Congregational participation

[Tarheel Baptist]

r2 and the tomato.....the collective genui of the fff....smellin can be your intern.


Falwell used to say, those who can do...those who can't gather around the kitchen table.
OK, a little paraphrase....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I repeat:
There is NO, none, nada more Biblical model for the church than that which is used today.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I am of the opinion the church had it's nucleus of formation in place before Pentecost, and was empowered at Pentecost, but it was far more than the twelve, as we see in Acts 1:15 that prayer meeting contained 120 people.

I agree there was empowerment. No question in my mind. However, that meeting was as a result of the people meeting in anticipation of the coming of the Spirit rather than it happening at their weekly church service.

I am certainly not stating they had weekly meetings as we see them today, and the first day of the week did not become the established day of worship until after the resurrection, see in actuality they met corporately daily (see Acts 2:46) at least for a time, and it is true that they were waiting for the promise of the Father, specifically the empowerment of the Holy Ghost, but my statement about the formation of the church comes from:

Matthew 18:15-20. The word used was not in a "universal" or "institutional" sense, it is instruction for a local assembly, it is the greek word, "ekklesia", the called out assembly.

and

Matthew 16:18, where Christ said He Himself would build His church, now I get the trinity, but He is not here, the Comforter is, so for Himto be able to say this, He had to build it.

Which he did according to

Ephesians 2:20, he laid the foundation of the church with Himself as the head and the apostles as the rest of the foundation, and the the body consisting of those who gathered in that upper room

and

Acts 2:47, those that were saved were added to the church. Some would say "church universal", and while the English word church may allow for this, the underlying greek does not.

On the flip side, this has been an unsettled issue between believers for a long time. Prolly not going to settle it for eternity here.

And while staying with them he (Jesus) ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me;  for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

You can define "small group" any way you want, but we can't have a "small group" meting of 120 in my house. 120 is a reasonable sized church, particularly if you are taking adults.

In Acts, they met "from house to house". The coming of the Spirit on them happened, not in anyone's house but in the "hotel meeting room" as we would look at it today.

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. 13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying...

The disciples were "staying" there. Where was Peter's wife? Was she living there too? I'm thinking it was probably the same location where they celebrated Passover with Jesus a month and a half before but that is strictly conjecture on my part.

It could well have been the same upper room, I however disagree with the translation you used. Mine says :where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. That's a pretty specific group. Peter's wife? Not sure. Conjecture, she had passed away? It is a little like asking where was Joseph at the crucifixion.

It is my belief after study that their idea of house and our idea of house are different. A Roman domus was far larger than a typical North American or even European house.

He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there.” And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

Either way, the disciples were staying together at that location and they went to the upper room to pray. Do your church members stay together in the same compound and go to the designated "meeting" place each week?

Again, there is NO record these 120 met with each other every week for a church service.

 

[sword]

If churches were intended to be no more than you can fit in a house then why didn't this verse end with "until the house was full".

Acts 2:47
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

In this same context what does Luke 14:23 mean.

And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

 

[sword]

If the size of the congregation is critical for success I think it would have been spelled out in scripture.

Just like the Lords supper, He said "Do this, as oft as you drink this".

That tells me we can do is weekly, monthly or even yearly, just as long as we do it in remembrance of him. He did not tell us how often only to do it to remembrance of him.

The size of a church & the style is up to the members. I believe many models work and please God.

I respect every assembly’s right to assemble how they think best. If small groups or home church works for you that’s great, likewise if you like the mega church model that’s great to just do your part wherever you attend.

I happen to like the 500 to 1000 member size with lots of programs & outreach ministries. That may be too small for some & way to big for others but it works for me.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I am of the opinion the church had it's nucleus of formation in place before Pentecost, and was empowered at Pentecost, but it was far more than the twelve, as we see in Acts 1:15 that prayer meeting contained 120 people.

I agree there was empowerment. No question in my mind. However, that meeting was as a result of the people meeting in anticipation of the coming of the Spirit rather than it happening at their weekly church service.

I am certainly not stating they had weekly meetings as we see them today, and the first day of the week did not become the established day of worship until after the resurrection, see in actuality they met corporately daily (see Acts 2:46) at least for a time, and it is true that they were waiting for the promise of the Father, specifically the empowerment of the Holy Ghost, but my statement about the formation of the church comes from:

Matthew 18:15-20. The word used was not in a "universal" or "institutional" sense, it is instruction for a local assembly, it is the greek word, "ekklesia", the called out assembly.

and

Matthew 16:18, where Christ said He Himself would build His church, now I get the trinity, but He is not here, the Comforter is, so for Himto be able to say this, He had to build it.

Which he did according to

Ephesians 2:20, he laid the foundation of the church with Himself as the head and the apostles as the rest of the foundation, and the the body consisting of those who gathered in that upper room

and

Acts 2:47, those that were saved were added to the church. Some would say "church universal", and while the English word church may allow for this, the underlying greek does not.

On the flip side, this has been an unsettled issue between believers for a long time. Prolly not going to settle it for eternity here.

And while staying with them he (Jesus) ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me;  for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

You can define "small group" any way you want, but we can't have a "small group" meting of 120 in my house. 120 is a reasonable sized church, particularly if you are taking adults.

In Acts, they met "from house to house". The coming of the Spirit on them happened, not in anyone's house but in the "hotel meeting room" as we would look at it today.

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. 13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying...

The disciples were "staying" there. Where was Peter's wife? Was she living there too? I'm thinking it was probably the same location where they celebrated Passover with Jesus a month and a half before but that is strictly conjecture on my part.

He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there.” And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

Either way, the disciples were staying together at that location and they went to the upper room to pray. Do your church members stay together in the same compound and go to the designated "meeting" place each week?

Again, there is NO record these 120 met with each other every week for a church service.

First of all, the 120 met in the upper room awaiting the gift of the Spirit as they were commanded.
The Day of Pentecost came, the Spirit fell, peter preached and 3000 were saved....Jews from all over the world.
The church was 'officially born.
They met together for instruction in the apostles doctrine....they witnessed...brought others into the church such as should be saved. They began to meet 'on the first day of the week'! meet....first day of the week = an assembly.

"On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight".
A sermon so entertaining, one guy fell asleep.
Of course, to be fair, they had no bug zappers in those days.....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

If the size of the congregation is critical for success I think it would have been spelled out in scripture.

Just like the Lords supper, He said "Do this, as oft as you drink this".

That tells me we can do is weekly, monthly or even yearly, just as long as we do it in remembrance of him. He did not tell us how often only to do it to remembrance of him.

The size of a church & the style is up to the members. I believe many models work and please God.

I respect every assembly’s right to assemble how they think best. If small groups or home church works for you that’s great, likewise if you like the mega church model that’s great to just do your part wherever you attend.

I happen to like the 500 to 1000 member size with lots of programs & outreach ministries. That may be too small for some & way to big for others but it works for me.

I agree.
My point is that there is NO Biblically mandated order of corporate worship for the church today.
The size of the church is also irrelevant, of course...but if the church spreads the Gospel, it will have some semblance of numerical growth. Small groups/SS classes are an excellent tool to help in discipleship....but large gatherings are NOT forbidden or discouraged in Scripture. In fact, the occur in Scripture!

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

If the size of the congregation is critical for success I think it would have been spelled out in scripture.

Just like the Lords supper, He said "Do this, as oft as you drink this".

That tells me we can do is weekly, monthly or even yearly, just as long as we do it in remembrance of him. He did not tell us how often only to do it to remembrance of him.

The size of a church & the style is up to the members. I believe many models work and please God.

I respect every assembly’s right to assemble how they think best. If small groups or home church works for you that’s great, likewise if you like the mega church model that’s great to just do your part wherever you attend.

I happen to like the 500 to 1000 member size with lots of programs & outreach ministries. That may be too small for some & way to big for others but it works for me.

First of all, small or big means nothing to me qualitatively as long as the Lord is building it. In other words size itself does not  equal spirituality. However, one of my considerations in the "the size of the church" is, "how many people can I pastor properly?" or effectively?. I don't know, but when numbers like 5,000 get thrown around, I fail to see how I could remain in proper personal contact with that many people or families. Maybe it's just me.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

If the size of the congregation is critical for success I think it would have been spelled out in scripture.

Just like the Lords supper, He said "Do this, as oft as you drink this".

That tells me we can do is weekly, monthly or even yearly, just as long as we do it in remembrance of him. He did not tell us how often only to do it to remembrance of him.

The size of a church & the style is up to the members. I believe many models work and please God.

I respect every assembly’s right to assemble how they think best. If small groups or home church works for you that’s great, likewise if you like the mega church model that’s great to just do your part wherever you attend.

I happen to like the 500 to 1000 member size with lots of programs & outreach ministries. That may be too small for some & way to big for others but it works for me.

First of all, small or big means nothing to me qualitatively as long as the Lord is building it. In other words size itself does not  equal spirituality. However, one of my considerations in the "the size of the church" is, "how many people can I pastor properly?" or effectively?. I don't know, but when numbers like 5,000 get thrown around, I fail to see how I could remain in proper personal contact with that many people or families. Maybe it's just me.

Valid point...which is why churches have more than one elder/pastor/shepherd.
I have no problem with a house church per se.
I have a problem with the attitude that a larger congregation is less Biblical, spiritual, effective or pleasing to God.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

If the size of the congregation is critical for success I think it would have been spelled out in scripture.

Just like the Lords supper, He said "Do this, as oft as you drink this".

That tells me we can do is weekly, monthly or even yearly, just as long as we do it in remembrance of him. He did not tell us how often only to do it to remembrance of him.

The size of a church & the style is up to the members. I believe many models work and please God.

I respect every assembly’s right to assemble how they think best. If small groups or home church works for you that’s great, likewise if you like the mega church model that’s great to just do your part wherever you attend.

I happen to like the 500 to 1000 member size with lots of programs & outreach ministries. That may be too small for some & way to big for others but it works for me.

First of all, small or big means nothing to me qualitatively as long as the Lord is building it. In other words size itself does not  equal spirituality. However, one of my considerations in the "the size of the church" is, "how many people can I pastor properly?" or effectively?. I don't know, but when numbers like 5,000 get thrown around, I fail to see how I could remain in proper personal contact with that many people or families. Maybe it's just me.

Valid point...which is why churches have more than one elder/pastor/shepherd.
I have no problem with a house church per se.
I have a problem with the attitude that a larger congregation is less Biblical, spiritual, effective or pleasing to God.

I just see a disintegration of effectiveness at the very large size. I had issue with someone once, it was an issue of honesty. The info I had said they were from FBCH. I called, and it took a while to find out if the individual was even a member or not. My thing was, if they are a member, you need to know, if they aren't, I am not going to discuss it with you. Anyway, made me think that if the church is quite large, logistics could be a problem. I have no problem with multiple pastors, as a matter of fact, it would be foolish to be at the 5,000 I mentioned and not have them. Of course, in the large church at Jerusalem, there were 12 apostles, so the model is even further reinforced from scripture, BUT, they were the apostles. While we see human failing in them all,  to say they were not a unique group of specially gifted men would be oversimplifying who they were.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I realize any response will fall on deaf ears like trying to explain the dangers of drinking alcohol to a brewmaster. So therefore, getting back to the title of the OP Congregational participation (sic), apart from active listening, how are the congregants ministering to the rest of the listeners? Sure we have our ushers, musicians, etc. But on any given Sunday, those don't make up the majority of the congregation.

So in the worship service itself, apart from singing, listening and giving monies, how does the average pew-sitter participate in the building up with one another? And I don't mean once in a while but each and every week? Are they allowed to give testimonies? Break into spontaneous prayer or song toward God? Share their hurts and struggles? Admonish and encourage one another?

So in the two venues, the show (typical stage setting, general music selected beforehand, pastor preached prepared message) vs. the home church where every voice is able to be heard every service, personal worship can be joined in with others to make it corporate, blessings and heartaches for each individual shared, spontaneous testimony, sharing what God has taught each person throughout the week ALL without a pre-planned agenda, which one relies more on the congregational participation?

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I realize any response will fall on deaf ears like trying to explain the dangers of drinking alcohol to a brewmaster. So therefore, getting back to the title of the OP Congregational participation (sic), apart from active listening, how are the congregants ministering to the rest of the listeners? Sure we have our ushers, musicians, etc. But on any given Sunday, those don't make up the majority of the congregation.

So in the worship service itself, apart from singing, listening and giving monies, how does the average pew-sitter participate in the building up with one another? And I don't mean once in a while but each and every week? Are they allowed to give testimonies? Break into spontaneous prayer or song toward God? Share their hurts and struggles? Admonish and encourage one another?

So in the two venues, the show (typical stage setting, general music selected beforehand, pastor preached prepared message) vs. the home church where every voice is able to be heard every service, personal worship can be joined in with others to make it corporate, blessings and heartaches for each individual shared, spontaneous testimony, sharing what God has taught each person throughout the week ALL without a pre-planned agenda, which one relies more on the congregational participation?

The answer to your question is simple, but I propose a different venue, one in which the church spends much of the day together, part of that time is set aside for congregational singing, part of that time is dedicated to teaching the word, (the impartation of knowledge) part of that time is set aside for preaching, (the exhortation to apply the knowledge) part of that time is spent together edifying and encouraging one another, and part of that time is for a meal together.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'm sorry but the vast majority of believers who go hear a bible believing preacher preach ain't going cause they wanna be entertained.

Of course they are.  You are simply applying a narrow definition to entertainment.  They're there to sit down, be quiet, and listen to what they hope will be a good sermon, delivered with style. 

One thing is certain.  They aren't sitting quietly in pews for the purpose of mutual edification.

And you know this 'How'?
You also seem to have brilliant insight hidden from us mere mortals.
Almost thou persuadest me to gather around the kitchen table......nah!

It's self-evident.  You don't edify anyone by sitting quietly in a pew as an audience member. 

And there is no comparison between Jesus (and others) preaching to crowds and the gathering of believers for mutual edification.  Jesus was evangelizing.  He spoke to unbelievers.  The apostles spoke to crowds of unbelievers.  That's why it says things like, "and all who were appointed to eternal life believed" after such a message. 

Now, if the mission of your church building and service is designed to evangelize a building full of unbelievers, then yes, your church fits the Biblical model for that.  Otherwise, it's nothing like a biblical model. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I'm sorry but the vast majority of believers who go hear a bible believing preacher preach ain't going cause they wanna be entertained.

Of course they are.  You are simply applying a narrow definition to entertainment.  They're there to sit down, be quiet, and listen to what they hope will be a good sermon, delivered with style. 

One thing is certain.  They aren't sitting quietly in pews for the purpose of mutual edification.

And you know this 'How'?
You also seem to have brilliant insight hidden from us mere mortals.
Almost thou persuadest me to gather around the kitchen table......nah!

It's self-evident.  You don't edify anyone by sitting quietly in a pew as an audience member. 

And there is no comparison between Jesus (and others) preaching to crowds and the gathering of believers for mutual edification.  Jesus was evangelizing.  He spoke to unbelievers.  The apostles spoke to crowds of unbelievers.  That's why it says things like, "and all who were appointed to eternal life believed" after such a message. 

Now, if the mission of your church building and service is designed to evangelize a building full of unbelievers, then yes, your church fits the Biblical model for that.  Otherwise, it's nothing like a biblical model.

The sermon on the mount was for non-believers?

What is self evident to me is that, like Smellin, you are your ultimate authority....you decide what is right or wrong.
Again, there is NO Biblical mandate for either of your 'preference'.
There is NO Biblical mandate denouncing the congregational model.

It's a matter of armpits and your's stinks. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I realize any response will fall on deaf ears like trying to explain the dangers of drinking alcohol to a brewmaster. So therefore, getting back to the title of the OP Congregational participation (sic), apart from active listening, how are the congregants ministering to the rest of the listeners? Sure we have our ushers, musicians, etc. But on any given Sunday, those don't make up the majority of the congregation.

So in the worship service itself, apart from singing, listening and giving monies, how does the average pew-sitter participate in the building up with one another? And I don't mean once in a while but each and every week? Are they allowed to give testimonies? Break into spontaneous prayer or song toward God? Share their hurts and struggles? Admonish and encourage one another?

So in the two venues, the show (typical stage setting, general music selected beforehand, pastor preached prepared message) vs. the home church where every voice is able to be heard every service, personal worship can be joined in with others to make it corporate, blessings and heartaches for each individual shared, spontaneous testimony, sharing what God has taught each person throughout the week ALL without a pre-planned agenda, which one relies more on the congregational participation?

And I feel as if my response to you is akin to explaining why an apple hit you on the head to someone who doesn't believe in gravity.
You know that gravity is a conspiracy started by Newton and perpetuated by other gnostics. 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I'm sorry but the vast majority of believers who go hear a bible believing preacher preach ain't going cause they wanna be entertained.

Of course they are.  You are simply applying a narrow definition to entertainment.  They're there to sit down, be quiet, and listen to what they hope will be a good sermon, delivered with style. 

One thing is certain.  They aren't sitting quietly in pews for the purpose of mutual edification.

And you know this 'How'?
You also seem to have brilliant insight hidden from us mere mortals.
Almost thou persuadest me to gather around the kitchen table......nah!

It's self-evident.  You don't edify anyone by sitting quietly in a pew as an audience member. 

And there is no comparison between Jesus (and others) preaching to crowds and the gathering of believers for mutual edification.  Jesus was evangelizing.  He spoke to unbelievers.  The apostles spoke to crowds of unbelievers.  That's why it says things like, "and all who were appointed to eternal life believed" after such a message. 

Now, if the mission of your church building and service is designed to evangelize a building full of unbelievers, then yes, your church fits the Biblical model for that.  Otherwise, it's nothing like a biblical model.

I am interpreting this as:

Traditional model: One on one evangelism, church group teaching/preaching/discipleship - wrong according to the tomato

Tomatos model: One on one teaching/preaching/discipleship , large group evangelism. Everyone get rid of their church buildings , rent your local football stadium and spread the word, THE Tomato is in town and preaching Jesus saves. After the meeting, he is coming to your house to explain the hypostatic union at your kitchen table while your wife puts into use your gift of hospitality.

Evangelism happened one on one ie the woman at the well and the Ethepoian eunuch, as well as to crowds, from a boat to the shore or on the day of Pentecost. Mars Hill and the jailer.

Discipleship the same. Gathered and going on so long Eutychus fell off his perch, and one on one with Timothy.

Putting either one in a box does not do the New Testament justice.
Disciples

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I'm sorry but the vast majority of believers who go hear a bible believing preacher preach ain't going cause they wanna be entertained.

Of course they are.  You are simply applying a narrow definition to entertainment.  They're there to sit down, be quiet, and listen to what they hope will be a good sermon, delivered with style. 

One thing is certain.  They aren't sitting quietly in pews for the purpose of mutual edification.

And you know this 'How'?
You also seem to have brilliant insight hidden from us mere mortals.
Almost thou persuadest me to gather around the kitchen table......nah!

It's self-evident.  You don't edify anyone by sitting quietly in a pew as an audience member. 

And there is no comparison between Jesus (and others) preaching to crowds and the gathering of believers for mutual edification.  Jesus was evangelizing.  He spoke to unbelievers.  The apostles spoke to crowds of unbelievers.  That's why it says things like, "and all who were appointed to eternal life believed" after such a message. 

Now, if the mission of your church building and service is designed to evangelize a building full of unbelievers, then yes, your church fits the Biblical model for that.  Otherwise, it's nothing like a biblical model.

The sermon on the mount was for non-believers?

What is self evident to me is that, like Smellin, you are your ultimate authority....you decide what is right or wrong.
Again, there is NO Biblical mandate for either of your 'preference'.
There is NO Biblical mandate denouncing the congregational model.

It's a matter of armpits and your's stinks. 

Yes, the Sermon on the Mount was for unbelievers as well as His disciples.

Do I decide by being the ultimate authority? Sure, but so do you and every single person on this forum. It is just that the boundaries are drawn up differently by each individual. You would claim that the Bible is your authority. I would claim that Jesus' teachings are my authority. Both of us have used our personal "authority" to make those personal choices and distinctions.

In the end, each and every one of us is authoritative in determining who we are going to follow. I will stick with the teachings of Jesus and run everything else through that particular grid.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments. 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

No more or less than someone trying to justify not following the pattern of the scriptures.

 

[rsc2a]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

No more or less than someone trying to justify not following the pattern of the scriptures.

Meeting daily,  selling everything, and sharing all that you have while each member serves a vital role within the local body?