House Church Talk - Re: I Cor. 14:26-40 versus the weekly sermon

[Flash]

> So, in conclusion, our resolution must be to not allow the body of Christ
> to become divided--with the prophets retreating into houses to seek the
> ability to assemble in Spirit-led interaction, while the teachers give
> their orations elsewhere, to the larger audiences in religious buildings.
>  Let the prophets give due deference to the teachers in the brotherly
> dialogue, and let the teachers not seek to force the prophets into the
> mold of presenting extended teachings as elevated from a pulpit.  Let
> also the teachers in particular not succumb to the temptation of
> forsaking the scriptural design for assembling in order to have
> prominence among the brothers.  Let all gather to the Lord together, in
> His name, in unity of the Spirit, and see Him work His incomparable
> edification through brotherly instruction, through His body of
> complementary members.  
> 
> Indeed the eye has great need of the hand, and the head has great need of
> the feet, as our Lord has said.

How did you know I have been pondering similar thoughts recently?  Or, maybe I am going to impose my thoughts into your post, I dunno - others decide, okay?

I heard Hank Hanagraaf Bible Answer Man on the way to work the other morning and he answered a caller (recorded program) ask about Harold Camping.  Hank scourged Harold, essentially.  It was sorta bothersome, then I got to thinking about it.  Essentially, Hank upholds the status quo of church & structure & positions of leadership in the structure, etc.  Whereas Harold sez the whole structure is in death spiral or dead essentially.  I do not hear consistently from Hank, but Harold is often heard - so that is the juxtaposition of experience with these radio teachers for me.

Somehow that exchange on the radio seemed without basis and wrong.  Harold at least seems to find most of his justifications in the Bible, whereas Hank talks off the top of his head - with obvious basis in the Bible, but generally quick and summary discussion.  I value Harold, but do not like the invention of terms he has accomplished such as "latter rain" & "end of church age" - that just seems likely to backlash soon to cultivate groupies of Harold - waaaaay toooo easily accomplished.

However, I see no reason to support in thought the structured system.  It is heavy in management ideas and principle.  Where was the management when Jesus walked amongst men?  He was the management!  My thoughts? - as if I haven't said my thoughts already....
My thought - we gotta dispense with our pre occupation with management according to the book.  Let it be!  Let Jesus our Lord and Saviour be Lord and Saviour and CEO/CFO/elder/deacon/etc.  Seems housechurch is closest to that...  But I am biased lately.  Somehow, besides the seeming rationale Hank uses, there is witness in experience very strong anti management sentiment.  I mean, how in the current management structure do we see any of what we see as recorded history of the early church in the new testement?  I mean, a pastor and service? - waaaay toooo passe.   jesusislord343 at juno dot com - you seem to place a bunch on teachers? and perhaps in other structures.  I am not against structure, but I want out of structure for structure sake.  I mean, how much structure when Jesus walked with Peter & John & James & Mat thew?  Oh, Jesus - you be teacher today since you do that soooo well.  Um, no - he was teacher because he was teacher.  My thoughts? - seems we accept any teacher today because he says he is a teacher.  I think waaaay tooo many want a "ministry" because that is the thing to do.  What is my "ministry"?  I live.  I desire and trust in the Bible - that God is at work in me both to will and do His pleasure.  Teacher is a function, not a position.  Deacon is a function, not a position.  Similar with pastor, with elder, etc.  There is one organisation - under God, in Jesus - period.

Carry on...
DanG ChicagoArea