Acts 2 or Acts 17?

[Tarheel Baptist]

I found this interesting (and true) on a number of levels.

http://www.markhowelllive.com/acts-2-small-group-ministry-acts-17-culture/

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I found this interesting (and true) on a number of levels.

http://www.markhowelllive.com/acts-2-small-group-ministry-acts-17-culture/

I find it quite true as well.

 

[T-Bone]

Great insight!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I found this interesting (and true) on a number of levels.

http://www.markhowelllive.com/acts-2-small-group-ministry-acts-17-culture/

I find it quite true as well.

Do you disagree with his cultural comparison?

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I found this interesting (and true) on a number of levels.

http://www.markhowelllive.com/acts-2-small-group-ministry-acts-17-culture/

I find it quite true as well.

Do you disagree with his cultural comparison?

No. Truth is I have been saying this for a while. Even the presentation of the gospel changed from Jew to Gentile in the book of Acts. To the Jew (a person who believed the Bible) Paul set about identifying Jesus as the Messiah. To the Gentile (one who did not know the Bible) Paul went about establishing God as creator before establishing Jesus as the Messiah.

In the US, especially in the past, many at least conceptually believed the Bible. They had basic knowledge of God, they had been to some form of SS and had been exposed to some truth. (Perhaps less now, but still more than in a foreign country) In Canada, many have no idea of these basic facts. They have driven by a church, they have heard the name of Jesus Christ (usually as a curse word), but they have no concept of who he is, or what he did for them. So, evangelism needs to change. Witnessing techniques need to change. Much more thoroughness needs to be used. Far less decision based pressure needs to be used.

Perhaps it would be prudent to look at the "fields". One has been plowed, seed sown, now it needs watering and weeding. The other is unbroken ground, it needs to be plowed and seed sown long before watering and weeding happen. Watering and weeding an unplowed field, or a fallow field, is almost a waste of time.

Now, metaphors break down easily, I was trying to make a simple point, not a hard and fast rule.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I found this interesting (and true) on a number of levels.

http://www.markhowelllive.com/acts-2-small-group-ministry-acts-17-culture/

I find it quite true as well.

Do you disagree with his cultural comparison?

No. Truth is I have been saying this for a while. Even the presentation of the gospel changed from Jew to Gentile in the book of Acts. To the Jew (a person who believed the Bible) Paul set about identifying Jesus as the Messiah. To the Gentile (one who did not know the Bible) Paul went about establishing God as creator before establishing Jesus as the Messiah.

In the US, especially in the past, many at least conceptually believed the Bible. They had basic knowledge of God, they had been to some form of SS and had been exposed to some truth. (Perhaps less now, but still more than in a foreign country) In Canada, many have no idea of these basic facts. They have driven by a church, they have heard the name of Jesus Christ (usually as a curse word), but they have no concept of who he is, or what he did for them. So, evangelism needs to change. Witnessing techniques need to change. Much more thoroughness needs to be used. Far less decision based pressure needs to be used.

Perhaps it would be prudent to look at the "fields". One has been plowed, seed sown, now it needs watering and weeding. The other is unbroken ground, it needs to be plowed and seed sown long before watering and weeding happen. Watering and weeding an unplowed field, or a fallow field, is almost a waste of time.

Now, metaphors break down easily, I was trying to make a simple point, not a hard and fast rule.

I agree and was a little surprised that we agreed so readily. 

I think the church's response to this and the methods we would use in relation to this change might bring us some disagreement. IMO, many IFBs and some SBCs in my area of the country still operate as if this wasn't true.

 

[Bob H]

I found this interesting (and true) on a number of levels.

http://www.markhowelllive.com/acts-2-small-group-ministry-acts-17-culture/

I don't know man. I'll have to give it more thought. Before I comment I have a question about small groups. My home church has small groups and from the way I take it {I've never been to one} they go over a certain bible passage and everybody gives their opinion about it and that's it. Is that the way they're done or is there more to it? Is there any actual teaching done?

 

[lnf]

I don't think you can judge all small groups from a single sampling.  My (now deceased) brother used to lead a small group.  He spent a lot of time preparing the lesson.  And I know from talking to him that he had to carefully balance the discussion so that it didn't rabbit-trail away from the text.

Much does depend on the leader.  Each has an individual style and brings individual gifts to the table.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I don't think you can judge all small groups from a single sampling.  My (now deceased) brother used to lead a small group.  He spent a lot of time preparing the lesson.  And I know from talking to him that he had to carefully balance the discussion so that it didn't rabbit-trail away from the text.

Much does depend on the leader.  Each has an individual style and brings individual gifts to the table.

Wanna explain how this is different from a SS teacher? I believe the argument is called a distinction without a difference.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I don't know man. I'll have to give it more thought. Before I comment I have a question about small groups. My home church has small groups and from the way I take it {I've never been to one} they go over a certain bible passage and everybody gives their opinion about it and that's it. Is that the way they're done or is there more to it? Is there any actual teaching done?

I've heard  similar criticisms.  That sort of thing fits in with the postmodern culture and its aversion to anything doctrinally certain, as it also fits the tendency against having any authority or structure within the ecclesiastical body.  It's the mistaken confusion that just because there is neither bond or freeman in the body that we are all equally gifted and have the same calling.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Acts 17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.

He reasoned with them and argued his case for Jesus.  This does not preclude interaction.  Some may have argued back.  But the important point is this is outreach, not preaching to the body of Christ.

10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed

More outreach. 

16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols. 17 Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. 18 Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?”

Again, this is outreach, and he is reasoning with them (implying interaction), and "them" includes both Jews and gentiles. 

I could go on, but all of Chapter 17 describes outreach. 

But I guess the author is right.  That really is a reasonably close description of today's model for "going to church".    The difference is that the unbelievers pretend to be believers and just sit quietly while the preacher "reasons" TO them rather than WITH them.  (And yes, there are a lot of unbelievers in church.  Some here have estimated it to be between 20% and 40%, and some say even considerably more.) 

It sounds like it was a lot more lively back in the days of Acts 17. 

 

[lnf]

I don't think you can judge all small groups from a single sampling.  My (now deceased) brother used to lead a small group.  He spent a lot of time preparing the lesson.  And I know from talking to him that he had to carefully balance the discussion so that it didn't rabbit-trail away from the text.

Much does depend on the leader.  Each has an individual style and brings individual gifts to the table.

Wanna explain how this is different from a SS teacher? I believe the argument is called a distinction without a difference.

Mr. Preacher, I was responding to Bob H's post in particular: 

I don't know man. I'll have to give it more thought. Before I comment I have a question about small groups. My home church has small groups and from the way I take it {I've never been to one} they go over a certain bible passage and everybody gives their opinion about it and that's it. Is that the way they're done or is there more to it? Is there any actual teaching done?

I simply responded to his post, not connecting it to SS school in particular, but I will go there with you.  I am a SS teacher.  I lead a group of single women.  We have a curriculum, but funnily enough, we often don't get to it.  Why?  Because my students are the forgotten in the church.  They have no one other than our group to talk to.  So we spend a lot of time with prayer requests/praises.  We talk about our lives and I bring scripture into the conversation.  And if we have time, I present the lesson I have prepared.

I'll be perfectly honest and tell you that I wanted to disband my group because I thought I wasn't being an effective leader.  But I was overwhelmingly overruled.  It seems my group needs what we offer.  So, going back to Bob H's post, not all SS or small groups are the same.  My brother's is (was) the standard.  My SS group is the anomaly.  Like I said...each leader brings brings individual gifts to the table. 

I don't see how "distinction without a difference" applies in anything I have posted. 

 

[Bob H]

Acts 17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.

He reasoned with them and argued his case for Jesus.  This does not preclude interaction.  Some may have argued back.  But the important point is this is outreach, not preaching to the body of Christ.

What you said is true. But there came a time when he stopped that custom.


"And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles."

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Acts 17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.

He reasoned with them and argued his case for Jesus.  This does not preclude interaction.  Some may have argued back.  But the important point is this is outreach, not preaching to the body of Christ.

What you said is true. But there came a time when he stopped that custom.


"And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles."

And his mission to the Gentiles was outreach. 

In other words, the question "Do You Have an Acts 2 Small Group Ministry in an Acts 17 Culture?" is a silly one, because it's comparing apples to oranges.  A small group ministry is a gathering of members of the body of Christ for mutual edification.  Acts 17 is outreach to unbelievers.  The two have entirely different purposes. 

 

[Bob H]

Acts 17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.

He reasoned with them and argued his case for Jesus.  This does not preclude interaction.  Some may have argued back.  But the important point is this is outreach, not preaching to the body of Christ.

What you said is true. But there came a time when he stopped that custom.


"And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles."

And his mission to the Gentiles was outreach. 

In other words, the question "Do You Have an Acts 2 Small Group Ministry in an Acts 17 Culture?" is a silly one, because it's comparing apples to oranges.  A small group ministry is a gathering of members of the body of Christ for mutual edification.  Acts 17 is outreach to unbelievers.  The two have entirely different purposes.

I see your point.......I'll still have to study the link a little more . Sumpton don't not sound right. 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I don't think you can judge all small groups from a single sampling.  My (now deceased) brother used to lead a small group.  He spent a lot of time preparing the lesson.  And I know from talking to him that he had to carefully balance the discussion so that it didn't rabbit-trail away from the text.

Much does depend on the leader.  Each has an individual style and brings individual gifts to the table.

Wanna explain how this is different from a SS teacher? I believe the argument is called a distinction without a difference.

Mr. Preacher, I was responding to Bob H's post in particular: 

I don't know man. I'll have to give it more thought. Before I comment I have a question about small groups. My home church has small groups and from the way I take it {I've never been to one} they go over a certain bible passage and everybody gives their opinion about it and that's it. Is that the way they're done or is there more to it? Is there any actual teaching done?

I simply responded to his post, not connecting it to SS school in particular, but I will go there with you.  I am a SS teacher.  I lead a group of single women.  We have a curriculum, but funnily enough, we often don't get to it.  Why?  Because my students are the forgotten in the church.  They have no one other than our group to talk to.  So we spend a lot of time with prayer requests/praises.  We talk about our lives and I bring scripture into the conversation.  And if we have time, I present the lesson I have prepared.

I'll be perfectly honest and tell you that I wanted to disband my group because I thought I wasn't being an effective leader.  But I was overwhelmingly overruled.  It seems my group needs what we offer.  So, going back to Bob H's post, not all SS or small groups are the same.  My brother's is (was) the standard.  My SS group is the anomaly.  Like I said...each leader brings brings individual gifts to the table. 

I don't see how "distinction without a difference" applies in anything I have posted.

I have no problem with the way you are doing your class (not that it is any of my business). My post was more to point out the fact that ministries are being criticized for not being progressive thinking and changing from the old, outdated SS format to the new, fresh Small Group format. Yet each is a group of people separated from the larger body of people, each has a leader who usually teaches, often with a lesson or curriculum or theme from a "Large Group Leader" (Pastor), and each is for the edification of the particular group. That is why I ask "what is the difference" and point out what I see as distinction without a difference. If this is the case, I am simply being critiqued for my terminology, not my methodology.

Now, each leader bringing individual gifts to the table, that's simply scriptural. We were all given different gifts for the edification of the body. Being given opportunity to exercise them is what is supposed to happen.

 

[prophet]

I don't think you can judge all small groups from a single sampling.  My (now deceased) brother used to lead a small group.  He spent a lot of time preparing the lesson.  And I know from talking to him that he had to carefully balance the discussion so that it didn't rabbit-trail away from the text.

Much does depend on the leader.  Each has an individual style and brings individual gifts to the table.

Wanna explain how this is different from a SS teacher? I believe the argument is called a distinction without a difference.

Mr. Preacher, I was responding to Bob H's post in particular: 

I don't know man. I'll have to give it more thought. Before I comment I have a question about small groups. My home church has small groups and from the way I take it {I've never been to one} they go over a certain bible passage and everybody gives their opinion about it and that's it. Is that the way they're done or is there more to it? Is there any actual teaching done?

I simply responded to his post, not connecting it to SS school in particular, but I will go there with you.  I am a SS teacher.  I lead a group of single women.  We have a curriculum, but funnily enough, we often don't get to it.  Why?  Because my students are the forgotten in the church.  They have no one other than our group to talk to.  So we spend a lot of time with prayer requests/praises.  We talk about our lives and I bring scripture into the conversation.  And if we have time, I present the lesson I have prepared.

I'll be perfectly honest and tell you that I wanted to disband my group because I thought I wasn't being an effective leader.  But I was overwhelmingly overruled.  It seems my group needs what we offer.  So, going back to Bob H's post, not all SS or small groups are the same.  My brother's is (was) the standard.  My SS group is the anomaly.  Like I said...each leader brings brings individual gifts to the table. 

I don't see how "distinction without a difference" applies in anything I have posted.

I have no problem with the way you are doing your class (not that it is any of my business). My post was more to point out the fact that ministries are being criticized for not being progressive thinking and changing from the old, outdated SS format to the new, fresh Small Group format. Yet each is a group of people separated from the larger body of people, each has a leader who usually teaches, often with a lesson or curriculum or theme from a "Large Group Leader" (Pastor), and each is for the edification of the particular group. That is why I ask "what is the difference" and point out what I see as distinction without a difference. If this is the case, I am simply being critiqued for my terminology, not my methodology.

Now, each leader bringing individual gifts to the table, that's simply scriptural. We were all given different gifts for the edification of the body. Being given opportunity to exercise them is what is supposed to happen.

Any setting that does not allow for all of the gifts to be excercised regularly, is not a Biblical Church structure, and will stunt the growth of or frustrate the membership.
I'm always amazed at how the churches will baptize a man, allow him to give, participate in outreach, and give his consent by' amen', and vote on expenditures, but never testify.
10 years later, he's fed up with church, which is aimed at his kids, and not him, anyway.
Now he goes looking for a church that needs him to participate, and he gets railed against as a "church hopper".

Anishinabe

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I don't think you can judge all small groups from a single sampling.  My (now deceased) brother used to lead a small group.  He spent a lot of time preparing the lesson.  And I know from talking to him that he had to carefully balance the discussion so that it didn't rabbit-trail away from the text.

Much does depend on the leader.  Each has an individual style and brings individual gifts to the table.

Wanna explain how this is different from a SS teacher? I believe the argument is called a distinction without a difference.

Mr. Preacher, I was responding to Bob H's post in particular: 

I don't know man. I'll have to give it more thought. Before I comment I have a question about small groups. My home church has small groups and from the way I take it {I've never been to one} they go over a certain bible passage and everybody gives their opinion about it and that's it. Is that the way they're done or is there more to it? Is there any actual teaching done?

I simply responded to his post, not connecting it to SS school in particular, but I will go there with you.  I am a SS teacher.  I lead a group of single women.  We have a curriculum, but funnily enough, we often don't get to it.  Why?  Because my students are the forgotten in the church.  They have no one other than our group to talk to.  So we spend a lot of time with prayer requests/praises.  We talk about our lives and I bring scripture into the conversation.  And if we have time, I present the lesson I have prepared.

I'll be perfectly honest and tell you that I wanted to disband my group because I thought I wasn't being an effective leader.  But I was overwhelmingly overruled.  It seems my group needs what we offer.  So, going back to Bob H's post, not all SS or small groups are the same.  My brother's is (was) the standard.  My SS group is the anomaly.  Like I said...each leader brings brings individual gifts to the table. 

I don't see how "distinction without a difference" applies in anything I have posted.

I have no problem with the way you are doing your class (not that it is any of my business). My post was more to point out the fact that ministries are being criticized for not being progressive thinking and changing from the old, outdated SS format to the new, fresh Small Group format. Yet each is a group of people separated from the larger body of people, each has a leader who usually teaches, often with a lesson or curriculum or theme from a "Large Group Leader" (Pastor), and each is for the edification of the particular group. That is why I ask "what is the difference" and point out what I see as distinction without a difference. If this is the case, I am simply being critiqued for my terminology, not my methodology.

Now, each leader bringing individual gifts to the table, that's simply scriptural. We were all given different gifts for the edification of the body. Being given opportunity to exercise them is what is supposed to happen.

Any setting that does not allow for all of the gifts to be excercised regularly, is not a Biblical Church structure, and will stunt the growth of or frustrate the membership.
I'm always amazed at how the churches will baptize a man, allow him to give, participate in outreach, and give his consent by' amen', and vote on expenditures, but never testify.
10 years later, he's fed up with church, which is aimed at his kids, and not him, anyway.
Now he goes looking for a church that needs him to participate, and he gets railed against as a "church hopper".

Anishinabe

Which I agree with, but I seem to hear some say all should teach even if that isnt their gift. Are all teachers? No.

 

[prophet]

I don't think you can judge all small groups from a single sampling.  My (now deceased) brother used to lead a small group.  He spent a lot of time preparing the lesson.  And I know from talking to him that he had to carefully balance the discussion so that it didn't rabbit-trail away from the text.

Much does depend on the leader.  Each has an individual style and brings individual gifts to the table.

Wanna explain how this is different from a SS teacher? I believe the argument is called a distinction without a difference.

Mr. Preacher, I was responding to Bob H's post in particular: 

I don't know man. I'll have to give it more thought. Before I comment I have a question about small groups. My home church has small groups and from the way I take it {I've never been to one} they go over a certain bible passage and everybody gives their opinion about it and that's it. Is that the way they're done or is there more to it? Is there any actual teaching done?

I simply responded to his post, not connecting it to SS school in particular, but I will go there with you.  I am a SS teacher.  I lead a group of single women.  We have a curriculum, but funnily enough, we often don't get to it.  Why?  Because my students are the forgotten in the church.  They have no one other than our group to talk to.  So we spend a lot of time with prayer requests/praises.  We talk about our lives and I bring scripture into the conversation.  And if we have time, I present the lesson I have prepared.

I'll be perfectly honest and tell you that I wanted to disband my group because I thought I wasn't being an effective leader.  But I was overwhelmingly overruled.  It seems my group needs what we offer.  So, going back to Bob H's post, not all SS or small groups are the same.  My brother's is (was) the standard.  My SS group is the anomaly.  Like I said...each leader brings brings individual gifts to the table. 

I don't see how "distinction without a difference" applies in anything I have posted.

I have no problem with the way you are doing your class (not that it is any of my business). My post was more to point out the fact that ministries are being criticized for not being progressive thinking and changing from the old, outdated SS format to the new, fresh Small Group format. Yet each is a group of people separated from the larger body of people, each has a leader who usually teaches, often with a lesson or curriculum or theme from a "Large Group Leader" (Pastor), and each is for the edification of the particular group. That is why I ask "what is the difference" and point out what I see as distinction without a difference. If this is the case, I am simply being critiqued for my terminology, not my methodology.

Now, each leader bringing individual gifts to the table, that's simply scriptural. We were all given different gifts for the edification of the body. Being given opportunity to exercise them is what is supposed to happen.

Any setting that does not allow for all of the gifts to be excercised regularly, is not a Biblical Church structure, and will stunt the growth of or frustrate the membership.
I'm always amazed at how the churches will baptize a man, allow him to give, participate in outreach, and give his consent by' amen', and vote on expenditures, but never testify.
10 years later, he's fed up with church, which is aimed at his kids, and not him, anyway.
Now he goes looking for a church that needs him to participate, and he gets railed against as a "church hopper".

Anishinabe

Which I agree with, but I seem to hear some say all should teach even if that isnt their gift. Are all teachers? No.

Sadly, some seem to think that teaching is the only gift that is shared with the assembly.
Pastors and teachers, prophets, evangelists, and formerly: apostles, are all gifts of speaking in the assembly.
What appears to be lacking, is any real effort to discern a particular members gift(s), and allow The Spirit to share with the assembly through that one.

Anishinabe

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Which I agree with, but I seem to hear some say all should teach even if that isnt their gift. Are all teachers? No.

Expecting the ability to interact and participate has nothing to do everyone being a teacher.  But it does mean there isn't one professor at the podium giving a lecture to a room full of unlearned participants. 

Even the ability to ask questions or make a point during the "lecture" would be an improvement.  Here's how it should go, if churches allowed that much:

Preacher: "You know, that's a good point. In context, 'examine yourselves' really does refer to their behavior and lack of respect for the meaning of the Lord's supper, not 'examine yourselves to see if you have any unconfessed sin in your life'.  I guess I never really thought about it and just repeated what I was taught to say about that passage."

Instead, it would probably go down like this:

Preacher: "If you have any comments or questions, please refrain from interrupting the sermon and see me after the service." (Read: "How dare he question my teaching, especially in front of all these other people?  I'm the MOG here.  He's just a puny, untrained, unwashed subject.")

In one case, you have the BODY of Christ.  In the latter case, you have a HEAD and a bunch of toenails.