
And just think about it- if prophesying is speaking as moved by the Holy Ghost, shouldn't we all want to prophesy, even when we are teaching?
>God has never, and never will, lead His people by democracy. He
>has ALWAYS used a called man or woman. Community or
>committee rule has NO place in a true church. Now, this is not to
>say the minister is a tyrant. God forbid. But when it comes to
>congregational meetings, there must be someone to LEAD and
>make decisions! That is God's way.
I'm not espousing church democracies. Consider some situations in Acts. The apostles needs some men to oversee food distribution. What did they do? They asked _the congregation_ to pick 7 men, then the apostles laid hands on them. When the apostles wanted to send barnabas to Antioch, it not only pleased them, but the _whole church._ The apostles and elders met in Jerusalem to consider the issue of what to teach the Gentiles. Who was the letter from, about perceiving what seemed to be the will of the Spirit? The apostles, elders, and the _brethren._
Also, their meeting was concluded when they found out what they perceived to be the _will of the Holy Ghost,_ not just the will of the leaders.
The Bible talks about saints being in one accord, encourages saints to be of one heart, and one mind. We are all to move together as one. So there is leadership from certain gifted saints, along with the other saints moving together in agreement. The issue is being led by the Spirit.
Some churches practice consensus. The whole group tries to discern the will of the Spirit. If someone doesn't like the idea, but doesn't oppose it due to principle, he may just yield to what the rest of the group feels is right, they reach a consensus. The philosophy behind this is to be of 'one heart and one mind.' Some assemblies that don't have official appointed elders (yet) use this method.
The Corinthians may not have had a consensus on one particular issue, because the majority punished a disobedient brother.
Notice that in many of the epistles, Paul gives instructions to the whole congregation, not just leaders to take care of problems, discipline the disobedient, etc.
>Oh my, again! Of course there are ministers who are proud. But
>that doesn't negate the fact that God will speak to the true
>shepherds, and direct them as to the course of the meeting.
>Again, I urge you to consider the outcome of your philosophy.
>There can be nothing but confusion and anarchy if things are done
>as you ask.
There are churches that practice open ministry without the anarchy and confusion you describe. Maybe you are so used to closed meetings that you can't envision another way of doing things.
>Paul was NOT recommending what you are. He was correcting the
>abuses of PROUD lay people who thought they were all hearing
>from the Spirit each service. Their WORD was of utmost
>importance in their minds. They knew the leading of the Spirit, and
>bless God they were going to give their prophecies and tongues.
>No matter that confusion reigned. They were right and everyone
>else was wrong.
And the amazing thing was that he did not tell them to have a modern liturgical service, but rather how they could take turns prophesying in a loving manner.
I think you are reading something into the passage, perhaps some of your own experiences with people determined to share their own words, and your own perception of them. Paul was POSITIVE towards people edifying one another with their gifts. he told them if they were to be zealous after spiritual gifts, they should be zealous after gifts that built up the body. The Corinthians were probably zealous after gifts. Paul mentioned their giftedness at the beginning of his letter. What did Paul say? Did he rebuke them for wanting to say their word of prophecy, etc? No, he told them to desire earnestly spiritual gifts, especially prophecy!
So Paul didn't say, 'You carnal Corinthians, all wanting to say your word to the church! How dare you! You sit down in the seat and listen to Stephanus!" No, Paul encouraged them to prophesy! He just told them how to do it in an orderly manner. Paul disagreed with their childish disorderliness, their emphasis on manifestations that did not build up the assembly, and other behaviors that distracted from edification. But Paul was very much in favor of these people sharing legitimate words of prophecy. His positive example of a church meeting included everyone prophesying.
I think you are reading your own negative attitudes toward people wanting to share words in church into this passage. Paul is positive toward the idea of people sharing real words of prophecy! Ye may all prophesy! Earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that ye may prophesy!
>Paul had to bring order to this situation. And when we combine
>what we read in I Cor. 14 (BTW, there is much more to the Bible
>than Paul's letter to the Corinthians), with everything else in the
>Canon, we understand the need for a Pulpit centered philosophy of
>ministry.
Word centered? Yes. Pulpit centered? The pulpit isn't mentioned in connection with the church in the Bible. The early Christians met in homes. There may have been a table, but a pulpit seems unlikely, imo. There is also evidence for multiple ministers (gifted saints) ministering in a meeting.
>Ha-ha. Link, it is obvious to me that you either haven't been a
>minister yourself, or haven't been in too many churches.
>"KNOWING" the moving of the Spirit of God in a service is the
>most subjective experience there is in Christianity, IMHO. No two
>people will agree on every point. So it is certain an entire building
>of people will not agree.
You know something? People don't have to agree on every small point in order to have this kind of meeting either. If someone doesn't feel especially edified by something another person shares, they can keep their mouth's shut and let other people be edified. If someone teaches heresy, gives false prophecy, curses, Christian, or causes some awful problem, elders or other mature saints can take care of the problem.
Paul had Timothy tell the people teaching false doctrines about the Law to stop teaching such things. Notice there was a problem with the teaching, then Timothy was to deal with it. What we do NOT see is Paul telling Timothy not to let anyone else teach or exercise his spiritual gift, in order to prevent the possibility of future problems.
if you tie up a toddler, he might not get into trouble. But his body doesn't function too well. So you have to let the toddler move around, but when he gets into trouble, you'd better be there to help him. Fortunately, children get to a certain age where they don't get into trouble so easily.
>Gary "And He gave some apostles, and prophets, evangelists,
>pastors and teacher." Osborne
Let those ministers of the Gospel use their gifts, and equip others to use theirs. If only one man can minister in a meeting over and over, or only a few, the other ministers don't get a chance to exercise their gifts, grow, and equip others. This hinders the growth of ministries of the church.
God bless you,
Link Hudson
{Link serves as a missionary in Jakarta , Indonesia}
Email this page to someone.
