Organic churches are characterized by Spirit-led, open-participatory meetings and nonhierarchical leadership.page XIX
I guess I would say that an idea that stuck out to me was the thought of people going to other people's homes. I mean, think about even smaller churches. Who has the room for, say, 150 people in their home? :o :-\150! how about 30 people! Unless you want people to stand in an area that the fire marshal would shut down.
page XIX
That to me sums up the whole book. According to the author anything in contradiction is pagan.
nothing really was interesting to me in the 1st chapter.
Concerning the question "do you think that how we practice our faith can hinder the development of our faith?" I believe so, because it is not until for many people go through a significant event that we start to understand how strong/weak our faith is.
150! how about 30 people! Unless you want people to stand in an area that the fire marshal would shut down.
Another thing:
While I think having it's own section shows the significance of the book club, I would rather this have been a sticky on the main board. It's kind of an out of sight, out of mind kinda thing. I nearly forgot about today's discussion because it wasn't right in front of me.
Here's the part of the chapter that I was referring to. I need to correct my statement. I meant to say...his failing to mention the role of the synagogue with regard to the church:
"Strikingly, nowhere in the New Testament do we find the terms church (ekklesia), temple, or house of God used to refer to a building. To the ears of a first-century Christian, calling an ekklesia (church) a building would have been like calling your wife a condominium or your mother a skyscraper!"
Frank Viola;George Barna. Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices (Kindle Locations 329-331). Kindle Edition.
Exactly my point. Whereas I understand the underlying point of the authors, I believe, logistically-speaking, an 'organic church' would need to meet in a sizable building. I do not believe God would hold that against anyone. :-\
Another thing:
While I think having it's own section shows the significance of the book club, I would rather this have been a sticky on the main board. It's kind of an out of sight, out of mind kinda thing. I nearly forgot about today's discussion because it wasn't right in front of me.
Ok and one more thing:
"We cannot avoid bringing our culture to church with us; it is a part of our very being. But in the light of tradition we need to sort out those cultural influences that contribute to the integrity of Christian Worship from those that detract from it."
I would make the case that a lot of what we do in the black church is based on our cultural tradition (whooping, emphasis on music/praise dancing or shouting as many call it, etc.). How do we determine what cultural aspects of the church are just personal preference versus being a spiritual distraction?
Brown, LL, Jonathan, yall give your take on that please.Seems to me, some of what you mentioned falls in both categories. The bottom line is that a distraction is a distraction, no matter what the origin.
Seems to me, some of what you mentioned falls in both categories. The bottom line is that a distraction is a distraction, no matter what the origin.
That may be touched upon in the next chapter.It isn't. I've read the 2nd chapter.
Ok, let me ask this: If we're saying that the scripture given does not justify communion as a full meal, what evidence do we have that the bread and wine practice that happens generally in the protestant division of Christianity is the "correct" way of communion?
Also, I am open to believe that in the communion practices of the Early church they did have a time in which they took bread and then wine as symbolic of the body and blood of the Lord but yet it seems to me that the communion practice was a part of the meal, not necessarily separate (or on a separate occasion). To me, when I see "supper" I'm thinking full meal. Plus, isn't there evidence that the circle bread and cup (wine or grape juice) is a practice from catholicism that has spread through Protestantism?
Good point! I think the problem of the building is when it becomes the centerpiece of the Christian worship experience/service instead of the ministry work. Also I think the problem is when people think that a fellowship of believers with proper leadership meeting at a place like a coffee shop is not a proper "church."
It isn't. I've read the 2nd chapter.
Seems to me, some of what you mentioned falls in both categories. The bottom line is that a distraction is a distraction, no matter what the origin.
Good point! I think the problem of the building is when it becomes the centerpiece of the Christian worship experience/service instead of the ministry work. Also I think the problem is when people think that a fellowship of believers with proper leadership meeting at a place like a coffee shop is not a proper "church."
Brown, LL, Jonathan, yall give your take on that please.
That may be touched upon in the next chapter.
Ok, let me ask this: If we're saying that the scripture given does not justify communion as a full meal, what evidence do we have that the bread and wine practice that happens generally in the protestant division of Christianity is the "correct" way of communion?
Also, I am open to believe that in the communion practices of the Early church they did have a time in which they took bread and then wine as symbolic of the body and blood of the Lord but yet it seems to me that the communion practice was a part of the meal, not necessarily separate (or on a separate occasion). To me, when I see "supper" I'm thinking full meal. Plus, isn't there evidence that the circle bread and cup (wine or grape juice) is a practice from catholicism that has spread through Protestantism?
Matt. 26:17 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
Also I think the problem is when people think that a fellowship of believers with proper leadership meeting at a place like a coffee shop is not a proper "church."
Agreed. I'll go further to say that even if we got it 'right' that doesn't mean we won't be distracted.
Ahhh I see it now! The communion happening after the passover meal. So basically I'm arguing for a passover meal, a Jewish custom.....hmmmm!*The clouds open and a brightness engulfs the atmosphere, followed by an angelic host singing...*
*The clouds open and a brightness engulfs the atmosphere, followed by an angelic host singing...*
Hallelujah!!!
*in my BH voice* Hallelujah.....dear Jesus I give you praise.....Hallelujah.....Hallelujah... ..thank you for your anointing....Hallelujah!!!
I just finished chapter 2 and I almost want to quit reading...SMH!
huh? Why
granted I got the same feeling after about chapter 5 starting to have a bit of trouble motivating myself
I just finished chapter 2 and I almost want to quit reading...SMH!I'm interested to know why you feel this way.
I'm interested to know why you feel this way.
I love this book and think it is really a classic book, but this book is very troubling to me. It makes me want to do further research on the topics discussed so far. If all of this proves to be true (particularly the historic aspects of how certain things came to be), wow, it's like I'll start asking more questions like how we get back to that place.
I don't want to jump ahead but based on reading chapter 2 it seems like the author is making the case that with Jesus being born, died and resurrected from the dead EVERYTHING connected to the Old Covenant/Judaic tradition is squashed and therefore nothing should reflect that (the classic debate of the role of the Old Testament in Christianity comes to play here).
To a certain extent, I agree with some of what he said, especially as it relates to the Temple. We actually did a series in Sunday School on the Temple and I had to teach from John 2 when Jesus says "destroy this temple and I'll raise it up in 3 days." While the Jews were thinking physical, Jesus was thinking spiritual.
But idk. I love this book but it's almost like "if I continue to stay in an establishment that is supposedly far from the biblical standard (according to this author), am I supporting the establishment?" Now he does have a book that is considered the sequel to this one called "Reimagining Church" which offers "solutions" to what he talks about in this book. I may get that book. But I'm also interested (as I said) in doing further research on what he talked about, particularly the historic origins of the things he talked about.
Sorry Bro. Brown for putting all this out, but I hope I answered the question...somewhat.....LOL!
Ok Bennett, I see where you're coming from. For me, the book does have the effect of making me question certain practices and realize that so much of what we do (in my church) is based on tradition and not necessarily scripture. But, it doesn't compell me to abandon the current assembly and start from scratch. Rather, it compels me to be a proponent for change, with regard to the things that don't add to the spiritual growth of the body. Granted, there are things that we do that don't fit the mold of scripture but are still instrumental to the growth of the body. For example, the men of the church have gotten together to go bowling in the past. There is no scriptural precedent, but I see the importance of it. Our brothers bonded, and more importantly, the younger guys felt like a part of the entire unit. The end result, over time, was that there was more overall church participation on the part of all men.
So, from the perspective of instigating change, I feel this is a good book.
>:( I posted something in this thread yesterday and I don't see it. Ughhhhhh!!!!!>:(
>:( I posted something in this thread yesterday and I don't see it. Ughhhhhh!!!!!I was wondering why we haven't heard from you.
[url]http://paganchristianity.org/pcguide.pdf[/url] ([url]http://paganchristianity.org/pcguide.pdf[/url])>:( >:( >:(
This website has discussion questions based on chapter. Just thought I'd share in case you was interested.
>:( >:( >:(
[url]http://paganchristianity.org/pcguide.pdf[/url] ([url]http://paganchristianity.org/pcguide.pdf[/url])
This website has discussion questions based on chapter. Just thought I'd share in case you was interested.
I haven't looked at the site, but doesn't it kinda defeat the purpose of having our own discussion?
Sorry Bro. Brown for putting all this out, but I hope I answered the question...somewhat.....LOL!
#thinkingaloud is the tradition of making the communion table a sacred object along with the pulpit a form of idolatry? Hmmm.
I remember reading about a rift that formed between the west and the eastern othrodox church because of the use of symbols or something in history class ... but that was almost a decade ago and I don't remember the particulars but i do think it had something to do with worshiping symbols ... off to do some research
This prohibition of a custom which had been in use since the beginning of Christianity, seems to have been inspired by a genuine desire to improve public morality, and received the support of the official aristocracy and a section of the clergy. A majority of the theologians and all the monks opposed these measures with uncompromising hostility, and in the western parts of the empire the people refused to obey the edict.
ahh found it, it was the great schism of the east-west back in 1054 AD. while it was a minor point there was talk about Iconoclasm
Wiki link ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_III_the_Isaurian[/url])
I haven't looked at the site, but doesn't it kinda defeat the purpose of having our own discussion?
I looked at it. I don't think it would really defeat our purpose, but the questions seem kinda shallow to me... we would probably want to go much deeper than those questions would take us. There may be one or two that we could use. Idk. I only glanced at the first few.That's exactly what I've done. I'm happy to say that I check this board as much as I check the Lounge's board. I'd like to see more activity here, though. It's not as lively at the onset as I thought it would be. Not bad, though, for the first week of our first book.
IRT Jonathan's comments about the space in these house-fellowships, I think it is mentioned a little more clearly in Ch2. Apparently, some folks knocked a wall down to accommodate more people, and then a few centuries later, a few buildings were being used... but I guess we'll get to that on Thursday.
IRT LL's comment about forgetting about the discussion, I can tell you what works for me. Maybe it'll work for you (and anyone else) too. When we got the Prayer Board, I determined in myself to check it regularly so that I could take whatever prayer requests were there. Plus, I wanted to post in the threads so people wouldn't feel like no one is hearing/seeing/praying about them. So I changed my bookmarks on my computer and my phone from the Lounge to the "lobby." LOL. It works for me for a few reasons. In addition to making sure I'm checking the Prayer Room, I'm also sure to see if there's anything new in the MOM room, which I also like, and I can see my PM notifications (which helps since there's no pop-up on my BB to let me know I have a PM, so I've missed a few important ones).
And.... I'm so glad the communion issue is resolved. :D
I cannot remember what input I had regarding Ch1. I posted an entire comment the other day and I guess it just disappeared (more than likely, I messed it up, since I was posting from my phone).
That's exactly what I've done. I'm happy to say that I check this board as much as I check the Lounge's board. I'd like to see more activity here, though. It's not as lively at the onset as I thought it would be. Not bad, though, for the first week of our first book.
@Churchy, question honey bunch... what scripture can you show me that states or implies that communion should be a full meal (or a passover meal)? You said it's kinda resolved, so I'm trying to get to the bottom of what outstanding issues you have...
LL, I haven't gotten that far at all. I'm on pg 16. :-[ I'll be caught up by Thursday. Can't wait to see what you're talking about - and of course knowing me, I won't remember. LOL:D :D :D
Ok now I kinda sorta vaguely remember making you laugh. Didn't we have a debate and a random guy on the train jumped in the convo and took my side? :D I had forgotten all about that. Thanks for the reminder that I was right from the very beginning. :D :D :D :D :PI don't even remember what we were debating about. But, if you were right, hey, at least I lost to good competition. The part of the convo I'm referring to is when we got off one train and were on the platform waiting to catch the train to Reagan. I was talking about my "ideal ministry" concept.
Hey Bookies*, is everyone comfortable with the pace? Anybody having a hard time keeping up? Feel we're moving too slowly? Thinking this is just right? What say you?
*yes, I know that was extremely lame, but I thought it was better than 'Hey Clubbies.' ::) ;D
PHB is on board. Now we just need to hear from Jonathan and Musicbishop. I kinda flew through chapter 2, so I hope I remember what I wanted to say about it.
Why not add your thoughts now? I don't think that will stop anyone from chiming in later.
I'm on my phone at the moment, so I'm not going to give a long answer, but I'd like to know what YOU think, since you asked the question.
I do think that buildings, rooms, etc., can give a certain meaning. For example, if you're in a meeting and the presider's chair or whatever is higher than everyone else, that could give the meaning that the presider is more important than those who he/she is presiding over. At the same time, I think a lot of it is what you make it. You could say the same about a church building but I do think our traditional design does fit more of a spectator show than an open-participation. I wonder how many folk would be willing to go to a Sunday service that was not designed in the traditional pew format but in a design in which everyone could participate.
I'm a little torn on the "sacredness of the sanctuary" issue considering the historic aspects of it and how I was raised. I was raised (and still kind of believe, even though I'm still open-minded on the issue) that the sanctuary is a sacred place and should be treated that way. I will say that I am not as convinced now that the pulpit is sacred. I view it as just a stage. BTJM. :-\
You do realize, don't you, that many, MANY churches no longer have pews, right?
Pews, chairs... Same difference. Same set-up, which I think is the authors' issue.
As it relates to Sunday services, most churches do not arrange their chairs to foster face-to-face interaction. In fact, most churches arrange their chairs as though they were pews.I agree, most churches that I've visited that have chairs do not arrange their chairs to foster face-to-face interaction. It wasn't my objective to state what most churches do. Instead, it was only my intent to assert that because of using chairs, the possibility for face-to-face interaction now exists. This was a counter what I felt was the assertion of the author(s), that there was no possibility of it.
But I'm on the BB. Can't wait to get to the office to share my thoughts. This chapter was something else. Really got me to thinking, but my thoughts tended to wander from what they were addressing to a bigger picture. I'll be back.
From what I remember, I think the author's main contention regarding setup was that there was little opportunity for face-to-face interaction and flexibility. With that in mind, there's a huge difference in using pews vs chairs. I can't really speak for how too many churches use their chairs, but I've seen (even in my own church) how using chairs does allow for more flexibility and the ability for more "intimate" fellowship.
For about the first 9 years I was at my church, we had wooden pews. We then did a re-model and switched to chairs. Since the switch, pastors and speakers regularly come off of the stage area to interact with the congregation. Bible Studies are often done with the chairs re-arranged for face-to-face interaction, and we also now have more flexibility with regard to the use of the sanctuary as well.
I wonder how many folk would be willing to go to a Sunday service that was not designed in the traditional pew format but in a design in which everyone could participate
Btw, Churchy, there are quite a few assemblies springing up here and there that have this kind of set-up. JBII's church is one of them. Their sanctuary is furnished with couches and tables. Or at least it was. I think they may have outgrown that now. :-\ But people WERE open to it. Of course the "church folks" think she's off her rocker...
What good is a possibility if most aren't taking advantage of it? I mean, technically, even pews can be rearranged to foster a more intimate setting. I've seen that done. *just asking*I can't speak for what others are or aren't doing. I can only speack for my own experience, and we are. It's not a regular thing, but again, without that possibility existing, we wouldn't have done it in the first place. Regarding the re-arrangement of pews, that was not a possibility for us. Ours were bolted down.
I can't speak for what others are or aren't doing. I can only speack for my own experience, and we are. It's not a regular thing, but again, without that possibility existing, we wouldn't have done it in the first place. Regarding the re-arrangement of pews, that was not a possibility for us. Ours were bolted down.
Nobody sits in the pulpit area in my church (our pulpit is small). However, we do have "special seating" for the pastor and first lady, and special seating designated for the clergy. Another lady and I are the only two clergymembers who don't sit on the front row.
Nobody sits in the pulpit area in my church (our pulpit is small). However, we do have "special seating" for the pastor and first lady, and special seating designated for the clergy. Another lady and I are the only two clergymembers who don't sit on the front row.Yeah, we're the same way. My pastor sits on the front row. I also sit on the front row, on the other side of the sanctuary. There are seats in the corner of the stage area, but we don't use them.
Pews, chairs... Same difference. Same set-up, which I think is the authors' issue.
Not the same. Same set-up as in row by row versus, say, a circle? ::)
Not the same. Same set-up as in row by row versus, say, a circle?
Ok, just seeing the chair 'dialogue'. I agree with LL, at least having the possibility is a good thing.
As for the naming of the days of the week, isn't that a Roman concept?
Sunday was for Sun (or Sun god)
Monday was for the Moon
I forget the rest. :-\
I agree that having the possibility is good. I still say that having it and not using it means nada (to me). Most new, remodeled, modern, contemporary churches these days are using chairs. But they're still set up like pews on Sunday, which kinda makes the whole thing moot. :-\ I mean yeah, they CAN move them around... but they don't. LOL.
IRT the days... that sounds familiar. We really have NO choice whatsoever than to use the days that are named to honor these gods... so if that's not a bad thing, why is all this other stuff so bad?
I would agree with that.
RE the chairs, most folks have chairs for the personal feeling of it. If I need to move my chair for more room, I can--that kind of thing. I'm pretty sure most folks aren't concerning themselves with the stadium style arrangement (for example, I never thought about it until this book).
I do, however, believe that changing the seating arrangment for Bible study might be an interesting idea.
The thing of it is, I think it may too late to put the genie back in the bottle as it were.
If you're shook, imagine the masses? :-\
It would take a LOT of maturity and faith to try to right the ship without people jumping off of it. :-\
We do Bible Study in the fellowship hall. It's much more intimate.
Okay, I had typed a lot more, but then I saw this:
And that summed up exactly what I was trying to say, much more succinctly.
So... yeah... I agree. :-[ :-\
I swear, I wish we would do that. But, alas, our recording equipment is in the sanctuary. ::) :-\
Doesn't testimony service come as close to "open participation" as we've seen the last 60 years? A lot of churches are getting rid of this element because of the abuse of it.
I think Bible Study comes as close to open participation as we've seen in many decades. (Why'd you choose 60? What happened 60 years ago?) *confused*
But I think what the authors want is something much bigger. They want house-style assemblies patterned after the NT gatherings, where everyone was on equal footing and shared freely (until Paul told the women to shut up... lol).
While we're talking about church buildings, I do have this concern, which I think I addressed in an early article on Order in the Church. We DO spend a lot more money on buildings than we should. I don't believe God would approve of that. It's immodest, if nothing else.
The vast majority of tithes and offering in Black, charismatic churches (esp the small or mid-sized ones) goes to facilities (rent/mortgage and utilities), music, and salaries. If you just ponder that for a moment, you'll agree that there's something wrong with that. What is our purpose? I mean, the overall purpose of the body of Christ? :-\ :-[
Knowing Jesus, one would think that his followers would want the majority of their gifts to go toward advancing HIS purposes, HIS way, not our own.
On p25, I was fascinated by their explanation of how "Worship became more professional, dramatic and ceremonial." Again, this is all causing serious conflict with everything I value... I've been teaching order and professionalism... even ceremonialism... for over a decade. This is causing a bit of mental chaos.
The sentence that reads "The professional clergy performed the acts of worship while the laity looked on as spectators" really hit me because that's exactly what we do today. Even in the charismatic churches where people participate by hollering "yes!!!" or "amen!" or whatever, and run and dance, etc... there's still a significant element of performance for an audience taking place. When I was young, any time someone would refer to the congregation as an audience, the Bishop would correct them. To this day, I don't use "audience" to refer to the congregation. But the truth is, in most cases, it really IS an audience. :-\
Also on p25, it is noted that under Constantine, the Christian religion finally became legitimate. That makes me wonder, did we [well, not WE, but the early Christians] compromise everything that made us who we were just for the sake of being accepted by the world? Is that what we're still doing today, by introducing little bits and pieces of the world into the church... we're ever-evolving into something else... something other than what we started out as. Little by little... after a while, the "small, insignificant, meaningless" stuff becomes the norm, a historic tradition, commonly accepted, never questioned... and that's that. Is that okay? When does the small stuff actually matter?
I hate to keep bombarding y'all with my thoughts, but... LOL...
P26 also stood out to me. That second paragraph talks about how the first-century Christians were so opposed to the world's systems and paganism... and I can identify with that even today. We have so many things that we're opposed to as "worldly." We have a lot of churches that teach against Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, and don't get me started on Halloween... but those things are so minor compared to how deeply our roots are influenced by secular practices.
It struck me pretty hard that "this all changed during the fourth century when the church emerged as a public institution" and began to "absorb" and accept secular ideas and practices. And now, they've been a part of our culture for so long that it's not only acceptable, but we find justify or "proof text" it. As I said in the margin: WOW.
But the scary part is that this is exactly what we continue to do. We are STILL adapting to change, conforming to new customs introduced and "Christianizing" them.
Do you HAVE TO record Bible Study??
*************************
Random thought that just popped in my mind: Back to the chair/pew thing: these authors are implying that today's assemblies don't have the opportunity to fellowship/interact because of the way the sanctuaries are designed, but I think that today's church still does a lot of fellowshipping and interacting (even more than I'd like... lol). There are so many auxiliaries and ministries that foster relationships and interaction in today's assemblies.
While we're talking about church buildings, I do have this concern, which I think I addressed in an early article on Order in the Church. We DO spend a lot more money on buildings than we should. I don't believe God would approve of that. It's immodest, if nothing else.
The vast majority of tithes and offering in Black, charismatic churches (esp the small or mid-sized ones) goes to facilities (rent/mortgage and utilities), music, and salaries. If you just ponder that for a moment, you'll agree that there's something wrong with that. What is our purpose? I mean, the overall purpose of the body of Christ? :-\ :-[
Knowing Jesus, one would think that his followers would want the majority of their gifts to go toward advancing HIS purposes, HIS way, not our own.
One of the reasons why we DON'T have a keyboardist.
Now, I will say that even if we met in homes, money would be needed for clean-up if for nothing else. :-\
Oh yeah, definitely. I mean, you'll still have to put some money into a home church (increased utilities, cleaning, furnishings, supplies (hygiene products, for example), etc. But the cost would be SIGNIFICANTLY less than what it is today.
We just can't avoid the fact that the average church spends an immodest amount of its intake on those three things. Most black, Charismatic churches (not counting mega-churches, though it's probably true there, too) spend next to nothing on foreign missions, community outreach and evangelism. That's the core of our very existence, isn't it?
Not to some. Some think it's just about winning souls and going to heaven. :-\
So I'll start this discussion on chapter 2 with 2 quotes:
"The social location of the chruch meeting expresses and influences the character of the church."
"Every building we encounter elicits a response from us. By it's interior and exterior, it explicity shows us what the church is and how it functions."
Do you all agree or disagree with those quotes?
It seems like the author is basically making the case that the idea of church buildings takes away from what worship was originally intended to be. According to the author, worship in the New Testament was open-participation (which I think could be supported by 1 Corinthians 12 & 14). Also, he argues against treating the sanctuary/church building as sacred. Do you all agree or disagree with his view?
Love this! When our church eventually rebuilds (don't know when that will happen) I'd love for us to do chairs instead of pews but our church is a little traditional (not very) so they may want pews....LOL! Honestly, I'd love to see them do chairs.
And another thing: I found it interesting reading about the traditional pew chairs. I knew a little about the "cathedra" because it was mentioned a lot when our former former pastor was consecrated Bishop in our church (and that was the most controversial thing up in our baptist church....LOL!). I have said before that I am in favor of getting rid of traditional pulpit setup and not having ANYONE sit in the pulpit! In my fantasy church, all speakers would sit in the 1st pew or in the 1st row of chairs and then come up to speak. As a matter of fact, I'd probably have the podium on the floor.
And what about Constantine? What's your view of him as far as his significance?
I'm not really concerned about taking things from ancient Judaism.
I do, however, believe that changing the seating arrangment for Bible study might be an interesting idea.
I swear, I wish we would do that. But, alas, our recording equipment is in the sanctuary. ::) :-\
BUT, I do think that their point isn't about auxiliaries and fellowship, but the overall distinction/separation between clergy and laity. The hierarchy... the assignment of power or the illusion of sacredness.
In pentecostal churches, it is implied that pastors are more anointed, have more power, more ability and just more everything than laity. I think the authors are opposed to that.
But I think what the authors want is something much bigger. They want house-style assemblies patterned after the NT gatherings, where everyone was on equal footing and shared freely (until Paul told the women to shut up... lol).
Our goal is to win souls.
So the praise team, and music department overall, is responsible for "setting the atmosphere" which is exactly what Constantine was trying to do in the 4th century. But what does that mean - and more importantly WHY are we trying to set an atmosphere to elicit emotional responses? What atmosphere does the Holy Ghost need in order to move? <-- about to be a FB status... lol
you record the bible study?
you record the bible study?
Another thought of mine from p29. The authors discuss the use of color, light, and overall architecture to create a certain mood. They used the phrase "emotive factors" and that jumped out at me. It reminds me of our modern focus on "setting the atmosphere" (which has also become a hype phrase). When you ask someone what setting the atmosphere means, rarely can they give you a LOGICAL answer.
So the praise team, and music department overall, is responsible for "setting the atmosphere" which is exactly what Constantine was trying to do in the 4th century. But what does that mean - and more importantly WHY are we trying to set an atmosphere to elicit emotional responses? What atmosphere does the Holy Ghost need in order to move? <-- about to be a FB status... lol
How about hearts and minds being on one accord so that a move of the Holy Ghost can occur like in Acts?
VERY good answer. But is that an "atmosphere"? I don't think so, but ICBW. Haven't given it much thought.
OAN, I would never admit this to my fellow Apostolics, but I honestly am not sure I understand why we try to replicate the Day of Pentecost. In my entire life, I've never seen anything in person that matches what took place in Acts 2. A sound from heaven like a rushing, mighty wind? Cloven tongues like fire sitting on people? People speaking in real languages other than their own? All in a corporate fashion?
Who has seen that?
I agree we should be on one accord when we come together, but I don't know if that has anything to do with setting an atmosphere or even music. I think we just all need to focus on Jesus instead of all the fluff-stuff we set our eyes on. There's nothing in Acts 2 that indicates they were on one accord because the atmosphere was set. I think they may have just come together on one accord. Idk...
"absorb and Christianize pagan religious ides and practices."wow ... it happened then and it is still happening today...
See, I believe their being on one accord (or, coming together on one accord) is what set the atmosphere.
See, I believe their being on one accord (or, coming together on one accord) is what set the atmosphere.
Our church is kinda like this. we have chairs in the pulpit area but not many ever use them every blue a guest may but other than that they're just there. Even our pastor sits on the second row of pews, assistant pastor #1 is normally still on his guitar b4 he preaches, I'm usually on the drums til I'm called and the rest of the ministers sit in the congregation. I don't thin we'll ever get rid of the podium but when we remodeled it did get put a lot closer to the actual congregation.
Idk about that. When did God say that there was a specific atmosphere required before He would move? What about all the other "atmospheres" in all the other locations of his other miracles and movements?
I mean some churches SOLELY focus on souls and let outreach be secondary. That's what I meant....LOL!
I'm experiencing a slightly different problem my church appears to be primarily focused on teaching how to live a christian lifestyle.
Our new pastor has started talking about needing to do evangelism. Cause we don't do any.
We do a little outreach but not much.
Because we connected emotional responses to movement caused by the Holy Ghost.
On page 10 his argument concerning the word "church" is caused by translation. Even the writer says that if an early greek christian was talking about the physical building we call a church they would say kuriakon see page 12. Where as the people who are called out to follow Christ are called the Ekklesia.
Two different words in greek that when translated are given the same word in english. The word church in english has more than one meaning
Concerning Constantine
Yeah he may or may not have been the perfect Christan ... but who am I to judge a man who live thousands of years ago to say if he was a righteous and upright leader.
Now concerning building churches/temples/cathedrals. There is a simple reason why the early christians met in homes and caves and what not. If they had a church it would be easy to round up Christians and kill them!
Its not that they felt having one central location to gather was wrong. (clearly they did this even if it was just meeting at the same house where they tore down a wall to fit everyone).
Okay finally talking about buildings :D
If you can't tell, I don't really care for everything the author is saying ... maybe I'll change later but there are just too many holes in what he is saying. (me arguing brings up his point concerning Greek rhetoric that comes later).
1. Every building before it is built is built with a purpose in mind.
Why do you think the dining room is by the kitchen?
why are there bathrooms inside movie theaters so large?
Why are bedrooms on the second floor of a house many times and not on the first floor?
if you were to take the author's preferred model for how Christians should assemble what would the building look like?
It would feature a large open space, that protects the area from the weather. There would be small circular (oh by the way circles are pagan too just look at Stonehenge) tables that would seat a handful of people who may be eating a meal together. In short it would look like a convention center set up to host a luncheon. On top of that what would happen if in this group of people a short person wanted to talk. Would someone lift that person onto their shoulder so everyone can see them? or would that stand on a chair or even the table so their voice can project. I would say that this author if he had a group large enough would set up a stage area or a podium so someone could stand and say something.
I must admit though, the other objects inside the church, such as the special seat for the speaker of the hour, which we give special meaning. I see his point there is no reason we should give so much credit to those objects....I'm not going to be able to look at the building I worship in the same ever again.
_______________________________________ _______________________________
wow ... it happened then and it is still happening today...
Evolution of the architecture
So... whats your point? all buildings are built with a purpose in mind. The churches of today are designed so that one person can teach a vast multitude of people at the same time. There is nothing wrong with that.
Concerning pews... Has the author ever tried to build a single chair? It takes a long time and they are expensive. A pew is easy in comparison.
Have you ever had multiple people attempt to stand up from a pew at once that isn't bolted down? There is the chance that upon standing they would either push the pew back or it could tip over. So bolt them down simple. If you don't believe me sit in a office chair that has wheels (it makes it easier to see) and stand up without holding on to anything. Does the chair move?
High Cost of Overhead
it would still exist it just wouldn't be as apparent.
As others had already said. True some of the costs can be consolidated. But look at your own personal budget I'm pretty sure we still pay those same expenses and it adds up to 30-60% of our budget.
Yeah, I've always believed that too... because that's what I was taught to believe. But upon further thought, I'm not sure there was a specific "atmosphere" and if there was, the Bible doesn't refer to it. That's something we put in there because it sounds reasonable and makes sense. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're adding a "doctrine" (for lack of a better word) that implies that God moves if the atmosphere is set.
Idk about that. When did God say that there was a specific atmosphere required before He would move? What about all the other "atmospheres" in all the other locations of his other miracles and movements?
What about them? Marching around a city seven times, carrying trumpets of rams' horns, and walking, on the seventh day, around the city seven more times and blowing the trumpets and having the people shout till the walls fall seems like setting an 'atmosphere' to me. *kanyeshrug*
Being explicit concerning the construction of the tabernacle and the ark seems like setting an 'atmosphere' to me.
Maybe I'm reaching--but, what if I'm not?
Well, I don't know if I would call it reaching. More like trying to think it through and rationalize it. But you know, I just think it's one of those things we made up. I just did a quick search on Biblegateway. The word "atmosphere" isn't mentioned at all in KJV. It's mentioned once in the AMP in the book of Revelations, but it seems to mean vicinity more than climate.
I like the way you thought about those examples. I had to pause to process that... good stuff. But I don't think there's anything that indicates that any particular "atmosphere" was set. I think we made it up and it's one of those things that make sense, so we hold on to it. Well, let me put it like this. Atmosphere, obviously, is real. I just think we (the church) spiritualized it. To me, setting the atmosphere for service should mean making sure the sanctuary is clean, fresh-smelling, the temperature is right, and the lights are on. I think anything more than that, we added to the Christian/church experience.
In my church, I often hear presiders and P&W leaders exhorting the people to "charge" the atmosphere. I've probably even said that myself a time or two.I'm on the same page.
But now that I'm really thinking about it, in MY church, that translates to "make a lot of noise and exhibit a lot of emotions so the spirit of the Lord can visit us and make people speak in tongues, run, fall out, cry, and/or dance. That way, it will be easier for Pastor to preach to your emotions and when you leave, you'll say that church was good." We have done so much to add emotions to the move of God that - as I've mentioned in OITC - we really don't even know what a real move of God is like. I often wonder if we would even recognize one (we, including me). :-\ :-[ :'(
I think this whole atmosphere thing contains a bit of hype. God can move on us/in us/for us regardless of our conditions.
Interesting. At the same time, that makes it no different than preparing a stadium for a football game or preparing a theater for the next showing of a movie.
I'd like to think church service is a bit more than just that. :-\
I'm on the same page.
Now that the discussion is starting to move a bit, I've got to hit "unnotify". LOL
Is that really what the writers said? That's not what I got from p12. I understood them to be saying that the English word for "church" came from the Greek word "kuriakon." That doesn't mean that the early Christians would have referred to our assembly buildings as kuriakons. Am I missing something?Quote
Why not? What would they have called it? I know they wouldn't have called it the Ekklesia. They would have referred to the building by a different name.How do you know that? I mean, it makes sense to me, but do you have a source? For the record, I don't have a problem with church buildings. Jesus went to synagogue, so I'm fine with going to a church building. I just don't think we should spend as much money on them as we should, and that we need to do a better job at knocking down the 4 walls that separate us from our communities and the unsaved.
I got this from wikipedia. If I was a pagan mob and I wanted to kill some christians I would go to the large building they built that they gather at however if the christians routinely secretly just met in different people's houses it would not be easy to kill a a group of them.QuoteChristianity was an illegal religion in the eyes of the Roman state.[3] For the first two centuries of its existence, Christianity and its practitioners were unpopular with the people at large.[4] Christians were always suspect,[3] members of a "secret society" whose members communicated with a private code[5] and who shied away from the public sphere.[6] It was popular hostility—the anger of the crowd—which drove the earliest persecutions, not official action.[4] In Lyon in 177, it was only the intervention of civil authorities that stopped a pagan mob from dragging Christians from their houses and beating them to death. The governor of Bithynia–Pontus, Pliny, was sent long lists of denunciations by anonymous citizens, which Emperor Trajan advised him to ignore.[7]I wouldn't say circles are pagan. God created the earth, right? The earth is a circular shape. As are the sun, moon, other planets in our galaxy, etc...not technically but you are correct I was a tad bit over zealous when I made that statementI agree with you in general. But their overall point seems to be that in order to accomplish the original function of the Christian assembly, we need to construct our places of worship - be they houses or church buildings - in a fashion that promotes interaction and mutual ministry rather than one head person addressing a body. (I'm not saying I agree, just trying to clarify what I think he's saying). On p37, they assert that Christian architecture has hindered the function of Christians. That's an interesting assertion.Okay, thank you for clarifyingWe do have a bunch of spectators and inactive members in church. In fact, there's an 80/20 rule commonly known in church leadership (20% of the people do 80% of the work). Would people be more active and involved if the sanctuaries were arranged differently?? Granted, such a change - if even possible - would take decades to stick. But would it make a difference?It is possible ... but I think eventually the small groups would degenerate into where 1-2 people dominate the group. Sort of like here on LGM, there are a few prolific posters and then there are the lurkers.No, the "high cost" wouldn't exist at all. Overhead would be much lower with more modest places to meet. I'm not even talking about house churches, but we already know that would be a lot cheaper.I disagree slightly, but the following question my erase my disagreement.
What do you consider makes up the high cost of overhead?
I was only considering the building.
In my church, I often hear presiders and P&W leaders exhorting the people to "charge" the atmosphere. I've probably even said that myself a time or two.
But now that I'm really thinking about it, in MY church, that translates to "make a lot of noise and exhibit a lot of emotions so the spirit of the Lord can visit us and make people speak in tongues, run, fall out, cry, and/or dance. That way, it will be easier for Pastor to preach to your emotions and when you leave, you'll say that church was good." We have done so much to add emotions to the move of God that - as I've mentioned in OITC - we really don't even know what a real move of God is like. I often wonder if we would even recognize one (we, including me). :-\ :-[ :'(
I think this whole atmosphere thing contains a bit of hype. God can move on us/in us/for us regardless of our conditions.
Yeah, I mean maybe I just don't get it. :-\ Yes, church service is more than a movie or football game. But other than charging emotions, what does setting the atmosphere do? Does it really make God move? Is there any evidence that God moves when, and only when, an atmosphere is "set"? If we just focus on Jesus, isn't that enough? (all rhetorical... and at this point, probably redundant).
i guess in the end I'm having a hard time imagining how a large group (100+) people interact as they minister to one another spiritually...
I can easily see this working with 10-20 people. Not a problem in fact I think i would be able to spiritually grow in a place like that.
Its just when I start thinking of larger and larger groups do I see this breaking down.
The early christian church was small. And that is the reason it was able to function the way it did.
I wish I could remember everything I wanted to say regarding chapter 2. Unfortunately, I didn't take notes on it like I did chapter 1. I can say that I understand where the author is coming from in showing how even the edifice has a pagan influence. 1. However, I come away with the feeling that he feels that because of the pagan influence regarding the construction of the building, we as new millennium believers can't break from tradition and worship God for who He is, based on our personal relationships with Him.
We don't need to go back to meeting in individual houses in order to have that face to face interaction. We just need to WANT to have face to face interaction.
2. There are some molds that we MUST break free from in today's church. I see so much traditionalism in churches today, it's almost laughable- especially when you consider how little some of those traditions really add to the body as a whole. In Eph. chapter 4, Paul talks about what God gave to the church, in terms of people. And, he talked about the purpose of those people and the function of the body itself. 3. I think we need to evaluate what we "add" to church services against the criteria he set:
- "for the perfecting of the saints..."- Does XYZ practice enable that? Maybe we should consider chucking it.
- "for the work of the ministry..." - How exactly does having a church anniversary or choir reunion or anything else traditional bring that into effect?
- "for the edifying of the body of Christ"....and so on. There's so much that goes on in the church today that do nothing to promote the growth of the body that I think we need to do away with. But, WHERE we worship, in and of itself, is not a concern to me, in general.
Is there any evidence that 'setting' it is bad? I'll be honest, I don't understand running around the chu'ch (where is that in the Bible? ?/?). But, shouting, praising, lifting hands, etc. that's all biblical and I don't see a problem with it.
I mean, how else does one 'put on a garment of praise'? ?/? :-\
So, adding to the number, daily, kept the number small? ?/? :-\
i guess in the end I'm having a hard time imagining how a large group (100+) people interact as they minister to one another spiritually...
I can easily see this working with 10-20 people. Not a problem in fact I think i would be able to spiritually grow in a place like that.
Its just when I start thinking of larger and larger groups do I see this breaking down.
The early christian church was small. And that is the reason it was able to function the way it did.
Man, is Churchy going to be surprised when he finally checks back in. LOL
SHABADANLONG!!! The Lord hath done wonderful things in this thread! THIS is what I envisioned! Great topics! Great discussions!!! YES!!! SHONDO!!!! Yes LaRue I'm on cloud 42 and LL yes!!! I've been checking on and off and now that I'm home I'm about dig in.....SHONDO!!!Now, imagine him saying all of that in the voice of Chris Rock. Hilarious!
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. I don't see anything wrong with any genuine expression of praise, whether there's a Biblical precedent or not. I do think that the expectation that we can use emotions to "set" an atmosphere is hype and fruitless. You don't have to "set" an atmosphere to praise the Lord, nor do we have to set an atmosphere in order to receive blessings from the Lord. And I still don't even know what "setting the atmosphere" even MEANS!
I guess that's my overall point. We are taught (indirectly) that if the atmosphere is set, then God will move. I just don't have a reason to believe that's true.
Regarding that whole "atmosphere" discussion. I believe that concept took its roots from II Cronicles, chapter 5, where the Levites were ministering to the Lord to such a degree that his cloud filled the temple, and they could barely stand to minister as a result. In the church today, saints are chasing that experience, waiting for his cloud (translated by some as presence) to fill the place. There are some things about that line of thinking that I don't necessarily agree with. Unfortunately, I don't have time to discuss it now. I've got to hit the road. By the time I get back home, there will likely be 15 new posts about a variety of subjects. So, I may not return to this. Hopefully, I will.
This is the way I look at it: If people come to church with the right mindset, attitude, etc. (that starts before going to the building or whatever place of worship they go to), the "atmosphere" wouldn't have to be "set." #justsaying
OAN, this discussion and reading the book is making me reassess my perspective on if I believe church membership is necessary (related to institutional church).
@Jonathan, I'm gonna respond to that when I get home. I hope I remember what I want to say. :D
In case I forget, preparing a place for its intended use (i.e. stadium, theater, sanctuary, etc.) is NOT the same as setting an atmosphere. It was never, ever my intention to imply that. I think one is preparing a room/venue, and one is preparing a climate/feeling. I can't compare the two and if you go back to my original comment where I brought that up, you'll see that it wasn't a comparison at all.
That said, there are countless examples of God moving without any reference to an atmosphere. Being on one accord is not an atmosphere. Clapping or shouting is not an atmosphere. The word atmosphere, as I said, isn't even found in the 66.
Regarding that whole "atmosphere" discussion. I believe that concept took its roots from II Cronicles, chapter 5, where the Levites were ministering to the Lord to such a degree that his cloud filled the temple, and they could barely stand to minister as a result. In the church today, saints are chasing that experience, waiting for his cloud (translated by some as presence) to fill the place. There are some things about that line of thinking that I don't necessarily agree with. Unfortunately, I don't have time to discuss it now. I've got to hit the road. By the time I get back home, there will likely be 15 new posts about a variety of subjects. So, I may not return to this. Hopefully, I will.
I believe he had a large influence on spreading the gospel. that is all I can say
Oh and @Churchy, church membership may or may not be useful or efficient, but it can't be "necessary." It's just another one of those things we added in.
That's not Biblical,
Lots of things aren't Biblical, but that doesn't make them wrong. *shrug* As Nessa said in another thread a few weeks ago, some things are left to preference. The order of service we currently use today isn't Biblical, neither are the wedding ceremonies we have, and a whole list of other things. *shrug*
I disagreed with Nessa then, and I disagree again today.
But I didn't say it was "wrong" just because it's not Biblical. At least I don't think I did (I didn't go back to check). I think it's either manipulative or ignorant. Either you know there's no such thing as setting an atmosphere for the purpose of making God move and you're trying to work on people's emotions - or you really believe there's a such thing as setting an atmosphere to make God move. IMO, it's one or the other.
What pleases God to move is our faith in Him. Holiness. Obedience. Doing His will. Praise and adoration. Worship. None of those things are atmospheric. Spiritual atmosphere is just hype that no one (so far) has been able to describe logically. What is it, a "feeling" in the air? A level of excitement? A degree of longing? A certain volume? <--- rhetorical
I'm tapping out. We gotta agree to disagree on this one. :-\
So when does something that is "unbiblical" become wrong?
I agree, very good question, Churchy. I haven't thought it through, but off the top of my head, it becomes wrong when it:
1. Adds to, or takes from the purposed function of the body of Christ or its members
2. It directly or indirectly goes against a characteristic or principle of Jesus Christ.
3. It separates us from Jesus.
4. It makes anything mandatory or strongly encouraged that's not mandatory or strongly encouraged in the Bible or by law.
I have a few more but my brain is dancing. I'll add on as it comes back to me.
From you Jonathan that's a very big deal....LOL! Thanks bro!
I'm probably thinking too deep and I understand that what I'm about to type is in cyberspace forever so let me say this:
If we're arguing overall that when it comes to certain practices, customs, etc., personal preference wins (not saying everyone agrees with this but it seems to be the overall prevailing thought in modern Christianity), then could it be said that the Bible cannot be used to argue for or against a particular practice or custom? In other words, can we say that the Bible should not be used when it comes to debating merits of particular customs, practices, etc.?
#justasking #random #thinkingoutloud
I agree, very good question, Churchy. I haven't thought it through, but off the top of my head, it becomes wrong when it:
1. Adds to, or takes from the purposed function of the body of Christ or its members
2. It directly or indirectly goes against a characteristic or principle of Jesus Christ.
3. It separates us from Jesus.
4. It makes anything mandatory or strongly encouraged that's not mandatory or strongly encouraged in the Bible or by law.
I have a few more but my brain is dancing. I'll add on as it comes back to me.
Good points!!
Does the clergy/laity divide fit this?
Only if said divide is extremely prevalent, imho.
I have no problem with the pastor being the pastor. He's read more than I have (simply a fact); he's study more than I have, etc. As a result, I have no problem with what he does in preparing for Sundays and Wednesdays.
If I have an issue, there are some things in the area of service where I possess this look----> ?/? :-\ ::)
The Bible has to be our guide, the final authority. Point blank, period.
Where the debate/discussion comes in is when the Bible is not specific concerning a particular point AND people, on either side of the debate/discussion, believe that their side is the correct side. The problem with that belief is that neither side can prove their case using the guide, the final authority--the Bible.
The author accuratley described how the church I attend is set up LOL.
the podium, the special chair for the pastor, where the deacons sit ... wow not sold on the need to change it but it is interesting to think of "so this is how someone came up with this idea"
you know what I just realized ... LGM forum operates exactly how the author describes what the early church operated like.
Everyone here is on equal footing (mainly because you don't know if you are talking to a pastor or something many times)
Anyone can start a thread
it allows us all to have 1 on 1 conversations
and its overhead is lower than most churches.
crazy maybe the internet church is going to be the future like online schools...
Okay, I'm at work, so I'm just gonna flip through the pages of Ch2 and share the thoughts I wrote in the margins, and stuff I underlined, and "wow"s and all that....
The first sentence that impacted me was on p14, "When Christianity was born, it was the only religion on the planet that had no sacred objects, no sacred persons, and no sacred spaces." That was heavy to me because today, we have a lot... the sanctuary is sacred and I actually teach a class on that. :-[ The communion table is sacred. The communion elements are sacred. The clergy vestments are sacred. I could go on and on.
Also, a random thought that hit me several times throughout this chapter: I'm not really concerned about taking things from ancient Judaism. That's okay with me. I'm not thrilled about taking things from pagans though, but I did have a thought about that further on in the chapter. I'll share that when I get to it.
On p25, I was fascinated by their explanation of how "Worship became more professional, dramatic and ceremonial." Again, this is all causing serious conflict with everything I value... I've been teaching order and professionalism... even ceremonialism... for over a decade. This is causing a bit of mental chaos.
The sentence that reads "The professional clergy performed the acts of worship while the laity looked on as spectators" really hit me because that's exactly what we do today. Even in the charismatic churches where people participate by hollering "yes!!!" or "amen!" or whatever, and run and dance, etc... there's still a significant element of performance for an audience taking place. When I was young, any time someone would refer to the congregation as an audience, the Bishop would correct them. To this day, I don't use "audience" to refer to the congregation. But the truth is, in most cases, it really IS an audience. :-\
Regarding that whole "atmosphere" discussion. I believe that concept took its roots from II Cronicles, chapter 5, where the Levites were ministering to the Lord to such a degree that his cloud filled the temple, and they could barely stand to minister as a result. In the church today, saints are chasing that experience, waiting for his cloud (translated by some as presence) to fill the place. There are some things about that line of thinking that I don't necessarily agree with. Unfortunately, I don't have time to discuss it now. I've got to hit the road. By the time I get back home, there will likely be 15 new posts about a variety of subjects. So, I may not return to this. Hopefully, I will.Here are some of the things that I've seen/experienced with respect to those who chase the "cloud experience":
I honestly think people are naturally inclined to reject those things that challenge their core belief systems. Reading and digesting this book is hard for me because it really leaves me wondering where this leaves my ministry. Have I had it wrong all this time? Majored in minor things? Perpetuated false theories, man-made doctrines and hype? Most importantly, how do I now do what I'm called to do without incorporating all the additives and impurities?
I suspect that IF the authors have good points to make, musicians may wonder the same thing. Or reject it or dismiss it. *shrug*
Either way, this is challenging. And I'm thoroughly enjoying all parts of the discussion.
Here are some of the things that I've seen/experienced with respect to those who chase the "cloud experience":
1. Most of what I've seen is more of an appeal to the emotions than anything else. Now, don't get me wrong, the people are sincere. But, their appeals to God and their expectations of God are more emotional than scriptural. They equate things like whether or not the praise team is singing with intensity to "a move of God", or whether the congregation is clapping their hands loud enough or yelling praises loud enough to invoke His presence. So, pastors will have their congregations clapping, yelling and screaming for minutes at a time until he "feels" the presence of the Lord.
Why do I have a problem with that? Actually, this is one of the areas in which I agree with the author(s). The author(s), starting in chapter one, mentioned one important thing: that when Christ came, the need for mortar temples was done away with, because our bodies became the temple of the Lord, which means He's ever present with us. We don't need to invoke his presence. Rather, we need to acknowledge it. If we spent more time acknowledging His presence and being led by his Spirit (Romans 6-8), we'd spend less time chasing His presence and being out of His will. If we spent less time preserving Old Testament and pagan rites and rituals and spent more time yielding to His will, we'd (as individuals and as a collective body) walk in the power that was granted to us. We'd be doing the "greater works" that Christ told his disciples of. We're so steeped in tradition and custom and ritual and rite that we fail to see, acknowledge, use and benefit from the greatest gift we've been given, God in us.
I honestly think people are naturally inclined to reject those things that challenge their core belief systems. Reading and digesting this book is hard for me because it really leaves me wondering where this leaves my ministry. Have I had it wrong all this time? Majored in minor things? Perpetuated false theories, man-made doctrines and hype? Most importantly, how do I now do what I'm called to do without incorporating all the additives and impurities?For me, while I'm not in total agreement with all concepts the author(s) promote, this book serves as somewhat of a wake up call. It does challenge some things. I like that. We need that. I welcome that. But, simply because there are challenges issued, doesn't make every challenge valid or worthwhile. I review the book with an open mind, but I'm also mindful that the writers are still human and aren't perfect and can be wrong occasionally, based on their take on the information they've gathered.
I suspect that IF the authors have good points to make, musicians may wonder the same thing. Or reject it or dismiss it. *shrug*
Either way, this is challenging. And I'm thoroughly enjoying all parts of the discussion.
For me, while I'm not in total agreement with all concepts the author(s) promote, this book serves as somewhat of a wake up call. It does challenge some things. I like that. We need that. I welcome that. But, simply because there are challenges issued, doesn't make every challenge valid or worthwhile. I review the book with an open mind, but I'm also mindful that the writers are still human and aren't perfect and can be wrong occasionally, based on their take on the information they've gathered.
I, too, am enjoying the convo. I'd like to thank Layla for coming up with the idea in the first place as well as the willingness to share the reading experience with the collective.
Here are some of the things that I've seen/experienced with respect to those who chase the "cloud experience":
1. Most of what I've seen is more of an appeal to the emotions than anything else. Now, don't get me wrong, the people are sincere. But, their appeals to God and their expectations of God are more emotional than scriptural. They equate things like whether or not the praise team is singing with intensity to "a move of God", or whether the congregation is clapping their hands loud enough or yelling praises loud enough to invoke His presence. So, pastors will have their congregations clapping, yelling and screaming for minutes at a time until he "feels" the presence of the Lord.
Why do I have a problem with that? Actually, this is one of the areas in which I agree with the author(s). The author(s), starting in chapter one, mentioned one important thing: that when Christ came, the need for mortar temples was done away with, because our bodies became the temple of the Lord, which means He's ever present with us. We don't need to invoke his presence. Rather, we need to acknowledge it. If we spent more time acknowledging His presence and being led by his Spirit (Romans 6-8), we'd spend less time chasing His presence and being out of His will. If we spent less time preserving Old Testament and pagan rites and rituals and spent more time yielding to His will, we'd (as individuals and as a collective body) walk in the power that was granted to us. We'd be doing the "greater works" that Christ told his disciples of. We're so steeped in tradition and custom and ritual and rite that we fail to see, acknowledge, use and benefit from the greatest gift we've been given, God in us.
For me, while I'm not in total agreement with all concepts the author(s) promote, this book serves as somewhat of a wake up call. It does challenge some things. I like that. We need that. I welcome that. But, simply because there are challenges issued, doesn't make every challenge valid or worthwhile. I review the book with an open mind, but I'm also mindful that the writers are still human and aren't perfect and can be wrong occasionally, based on their take on the information they've gathered.
I, too, am enjoying the convo. I'd like to thank Layla for coming up with the idea in the first place as well as the willingness to share the reading experience with the collective.
Whoaaaaaa!!! You (and Nessa) have a way of saying exactly what I'm trying to say - but in a more palatable, relevant way. It makes so much more sense. Thanks!Don't sell yourself short. You be (int) dropping some mad knowledge. Sure, it takes several hours to read, but it's relevant, insightful and provokative 99% of the time. Just messing with you on the "several hours" part. ;D
I honestly think people are naturally inclined to reject those things that challenge their core belief systems. Reading and digesting this book is hard for me because it really leaves me wondering where this leaves my ministry. Have I had it wrong all this time? Majored in minor things? Perpetuated false theories, man-made doctrines and hype? Most importantly, how do I now do what I'm called to do without incorporating all the additives and impurities?
I suspect that IF the authors have good points to make, musicians may wonder the same thing. Or reject it or dismiss it. *shrug*
Either way, this is challenging. And I'm thoroughly enjoying all parts of the discussion.
Don't sell yourself short. You be (int) dropping some mad knowledge. Sure, it takes several hours to read, but it's relevant, insightful and provokative 99% of the time. Just messing with you on the "several hours" part. ;DWas that on purpose as well? ?/? :P :D
Here are some of the things that I've seen/experienced with respect to those who chase the "cloud experience":
1. Most of what I've seen is more of an appeal to the emotions than anything else. Now, don't get me wrong, the people are sincere. But, their appeals to God and their expectations of God are more emotional than scriptural. They equate things like whether or not the praise team is singing with intensity to "a move of God", or whether the congregation is clapping their hands loud enough or yelling praises loud enough to invoke His presence. So, pastors will have their congregations clapping, yelling and screaming for minutes at a time until he "feels" the presence of the Lord.
Why do I have a problem with that? Actually, this is one of the areas in which I agree with the author(s). The author(s), starting in chapter one, mentioned one important thing: that when Christ came, the need for mortar temples was done away with, because our bodies became the temple of the Lord, which means He's ever present with us. We don't need to invoke his presence. Rather, we need to acknowledge it. If we spent more time acknowledging His presence and being led by his Spirit (Romans 6-8), we'd spend less time chasing His presence and being out of His will. If we spent less time preserving Old Testament and pagan rites and rituals and spent more time yielding to His will, we'd (as individuals and as a collective body) walk in the power that was granted to us. We'd be doing the "greater works" that Christ told his disciples of. We're so steeped in tradition and custom and ritual and rite that we fail to see, acknowledge, use and benefit from the greatest gift we've been given, God in us.
Now, imagine him saying all of that in the voice of Chris Rock. Hilarious!
Positive or negative?
Good points!!
Does the clergy/laity divide fit this?
So when does something that is "unbiblical" become wrong?
Why? #justcurious
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Oh wait. Sorry, was that supposed to be funny?
But yeah, I love that song, but I HAVE had issues with the concept.
I honestly think people are naturally inclined to reject those things that challenge their core belief systems. Reading and digesting this book is hard for me because it really leaves me wondering where this leaves me
So, we're not 'chasing after Him; no matter what we have to do'?
Dang, there's one song eliminated from our P&W list. :-\
What are we doing when we sing unto the Lord a new song? ?/?
Was that on purpose as well? ?/? :P :DUnfortunately, no. :(
Singing
My pastor asked the praise team, in my absence (I was sick that day or something), why are we chasing after Him. They gave him acceptable responses, based on what I've shared with them, but as I think about it, I, too, have issues with the concept of the song (which explains why we've only sung it twice).You're doing just what the name of the team that sings it implies. You're praising and worshiping Him. Look at it this way, when the Levites did their oblations unto the Lord, and ministered unto him in the temple with praise, prayer and the playing of instruments, they were doing so in His presence. So, why does that have to differ now? Instead of singing songs to invoke His presence, we now sing songs because He is and because He's present and because He deserves praise and to be worshiped.
So now my question is, if we're not singing/playing to invoke the presence of God because He's already within us, are we singing to encourage one another as Paul tells us to do in Ephesians and Colossians?
What are we doing when we sing unto the Lord a new song? ?/?
There's something profoundly funny about your response.You know, I must type really slow. Your response and mine, though worded differently, are saying the same thing.
a. It's what I thought when I typed my post.
b. It's just too simple to work.
You know, LaRue made a quip yesterday intimating that I'm concerned about losing my job but, maybe, I, as a P&W leader SHOULD lose my job.
Imagine if we did just sing because we recognize God for who He is and for the gift of His son?
No real 'pump up'. Just, "And now, we'll sing 'I give myself away'." The musicians start playing (or, the sound guy hits 'play' ::)) and the congregation, with no one in front of them, just. sings?
Hmmm.....
You know, I must type really slow. Your response and mine, though worded differently, are saying the same thing.
There's something profoundly funny about your response.
a. It's what I thought when I typed my post.
b. It's just too simple to work.
You know, LaRue made a quip yesterday intimating that I'm concerned about losing my job but, maybe, I, as a P&W leader SHOULD lose my job.
Imagine if we did just sing because we recognize God for who He is and for the gift of His son?
No real 'pump up'. Just, "And now, we'll sing 'I give myself away'." The musicians start playing (or, the sound guy hits 'play' ::)) and the congregation, with no one in front of them, just. sings?
Hmmm.....
You're doing just what the name of the team that sings it implies. You're praising and worshiping Him. Look at it this way, when the Levites did their oblations unto the Lord, and ministered unto him in the temple with praise, prayer and the playing of instruments, they were doing so in His presence. So, why does that have to differ now? Instead of singing songs to invoke His presence, we now sing songs because He is and because He's present and because He deserves praise and to be worshiped.
Did I really??? I hope I was just joking. :-\ That sounds kinda catty if I did say that to you and wasn't joking. :-[ And of course, I can't remember it... lol
Anyway, I don't know that P&W leaders should lose their jobs, but I do think that in the ideal church, we need to restructure what they are doing. No matter how we put it, the role itself involves a lot of hype - in fact, I would say that in many cases, the P&W leader is the hype man (think Flava Flav... lol) in a stage production. Sure s/he leads the people into worship, but ideally, we wouldn't need to be led. And even if we do, it shouldn't involve cajoling and hyping and all that stuff. Just exhortation. Encouragement. And it should be participatory, not performance.
I agree with that. We should still be singing unto the Lord to bless Him, to minister to Him, to praise Him, to worship Him, to magnify, exalt, honor and extol Him.
We don't have to perform tricks to get Him to show up. He inhabits the praises of Israel, His people. Where two or three are gathered together in His name, He promised to be there in the midst. So, we should still be singing to Him (and playing our instruments) because He's still Shammah.
I've got to say, the way this discussion is going is the EXACT reason why I decided to join the "book club". Great stuff. I need to start reading chapter 3 now.
Imagine if we did just sing because we recognize God for who He is and for the gift of His son?
No real 'pump up'. Just, "And now, we'll sing 'I give myself away'." The musicians start playing (or, the sound guy hits 'play' ::)) and the congregation, with no one in front of them, just. sings?
Hmmm.....
Absolutely! I'm about 3/4 done with chapter 3....JESUS!! Where's everyone at in chapter 3? That chapter is going to talk about the "order of worship" phenomenon.
I definitely can't wait to get to the music ministry chapter and the one about dressing up for church....LOL!
You did and you were (had a smiley and everything). ;) It's all good (besides, it's like 8 pages back or something :-\ :D).
I've got to say, the way this discussion is going is the EXACT reason why I decided to join the "book club". Great stuff. I need to start reading chapter 3 now.
Absolutely! I'm about 3/4 done with chapter 3....JESUS!! Where's everyone at in chapter 3? That chapter is going to talk about the "order of worship" phenomenon.
I definitely can't wait to get to the music ministry chapter and the one about dressing up for church....LOL!
are you saying remove the spectator element? if so ... that would interesting ....Essentially.
Imagine if we did just sing because we recognize God for who He is and for the gift of His son?
No real 'pump up'. Just, "And now, we'll sing 'I give myself away'." The musicians start playing (or, the sound guy hits 'play' ::)) and the congregation, with no one in front of them, just. sings?
Hmmm.....
Just to let everyone know, I'm here. I've been reading all responses. I must admit I'm so used to some of the stuff that's being talked about. I can hardly find any other way to see it other than how it already is.
I may be saying this to early but alot of the stuff we do is not scriptual but if it's not hurting the body (I mean really hurting) what's so bad about it.
I have to admit I love some traditions because they help to show unity, order, and possibly things that helped us make it through as people. I like when new things are incorporated because times are changing, so how people relate to things change as well.
I guess right now I really don't know what I'm trying to say lol So I'll keep reading and see where it takes me.
Just to let everyone know, I'm here. I've been reading all responses. I must admit I'm so used to some of the stuff that's being talked about. I can hardly find any other way to see it other than how it already is.
I may be saying this to early but alot of the stuff we do is not scriptual but if it's not hurting the body (I mean really hurting) what's so bad about it.
I have to admit I love some traditions because they help to show unity, order, and possibly things that helped us make it through as people. I like when new things are incorporated because times are changing, so how people relate to things change as well.
I guess right now I really don't know what I'm trying to say lol So I'll keep reading and see where it takes me.
Just to let everyone know, I'm here. I've been reading all responses. I must admit I'm so used to some of the stuff that's being talked about. I can hardly find any other way to see it other than how it already is.
I may be saying this to early but alot of the stuff we do is not scriptual but if it's not hurting the body (I mean really hurting) what's so bad about it.
I have to admit I love some traditions because they help to show unity, order, and possibly things that helped us make it through as people. I like when new things are incorporated because times are changing, so how people relate to things change as well.
I think many of us (really can't speak for everyone so I'm assuming) would say the same thing, in regards to being so used to some of these things. To me, this book is showing me a lot of origins to why we do what we do. Some things are off track and some things are just.....whatever.
I'm going to disagree with your second line bro. A lot of these traditions (and again I don't have a problem with tradition when we understand why we do it and it has a purpose) have philosophically went against what Jesus taught and what the New Testament teaches us about life, spiritual growth, etc. For example, I believe that the black church emphasis on titles has caused division, hurt feelings, competition, etc., in the body and to me Jesus was not about division and competition (well there is one verse in which Jesus talks about division but I don't think he was talking about divisive division). You could make a case that the clergy/laity divide has went against what Jesus demonstrated as a leader. According to Philippians 2 Jesus was humble. I don't see evidence in the gospels of Jesus trying to make Himself seem better than the 12 disciples.
Just my 2 cents but I do get what you're saying!
You know what, Jonathan - you are actually in a position to make that happen. And I don't think it would be too drastic or uncomfortable a change. Sure you can't effect change in the church worldwide right now, but you sure can make a difference in your local church. Maybe that's your responsibility, even. *just thinking*Yea, I thought about that as I typed that post.
I agree with that. And I'm still trying to find some scripture that deals with the clergy/laity divide. Was it ever God's intention for clergy to be regarded more highly than laity? What does "worthy of double honor" mean? Did He intend for us to don titles or just do the work (of an evangelist, for example). And a very serious question I have... why on earth are we ALL so very comfortable calling people by their titles when that is clearly NOT Biblical at all? There is no Biblical precedent for that, yet not only are we comfortable with it, there is no way we would ever change that in most protestant organizations.
Idk what else to say.....LOL! The problem I have with titles is again the elitism but also giving titles to people not doing the work of the title. For example, how can you be a Bishop when you have not successfully served in your church as a pastor? Some may point to Paul "The Apostle" as a justification for the use of title. At the end of the day I see the title situation as two things:
1. Socialization (and I know yall gonna get tired of hearing me use that word but I just believe it applies to 80% of what happens in church today). We see one do it and everyone else starts it.
2. A mechanism of self-esteem, especially in the black church. I've been hammered on this before but one thing I love about white churches is (based on my experience) how the pastors don't emphasize titles as much. For example, in some white churches they will call the pastor Bro. so and so. Some say it's not a race issue and some people I know don't have a problem with titles as long as the work is being done. I'm contrary on both points, but more contrary on the race point.
Can you provide any Biblical precedent for bishops first pastoring? I've had a hard time even identifying and categorizing the bishops and pastors in the NT. We only know the apostles for sure because they are clearly identified. Bishops aren't listed as clearly. So how do we know that they had to first pastor before becoming bishops?
I would love for someone to make that argument. LOL. It won't work.
Couldn't agree with you more. In fact, you mentioned socialization earlier and I intended to reply, but couldn't at the moment because I was on the BB. But I totally agree that socialization should be considered a necessary part of this discussion.
Agreed.
I think many of us (really can't speak for everyone so I'm assuming) would say the same thing, in regards to being so used to some of these things. To me, this book is showing me a lot of origins to why we do what we do. Some things are off track and some things are just.....whatever.
I'm going to disagree with your second line bro. A lot of these traditions (and again I don't have a problem with tradition when we understand why we do it and it has a purpose) have philosophically went against what Jesus taught and what the New Testament teaches us about life, spiritual growth, etc. For example, I believe that the black church emphasis on titles has caused division, hurt feelings, competition, etc., in the body and to me Jesus was not about division and competition (well there is one verse in which Jesus talks about division but I don't think he was talking about divisive division). You could make a case that the clergy/laity divide has went against what Jesus demonstrated as a leader. According to Philippians 2 Jesus was humble. I don't see evidence in the gospels of Jesus trying to make Himself seem better than the 12 disciples. Just my 2 cents but I do get what you're saying!
I think we all kinda share in that sentiment. It's really hard to see some things differently, when you've only known it to be one way for all or most of your life. And then, even if you believe things should change, there's the matter of logistics. How do you change it? And then, you're only one person - not even the HMIC, so how do you convince others that it needs to change, and how do you make people become comfortable with the change.[/b]
Like, for example, if Jonathan were to really stop leading P&W the way he always has and now becomes more of a facilitator and less of a "leader," how on earth does he implement those changes without alienating the people??
What kinds of things are you talking about? I can agree to an extent. Like for example, the steeple. It was apparently included in church building architecture for pagan reasons. But, I don't think steeples have a profound impact on our worship at all, so I don't really think it matters. But there WERE a few other points that I think really DO negatively affect the body. If nothing else, it is IMO dangerous to add stuff to an already perfect pattern. If we believe in the 66, we can trust that what God gave us is sufficient. He doesn't change, so why must we? Adding stuff is one thing. Adding stuff and making it the firm and unmovable norm is dangerous... and that's exactly where we are right now.
Same question, what kind of new things are you referring to?
I won't say you're stretching, but I will say your perspective is a common one for most anybody who hasn't read this book. I think once you "dig in" your perspective may change a bit.
@musicbishop I pose this question to you: when does something unbiblical become wrong?
I won't say you're stretching, but I will say your perspective is a common one for most anybody who hasn't read this book. I think once you "dig in" your perspective may change a bit.
Okay first admit I haven't really dug really deep in this book and my memory of reading doesn't serve me to well. But here it goes:
With this I think the problem is with the person who carries the titles. Just look at our church today if we didn't have leaders with titles and what not how would the church be ran. it would probably be a complete mess for the most part because although we are the body of Christ we are still people as well. now I will say I don't agree with people just givin themselves titles a willie-nillie Eph 4:11 tells us and he gave some apostles and some prophets and some evangelists and some pastors and teacher 12 for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ. tell me if I'm stretching and I'll take a listen.
I have a quick question too. How many of us have really thought about this stuff before the scope of this book. I have to admit I never did.
Let me add to what I said earlier: Again, my biggest thing is that when I look at the bible and read about what it was like then and what I see now is almost 2 different things. Yes I understand the contextual aspects but again, I still think that if the Bible is going to be the roadmap, then in principle it must be followed. I understand and agree that methods change and I don't have a problem with methods changing as long as they stay in the principle of the Bible. However, many changes have taken place that go philosophically against what Jesus promoted and the New Testament church. For the last few years I've reached a point where I want to analyze every aspect of what we do and why we do it (not just the black church but the institutional church).
We can even look at the lack of spiritual transformation that is in our churches. How is it that we can say we encountered the presence of God yet still act, talk and think the say the way? I'm asking this to myself a lot. When did we get to the place of church being more of a place of comfort than empowerment and equipping?
Bottomline: I've been thinking about some of these issues for a few years and I just want to be one that understands why we do some of the things we do. I'll admit: I've been born and raised in church and some of these things mentally will be hard for me to change but at the same time I feel a charge to be a part of this movement of getting our churches back focused on Jesus as main feature, spiritual transformation and empowering God's people to serve the community, nation and world.
This. is. soooooo. rich.
Good stuff, Churchy. Good stuff. It was a pleasure to read.
believe it or not I'm scared to find out LOL
One point we didn't really dig into from Chapter 2 is the clergy/laity divide, clergy prominence, attention drawn to clergy, etc. I don't think any of us will deny that this is common in today's church - ESPECIALLY the charismatic church and especially the Black church. That said, is it Biblical?That's an interesting piece of discussion. I have some opinions and would like to chime in, but time is an enemy at the moment. I hope to add my 2 cents later. Hopefully, the topic won't be exhausted by then.
One point we didn't really dig into from Chapter 2 is the clergy/laity divide, clergy prominence, attention drawn to clergy, etc. I don't think any of us will deny that this is common in today's church - ESPECIALLY the charismatic church and especially the Black church. That said, is it Biblical?
One point we didn't really dig into from Chapter 2 is the clergy/laity divide, clergy prominence, attention drawn to clergy, etc. I don't think any of us will deny that this is common in today's church - ESPECIALLY the charismatic church and especially the Black church. That said, is it Biblical?
This is a tough one. I'd make the case that the Bible supports church leadership. I believe the Bible supports people in offices. HOWEVER, I'm beginning to believe that the Bible does not support leadership being hierarchal in nature and attitude. To me, the fundamental problem is NOT having people in roles and positions (Deacons, Pastors, etc.). The problem is when we make it seem like those leaders are BETTER than the members. I believe the clergy divide is something manmade. I think it potentially goes against the "priesthood of all believers" idea. While leaders should be respected, they should NOT be worshipped! This is why I'm against us standing for the Pastor/Bishop when they come in and it drives me nuts that we give more glory to the Pastor than we do to God.
I didn't touch on it cause the author goes much deeper into this topic later
you would be surprised. it would be different but it would still function... just imagine a choir with out a director the first time they sing a train wreck ... let them practice a bit and you would never know the difference.
This is a tough one. I'd make the case that the Bible supports church leadership. I believe the Bible supports people in offices. HOWEVER, I'm beginning to believe that the Bible does not support leadership being hierarchal in nature and attitude. To me, the fundamental problem is NOT having people in roles and positions (Deacons, Pastors, etc.). The problem is when we make it seem like those leaders are BETTER than the members. I believe the clergy divide is something manmade. I think it potentially goes against the "priesthood of all believers" idea. While leaders should be respected, they should NOT be worshipped! This is why I'm against us standing for the Pastor/Bishop when they come in and it drives me nuts that we give more glory to the Pastor than we do to God.
This is a tough one. I'd make the case that the Bible supports church leadership. I believe the Bible supports people in offices. HOWEVER, I'm beginning to believe that the Bible does not support leadership being hierarchal in nature and attitude. To me, the fundamental problem is NOT having people in roles and positions (Deacons, Pastors, etc.). The problem is when we make it seem like those leaders are BETTER than the members. I believe the clergy divide is something manmade. I think it potentially goes against the "priesthood of all believers" idea. While leaders should be respected, they should NOT be worshipped! This is why I'm against us standing for the Pastor/Bishop when they come in and it drives me nuts that we give more glory to the Pastor than we do to God.
Musicbishop, I bet you I could list about 10 things that emphasize a clergy/laity divide and are common in today's Black churches and you would "check off" more than half of them as practices that occur in your church. :)
List them please! I wanna see if some of them apply at my church.
1. The pastors' names on the board outside the church. Can't remember, but I think so.
2. Special seating for pastors, first lady, first family, visiting pastors, and/or clergy. Yes. They don't sit in the pulpit, but we have two chairs on the side for the pastor and FL.
3. Acknowledging the pastor & first family during the service. You know the usual "we thank God for our pastor... Oh come on, you can do better than that!" and everyone claps and stands, roaring for the wonderful pastor. A big, resounding yes.
4. Special parking spaces for pastors, first family. No.
5. Don't get me started on the whole adjutant thing (which I think is more common in pentecostal Black churches). Yep.
6. Special clergy attire. Yep.
7. Special clergy elements for communion (ex. in some churches, the pastor has a special goblet to drink out of for communion while everyone else drinks from the shot glasses... lol) Yep.
8. Pastor's name on everything, everywhere you look - on programs, letterhead, billboards, flyers... nowadays, I can't imagine NOT doing that. I can give you 20 reasons why you MUST do that... but at the same time, it's marketing MAN and not GOD. It's marketing a local church instead of JESUS. But it's the norm, so... Yep.
9. Calling him "Pastor" so-and-so... and everyone without a "special" calling is just Sister or Brother... Yep.
Okay, that's 9... ;D
1. The pastors' names on the board outside the church.
2. Special seating for pastors, first lady, first family, visiting pastors, and/or clergy.
3. Acknowledging the pastor & first family during the service. You know the usual "we thank God for our pastor... Oh come on, you can do better than that!" and everyone claps and stands, roaring for the wonderful pastor.
4. Special parking spaces for pastors, first family.
5. Don't get me started on the whole adjutant thing (which I think is more common in pentecostal Black churches).
6. Special clergy attire.
7. Special clergy elements for communion (ex. in some churches, the pastor has a special goblet to drink out of for communion while everyone else drinks from the shot glasses... lol)
8. Pastor's name on everything, everywhere you look - on programs, letterhead, billboards, flyers... nowadays, I can't imagine NOT doing that. I can give you 20 reasons why you MUST do that... but at the same time, it's marketing MAN and not GOD. It's marketing a local church instead of JESUS. But it's the norm, so...
9. Calling him "Pastor" so-and-so... and everyone without a "special" calling is just Sister or Brother...
Okay, that's 9... ;D
Honestly I kind of like pictures of the pastors inside the church (for tradition sake....LOL) but seriously I don't think I like it.
1. Pastor(s) being the main speaker of the hour
2. Pastor (or senior Clergy) makes most if not all decisions
3. The ability of the clergy to make rules to apply to everyone
4. Requiring ministers to be ordained
5. Special requirements to be come ordained
6. Requirements that clergy have to attend certain events
7. Clergy leading prayers (in some churches it would be odd for someone in the middle of the audience to start the prayer and lead it for the group)
8. Clergy directing the order of worship (this can be saying put the bulitin this way or it can be done from the pulpit when the pastor makes a request)
9. Clergy receiving a stipend (lay members do not receive a stipend)
10. When saying the name of the church you attend you may follow up by saying where the Pastor is So and So.
11. Pastors or Clergy being given time to deliver the sermon which is always longer than someone's testimony during testimony services
12. Clergy giving long prayers during the service
I'm not saying that some of these things are valid or not, I'm just saying these are some of the things that separate the laity from the clergy. In short if there is something that only certain members can do and others can't do then a divide exists.
Something exists to keep people whom we deem "unqualified" from doing those things.
Huh? you confused me on this one sir ...
Are you being honest or are you being serious?
1. The pastors' names on the board outside the church. Yep
2. Special seating for pastors, first lady, first family, visiting pastors, and/or clergy.Yep
3. Acknowledging the pastor & first family during the service. You know the usual "we thank God for our pastor... Oh come on, you can do better than that!" and everyone claps and stands, roaring for the wonderful pastor.Yep
4. Special parking spaces for pastors, first family.Yep
5. Don't get me started on the whole adjutant thing (which I think is more common in pentecostal Black churches). I don't know what an adjutant is but it sounds like something that is adjacent to something else ...heads off to google ... oh an assistant? yep got that too
6. Special clergy attire.Yep
7. Special clergy elements for communion (ex. in some churches, the pastor has a special goblet to drink out of for communion while everyone else drinks from the shot glasses... lol)nope we all get the same thingy
8. Pastor's name on everything, everywhere you look - on programs, letterhead, billboards, flyers... nowadays, I can't imagine NOT doing that. I can give you 20 reasons why you MUST do that... but at the same time, it's marketing MAN and not GOD. It's marketing a local church instead of JESUS. But it's the norm, so... Yep
9. Calling him "Pastor" so-and-so... and everyone without a "special" calling is just Sister or Brother... Yep
Okay, that's 9... ;D
1. Pastor(s) being the main speaker of the hourYep
2. Pastor (or senior Clergy) makes most if not all decisionsYep
3. The ability of the clergy to make rules to apply to everyoneYep
4. Requiring ministers to be ordainedYep
5. Special requirements to be come ordainedYep
6. Requirements that clergy have to attend certain eventsYep
7. Clergy leading prayers (in some churches it would be odd for someone in the middle of the audience to start the prayer and lead it for the group)Yep
8. Clergy directing the order of worship (this can be saying put the bulitin this way or it can be done from the pulpit when the pastor makes a request)Yep
9. Clergy receiving a stipend (lay members do not receive a stipend)Yep
10. When saying the name of the church you attend you may follow up by saying where the Pastor is So and So.Yep
11. Pastors or Clergy being given time to deliver the sermon which is always longer than someone's testimony during testimony servicesYep
12. Clergy giving long prayers during the serviceYep
I'm not saying that some of these things are valid or not, I'm just saying these are some of the things that separate the laity from the clergy. In short if there is something that only certain members can do and others can't do then a divide exists.
Something exists to keep people whom we deem "unqualified" from doing those things.
YES, the pictures... another way of deifying leadership. SMH.
Interesting points bro!
I just gotta say this: I'm in chapter 4 now and I just gotta warn you: If you're a pulpit preacher or have been mulling the call of declaring God's Word from the pulpit you may not want to read chapter 4. We thought that the first 2 (we haven't started chapter 3 yet as far as discussion) were challenging our ideologies? In the words of DLawrence "You ain't seen nothing yet!"
Yeah, i remember when the first pastor of my church passed. Someone put up a photo of him in the cathedra chair (hehe I like that word even though we don't call it that) for about a month or so and draped some linens or something over it. *sigh* that rubbed quite a few folk the wrong way. but it happened all the same...
Yeah, i remember when the first pastor of my church passed. Someone put up a photo of him in the cathedra chair (hehe I like that word even though we don't call it that) for about a month or so and draped some linens or something over it. *sigh* that rubbed quite a few folk the wrong way. but it happened all the same...
There's a church here where the pastor died and they draped his chair in black linen (which is common. Usually, they drape a black linen over the board thingy (marquee thing) and a black wreath on the door). Anyway, he died like 3 or 4 years ago and that chair is STILL draped... to this day. No one is allowed to touch it.
There's a church here where the pastor died and they draped his chair in black linen (which is common. Usually, they drape a black linen over the board thingy (marquee thing) and a black wreath on the door). Anyway, he died like 3 or 4 years ago and that chair is STILL draped... to this day. No one is allowed to touch it.
When are you guys going to be ready to get into Ch3?
I haven't finished it yet, but it seems that everyone else has except Jonathan and me. I know he's got less flexibility with his obligations than I do, so we should probably leave it to him?
When are you guys going to be ready to get into Ch3?
I haven't finished it yet, but it seems that everyone else has except Jonathan and me. I know he's got less flexibility with his obligations than I do, so we should probably leave it to him?
agreed him and MB (how far are you MB?) I may re read it tonight its been a while since I read that chapter
I believe I'm torn on this issue. I mean, I have no problem 'giving honor to whom honor is due'. If we can do that for presidents and kings, why not the pastor. I have an idea of what my pastor does to prepare for Sunday and Wednesday, I'm not that diligent in my studying (just being real) so he can have it.
At the same time, I can understand the almost deification of some pastors @ some churches and it's a mess--a hot. mess.
I believe I'm torn on this issue. I mean, I have no problem 'giving honor to whom honor is due'. If we can do that for presidents and kings, why not the pastor. I have an idea of what my pastor does to prepare for Sunday and Wednesday, I'm not that diligent in my studying (just being real) so he can have it.
At the same time, I can understand the almost deification of some pastors @ some churches and it's a mess--a hot. mess.
1. The pastors' names on the board outside the church.
(nope just had a new sign made his name's not there)
2. Special seating for pastors, first lady, first family, visiting pastors, and/or clergy.
(he sits in the congregation said that earlier) we do have the seats normally no one uses them so I'll give u 1/2 lol
3. Acknowledging the pastor & first family during the service. You know the usual "we thank God for our pastor... Oh come on, you can do better than that!" and everyone claps and stands, roaring for the wonderful pastor.
(not often other than the fact that he does a lot of physical labor i.e. cleaning, gardening, maintenance, stuff of that nature)
4. Special parking spaces for pastors, first family.
(nope)
5. Don't get me started on the whole adjutant thing (which I think is more common in pentecostal Black churches).
(IDK what that is?)
6. Special clergy attire.
(he dresses down about 75% of the year suits 20% robe 5%)
7. Special clergy elements for communion (ex. in some churches, the pastor has a special goblet to drink out of for communion while everyone else drinks from the shot glasses... lol)
(nope he takes the same shot we take lol)
8. Pastor's name on everything, everywhere you look - on programs, letterhead, billboards, flyers... nowadays, I can't imagine NOT doing that. I can give you 20 reasons why you MUST do that... but at the same time, it's marketing MAN and not GOD. It's marketing a local church instead of JESUS. But it's the norm, so...
( other the his name along with telephone number for calls nope)
9. Calling him "Pastor" so-and-so... and everyone without a "special" calling is just Sister or Brother...
(whoever has a title is called by there title majority of the time and I always call him dad so I'll just "shrug on that one lol)
Okay, that's 9... ;D
agreed him and MB (how far are you MB?) I may re read it tonight its been a while since I read that chapter
@LL good points!
OAN my internet is on a "spiritual vacation" (technical difficulties) so ill be limited at least till Tuesday. I'm here just won't be as active.
And to me, the issue is not so much if leaders should be respected. I think we all agree leaders should be respected. I think the issue is whether clergy should be seen as "higher" or more important than "laity."
@LL good points!
OAN my internet is on a "spiritual vacation" (technical difficulties) so ill be limited at least till Tuesday. I'm here just won't be as active.
IRT Chapter 3, I'm having a hard time getting through it. I don't think I'm going to be ready before Thursday, but if I'm the only hold-out, then y'all go on ahead.
I see on some level we're not really feeling Chapter 3. :-\ :D
Well, I think we've pretty much exhausted discussion on Ch2, so it's time to move on to 3, come Thursday. :)
How many of you all would feel comfortable going to a worship gathering that didn't have an "order of worship" and just flowed?
I would.
I can't tell you how many impromptu, spontaneous worship gathering I've been a part of. The people in my circle of "friends" are all worshippers and praisers. Jesus is our lifestyle, not just what we do on Sabbaths or Sundays. So, it's nothing for us to end up in worship while sitting around someone's living room. Whenever we're together, we're digging into the Word. We'll take praise breaks in the parking lot, speak in tongues on a road trip, prophesy, sing hymns, minister to each other, etc.
So yeah, that's the norm for us.
One story I remember (cause y'all know I got a story for everything... lol): a few months ago, two sisters and I were returning to Selma from a weekend trip to Dallas. We left Dallas on Sunday morning, going straight to church in Selma. On the road that morning, I got a call from a young lady from Springfield I used to minister to. She was in an abusive marriage and her husband had just hit her, so she was packing to leave and wanted to come to meet me. After I dealt with her, my sisters and I began to pray. We prayed for a good hour or so and really went in. After prayer, we just kinda flowed into worship as one of the sisters started a hymn and we all joined in, then did hymn medleys... then, the other sister began sharing what the Lord was speaking to her, read the scriptures, and gave insight as the Holy Ghost gave it to her. We went back into worship, and the next thing we know, we were in Selma. That was a 7 hour trip and we spent about 5 in worship.
Contemporary Christianity still reflects this ideology. Pragmatism is unspiritual, not just because it encourages ethical considerations to be secondary, but because it depends on techniques rather than on God to produce the desired effects.
...
Unfortunately, pragmatism ("if it works let's do it"), not biblical principle or spirituality, governs the activities of many present-day churches.
...
The philosophy of pragmatism opens the door for human manipulation and a complete reliance upon oneself rather than upon God.
Alright, so let me dig in.
I found this quote interesting: "The meetings of the early church were marked by every-member functioning, spontaneity, freedom, vibrancy and open participation." I think you could make a case that most church services are not ran like this. Again, I would call "testimony service" the closest to this. It would be interesting to find a church that does service like this. If I'm not mistaken, the Quakers did their worship gatherings kind of like this. Again, I ask: how would you feel being in a worship service without an "order of worship" and basically everything being led by the Spirit?
Do you all agree with Luther presenting preaching as the main aspect of the worship service? It seems like before Luther the Eucharist (Mass/Communion) was center piece of the worship service. It seems to me like there's been a history of people putting in what they want for the worship service. From Luther making preaching the primary goal of the worship service to Zqingli proposing the Lord's supper quarterly. It just seems like so many have added their interpretation of what a worship service should hold and followers treated some of this as "major."
I also found interesting how the author argues that the preaching of salvation (you know the Billy Graham type-preaching, fundamentalist baptist, etc) during the Revival-movement time led the worship service to be more "individualistic, subjective and emotional." Not sure if I'm with that but that's interesting. I do think a lot of our worship services have became very "individualistic" but not so much because of salvation but of getting blessings and needing to be encouraged.
One last thing I'll say to jump start this discussion is the author's argument against pragmatism. I would make the argument that the "personal preference" argument comes from pragmatism, which basically says if it works, go with it.
Ok that's enough. Yall come on and dig in!!
I swear fo' Gawd, if you ever type a sentence like this again..... >:(
It's 'run', dude, 'run'.
How many of you all would feel comfortable going to a worship gathering that didn't have an "order of worship" and just flowed?
Not for nothin', I found their idea of a 'flowing' service to be quite similar.
Come in, be greeted, pray, sing, share what God has done for you that week (or, yesterday depending on when the group meets).
With the exception of sharing what God has done and no sermon, seems like a regular church service.
And, I'm sure their 'announcements' came in the form of 'We'll meet at such and such time tomorrow (or whenever).'
*kanyeshrug*
Interesting. I think the difference would be is that every week it wouldn't have to be in same order (singing, testimonies, etc). That, to me is the major difference.
I wouldn't call it a 'major' difference. There's only so many combinations of flipping the two that, after awhile, it wouldn't really matter.
I think a bigger difference (maybe) would be how long each was done. For example, a typical worship team sings three songs exhorting between each one as well as before and after.
Well, what if the team only sang two songs? What about only one? What about only exhortation with no songs?
See what I'm saying?
How many of you all would feel comfortable going to a worship gathering that didn't have an "order of worship" and just flowed?
I swear fo' Gawd, if you ever type a sentence like this again..... >:(
It's 'run', dude, 'run'.
Alright, so let me dig in.
I found this quote interesting: "The meetings of the early church were marked by every-member functioning, spontaneity, freedom, vibrancy and open participation." I think you could make a case that most church services are not ran like this.
Do you all agree with Luther presenting preaching as the main aspect of the worship service? It seems like before Luther the Eucharist (Mass/Communion) was center piece of the worship service. It seems to me like there's been a history of people putting in what they want for the worship service. From Luther making preaching the primary goal of the worship service to Zqingli proposing the Lord's supper quarterly. It just seems like so many have added their interpretation of what a worship service should hold and followers treated some of this as "major."
One last thing I'll say to jump start this discussion is the author's argument against pragmatism. I would make the argument that the "personal preference" argument comes from pragmatism, which basically says if it works, go with it.
1. What happens if you have bunch of introverts? for example lets say LL, Sketchman, and Myself are gather together ... I can pretty much guarantee that LL will do all of the talking and Sketch might fiddle with his ukulele and I might play around with my bass.
2. Cultural differences work the same way. even in a spontaneous environment what you think is important is what is going to happen *shrug*
3. I thought (I may need to re read this portion to see what the author was trying to point out) the reason for pragmatism was because if it isn't going against what the bible says then it is up to personal preference?
I think their point is more about spontaneity than about the actual order and content. It's about everyone being involved in sharing and every member of the body functioning. I'd share more, but I'm omw to an appt.
Churchy, I'll answer the question abt order when I get back to the office. There is certainly an undeniable conflict, but I think God is helping me to reconcile it all, little by little.
Good questions you're putting out there, dude.
I think the "personal preference" notion is one of the most detrimental ideas that ever came into the church. Leaves too much room for highly infallible, issue-laden, carnal-minded people to destroy the muscle matter of the body of Christ. Whether we care to see it or not, there IS a blueprint. God, in His instructions and designs, was always very specific (think Noah's Ark, Ark of the Covenant, Solomon's Temple, the Lord's Prayer, fasting, etc). He didn't say do it however you see fit as long as you reach me in the end. He gave instructions, like a good leader does. He's the creative one, and our creativity should be reconciled with His, not the other way around.
I'm opposed wholly to personal preference.
What happens if you have bunch of introverts? for example lets say LL, Sketchman, and Myself are gather together ... I can pretty much guarantee that LL will do all of the talking and Sketch might fiddle with his ukulele and I might play around with my bass.That sounds exactly like what you guys did on Skype the other night....LOL!! #thatisall
Cultural differences work the same way. even in a spontaneous environment what you think is important is what is going to happen *shrug*
I thought (I may need to re read this portion to see what the author was trying to point out) the reason for pragmatism was because if it isn't going against what the bible says then it is up to personal preference?
That sounds exactly like what you guys did on Skype the other night....LOL!! #thatisall
Ok, I wanna get back to something that's very interesting.
Again one of the fundamental ideas behind this chapter is the idea of everyone being able to participate in the worship service. One aspect is everyone being able to share the Word. Now here's where I'm going to muddy the water here. There are many (including myself) who believe that God does not call everyone to preach/teach. I'm fundamentally having a problem with this because it seems like according to the New Testament everyone was able to share something from the Word. As we'll see in chapter 4, the sermon has became something in which certain people are able to share. I'm saying this because I've been one that has wondered why so many are wanting to preach from the pulpit. Not that I have a problem with people preaching but I have wondered if more go into preaching for status or because they truly feel the call to declare the Word from the pulpit.
So, does this idea of "open participation" challenge your view on the call to preach and teach God's word?
Disclaimer: Many people criticize me when I say this, but I believe that over the centuries we've (not talking about us but you get the point) made Christianity way too complicated and put in too many unbiblical rules WITHOUT challenging them.
Paul asks, in Romans 10, how can the Israelites hear unless someone is preaching (or something to that effect). How can sermons be wrong?
Peter gave a sermon (or, are they calling it an empassioned plea/speech) in Acts.
Stephen, prior to being stoned, gave a sermon.
I'm not sure that sermons, in and of themselves, of bad.
I believe the problem comes when folks have to be passive during the sermon. I'd like to be able to ask questions if I desire. That may be from where the authors are coming. *kanyeshrug*
Paul asks, in Romans 10, how can the Israelites hear unless someone is preaching (or something to that effect). How can sermons be wrong?^^^ surprised by that.
Peter gave a sermon (or, are they calling it an empassioned plea/speech) in Acts.
Stephen, prior to being stoned, gave a sermon.
I'm not sure that sermons, in and of themselves, of bad.
I believe the problem comes when folks have to be passive during the sermon. I'd like to be able to ask questions if I desire. That may be from where the authors are coming. *kanyeshrug*
When we get to chapter 4 bring this back up because the author makes the case that the sermon (the way it's done in the contemporary church) is unscriptural.
But if I'm not mistaken, you was one that had said that you didn't believe everyone was called to preach or teach the Word (correct me if I'm wrong). Does this chapter in any way challenge that notion for you personally?
^^^ surprised by that.Why?
Why?
You're good, bruh. No apology necessary. You're correct about me saying that not everyone is called to preach the Word. But, everyone can discuss and dissect the Word. Two different things in my mind.
*shrug* I dunno. Just never knew you felt that way. :-\
I'm starting to re-think this... A few weeks ago I would've agreed. Now, I'm not so sure. I need to hit the Book...
With which part do you think you disagree--the 'not everyone is called part' or the 'everyone can dissect the Word' part?
I mean, we don't have the phrase 'jack-legged preacher' for nothin', right? :-\ :D We KNOW that cats can manipulate the Word for profit and nothing more, right?
I think I may have to retract my 'everyone' can dissect the Word. Some folks can, and do, come up with faulty interpretations of scripture. :-\
So I agree with Finney but not sure if I agree that anything necessary can and should be done. Now some argue that personal preference is fine when there's nothing specific in the Bible mentioned....hmmmm.
Based on my observation preaching is more for proclamation particularly reaching the unsaved. When I get home Ill do some more study. Very good question LaRue.
I guess I'd want to start by asking (myself) the question: what IS preaching (Biblically, not traditionally or historically)?
This is done to market worship to the unchurched. Employing the latest electronic technology, seeker-sensitive churches have been successful at swelling their ranks.
Well I'm going to try to get started on my response to Ch3. Basically, I want to focus on the four things listed in the "What is Wrong with this Picture" section on pgs 74-79.
The authors start the four-item list by saying "Not only is the traditional order of service unscriptural and heavily influenced by paganism (which runs contrary to what is often preached from the pulpit), it does not lead to the spiritual growth God intended." Then they ask you to consider these four points.
1. The Protestant order of worship represses mutual participation and the growth of Christian community.
I disagreed with this entire section, since their premise was that there is "absolutely no room" for anyone to share anything at all in today's protestant church and that the current order of worship "silences" church members. Although I think there could've been a point in there somewhere, I found this to be quite an exaggeration since today's churches have small groups, interactive classes, devotion/testimony service, and lots and lots of fellowship opportunities.
2. Second, the Protestant order of worship strangles the headship of Jesus Christ.
Can't say I thought of it like that before, but I can agree with that statement, and the subsequent explanation. One statement that had a heavy impact on me was "Jesus Christ has no freedom to express Himself through His body at His discretion. He too is rendered a passive spectator." That was... whew... I'd love to hear your feedback on that bold statement. I used bold because we'd all agree that Jesus has freedom to express Himself in our worship services, but is it truly AT HIS DISCRETION? Idk... I don't think so. Even our little line at the bottom of the programs "subject to change by the move of the Holy Spirit" makes me roll my eyes because it's just a meaningless caveat when weighed against what really takes place in worship services.
I also underlined the "huge tongue, many little ears" metaphor. Though it pains me to acknowledge it, and I'm sure it would most others, the truth is that overall, we DO come to church primarily to hear what the Pastor has to say. That's unfortunate, but true.
To be continued...
What happens if you have bunch of introverts? for example lets say LL, Sketchman, and Myself are gather together ... I can pretty much guarantee that LL will do all of the talking and Sketch might fiddle with his ukulele and I might play around with my bass.
Cultural differences work the same way. even in a spontaneous environment what you think is important is what is going to happen *shrug*
I thought (I may need to re read this portion to see what the author was trying to point out) the reason for pragmatism was because if it isn't going against what the bible says then it is up to personal preference?
Hmmmm.
Some would argue that because of different contexts (Bible context vs contemporary context) that things must change and some things that were in the Biblical context can't be applied to the contemporary context. Does context matter or not? This may be digging deeper than expected.....lol....but the "contextual" argument is used a lot to justify the "personal preference" thing.
2. You know I was thinking about the "service subject to change" thing on the programs. I kind of looked at it as positive. Never really thought of it the way you put it. And yeah, I think Jesus is not the main feature of many services in the church. Jesus is kind of on the side pew while everything else is being High and lifted up. And as you said, many do come to church to hear the pastor. Again, that's why I believe many people join the church primarily because of the pastor and not the overall aspect of the church.
Oh wow! And sorry I think we were both typing at the same time.....LOL!!
But let me ask you this: does this "spontaneity" of worship go against in some form your emphasis on order and structure? I'm just asking to be asking....LOL!
so, is the author saying that Jesus isn't powerful enough to be in charge of a worship service if he wanted to?
To me it seems like the author is saying that the order of service is more powerful than Jesus... *shrug*
That's what I interpret too....*shrug*
Here are a few quotes I found on preaching:
"Human presentation, through the Holy Spirit's power, of God's acts of salvation through Jesus Christ. This proclamation of God's revelation functions as God's chosen instrument for bringing us to salvation by grace. "
"The great prophets of the OT heralded God's direct messages against the sins of the people, told of coming judgements, and held out future hope of the great Day of the Lord."-Deuteronomy 11:19, Nehemiah 8:7-9, 2 Chronicles 15:1-2; 17:7-9; 35:3.
"Although the NT uses some 30 different terms to describe the preaching of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles, those most commonly used can be grouped under either proclamation (to herald, to evangelize) or doctrine (to teach). Many scholars define these emphases as either gospel preaching (proclaiming salvation in Christ) or pastoral teaching (instructing, admonishing, and exhorting believers in doctrine and lifestyle). -Acts 7:1-53, Acts 2, Colossians 1:28, Ephesians 4:11-16; Acts 20:17-21, 27), 1 Timothy 4:13-16; 5:17.
No, I think he's saying that Jesus won't force our hands so as to take over when He doesn't appear to be welcomed the way He wants to be welcomed. Remember that our God is a jealous God. He won't have any other gods before Him (and we can make an order of service, a pastor, a song, an auxiliary, or any other idol into a god) and He won't compete for our worship.
I don't think Jesus would take charge of a worship service if He wasn't welcomed in it as the center of it. Plus, can we even call it a worship service if He's not at the center?
According to this last quote, preaching boils down to 2 categories: proclamation and pastoral teaching. In your opinion, how much of contemporary black church preaching falls in any of these 2 categories?
33% and 33% respectively ... except on Easter than its mostly proclamation ... Mother's day there is very little teaching
Smh just heard that a pastor that just got married wants an office for the leading lady built inside the church....*sigh*
That's not uncommon, dear. *shrug*
Just about every church I know of has or wants an office for the pastor's wife.
So... are we finished discussing Ch3?? :-\
I am ... unless someone comes up with a great point to discuss
I've fallen behind. Except for a few minutes last night, I haven't picked up the book in a week. I'll try to contribute to chapter 4's discussion. Sorry guys.
One question that I (think I) posed earlier and hasn't been answered is "what was the mission of the NT church???" I'm not sure if I typed that here or if it's just jotted down in my notes, but it's worth discussing... I gotta find the page in the book where I wrote that so I can give it to you in context.
Not really sure now but is it...
Matt. 28:19-20 KJV
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Yet it does not map well with the mind-set of the first-century Christians who did not appear to be pressured into trying to get the entire world saved in one generation.
I found it. P71, last sentence:
So there, the authors were criticizing those who endeavored to save the world in one generation. They said that this goal was different from the first century church. So it made me wonder: what WAS the goal/mission of the first Church?
I thought the author's view was the fact that they were concentrating only on saving people in one generation. And not helping them develop and grow as Christians
An interesting website:
[url]http://www.earlychurch.com/index.php[/url] ([url]http://www.earlychurch.com/index.php[/url])
Thanks for the website!
I've really thought about (if I decide to get a Master's or PHD degree) doing a thesis paper or something on a topic connected to the early church.
Gooooood luck with that. Waaaay too much reading for me. :-\
Just thought I'd share this. I'm at my church for the first time in a minute and guess what?
They took the pulpit out. LOL :D :D
I'm sure it's not for the reasons we discussed in this thread, but still.... I chuckled. :-\ :D
I guess I spoke too soon. :-\ My friend (whose mother passed) had an episode and her hubby called me out of the sanctuary. We came back in about 20 min later and the pulpit was back in place. I guess they put it in when the choir is finished (which is a whole other annoyance, but whatever). :-\:-\
CS: I started on Ch4 this morning. About to peruse the earlychurch.com link.
Is everyone still with us?? I know Ch3 was a tough read for some, but I hope we're all still "in."
CS: I started on Ch4 this morning. About to peruse the earlychurch.com link.
Is everyone still with us?? I know Ch3 was a tough read for some, but I hope we're all still "in."
Hey Jonathan, did you know that that website is owned/sponsored/hosted by Anabaptists? Interesting stuff...
Do they also hammer rocks? :D
But no, I didn't, know that.
And, chapter four is messin with my head and, at the same time, confirming some things I've stated on LGM before.
:D :D :D :D :D :D That's exactly what I was thinking. LOL!
Yeah, I clicked on the fellowship page and it said "to contact other Christians who are living out the faith of the early Christians, click here..." (paraphrase). So I clicked. And it took me to a page that listed a bunch of Anabaptist organizations/people/churches.
I haven't dug far enough into Ch4 for it to mess with me. But you guys have me anxious to dig in... lol. I just started it this morning on the train, so I only got as far as p89. Thus far, I've already underlined a few things and I'm not in agreement with the authors. :-\ Perhaps I'll be the lone voice of dissent.
*reading about the sophists*
:o Wow. WOWWWW!!!!!!!!!
*reading about the sophists*
:o Wow. WOWWWW!!!!!!!!!
how can it be argued that only "certain" people are called to preach from the pulpit?Preaching today is a speaking style. Normally a preacher is comfortable talking in front of people. So it can be argued that if since some people speak better than others (able to project their voice, clear, maybe even eloquent) and are comfortable talking before groups of people than "certain" people are better suited for the tasked of preaching.
how much should our culture play into our church practices?
1. Preaching today is a speaking style. Normally a preacher is comfortable talking in front of people. So it can be argued that if since some people speak better than others (able to project their voice, clear, maybe even eloquent) and are comfortable talking before groups of people than "certain" people are better suited for the tasked of preaching.
thus being better suited = being predestined to preform a certain task= being called
I don't agree with this but that is because of my personal view of how gifts operate.
2. as long as it doesn't clash with thus said the Lord I'm cool with it. now that brings the question what did he say?
Also, what is your personal view of how gifts operate?
I'm going to reply to Churchy's question (and PHB's reply) in a second, but I have a question that I don't want to forget:
We are now in Ch4-5 of this book, and have been reading for nearly a month now. Have any of you begun to notice changes in the way you view your own church when you attend on Sundays (or any weeknights)? I went to my church this past Sunday for the first time since we began reading and I'm just wondering if it's just me... there were so many things that just irked me or bothered me or made me wonder or tilt my head... and some of this stuff was so normal to me before. Is it just me?
Also, I meant to ask @Jonathan, how has your P&W leading been since we had that discussion a few chapters back?
I'm going to reply to Churchy's question (and PHB's reply) in a second, but I have a question that I don't want to forget:
We are now in Ch4-5 of this book, and have been reading for nearly a month now. Have any of you begun to notice changes in the way you view your own church when you attend on Sundays (or any weeknights)? I went to my church this past Sunday for the first time since we began reading and I'm just wondering if it's just me... there were so many things that just irked me or bothered me or made me wonder or tilt my head... and some of this stuff was so normal to me before. Is it just me?
Also, I meant to ask @Jonathan, how has your P&W leading been since we had that discussion a few chapters back?
I'm going to reply to Churchy's question (and PHB's reply) in a second, but I have a question that I don't want to forget:
Page 98 is going to mess. folks. up.
Page 98 is going to mess. folks. up.
1. Honestly, that's what I'm beginning to believe preaching boils down to.....basically are you able to speak in front of people? It's like everyone can explain the Word but everyone is not gifted to speak and declare in front of people. Idk if I totally agree with that logic. Also, what is your personal view of how gifts operate? To be honest, what you said "thus being better suited........." makes me go back to my traditional view that everyone is NOT called to preach from the pulpit. But again, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that says that there is something "unique" that makes someone called to preach because a lot of sermons are (and I haven't preached my initial sermon........yet basically the same.
2. The problem with this question is that some will argue that we have to look at "thus saith the Lord" in the context that the Bible was written in, which would mean (according to this view) that there are some things that do not apply now because the world is different. This belief is a very conflicting thing for me. I don't have a full stance on it but I'm just saying.
First, I agree with both of PHB's responses to your questions, Churchy.
In response to the above quoted replies:
1. If there is no Biblical pulpit, how can everyone or ANYONE be "called" to preach from it?? What does it mean to be called to preach from the pulpit if there never was a pulpit ordained by Jesus in the first place?
Now I do believe that there are some people who are predisposed to be equipped to preach (similar to what PHB said) because of their gifts AND knowledge of the Word. But, to say that not everyone is called to preach from the pulpit just can't be Biblically supported. I think it's the "from the pulpit" part, and all its implications, that throws me off.
And before we even get to all of that, we still have to figure out how we can reconcile preaching today with the preaching referred to in the Bible. It's just not the same. This is part of the reason I'm not sure there IS a calling to preach. If we define preaching using the Biblical precedents, the requirements change, so the idea of a need to be called changes, too. (IMO)
On a related note, Churchy, what is it that made YOU personally believe you were "called" to preach and pastor?
2. Hmm... I forgot the original question. I'll be back.
You can serve Jesus (and youth) without being a preacher or a pastor or having any sort of title at all. I think it's great to evaluate, and continue to evaluate, your motives. There was something that had a great impact on me, so much so that it literally changed my outlook even concerning my own title and "office" in ministry. It was the passage on p121 that discussed how the classism began to develop within Christianity, and how suddenly, everyone started hearing this "call" to ministry.
I'm not speaking directly to or about you, Churchy. This is so much bigger than you and I, or any of us. The truth is, we DO have a lot of folks who claim to be called to preach, and honestly, I'm not even sure what that means. And I don't think they're sure either.
I think that if we could dig deeply enough, a vast majority (vast) would be found to be pursuing a higher class and not just looking to serve Jesus. I think that in too many cases, it all comes down to personality characteristics, leadership qualities, character, abilities, skills, etc.
I know (now) why people always told me what I was called to do. I believe firmly that I was born to be an administrator. My wiring confirms that. I believe that there is a prophetic gift on my life. For varied reasons, people say I'm called to preach. For other reasons, people say I'm called to teach.
But I'm realizing NOW, that none of that is as spiritual or as deep as the church makes it out to be. The Bible says many are called (not ALL, but many). And only a FEW are chosen. So what exactly does it mean to be "called"?
Bottom line, I think most of us pursue the class above pursuing the call. If that weren't true, there'd be a lot more Christians doing what JWs and Muslims do, going out into the highways and hedges, standing on the street corners and going door to door. But we don't want to do that because there's no glory in that. We want the title, the pulpit, the spotlight, and a captive audience. God help us.
Honestly I want to hear some opinions from pastors and preachers that are a part of our LGM Family (even if they haven't read the chapter).
@phbrown could a case be made biblically that the clergy/laity divide goes against NT principles?
Alright, so I think I"ll share my thoughts on chapter 4 (I'll do chapter 5 later).
This chapter was very hard for me to get with because I've always believed that the sermon is the most important part of the service. To even argue that the "contemporary" idea of the sermon is not biblically precedent is like.....WHOA! First I would disagree (from a black church perspective) that sermons are generally monologue. Our tradition is very big on call and response. And it seems like that practice is moving into many types of churches. We can say "amen", "preach", "well" to the preacher and it be normal.
First, there is a such thing as an interactive monologue. I wouldn't call what you described interactive, but to say that it's not a monologue because people holler out randomly isn't quite accurate either. I agree with the authors that today's sermons are indeed a monologue.
I also don't think that what you described is true to Black churches because some white, hispanic, and Asian churches have the "call and response" feature as well. I think it's more related to the denomination than the race. For example, you won't find too much call and response in a Presbyterian church, even if it's a Black one.
I believe the black church supports participation (again the sense of talking to the preacher) but not interruptions (as far as asking questions, etc). On page 57 in the footnotes, the author talks about how preaching in the synagogue allowed anyone to preach. I have to still wonder if this "everyone wants to be a preacher" attitude is justified and rooted in the biblical (they are arguing it's biblical) idea of everyone participating in the worship service.
Do you all agree or disagree that Jesus' sermon on the mount is not the same as many sermons in today's church? Agree
Honestly, I just can't see many modern day preachers/pastors supporting the biblically-argued idea of having services in which everyone participates. To me, I think many pastors/preachers would put this "mutual participation" thing in small groups. Agree. Some churches have it, they just call it Bible Study and wouldn't dare do it during a regular Sunday or Sabbath morning worship service.
I found the stuff on the sophists very interesting! And I had to ask myself if black church preaching has a "sophist" attitude, which includes "emotional appeals, physical appearance and clever language." I would still make the case that the black church values style more than substance. Then I started reading about Aristotle's "three point" principle and we see this VERY dominant in contemporary preaching. Again, whether people believe these practices should occur or not, just seeing the supposed origins of these things is like.....WOW! Agreed.
They were also talking about how people had to be "educated" to preach. Is it possible that we've made preaching too complicated in which you have to go to seminary just to preach in the present system? I'm not anti-seminary but I wonder sometimes if they've made certain things that were not meant to be complicated...complicated.
One of the points I appreciated was on p123 when they talked about how elders were made over time, by virtue of their seniority and service to the church (and presumably wisdom, though they didn't mention that). This is how it was when I was growing up. You just didn't have teenaged elders and 22 year old pastors and 21 year old Apostles. And you didn't get saved today and licensed tomorrow. When I was growing up, if you acknowledged "the call to preach" ::) you became a deacon first, and had to serve there faithfully for years. Then, you were elevated to minister, where you served faithfully... for YEARS. Then, about 10 years after you first acknowledged your "call", you may become an elder. Maybe. And that used to be where it ended for most folks. Nowadays, the process is a lot shorter, and it has nothing to do with seniority or service (or maturity or wisdom). Candidacy for eldership is judged by your ability to tune up. Period.
Do you all agree or disagree with the 5 ways the author argues sermonizing hurts the church? (1. Sermon makes the preacher the virtuoso performer of the regular church gathering; agree, but that's not the only thing that makes/made him the virtuoso performer 2. The sermon often stalemates spiritual growth (I think I may agree with this one for sure because of cliches', lack of applicaton/substance, and mimicking; this is why I love the "Rick Warren" idea of creating handouts at church.); don't know if I can agree with that one. Right now, I'm gonna say no, I don't agree. 3. The sermon preserves the unbiblical clergy mentality; Agree 4. Rather than equipping the saints, the sermon de-skills them (I think I may agree with this one too); Can't agree with that just yet. 5. Today's sermon is often impractical (Definitely agree that many sermons, especially in black tradition lack application)). Wholeheartedly agree.
Ok that's enough for now.
A couple of discussion questions from that link Churchy posted earlier in the thread.
1. Have the authors convinced you that Scripture does not support the role of pastor in its contemporary form? If so, why? If not, which of their biblical and historical arguments do you find flawed? Again, I think the author makes a good case and argument and has very valid points, in which I agree with. However, I'm not 100% sold on his overall argument of the contemporary pastor. But mostly agree with his points because I do think there is far too much pressure on the pastor to do certain things, such as visiting the sick, counseling, etc. This is why I kind of support the big church idea of having people besides the senior pastor counsel. I still believe, pastoring (in it's purest form) is still good for the body of Christ and is still one of the toughest jobs. If pastoring would get back to Shepherding and away from the CEO model, things might be a little better.
2. What in these two chapters was new to you? What came as a shock or a surprise? To be honest, the biggest thing (shock or surprise) would be the sophist talk and as I read and then evaluated what I see, I was like....hmmm. I've argued for a long time that we place too much emphasis on the pastor to the point where sometimes the pastor gets more glory in the worship service than Christ. Oh yeah, the talk on ordination was very shocking because ordination is a very big part of the church tradition I grew up in (and still in as of today).
3. Do you agree with the authors‘ assessment that it is more spiritually beneficial to receive ministry from a local body of believers where interaction and open sharing take place than it is to hear a sermon from the same person week after week, year after year? Explain. Why couldn't we have both EQUALLY BALANCED? I argue for this because I just don't see myself being able to be a part of church without some form of a sermon, mainly because I've been raised in this tradition for so long. I do agree however that sometimes the pastor can give so much and rarely be poured into as well. Also, I could also make the case that the pastor doing all of the teaching/preaching implies that the people do not have anything to contribute. I just can't argue for an abolishment of the sermon.....right now. HOWEVER I do think it would be nice to see more open sharing from the congregation but as LaRue said, a lot of this is in the form of bible study and small groups and I don't see a lot of pastors willing to get rid of the "sermon" system.
4. Have you ever found yourself evaluating your church experience based on the "quality" of the sermon? (In other words, if someone asked you, "How was church today?" your answer would include a description of the sermon.) Have you ever heard someone else do this? Explain. Yes, always (since I had sense....LOL). I've always believed again that the sermon is the most critical part of the service and if the Word was not brought the way I felt it should be (here comes a little subjectivity), then it wasn't a good service. At the same time, I am perfectly fine with a service that doesn't have a sermon.
Ok, so I'm in a class and my professor is a bit obtuse and I have enough reading to do there. I say all that to say, I ain't answering these essay questions---ain't. gonna. do it. *kanyeshrug*
The sophist thing was interesting. NEVER heard that before or the whole persuasive speech being the birth of the sermon discussion, either.
I WILL say that I am looking at what we do at my current church. To be fair, my pastor tries to elicit discussion during Bible study and Sunday School. I believe a LOT of folks just don't study enough to be able to articulate their questions so they sit there and nod their heads.
As far as the sermon, I agree that doing away with it would serve ME greatly. I ALWAYS hate when pastors say, 'We can get loud at a football game, but in the church we get quiet.' It's because there's action, homie. At church, it's just you talking; folks may be digesting what you're feeding; folks may be stuck on something you said and are checking for verification (it's during these times where I want to ask questions).
Anyway, that's what I've got so far.
Also, what is the solution, authors? It's easy to point out the flaws but what are your recommendations (or, do we have to wait for that?) :-\
This random thought just crossed my mind. If we take something bad and use it for good, is it still bad?? I asked a similar question regarding the steeples, but this one is a lil different. For an oft-used example, if a drug dealer gets pays his tithes is that money now bad money? If a person made millions investing her earnings from stripping, is her money dirty? So if this stuff has pagan roots, but we use it for good, is it still bad??
Yes. It's one of the reasons unbelievers are unbelievers. I've had discussions with many atheists who like to start or quickly bring up the fact that Christianity has its roots (and not just its practices) in paganism so learning that a lot of what the church does started in paganism is just the type of bullet an atheist loves. :-\
@phbrown the lack of bible reading in the body of Christ may be the reason why many support clergy/laity. Allows clergy to do hardwork while many don't study and analyze the Word for themselves.
So in other words the clergy and Laity divide is a result of our laziness?
As far as the sermon, I agree that doing away with it would serve ME greatly. I ALWAYS hate when pastors say, 'We can get loud at a football game, but in the church we get quiet.' It's because there's action, homie. At church, it's just you talking; folks may be digesting what you're feeding; folks may be stuck on something you said and are checking for verification (it's during these times where I want to ask questions).
Also, what is the solution, authors? It's easy to point out the flaws but what are your recommendations (or, do we have to wait for that?) :-\
Or maybe our laziness is a result of the perpetuation of the clergy/laity divide.
Yeah I may buy the 2nd book "Reimagining Church."
Then what the hello kitty are we supposed to do?? :-\
Or maybe our laziness is a result of the perpetuation of the clergy/laity divide.
The problem is many believers may actually leave churches by the thousands. :-\
the laborers are few...
The only response I have is we are supposed to do it the way the first century Christians did it.
The problem is many believers may actually leave churches by the thousands. :-\
You are really irking me.
Not in a bad (annoying) way. It's just irking me that you're the last person I would've expected to hear talking like this. [Newman] You're throwing me off, Jonathan, you're throwing me off!! [/Newman]
If anyone had asked me, I would've probably guessed that while reading this, I would end up trying to convince you all that we're supposed to do it that way. Now YOU keep saying it and I'm not quite ready to hear it. Not yet anyway... :-[
Okay, tantrum over. As for your last sentence, I don't see people leaving at all.... saints don't wanna hear what this book has to say. Saints don't wanna know the truth. Saints will find a way to explain it away with scripture. Trust.
I'm sooooo far behind....
I figured that.
Try to catch up if you can. We miss your input. Plus, we need some balance. Jonathan is over here trying to start a revolution and shut down all the churches. LMBO! :D
Nah seriously, we do miss your input (and Chs 4-5 are really, reeeeally good). I'll start on 6 tonight.
I figured that.
Try to catch up if you can. We miss your input. Plus, we need some balance. Jonathan is over here trying to start a revolution and shut down all the churches. LMBO! :D
Nah seriously, we do miss your input (and Chs 4-5 are really, reeeeally good). I'll start on 6 tonight.
Ok, I've got to buckle down and start reading. Shoot, I'm still on ch 3.
I wish I could tell you the part to skip ahead to, but since you don't have pg #s on the Kindle, I can't even tell you... just skip ahead a few pages. The beginning of 3 is boring, but it does pick up in the end. 4 and 5 are just downright good.
I wish I could tell you the part to skip ahead to, but since you don't have pg #s on the Kindle, I can't even tell you... just skip ahead a few pages. The beginning of 3 is boring, but it does pick up in the end. 4 and 5 are just downright good.For me, it's about making the time. My schedule has totally changed, and I don't ride the train much anymore, so those no-brainer opportunities to read have diminished. Now, I actually have to make time for it. Ugh!
Like you guys already know, I'm way behind in my reading. When I come to the discussions, you guys have written graduate thesis papers, and it's way too much for me to even try to catch up with or respond to. So, what I propose to do is comment on whatever happens to be on my mind at the time. I may go back and tackle some of what I saw in chapter 3. If it overlaps something that has been previously discussed, I apologize. Shoot me a link to that discussion and I'll be good.
There are a few things currently on my mind, but I will only tackle one at the moment:
Frank keeps pointing back to I Cor. 14 as an example of the basis for the structure of the 1st century church. I have a problem with that. First, the purpose of that chapter is to exhort the bretheren to make sure that they're edifying one another and not just themselves. The primary focus was on the speaking of tongues and how everyone is edified ONLY when there is an interpreter. So, when Frank uses verse 26 to show the structure of the 1st century church, I think he's a little off base. Granted, Paul DOES say, "when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation." But, when you take that verse and put it into the context of the entire chapter and include the last sentence of verse 26, you come away feeling like Paul just wants to be sure that everyone is edified when they do come together. This verse does not indicate that EVERY time saints get together EVERYONE will have something to add. He's just saying that when you do have something to add, make sure it edifies the group and not just yourself. So, that's my first bone of contention against the author's clamoring to get back to the 1st century way of doing things. I'll add more in a seperate post.
Well, that's just my first point. I have more, but I didn't want to inundate the thread with my musings all in one post.You mean you didn't wanna pull a Churchy?
Ok, so I'm now in chapter 4. Up to this point, I've read a lot about the liturgy of the modern-day church, and its origins etc. I've read about how the modern-day Sunday morning worship service isn't biblical and how it doesn't match the model of the 1st century church and so on. I've been reserving comment because I wanted to see if there would be any discussion (from the authors) relating to the ENTIRE church experience as it compares to the 1st century church. I may be wrong, but I'm getting the feeling that there won't be much discussion along those lines. Why? Because it would weaken the premise of the authors. Granted, the Sunday morning worship experience, in most cases, is more of a monologue. In some cases, the sermons rival the structure and appeal of the Greek rhetorical speeches. For the most part, the order of service doesn't leave room for input by anyone other than the pastor or guest speaker. But, that's just Sunday morning. I can't speak for anyone else's church, but my church meets multiple times during the week. On Mondays, we have a prayer service where, guess what? EVERYONE is encouraged to contribute. We have Bible Study on Wednesdays, where there is a facilitator, but again, guess what? EVERYONE is encouraged to participate. We have fellowships and gatherings where, again, EVERYONE is encouraged to participate. And by participate, I mean contribute meaningfully to the edification of each other by the use of our gifts.
My point is this: If the authors are going to compare the 1st century church to the church of today and promote the "organic" church, I think that all factors must come into play in order for there to be a good basis for comparison. Having said that, I am NOT saying that there shouldn't be changes made in the church today. What I am saying is, based upon what I've read so far, the picture painted of today's church is, in my opinion, bleaker than the reality.
With that said, I would contend that Sunday mornings could find a way to be more like the rest of the week (for those who meet beyond bible study).I'm actually ok with at least one aspect of Sunday morning worship service- the sermon. Ok, so there's no participation on the part of the others. So what? Sometimes that's needful. Not everyone is a teacher or pastor or evangelist. Some people just need to be taught. In addition, there are unbelievers that need to hear the Word of God. So, I don't see anything wrong with a God-inspired sermon.
I'm actually ok with at least one aspect of Sunday morning worship service- the sermon. Ok, so there's no participation on the part of the others. So what? Sometimes that's needful. Not everyone is a teacher or pastor or evangelist. Some people just need to be taught. In addition, there are unbelievers that need to hear the Word of God. So, I don't see anything wrong with a God-inspired sermon.
Now, some of that other stuff associated with Sunday mornings, I wish we'd do away with.
Ok, this is getting ridiculous! Everytime I go to church or some church event, I'm thinking about all the discussions we've had during the book club (and thread extensions like the "call" to preach).....SMH!!!
I would like to make a motion that we push the schedule back by at least 4 days. (we still haven't heard from music bishop)
SMH.
The next topic of discussion is gonna be Chs 6-9, I think? Idk. The schedule is on page 1 of this thread.
Yep you are correct 6-9 is slated for thursday.
Wow! I'm behind for the first time....LOL!
#life
I think it's disastrous to discuss this book with folks who haven't read it. What church person wouldn't think it's a bunch of outlandish gibberish if they haven't read it?
Discussing topics and subjects, sure. Discussing the book - with folks who haven't read it? ?/? I just don't get it. It's an obvious disaster. And none of us is scholarly enough to make the case the authors made, so all we're doing is putting it in our own words with isn't nearly compelling. It's just havoc.
That's all. I'm just venting. No need to pay me any mind. It's like trying to convince someone of the truth of Black History when they haven't studied it for themselves, so all they know is what the white school systems taught them for decades.
Don't pay me any mind, Churchy. That wasn't @ you and you have a right to post whatever you want to discuss. Seriously, that wasn't a correction aimed at you. I was just venting. And I should've stayed out of it like I intended to in the first place.
Again Churchy, I'm not talking @ you at all. I promise. You're good. :)
I think it's disastrous to discuss this book with folks who haven't read it. What church person wouldn't think it's a bunch of outlandish gibberish if they haven't read it?
Discussing topics and subjects, sure. Discussing the book - with folks who haven't read it? ?/? I just don't get it. It's an obvious disaster. And none of us is scholarly enough to make the case the authors made, so all we're doing is putting it in our own words with isn't nearly compelling. It's just havoc.
That's all. I'm just venting. No need to pay me any mind. It's like trying to convince someone of the truth of Black History when they haven't studied it for themselves, so all they know is what the white school systems taught them for decades.
Do we have to follow your outline, and read the text you are reading just to understand basic....oh nevermind. It's your thread. I found that to be...
:) Going back to the general thread where regular people can discuss topics that they....
Nevermind.
You went off on your rant and then expected nobody to reply?
Take care and enjoy YOUR peaceful hideway.
I suppose I can't voice my views without causing you to feel tension.
But your post just seemed...
but I'M being hostile?
Okay.
I think it's disastrous to discuss this book with folks who haven't read it. What church person wouldn't think it's a bunch of outlandish gibberish if they haven't read it?
Discussing topics and subjects, sure. Discussing the book - with folks who haven't read it? ?/? I just don't get it. It's an obvious disaster. And none of us is scholarly enough to make the case the authors made, so all we're doing is putting it in our own words with isn't nearly compelling. It's just havoc.
That's all. I'm just venting. No need to pay me any mind. It's like trying to convince someone of the truth of Black History when they haven't studied it for themselves, so all they know is what the white school systems taught them for decades.
I don't need a referee but thanks anyway. That was an opinion...a strong one....
So the other post (that I found to be very helpful and contructive) was just havoc??? We have not studied it for ourselves and its only what people have taught us for decades.
Yeah that's pretty strong..and because I comment about it now I'm violating a safe place of peace??? lol Wow. Who knew?
You went off on your rant and then expected nobody to reply?
Take care and enjoy YOUR peaceful hideway.
I suppose I can't voice my views without causing you to feel tension.
But your post just seemed...
but I'M being hostile?
Okay.
*long, deep sigh*
dang you know you just reminded me of this Nigerian dude I knew of .... oh well
Hey Mic,
Whats your opinion on ordination? I think that was the last topic we were discussing.
Am I not allowed to address this question?Stay on topic. Please and thank you.
dang you know you just reminded me of this Nigerian dude I knew of .... oh well
Hey Mic,
Whats your opinion on ordination? I think that was the last topic we were discussing.
... *shrug*
umm
hmm
well
Hows the weather?
*awkward*
Yeah, so although I have plenty to add to the ordination question...
I think I'll wait until tomorrow or a better time.
Still trying to "feel" my way around this place...took a strange little turn for a moment.
I read chapter 6 and can summarize that in one sentence....LOL!
Let me see how far everyone is then ill reveal....LOL!
lol ... some reason I don't think my 1 sentance will be the same as yours LOL but we will see
Ch 6, I thought, was such a major waste of trees. :-\
More tomorrow. Maybe. I'm still deciding.
Protocol says it starts tomorrow (6-9), but Bennettcol says I'm starting right now....LOL!
To me, chapter 6 can be summarized in one sentence: If you want to dress up for church fine but don't judge people who choose not to dress up. And I basically agree with that. That's all I gotta say for now....LOL!
Hey Sjon, how do you feel about chapter 8, the chapter about Ministers of Music?
hey Rue, have you made it to the chapter about tithing? Doesn't appear to be anything new that hasn't been discussed at length by Hammerock and FuriousStyles
Hey LL, the author quoted a jewish rabbi saying teachers/pastors back in the day worked so they wouldn't need to be paid. Whats your take on paying pastors today?
Hey Bly, How do you think marketing plays into dressing up for church?
Hey MB, have you gotten your book from work yet?!?!?!
Hey Sjon, how do you feel about chapter 8, the chapter about Ministers of Music?
hey Rue, have you made it to the chapter about tithing? Doesn't appear to be anything new that hasn't been discussed at length by Hammerock and FuriousStyles
Hey LL, the author quoted a jewish rabbi saying teachers/pastors back in the day worked so they wouldn't need to be paid. Whats your take on paying pastors today?
Hey Bly, How do you think marketing plays into dressing up for church?
Hey MB, have you gotten your book from work yet?!?!?!
I'll be interested to see if anyone's ideas of tithing have been challenged or completely changed. This has been a huge debate for years on LGM and in the church as a whole. To me, the issue boils down to how Christians should view the OT and anything before Jesus' resurrection.
One thing I do want to raise an issue with (not saying we should get rid of it because to some degree I kind of like it) is the idea that the Bible supports the praise team concept as the "best" concept as far as opening services. How do we know that the Levites were actually a praise team in the modern way we see it?
Hey Sjon, how do you feel about chapter 8, the chapter about Ministers of Music?
hey Rue, have you made it to the chapter about tithing? Doesn't appear to be anything new that hasn't been discussed at length by Hammerock and FuriousStyles
Hey LL, the author quoted a jewish rabbi saying teachers/pastors back in the day worked so they wouldn't need to be paid. Whats your take on paying pastors today?
Hey Bly, How do you think marketing plays into dressing up for church?
Hey MB, have you gotten your book from work yet?!?!?!
I do wonder what it would be like to go back to just having congregational singing.
Even though with God all things are possible I don't see sweeping changes when it comes to music ministry, especially in black churches.
I see no difference between a praise team, and a bunch of deacons leading devotion. They are exactly the same where the only difference is the choice of songs. Therefore it is not the "best" concept in my opinion just a different flavor of the same concept.You're kidding, right. Perhaps, it's because I'm musical (read: I sing) many deacons are HORRIBLE singers or are OLD and HORRIBLE singers.
A group of people standing up front, leading songs and asking the congregation to join in with the singing.
This chapter is making rethink something our last pastor believed. To sing on the praise team he wanted the best singers. Basically it was a audition. One of my buddies felt like it wasn't fair for only certain people being able to sing on the praise team....hmmm.
You're kidding, right. Perhaps, it's because I'm musical (read: I sing) many deacons are HORRIBLE singers or are OLD and HORRIBLE singers.
It used to be PAINFUL for me to sit through devotion when I was a MOM @ a baptist church.
ROFL!!! I wasn't thinking about skill level when it comes to singing but you have a valid point
And I don't think it was an accident.
Like what happened?
we attempted to grow too fast and lost our focus of our mission?
@SJ irt PHB's assessment, I agree. Quite tactful.
That said, although the wind has departed from my sails, I was definitely enjoying the book and moreso the dialogue. I see no reason we can't get back on track if everyone wants to.
I know personally it'll take some effort to readjust my focus, but I'm willing if y'all still want to.
One thing that I agree with (Ch7) is that our musical worship CAN (and in many cases HAS) become more like entertainment than corporate worship. Don't get me wrong, as a musical person, I love the entertainment (lol) because I love good music, good vocals, good harmony, modulations, inversions, staccato, vibrato, and other dynamics. But what I love most is the purity of worship and a lot of times we lose that with the entertainment.Point taken, and agreed with.
Just a point.
One thing that I agree with (Ch7) is that our musical worship CAN (and in many cases HAS) become more like entertainment than corporate worship. Don't get me wrong, as a musical person, I love the entertainment (lol) because I love good music, good vocals, good harmony, modulations, inversions, staccato, vibrato, and other dynamics. But what I love most is the purity of worship and a lot of times we lose that with the entertainment.
Just a point.
So did the author convince any of you all that we should get rid of choirs, praise teams ,etc., and just go totally to congregational singing?Nope.
Why am I asking this?.....LOL!
So a question (that we've discussed a zillion times over) to revisit: can God still get the glory if we don't sound good? If we just all sing, and maybe sound a mess, no rehearsal, no perfection, no excellence, will He receive our gifts and be as pleased as He would be if we did it the "professional" way?I believe God gave gifts to be used to edify the body. As a result, I believe the focus of music ministries need to be more inclusive than exclusive.
So a question (that we've discussed a zillion times over) to revisit: can God still get the glory if we don't sound good? If we just all sing, and maybe sound a mess, no rehearsal, no perfection, no excellence, will He receive our gifts and be as pleased as He would be if we did it the "professional" way?
So a question (that we've discussed a zillion times over) to revisit: can God still get the glory if we don't sound good? If we just all sing, and maybe sound a mess, no rehearsal, no perfection, no excellence, will He receive our gifts and be as pleased as He would be if we did it the "professional" way?
So a question (that we've discussed a zillion times over) to revisit: can God still get the glory if we don't sound good? If we just all sing, and maybe sound a mess, no rehearsal, no perfection, no excellence, will He receive our gifts and be as pleased as He would be if we did it the "professional" way?Here's the way I see it:
Here's the way I see it:
If we have a designated praise team and musicians, and there is a scheduled practice time. There should be absolutely no reason to come away with a product that is not polished. And, if a designated praise team with designated musicians with designated practice time(s) come together on a Sunday morning sounding a hot mess, ain't no way God is glorified in that, because the product shows where the heart is. If the praise team and musicians are willing to offer up just anything, they're no better than Nadab and Abihu (Aaron's sons who offered up strange fire). And we know how God felt concerning their offering.
Beyond that, the word says in Psalm 33:
"1 ¶ Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright.
2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings.
3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise."
It didn't only say "make a loud noise".
Having said that, when a group of people gather together, with hearts on fire for the Lord, and they sing songs of praise and can't one of them hold a note, it won't matter, because their heart is in their praise. And their love of God is shown in just the desire to give him praise.
Why is the 2nd example acceptable and the first not? Because, in the first example, the lack of effort to perfect the song through rehearsal shows their heart toward God. If you chose to be on the praise team, you are akin to the Levites whose job it was to minister unto the Lord. Ain't no half-steppin' when it's your "job".
Here's the way I see it:LOVES!
If we have a designated praise team and musicians, and there is a scheduled practice time. There should be absolutely no reason to come away with a product that is not polished. And, if a designated praise team with designated musicians with designated practice time(s) come together on a Sunday morning sounding a hot mess, ain't no way God is glorified in that, because the product shows where the heart is. If the praise team and musicians are willing to offer up just anything, they're no better than Nadab and Abihu (Aaron's sons who offered up strange fire). And we know how God felt concerning their offering.
Beyond that, the word says in Psalm 33:
"1 ¶ Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright.
2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings.
3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise."
It didn't only say "make a loud noise".
Having said that, when a group of people gather together, with hearts on fire for the Lord, and they sing songs of praise and can't one of them hold a note, it won't matter, because their heart is in their praise. And their love of God is shown in just the desire to give him praise.
Why is the 2nd example acceptable and the first not? Because, in the first example, the lack of effort to perfect the song through rehearsal shows their heart toward God. If you chose to be on the praise team, you are akin to the Levites whose job it was to minister unto the Lord. Ain't no half-steppin' when it's your "job".
Good points! The author would argue though that the Old Testament can not be used when discussing how the New Testament church should function. What do you think?Baloney!
That's why when it's all said and done I personally believe this issue (and many of the issues we've discussed and will discuss) boils down to this: What is the role of the Old Testament in the life of a New Testament/Post-Apostolic age believer? I say this because a lot of what happens in the church traditionally is to some degree supported by the old testament.
Baloney!
If the OT can't be used in discussing the NT church, then the OT can't be used to discuss anything else that happens or is referred to in the NT, including Jesus Christ.
The fact of the matter is that the OT was not done away with with the coming of Christ. Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets, not to destroy them. That last line right there is way too deep for me to try to explain in a couple of sentences. But, suffice it to say, the OT is relevant for a lot of reasons, even for discussion of NT practices and customs and procedures and such.
I see what you're saying. Got a question: now the Greek word used in Matthew 5:17 in the KJV for "fulfilled" is "Pleroo" which means to bring to release, to carry into effect, causing God's will to be done, to make complete, etc. So my question would be, what's the difference between something being destroyed and something being "completed?" Maybe your question is deeper than what I'm thinking, but the difference between something being destroyed and something being completed is almost like the difference between night and day. When a building goes from blueprint to structure, it's complete. Take a wrecking ball to the structure and it's destroyed.
Looking at the context of Matthew 5 (even to 7), some would argue that Jesus was presenting a new "interpretation" of the law. Again, this is why the issue, to me, boils down to figuring out what the use of the OT is for the Christian. Without re-reading all of Mat. 5-7, I know this much: Jesus made the law real simple in that he essentially said that it's based on one thing, love. The first and greatest commandment: Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart..., and the second, thou shalt love thy neighbor... Everything else is built on that. Different interpretation? Not so sure about that. Better understanding? Definitely
And related to that, has anyone read chapter 8? If so, has your views on tithing and clergy salary changed? Here's where I stand on the tithing issue: To be perfectly honest (since we're a family), I kind of have a problem with people preaching tithing to a point where it makes it seem like if you don't tithe you're under a curse. Part of the problem with that (as the author identified) is that most of the time people don't read the entire chapter or even consider the context of the time. I'm not against tithing per se, but how do we know that when it says in Malachi "bring tithes and offerings to the store house that there may be meat in my house", it is talking about money (the dollars we have) versus actual meat? I haven't read chapter 8
I won't try to debate the tithing issue because it's been debated entirely too much on LGM but just wanted to get your opinions of if how you felt about tithing was challenged.
So did the author convince any of you all that we should get rid of choirs, praise teams ,etc., and just go totally to congregational singing?
nope
LOL I figured the author was not going to convince people, especially those who are musicians and raised in music ministry, to get rid of choirs, praise teams, etc.It's akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater and there's no need for that.
Again, I understand the author's point and he makes a good one but....idk......I guess I just don't see it (right now) as a make or break thing in the church. *shrug*
Yeah, I don't believe we need to get rid of choirs and stuff, but I do think that we should place a lot less of an emphasis on that aspect of ministry. Honestly, I would just like to see the church at large focus about 60% of its attention on evangelism and outreach; 30% on education, and the other 10% on everything else (administration, music, worship services, auxiliaries, conferences, etc).
BTJM.
I've been reading excerpts from Chapter 7 and to be honest with you, I am starting to question myself. Shesh...they are really talking a lot about things that are near and dear to my heart...music ministry, praise teams, choirs, etc. I agree with you guys when you say that black churches will never do away with music ministry but this book does make some valid points about music though. *shrug* Maybe we have do put music above what it should be. :-\ Would I still go to church if I didn't play? Would I enjoy service as much without music? Hmmmmm :-\
This book is really going to change CHEVONNE forever....one way or another.
Ahhh, now those are great questions. I'm sure most of us would say 'yes' so we won't go there :-\ that's a personal thing between us and God.You're absolutely right bro! ;) I had to actually search myself to make sure that I'm not so carried away on playing that I actually forget the whole purpose of what I do. If one isn't careful, they could easily lose focus and begin to worship music instead of Christ. I know without a doubt that I would still enjoy church without music. It would take me a while to get over it because I love to play and sing soooooo much, but I would definitely do it.
I stand by what I said earlier, the focus of music should be to glorify God through song WITH the congregation. When we begin to think that we're more important than the one to whom and about whom we're supposed to be singing, it's time to check our motives.
No chord is better than Christ. No singer is better than the Savior. And, no music ministry is better than the Messiah.
BTJM.
You're absolutely right bro! ;) I had to actually search myself to make sure that I'm not so carried away on playing that I actually forget the whole purpose of what I do. If one isn't careful, they could easily lose focus and begin to worship music instead of Christ. I know without a doubt that I would still enjoy church without music. It would take me a while to get over it because I love to play and sing soooooo much, but I would definitely do it.
I would certainly hope that I would never have to do this though. :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
Oh and Chevonne and Jonathan, I feel like one of the big themes of this book is that the Old Testament was done away with when Jesus died on the cross, which means that everything (all practices, customs, traditions, etc.) were done away with when Jesus died on the cross. Many of those practices would include music, emphasis of meeting in a building, clergy attire, possibly tithing, etc.
Motives need to be checked, for sure. But, to eliminate music altogether, I don't really believe God wants that.
I've been reading excerpts from Chapter 7 and to be honest with you, I am starting to question myself. Shesh...they are really talking a lot about things that are near and dear to my heart...music ministry, praise teams, choirs, etc. I agree with you guys when you say that black churches will never do away with music ministry but this book does make some valid points about music though. *shrug* Maybe we have do put music above what it should be. :-\ Would I still go to church if I didn't play? Would I enjoy service as much without music? Hmmmmm :-\
This book is really going to change CHEVONNE forever....one way or another.
Ch8, tithing and clergy salaries...
Well, on the subject of tithing, let me say this:
3. I have studied this subject pretty thoroughly and I am pretty comfortable arguing both sides of the coin. I believe the tithing debate has merit from both perspectives, but the bottom line is that there really IS no requirement for us to tithe today. The only argument we have (as Frank pointed out) is Malachi 3, which is irrelevant when studied in context, the Mosaic Law (which is also irrelevant, since we don't keep the rest of the Mosaic Law), and the Abrahamic tithe, which is totally different. Every scripture in the NT about giving instructs us how to give, and none of them compel or even encourage us to give the tithe.
My bottom line: the authors are right on this one. We should give liberally, cheerfully, and deliberately, as I always teach in new members classes. But there's no Biblical requirement for Christians to give the tenth. That said, I am a tither and probably always will be. Tithing wasn't even mandated in the Church until centuries after Jesus Christ and the apostles died. If it was mandatory, why weren't they doing it in the first several centuries?
IRT Clergy Salaries: I think Paul settles this matter and I don't even think it's debatable. Clergy salaries are not Biblical and neither are mandatory honorariums. Does that mean it's wrong or bad to give a pastor a salary? I don't know. I guess I'm on the fence with that one, leaning toward no, it's not wrong. But as we often do, we tend to take something "just barely okay" and make it a must-do, incorporating our own sentiments and proof-texting to make it mandatory, which IS wrong.
I know that ministry costs. If no one knows that, I do. And I'm of the seemingly conflicting belief that we should live off of our gifts (in other words, the gifts God gave us should be used to sustain us financially). However, that doesn't mean we should charge people for our gifts or demand a salary for our service to the body of Christ. That's where we get into trouble. And I agree with the authors that this is largely why our churches have such financial difficulties and compromise so much (and are so tempted to employ gimmicks and fraudulent behavior). We are under so much strain to support these salaries, that we HAVE TO get more money. And that just wasn't a focus of the early church's mission. If we've screwed up in no other area, we've definitely screwed up in that one.
My bottom line for this entire thread and discussion is really that if we're unsure what to do, we should take a look at what the Apostles taught (by word or demonstration) and stick as closely to that as humanly possible.
Well I don't play, but I've been to more than a few services without music and I'll be the first to admit, I don't usually enjoy it. In fact, when I went to my own church a few weeks ago, the musicians were very late (and left early ::)) so they did P&W without music. It wasn't that great, but it also made me wonder how come it wasn't that great? Like, they cut the set short (lots of exhortation and only one song - usually there's 2-3 songs and some exhortation), and the exhortation seemed to be almost pleading for cooperation, with an apologetic tinge to it. Why is that? Why can't we worship THE SAME without music? :-\
We're conditioned. Someone/something down the line was successful at shifting our focus from pure worship that only required clean hands to a modern form of worship that requires perfect music, perfect harmonies, perfect lighting, a perfect temperature, perfect positioning and perfect settings.
Let me ask this for understanding:
I know a little bit about the old testament offerings but I need clarification on how those offerings can be used by preachers today as justification to take up a certain amount, especially on these Christian praise-a-thon programs. If firstfruits was an old testament concept that (based on my knowledge and please correct me if I'm wrong) was not taught by Jesus or anyone post-resurrection, how can that be used as a way to collect offerings?
And back to the music thing: not only did someone do a good job shifting our focus from pure worship to worship requiring perfect harmony, perfect music, perfect lighting, etc, but we (the body/laity) did a poor job in not questioning these assumptions/beliefs over time. I feel like we are at the point of no-return on this issue.
Gold.
Love what LaRue has said. #thatisall
One last comment on the whole "personal savior" thing...
I thought the personal savior discussion was like Ch6 - a ridiculous argument and a waste of paper. However, the authors made a good point that cannot be overlooked, and at the very least, it is worth a moment of reflection. They said something along the lines of: the introduction of Jesus as a "personal savior" helped facilitate the transition of Christianity from a corporate relationship to a very individualistic one. *just had to look it up* The exact quote I'm referencing says "...the phrase "personal Savior" reinforces a highly individualistic Christianity. But the New Testament knows nothing of a "Just-me-and-Jesus" Christian faith. Instead, Christianity is intensely corporate. Christianity is a life lived out among a body of believers who know Christ together as Lord and Savior."
I thought that was an interesting point because for all the talk we do about the "body of Christ" and how we are a family and ONE Church and all that, the truth is that we're really an individualistic group of believers. I can't place all the blame on that one silly phrase, but I do wonder if there are a bunch of "little things" that lend themselves to this transition toward individualism within the body.
Not necessarily directed at the "personal Savior" concept, but the individualistic direction the body of Christ has been headed in (particularly in this country) is something I"ve been saying on here for years. Christianity is not a "me, myself and I that's all I got in the end cause I found out and it ain't no need to cry from now on Imma be my own best friend" faith. It's a "when one hurts all hurts" faith (1 Corinthians 12).
Amen.
I'm reminded of Romans 12:15 "rejoice with them that do rejoice and weep with those who weep."
I'll make sure to read chapter 9...after I read chapters 6-8....
I'll make sure to read chapter 9...after I read chapters 6-8....
Oh and LaRue, I don't know if you already answered, but it seems like the author is arguing that the old testament is irrelevant when it comes to New-Testament/post resurrection Christians. Do you agree or disagree with that idea?
What I DO think is interesting though - and I always have found this interesting - is that modern day Christians DO INDEED pick and choose which parts of Levitical law and Mosaic law are considered Biblical mandates and which can be conveniently ignored. And THAT right there is something that every denomination and non-denomination does - except a few Hebrew Pentecostals, who observe all the OT laws and feasts.
Welp, so we discuss the last chapters this week. This has been a great discussion guys! So just a question of 2:no not really, the only thing that truly became apparent to me is that without love amongst Christians it doesn't matter. I don't care what the preacher wears, I don't care about the order of service, I don't care about where we decide to meet at, I don't care about the tithing or which laws to follow, I don't care about how long the sermon is. To me the early church exemplified love for one another. Everything else is moot because we lack love for one another.
1. Is there ANYTHING that has changed as far as your perspective, opinion, conviction on something? Is there anything that has challenged your belief but maybe not totally changed? Is there something that was not changed at all after reading this?
2. Does the origin (or knowing....) of something affect how you view the worth/value of a particular church practice?no, almost turns into a useless fact... nice to talk about but thats it
3. If you could summarize this book in a sentence or two, what you it be?
QuoteOrganic churches are characterized by Spirit-led, open-participatory meetings and nonhierarchical leadership.
page XIX
4. Are you planning on buying the "solutions" book "Reimagining Church?"No
5. What did you most enjoy about the book? Least enjoy?
Welp, so we discuss the last chapters this week. This has been a great discussion guys! So just a question of 2:1. My view of a lot of church traditions has changed somewhat. I mean, I've never been a proponent of doing things just because tradition dictates it. But, it was somewhat eye-opening to see some of the origins of these traditions/practices. b) There was nothing written that changed my belief.
1. Is there ANYTHING that has changed as far as your perspective, opinion, conviction on something? Is there anything that has challenged your belief but maybe not totally changed? Is there something that was not changed at all after reading this?
2. Does the origin (or knowing....) of something affect how you view the worth/value of a particular church practice?
3. If you could summarize this book in a sentence or two, what you it be?
4. Are you planning on buying the "solutions" book "Reimagining Church?"
5. What did you most enjoy about the book? Least enjoy?
1. My view of a lot of church traditions has changed somewhat. I mean, I've never been a proponent of doing things just because tradition dictates it. But, it was somewhat eye-opening to see some of the origins of these traditions/practices. b) There was nothing written that changed my belief.
2. Somewhat. Yesterday, we had baptism. After the candidates were baptized, a brother motioned to me and said "Play, 'Take me to the water...". I cringed. I was like, "Why?". They were already baptized. Why play a song that says "take me to the water"? They sing that song neary EVERY time someone is baptized. Is it even necessary to sing? I didn't play it, but they sang anyway. lol
3. I come away feeling like this book is nothing more than a passive plea for the adoption of the organic church mindset/practice.
4. No.
5. I most enjoyed the conversations that took place. I least enjoyed....I don't quite know how to put it...I guess I can say the style of the authors. At some point, it became predictable and unconvincing, and as I stated earlier, had an overall feel of being a passive pitch in favor of the organic church "movement".
Ummm.... we didn't discuss Ch10-11 yet... or 12, for that matter. LOL. Is everyone gonna be ready? I plan to finish by Thursday, but I haven't read them yet. I'm about halfway through 10.I'm still catching up but I'll definitely be ready for the upcoming discussion!!
I'm still catching up but I'll definitely be ready for the upcoming discussion!!
OAN if it's possible, could you tell me in advance what we'll be studying next...the next book? ;D
I don't want to be late like I was this time.
finally started reading about proof texting
However I didn't know the new testament was arranged in order of length. (not that it mattered to me just an interesting thought)
I also like the point the author made about how people (even I did this) quote scriptures out of context.
Looks like we never finished our discussion. So I want to put my final thoughts out on this book, including the last 3 chapters:
1. As it relates to seminary/Christian college education, I don't have a problem with it as long as it is not hailed as being elite over those who may not choose to go to seminary. I think seminary is good as far as educating pastors and lay people but I do not think it should be seen as the norm. Just to add, I do think we need more modeling of our faith versus impartation of knowledge but I'm favor of both (with us still needing more modeling than knowledge).
2. The youth pastor part bothered me. I understood his point (and he made a very good point) but I see the need and maybe youth pastors don't have to function so much in the preaching capacity but I still see them as needed.