From a conversation on a Pentecostal discussion group:

Link

Some people think that 'the pastor' in the front should control the meeting. They believe that, if he is a man of God, the Spirit will lead him in how to conduct the meeting.

Normally, if we want to trust God to do something, it is good to have a promise from God to hold on to. Where does the Bible teach that one leader at the front will have all the leading of the Spirit in the meeting? I don't see the role of this one exclusive teacher/MC in the scriptural instructions for meetings.

In fact, the idea that one man in the meeting has all the gifting needed for the meeting runs contrary to scripture. I Corinthians 12 talks about all members of the body having gifts. One may have discernment of Spirits. Another may have another gifts. Does any pastor really think that he has all the gifts of the Spirit? Considering I Cor. 14, isn't it more likely that God may give a word of wisdom to one saint, a prophecy to another, and discernment of Spirits to another?

God hasn't promised to give any of our leaders all discernment in a meeting. I think people just take their experience of church meetings for granted. The Bible doesn't say that the preacher preaches after the special offertory song, but that's the say it's done in a particular church. that's the way it was done last week. That's the way it will be done this week.

If someone speaks a prophesy, does the Bible teach that the pastor will always know if the prophecy is from God? The Bible says let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge. 'The pastor' isn't even mention in this passage. There may be arguments for 'the other' referring to other people, or to other prophets. But the passage doesn't say anything about the pastor knowing whether the prophecy is for real, or how to apply it.

There are probably some pastors out there who are very sensitive and can usually discern if a word is for real- some with a gift of discernment of spirits perhaps. But is it really wise for a pastor to think 'I have the mind of Christ' rather than 'We have the mind of Christ?" Wouldn't it be a lot wiser to let the saints use their gifts in a situation like this? Wouldn't it be better if the believers with discernment were allowed to speak up if a false prophecy was given? Wouldn't it be wise to let saints use their gifts?

A local body may be fairly complete in gifting. But the Bible certainly makes no promise that one leader is going to have all of the 9 gifts of the Spirit functioning at one time (plus all those other gifts of the Spirit that aren't listed in that I Cor. 12 list.) We are expecting way too much to think that one church leader is going to completely comprehend the working and leading of the Spirit in a meeting. Christ manifests Himself through the whole body, not just one part. Remember that ALL may prophesy so that ALL may learn and ALL may be comforted. If just one prophesies, how many learn? How many are comforted?

Linkh@bigfoot....com

*************

From Link to JR

Link (me) stated (concerning a "pulpit-centered" meeting) . . .
> Here is the big problem- this format is not in the Bible.

JR said
>>>Exactly! There is NO "format" in the Bible--by Divine design. The church was meant to be a dynamic organism that would fulfill its mission--to go into all the world and preach the Gospel--from whatever "format" its cultural and historical setting gave it.<<

Here is an area where we disagree. I agree that there are some things the Bible doesn't talk about that we should do differently in different cultures. In a home meeting here in Asia, the people may take there shoes off at the door and all sit on the floor. This feels more comfortably socially for them. In the US, we keep our shoes on and sit on coaches or chairs, and if we get a seat on the floor, it socially acceptable to lean against the back of the coach. The Bible doesn't tell us where to sit. The music scale we sing our songs on is not in the Bible either.

But there are some things the Bible does tell us to do. For example, the Bible tells us to eat the Lord's Supper together. The Bible tells us to be baptized. If a missionary works in Tibet, should he say 'The Tibetans don't usually bathe, so instead of baptism, we'll do something else? Do we have the authority to forsake the customs we are taught to practice in the New Testament?

Consider what Paul wrote,

1Cor 11:1-2 - "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

Php 4:9 - "Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."

Paul's method of sharing the Gospel was not only teaching verbally. He didn't just impart academic information. He taught with his life-- with his example. Though Paul was from a Jewish culture, he had to leave a good example for Gentiles of various backgrounds--cross-cultural ministry. Paul had to live out a way of life that the new believers could follow.

Paul had to show the Gentile churches a pattern from his own life. He preached the Gospel, giving an example of how to preach. He loved people, and formed relationships, giving an example of how to love. He worked to take care of himself and others, to provide an example of hard work and eating one's own bread, and also taking care of the weak. Paul gave up a right to receive support at times, perhaps in part just so that he could provide a good example of hard work. The various aspects of Paul's life came under scrutiny, so he had to present the Gospel in a way that fit into the culture he was reaching. He had to become like a Greek to the Greeks, etc.

When Paul helped the early churches get their meetings started, he must have taught them some basic principles for how to have meeting. He and his team were there example of how to meet. Paul passed on he ordinances of the church to the Gentiles in a way they could understand it. he was gifted for cross-cultural ministry. I believe he set the churches up in a way where they could reproduce themselves and continue to grow. He appointed elders from within the churches, rather than importing believers outside. He spent time with the elders, teaching and warning them (as we see in Acts 20 concerning the Ephesian elders.) The elders had a model to follow of how to raise up new elders. Live like Paul did. Love, teach, train people. If they did what Paul did, they could be good leaders. I believe Paul practiced this same principle in the church leaving them with a reproducible example for church life. What about meetings? I believe Paul left them with the type of meeting the other saints had- one for mutual edification. He and Barnabas set churches up without elders so that maybe (if one Bible Atlas is right) so that the first churches they planted would go for two years without elders. When they came back, there were still 'churches' (i.e. assemblies) in these cities. How was it possible for them to keep assembling without an elder to lead? Because they likely followed the pattern for meeting that the other churches followed which involved mutual edification. The elders had already been functioning in these meetings. The saints had already been edifying one anther. Now it was official who were elders in the church given special responsibility for tending the flock. But he meetings likely continued on the way they had been going, with the additional factor that now the saints new that these leading brethren were commissioned for their ministry of leadership.

Paul, Barnabas, and Silas, all had some experience with the Jerusalem church, and also with the church in Antioch.

I'd imagine in Corinth, the clothing styles might have been just a little bit different from Jerusalem. The Jews probably had some kind of Jewish looking clothing and ornamentation. The Greek Christians might not have worn phalactaries- little boxes on the hands or forehead with scriptures in them commanded by the Torah. The Greeks might have had more shaved men with short hear, and the Jews might have had more men with beards. I don't believe Paul demanded the Greeks wear phalactaries and grow out the hair on their head and face. In fact, he even appealed to the Corinthians sense that nature taught that it was a shame for a man to have long hair.

But there were some things that Paul carried over into Greek culture: the holy kiss- which is now a part of French and Italian (I think) culture. (Was that a pre-Christian Greek custom as well? Arabs practice it. it seems to have been Semitic.) Another custom was the Lord's Supper. So the issue is, what in I Corinthians are important customs that should be treated as church universals?

Hebrews 10:25 shows us that the _Hebrews_ were to practice exhorting _one another_ in their meetings. We can see in Acts 15 that somehow there was a forum in Antioch of some sort where false teachers were able to teach. I wonder if Paul and Barnabas came into dispute with them in an actual church meeting. In this chapter, we see that, in Jerusalem, there was a meeting of the church, and people were allowed to stand up and speak. Some from the party of the Pharisees in a _church_ meeting said that the Gentiles could be circumcised. Terrible thing to teach. But maybe this shows us something about the church meeting.

In Acts 15, we see an atypical church meeting- a typical in that apostles and elders gathered, but it is possible that the meeting followed their general pattern for church meetings. Peter rose up and spoke. Notice that the Pharisees that endorsed circumcision had risen to speak. In Acts 11:28, Agabus arose to prophesy. Paul stood arose to speak in Acts 13:16 in a synagogue situation (cultural background.)

In Corinth, we see that if a revelation came to one _sitting by_ the speaking prophet was to hold his peace. Perhaps the speaking prophet in this scenario is standing.

So in Acts 15, we see that different people in the assembly took turns speaking. Perpahs they rose one by one, and spoke.

In a modern church meeting, there would be little opportunity for the pro-circumcision crowd to stand up like they did in the church in Jerusalem. You might say 'This is good.' But one of the problems of our modern format for church meetings is that it doesn't let the people with good things to say speak either. The Bible contains instructions for how to deal with those who teach wrongly. Muzzling the mouths of all 'laity' is not the way God revealed to deal with this problem.

The Jerusalem church had some sort of format where different people could speak. Should this be a surprise? Think about the synagogue. From what I understand, regular Jews in the congregation could have a chance to read the Torah and comment. Levites, priests, and 'rabbis' may have been given priority. The Torah and other scriptures were read on some type of schedule. A careful study of Acts shows that there was a forum for discussion in the synagogue. Why do I say that? because when Paul preached the Gospel, people discussed it with him in the synagogue. These discussions even got nasty at times. What would happen if the preacher preaches something bazaar in a Pentecostal, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. church? Everyone sits down and shuts up. Maybe they don't come back the next week, but they don't say anything in the meeting. Why? Because our 'format' for meeting forbids it. The synagogue didn't have this same unwritten rule of having no forum for discussion.

The church in Jerusalem didn't have a closed format closed. This might have caused problems at times, which the leaders had to deal with, like Pharisees saying that Gentiles had to be circumcised. The Antioch church didn't have a closed format. It was the kind of church community where a man like Agabus could stand up and speak and prophesy of a coming famine. They might have had the kind of meetings where some people teach that Gentiles had to be circumcised, and where the false teachers would be challenged by true men of God like Paul and Barnabas.

Look at I Corinthians 14.

I have a question. Are we allowed to ignore the actual COMMANDMENTS of the Lord for the church because they are not 'culturally relevant?'

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

See, Paul gave commandments of the Lord in this passage. He didn't say, 'let him acknowledge that what I right to you is just a bunch of stuff that is only culturally relevant to you Corinthians, and it isn't relevant to the other churches.'

No, on the contrary, he appeals to the fact that what he was commanding them was the practice of other churches.

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in ALL THE CHURCHES OF THE SAINTS

That was right after his instructions concerning tongues and prophesying in the meeting.

Pay special attention to verse 36 below: 36. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Did the word of God originate with the Corinthians? No. The word was first preached among the Jews. Paul and his co-workers had brought the word to the Corinthians. They had to be decent and in order just like 'all the churches of the saints' had to be. The Corinthians hadn't been the only people to receive the word. it hadn't originated with them. They didn't have the authority to make up their own kind of meeting. Why not? The instructions that Paul gave were the commandments of the Lord.

Which instructions were the commandments of the Lord? Let's pay close attention to verse 37. He tells any man who considers himself to be a prophet or spiritually gifted that his instructions are the command of the Lord. So a good clue would be to look at verses that have to deal with prophecy and spiritual giftedness. Notice the implication, from verse 36, that these commands of the Lord are for other churches as well, since the Corinthians aren't authorized to be innovative on this issue. The word of God didn't originate with them, and they couldn't just re-invent the way the church was supposed to meet.

Let's look at some verses that have to do with being a prophet or spiritually gifted, so we can get an idea of some of the things that Paul considered to be the commandments of the Lord. I'll interject some commentary on the verses.

27. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

These words might be some of the _commandments of the Lord_ that might relate to the man who considers himself to be 'spiritually gifted' in verse 37. If the spiritually gifted people in a charismatic church all want to speak in tongues at the top of their lungs without any interpretation, they should acknowledge that Paul's instructions are the commandments of the Lord.

29. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

Paul's instructions here may correspond with the man who considers himself to be a prophet in verse 37. Let's say a prophet doesn't want to be quiet if another sitting by receives a revelation. He should just obey these instructions. He should acknowledge that what Paul has written is the commandments of the Lord.

30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

Why should the speaking prophet hold his peace? Because ye may all prophesy. The prophet or person who considers himself to be spiritually gifted should acknowledge that Paul wrote the commandments of the Lord. So he should agree that all may prophesy one by one.

Why should ALL be allowed to prophesy one by one? So that ALL may learn, and ALL may be comforted. We all receive a little bit different revelation from the Lord. Something the Lord shows you may minister to one brother. Something the Lord shows that brother may minister to a sister in the congregation. We should practice _mutual_ ministry (prophecy in this case) so that _mutual_ ministry can take place.

32. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

The prophet should 'hold his peace' and let the other continue because all may prophesy, and because the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. I believe I've read that the word for 'spirits' here is a Greek word that was used of pagans to refer to the pagan concept for spiritual gifts, such as prophecy. Paul uses a term that must have been unique for this particular usage to the Greeks back then, charisma, related to the word translated 'grace'- charis. Greek 'spirits' like prophecy were not under the control of the speaker. The Greek idea was that the prophet was under the control of the spirit.

The Christian type of prophecy is different. The spirits of the prophets _are_ subject to the prophets.

So, let's say one of those prophets didn't want to yield the floor. Let's imagine he argues, like the pagans did, that the gift was supposed to overwhelm him. So he keeps on prophesying and won't shut up. Maybe he's standing, and another person stands up to share a revelation, but the first prophet just keeps on going. If he were a modern charismatic, he might even say that he couldn't stop speaking because of the 'anointing.'

A prophet who refused to shut up before, and had claimed that he couldn't stop, should acknowledge that Paul was right and admit that Paul taught the commandments of the Lord.

[Comments on women speaking purposefully skipped for the purpose of this particular conversation.]
>> Paul did not teach them to have the type of meeting they were having; he taught them how to behave in the type of meeting they had established. It was his correction--not their behavior--that was God-approved. His "commandment of the Lord" was clearly directed toward those at Corinth that did not want to change their "format"--as they had developed it. <<

But the commandments of the Lord _have to do_ with the format for meeting. Many of these commandments from the Lord are _ground rules_ for meetings. If the Corinthians didn't have a right to change the church meeting and meet contrary to what Paul taught in this chapter, do Pentecostals?

What, did the word of God come out from the American Pentecostals? Are you the only ones to have received the word of God? Do Pentecostals have the right to change the style of church meeting that the Bible teaches?
>> I do not understand why people today want to "go back to the early church format"--and use the Corinthian Church as their model. It was the most out-of-control, misguided, bedlam of chaos imaginable.<<

Their meals may have been. I think a lot of people read their own ideas into the passage. Paul doesn't say everyone was speaking in tongues at the same time for half an hour. That's conceivable concerning the passage. Their meetings might have been more orderly than some of the revival meetings that are going on now that Pentecostals consider within the range of 'normal.' The Corinthians _might_ have been speaking in tongues in turns. Perhaps someone stood to speak, and only spoke in tongues as 'his turn' instead of sharing something edifying. Perhaps it was only occasionally that a prophet would refuse to yield the floor, and not allow all to prophesy one by one. Compare that to the modern practice of one person speaking for 30 minutes and _never_ yielding the floor to one who receives a revelation.

Consider these verses:

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

Later in this passage, Paul goes into how they were not properly having the Lord's Supper. He corrects what they did in their time of singing, teaching, and sharing revelations. But notice something- there were some 'ordinances' that Paul had passed on. Don't you think Paul had taught the Corinthians something about how to meet? Paul was wanting them to adjust their behavior to match with apostolic tradition. If they adjusted the way they shared in the meeting to match with what Paul taught, then there meetings would be Biblical.

So a meeting that is like what Paul taught the Corinthians to have- and not what they were having before this letter- is a good Biblical church meeting. But making up a completely different format is not a good way of having a meeting.

I can understand occasionally having a pulpit format meeting for believers to hear an address, as an occasional thing, but to never allow believers to exercise their gifts in meetings is just plain unscriptural.

Something we can learn from I Corinthians is that church meetings are a place for believers to exercise their spiritual gifts to edify one another. Think a bout the whole context of the book. Think about all that stuff in chapter 12 about us having spiritual gifts, and the body functioning, with one part ministering to another.

Can you tell me how this functioning body can work if we don't exercise our gifts in a meeting? If someone gets a word of wisdom and says it in the shower when no one is listening, does this edify the body? If someone gets a prophecy and writes it on a piece of paper and burns it in the fire place, does that edify the body? The gifts have to be used _in meetings_ with other believers.

I Cor. 12 teaches us about the functioning body, and God giving us gifts to minister to the other parts of the body. Chapter 13 teaches about love- important for our motives and methods of using gifts. Chapter 14 teaches about using gifts in the church meeting. We can see from chapter 14 that the church meeting IS THE PLACE FOR THE GIFTS FROM CHAPTER 12 TO BE USED. This is a very important point. Paul taught the Corinthians to desire earnestly to prophesy? Why? So they can build up the body. Paul's example of a good meeting was one where all prophesied.
>> Likewise, I am puzzled as to why we "classical" Pentecostals can look back to Azusa Street as a model "of how services ought to be<<

I don't believe Azusa street was a perfect model. I do see that there was an aspect of scriptural meetings that they at least _experienced_ for a little while (perhaps _in spite of_ their personal ideas on the subject) which lines up with scripture. I see the Bible as what we should go back to. But pointing out that when there was a revival of the gifts in North America, that meetings began to resemble what is taught in the Bible more should make Pentecostals think. I've also read of meetings for edification happening when the AOG went into South Africa, and when the Charismatic movement was still new in Germany. Other revivals had an aspect of mutual edification to them, like the small meetings the early Methodists had. The history of the early Quakers with all their charismatic manifestations and meetings where they sought to all prophesy are also interesting.
>> While not all "traditional" (pulpit-centered) churches have accomplished that, neither have all "reformed" groups. However, the failure (or even success) is not due to format. The failure is due to a lack of obedience and faithfulness among its members.<<

If a church disobeys Paul's instructions about tongues and interpretation aren't they being disobedient? If a church disobeys Paul's commands about a prophet holding his peace for another who receives a revelation, isn't that church being disobedient? If a church disobeys Paul's instructions that all may prophesy one by one, isn't this being disobedient? Aren't these commandments of the Lord? What about the instructions in Hebrews 10:24-25 about exhorting _one another_ in the context of provoking one another to love and to good works.

Modern church meetings create a number of problems. Sitting and listening is useful for learning doctrine, but to learn how to minister we also need to DO, not just hear. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers are to equip the saints so that the SAINTS can DO the work of the ministry. The saints aren't just supposed to watch others do ministry. If saints just sit and watch, how can they grow in their gifts? How can they prove faithful and be given more gifting, and more responsibility in the kingdom? How can leaders be raised up from within the church if there is very little opportunity in the church for regular believers to exercise their gifts?

Fortunately, there are some outlets for some believers to exercise their gifts. Often, these opportunities don't fit every gift. Someone who is gifted with the word of wisdom might not be gifted to teach Sunday school, but he might be able to share a brief revelation in an open meeting. If his revelation weren't one of those 'Thus saith the Lord' type prophecies, he might not feel welcome sharing it out during the lull in the music when a prophecy could be given in some churches.

Elders of the church should come alongside of believers and encourage them to use their gifts, teach them how to use the gifts more effectively, and provide a good example of ministry. They should not be content to have the believers just sit and watch themselves minister.

'Teach a man to fish, and you'll feed him for a lifetime.' I think most people on here have heard the first half of the parable. Some preachers give the people a fish every week. Food for a week. Paul wasn't like that. He fed the people the word of God, and then he encouraged them to minister to one another. We see in the letter to the Corinthians that he taught them to minister to one another. Paul spent time with the saints. He saw Apollos' gift and encouraged him to make another trip to Corinth. He knew that Archippus had a fit, and he included a line in an epistle to encourage him in that gift. He knew the Corinthians had gifts, and he encouraged them to use those gifts. Paul could go to a new city for a few months, preach the Gospel, and then leave it behind for a while as the Lord lead him away. The saints had to minister to each other- even before elders came on he scene.

Paul offered an example for the Ephesian elders. They must have seen how he encouraged people to minister in their gifts, to love one another, to admonish one another with the word of God, and to function as a living body, a living organism. This principle of a functioning body from chapter 12 finds manifestation in the type of meeting the Corinthians were _supposed to have_ in I Cor. 14.
>>A couple of ground rules?<<

That was a _major_ understatement I realize. I was thinking particularly of the problems addressed in chapter 14. I was thinking of instructions like 'Let everything be done decently and in order...' 'ye may all prophesy...' 'let all things be done unto edifying' as ground rules and a lot of the other text as commentary. There are way more than a couple however you count them.
>> in chapter 13, he explained that all spiritual gifts had to operate out of the framework of love; and, he used chapter 14 to correct specific errors (of which there were many) that were being perpetrated. <<

If the Corinthians obeyed his instructions, wouldn't they have the type of meetings that pleased God?
> Paul did not teach them to have the type of meeting they were having; he taught them how to behave in the type of meeting they had established.<

Paul already refers to having left them 'ordinances.' Be that as it may, don't you agree that we have to follow the 'commandments of the Lord' in the passage in whatever type of format for meeting we have? Shouldn't our format for meeting be subject to the word of God?

If we decide to have a different kind of format than the one the Bible teaches us about and describes, are we then free from God's commands? Can we have tongues without interpretation, meetings where all may _not_ prophesy, etc?

The idea I get from this chapter is that Paul was fixing the Corinthians meeting to line up with what he taught in 'all the churches of the saints' and that they didn't have the authority to make up some new kind of disorderly meeting (which had probably been perverted from what he had taught them by childish behavior.)
>His "commandment of the Lord" was clearly directed toward those at Corinth that did not want to change their "format"--as they had developed it. <

Doesn't it also apply to modern Christians who want to have a format for meeting that doesn't take into account the commandments of the Lord for meeting which are not mentioned in the passage.
>> Having said all this, I do not disagree that "laity" should be more involved in ministry--both inside and outside of the church meeting.<<

How do you envision this should be done? Can it be done properly without returning to the Biblical meeting Paul taught about in I Cor. 14? This is the one passage of scripture that really focuses on what to do in our meetings.
>> pew." If that proves prophetic, I am sure the church will do what it historically has done in the past: take something good and needed, eventually become unbalanced with it, --and throw out the "pulpit" altogether. <<

A pulpit is just a piece of furniture.

Btw, believing in open meetings does not equal rejecting church authority. Elders of the church can function in their teaching and pastoral gifts in meetings. They can speak, give direction to the flock. and can be there to resolve difficulties when people start speaking wrongly. One of the problems of the Biblical format for meeting is that you can get problems like Pharisees standing up and saying that the Gentiles need to be circumcised, or ignorant people trying to be teachers of the Law. Solutions in he Bible are elders that know sound doctrine and can contradict the gainsayers, and leaders like the apostle Timothy silencing such teaching.

Muzzling the mouth of 'laity,' which may have happened in the early second century in reaction to an onslaught of heresy, may seem to solve the problem, but inhibits the proper organic functioning of the local body. Is it worth it to sacrifice body life to have a human form of control over heresy? Ironically, even when you muzzle the 'laity,' there is still plenty of false teaching going around. Freeing up 'laity' to work in their gifts may even provide balances to protect against false teaching, especially considering the fact that under the modern, one pastor system, one man can lead a congregation into false teaching. Those who disagree sometimes just silently leave the church and leave the gullible lambs with the false teachings.

"I-could-have-refrained-from-getting-involved-because-the-Spirit-is- subject- to-the-prophet-but-chose-not-to" R

Link running-out-of-good-middle-names Hudson.

Linkh@Bigfoot....com