House Church Talk - Re: Pattern or simply an adaptation?

[Bruce Woodford]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your comments and most of all for your appeal for the use of 
scriptural terminology!

I'm right with you! If a doctrine cannot be expressed in words of scripture, 
I doubt that it's a scriptural doctrine!

I've often been struck with the emphasis from John 6 onward  on the doctrine 
of persons being "in" other persons and on the "one another" commands of new 
covenant scriptures. I think it is in such passages that we will find the 
relation of persons that is often referred to as we use the word 
"relationships".

Bruce




>From: "Flash" <flash at mbz.org>
>Reply-To: House Church Talk <House Church Talk  at housechurch.org>
>To: <House Church Talk  at housechurch.org>
>Subject: House Church Talk -  Re: Pattern or simply an adaptation?
>Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:02:50 -0600
>
>Bruce - I cannot disagree with anything that you say here, and also
>appreciate what Glenn has driven us to examine - thanks to both of you.
>
>I have a question regarding the word relationship.  This is not even a word
>found in the Bible.  How can it be central focus?  Can we use the Bible
>terminology to speak of what we know as relationship?  Suggestions please.
>I use the word relationship easily as you do, but am bothered that it is 
>not
>in the Bible.  So, what are the words used in the Bible that connote
>relationship?  And, is it more precise to use these words than modern words
>such as relationship?
>
>Also, I would point to the reality that it is not only NT times that speak
>to what we refer as relationship.  Look at anyone in the OT to also see 
>real
>relationship.  Isaiah 53, psalms, David, Moses, Abraham - all very keen on
>what we term relationship.  What is the real term which the Bible would
>direct us to use.  Otherwise, I'm gonna start baptising in olive oil...
>
> >From a Luddite,
>Dan ChicagoArea
>
> > You are absolutely right, brother! Relationships ARE the big deal for 
>new
> > covenant saints! Nurturing relationships with God and with our brothers
>and
> > sisters IS THE PRIORITY, and NOT  the question of FORM  (house churches 
>or
> > institutional churches). So since relationships are the priority, my
> > question is: Should we not seek to use forms that are best suited for
> > nurturing relationships with other members in the Body of Christ?  Which
> > forms are best suited for the purpose?....
> >
> > -sitting in pews in large auditoriums which are designed to PREVENT face
>to
> > face, eyeball to eyeball contact between pew sitters and are designed to
> > discourage interaction between them and limit the exercise of gifts and
> > ministry to a small minority OR
> >
> > -sitting in chairs or on the floor of livingrooms where everyone is 
>facing
> > one another and is expected to interact with the others, and where ample
> > opportunity is afforded to all to exercise their particular gifts and
> > receive a variety of ministry derived from the giftings of others?
> >
> > Does this help?  NEITHER, house churches nor institutional churches are
>ever
> > set forth in scripture as THE PATTERN to follow. But, in view of the
> > purposes that scripture sets forth as the reasons for church gatherings,
>we
> > need to ask, "Which forms are best suited to the purposes for which God
> > would have us to meet?"
> >
> > Your brother in Christ,
> > Bruce
>
>
>
>     --- Info and subscription management at https://housechurch.org/talk 
>---

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca