Congregational participation

[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.

On that straw man issue, I totally agree...but I'm referring to the ones you r2 and Smellin erected...

Care to name one that you've seen from me on this topic?

You make wrong assumptions that the church today is disobedient to Scripture in its operation and structure. You are also seem to assume that discipleship can't or doesn't happen in the so called traditional church model.

Surely you can back these claims up? Or is your proof "because I said so"?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]We know more of what you think is wrong with what we believe than what you actually believe.[/quote]

As I told IP, anyone who is paying attention could probably give a pretty good summary of what I believe...

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]As to my question, have you ever led or organized a 'kitchen table' type church ministry?[/quote]

...and you are clearly not paying attention because I have expounded on this before. There are several families with which we meet with on a regular basis at which time we (generally) have a potluck, pray, exhort one another, build up each other, and study Scripture. We also provide for the needs of various members in those cases where needs occur and are shared with the group. We also hang out outside these scheduled events for cookouts, meeting for lunch, random phone calls, and all manner of other ways of being involved in each others' lives.

Do I lead this? I am the primary teacher, it is at our house, and we are the ones who initially started it. At the same time, we don't have "leaders" because each person is responsible to all the others and has a role to fill in the group. We are also deliberate in me not being the sole teacher but one of several. So no, we do not lead it.

 

[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.

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

LOL - yes, you prove my point exactly. 

Conflict of interest means when you feel compelled to defend something because it is something by which you make your living (or defend something that provides you a material benefit of some kind).  It's rather hard to see the other side when your livelihood depends on believing what you believe.

There is no conflict of interest in discussing church models if you get no material benefit from any of them.

You're assuming the people I pastor pay me.

I'm not assuming anything.  I don't know who is a paid preacher/pastor here and who isn't.  I'm speaking in general.

If you (the editorial you, not you in particular) get paid to be a preacher/pastor in a modern pulpit-based church model, than yes, there is a conflict of interest in any arguments you would make about the building pulpit-based church model vs. the mutual edification model.  It doesn't matter who pays you.

Which is a ridiculous assumption. You are judging motive and sincerity off percieved vested interest. We may as well canceł out your objectivity in a discussion on tithing. You are incapable of rendering a valid opinion or objection because it affects you directly. When we vote in church I give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they will vote their conscience in the what the Lord wants, not an unobjective vote based on personal gain. Too bad you lack such objectivity.

I could sum up most of your recent posts with the phrase, "Nuh uh!  You!"  It's immature and silly, because you can't provide any evidence to back it up.  All you're saying is, "I am rubber, you are glue."

However, it is clear you don't understand the concept of conflict of interest.  I dealt with it in magazines all the time.  If someone made money from a computer software company, they were automatically disqualified from reviewing (giving opinions about) that company's products.  It was a conflict of interest.  Good magazines don't even settle for disclosure of their relationship to the company in the review.  The perceived conflict of interest is enough to disqualify them.

So Pastors are disqualified from giving opinions?

This is a discussion board, not a consumer reports magazine.  Opine all you want.  The reader should simply be aware of the conflict of interest on this topic for anyone who makes his living based on the pulpit-based church model where the attendees are expected to sit quietly and watch/listen. 

And, for the record, no, I have never led a home-based ministry, and as far as I know nobody ever gets paid for doing so, anyway. 

 

[subllibrm]

He knows it the same way Alayman knows that the people at all kinds of services are there merely to dutifully attend.

Bro, for the most part, you're one of my favorite posters on here, certainly in the top 10.  But I get tired of having to read where you mis-attribute stuff to me.  I think your integrity is for the most part superb, and your pot-stirring exquisite.  Your ability to figure out what I've said, is sub-par at best, or just downright atrocious.  If you keep twisting my words like this I'll be forced to think rsc2a has succeeded at his takeover of your keyboard.  I explicitly told you that my comments about the OP was not with the Contemporary Movement (see reply #12 in this very thread).

Better? 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Better? 

Yes, that is more accurately reflective of what I stated, and what I would continue to assert.  It's based on 25+ years of being a Christian and about 15 years of being a church member.  That doesn't necessarily mean that my experience can be extrapolated to the whole of Christianity, but based on other factors that I read and hear about, I'd say that it represents a significant demographic of those who come to church meetings.  The topic of discussion is "congregational participation".  Many (especially the younger generation) feel that they are doing their duty by coming to church a couple of times a month.  Anything more than that cuts into their other pursuits.  Are you denying this as an observable truth in the congregations you've been in?

 

[Mathew Ward]

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.

LOL - yes, you prove my point exactly. 

Conflict of interest means when you feel compelled to defend something because it is something by which you make your living (or defend something that provides you a material benefit of some kind).  It's rather hard to see the other side when your livelihood depends on believing what you believe.

There is no conflict of interest in discussing church models if you get no material benefit from any of them.

You're assuming the people I pastor pay me.

I'm not assuming anything.  I don't know who is a paid preacher/pastor here and who isn't.  I'm speaking in general.

If you (the editorial you, not you in particular) get paid to be a preacher/pastor in a modern pulpit-based church model, than yes, there is a conflict of interest in any arguments you would make about the building pulpit-based church model vs. the mutual edification model.  It doesn't matter who pays you.

Which is a ridiculous assumption. You are judging motive and sincerity off percieved vested interest. We may as well canceł out your objectivity in a discussion on tithing. You are incapable of rendering a valid opinion or objection because it affects you directly. When we vote in church I give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they will vote their conscience in the what the Lord wants, not an unobjective vote based on personal gain. Too bad you lack such objectivity.

I could sum up most of your recent posts with the phrase, "Nuh uh!  You!"  It's immature and silly, because you can't provide any evidence to back it up.  All you're saying is, "I am rubber, you are glue."

However, it is clear you don't understand the concept of conflict of interest.  I dealt with it in magazines all the time.  If someone made money from a computer software company, they were automatically disqualified from reviewing (giving opinions about) that company's products.  It was a conflict of interest.  Good magazines don't even settle for disclosure of their relationship to the company in the review.  The perceived conflict of interest is enough to disqualify them.

So Pastors are disqualified from giving opinions?

This is a discussion board, not a consumer reports magazine.  Opine all you want.  The reader should simply be aware of the conflict of interest on this topic for anyone who makes his living based on the pulpit-based church model where the attendees are expected to sit quietly and watch/listen. 

And, for the record, no, I have never led a home-based ministry, and as far as I know nobody ever gets paid for doing so, anyway.

I don't know of any pastor who only wants members to sit quietly and listen. I know that pastors would love to have more folks involved in the work of the ministry.

 

[ALAYMAN]

However, it is clear you don't understand the concept of conflict of interest.  I dealt with it in magazines all the time.  If someone made money from a computer software company, they were automatically disqualified from reviewing (giving opinions about) that company's products.  It was a conflict of interest.  Good magazines don't even settle for disclosure of their relationship to the company in the review.  The perceived conflict of interest is enough to disqualify them.

Paul seemed to be okay with paying those who feed the congregation.

1Ti 5:17  Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
1Ti 5:18  For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I don't know of any pastor who only wants members to sit quietly and listen. I know that pastors would love to have more folks involved in the work of the ministry.

You honestly don't know what I mean?  Please. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Paul seemed to be okay with paying those who feed the congregation.

And that has what to do with the topic at hand?  Did I say there was a problem paying people who feed the congregation? 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Paul seemed to be okay with paying those who feed the congregation.

And that has what to do with the topic at hand?  Did I say there was a problem paying people who feed the congregation?

You said that the paid minister has a conflict of interest on the matter of the legitimacy of the subject of paid ministers.  Does it make sense that God would ordain that ministers be compensated, but that they refrain from the subject of whether ministers be compensated?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Paul seemed to be okay with paying those who feed the congregation.

And that has what to do with the topic at hand?  Did I say there was a problem paying people who feed the congregation?

You said that the paid minister has a conflict of interest on the matter of the legitimacy of the subject of paid ministers.  Does it make sense that God would ordain that ministers be compensated, but that they refrain from the subject of whether ministers be compensated?

I said no such thing.  Read my posts again.  If you can't understand what I'm saying, there's no point in discussing it with you. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

I said no such thing.  Read my posts again.  If you can't understand what I'm saying, there's no point in discussing it with you.

Maybe you're just a crappy communicator in general?  Not only with your attitude, but the way you construct your arguments and syntax?  Here's what you said verbatim...

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. ...

However, it is clear you don't understand the concept of conflict of interest.  I dealt with it in magazines all the time.  If someone made money from a computer software company, they were automatically disqualified from reviewing (giving opinions about) that company's products.  It was a conflict of interest.  Good magazines don't even settle for disclosure of their relationship to the company in the review.  The perceived conflict of interest is enough to disqualify them.

Now, unless you're John Kerry, or Bill Clinton, you said that being a paid pastor presents a conflict of interest on the subject.  Or maybe you'd like to rephrase and clarify what you meant that you so poorly wrote?

 

[ALAYMAN]

In answer to Itenerant Preacher you also said...

Conflict of interest means when you feel compelled to defend something because it is something by which you make your living (or defend something that provides you a material benefit of some kind).  It's rather hard to see the other side when your livelihood depends on believing what you believe.


So it is your opinion that God ordered that pastors be compensated for their labor, but BECAUSE they are compensated that they should not speak on the matters of church polity or growth (and probably matters of financial giving), because their motive will invariably be tied to their own compensation and self interest.  What a disrespectful thing to say, alleging that pastors only serve to further their livelihood.

I'd say that house church (and small church) type folk are the sorts that can't get along with very many people, and they like to control the action, having an inordinate say in how things are done, but I wouldn't want to be that disrespectful to say that the motives of most house church people are that self-serving.

 

[subllibrm]

Better? 

Yes, that is more accurately reflective of what I stated, and what I would continue to assert.  It's based on 25+ years of being a Christian and about 15 years of being a church member.  That doesn't necessarily mean that my experience can be extrapolated to the whole of Christianity, but based on other factors that I read and hear about, I'd say that it represents a significant demographic of those who come to church meetings.  The topic of discussion is "congregational participation".  Many (especially the younger generation) feel that they are doing their duty by coming to church a couple of times a month.  Anything more than that cuts into their other pursuits.  Are you denying this as an observable truth in the congregations you've been in?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I do believe that there is a disconnect with the millennials. There may be a variety of reasons. I do know that the young adults in my orbit respond to one on one very openly and appreciate the interest and attention. I can also point to some early 20 somethings that will put who are older to shame if we are keeping attendance score. So yes I have seen what you describe but I don't think it is as clean nor clear as you present it.

As to all the other fluff and furor; while I can see the tomato's concern I believe he is throwing the baby out with the bath water. While I can see the concern that a traditionalist like you may have, I believe there is room for alteration without obliteration of the normal ways of doing church.

Small group dynamics are truly different than large congregational dynamics. What I don't understand is the idea that they compete with each other. I see them as complementary.

Our last go-round of SS electives included a "class" of breaking down the morning sermon further. How do you see it applying in your life? Where were you challenged or convicted to make a change? Who hasn't had the experience of hearing the same sermon as another and both coming away with different life applications? This is God working through the preaching of His word! We just accelerated the idea by letting folks mutually edify (for tomato and SC) each other with the words preached from the pulpit (for you and the traditional gang). What a concept!

So there is my rambling response. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

As to all the other fluff and furor; while I can see the tomato's concern I believe he is throwing the baby out with the bath water. While I can see the concern that a traditionalist like you may have, I believe there is room for alteration without obliteration of the normal ways of doing church.

I don't think I threw out the baby with the bathwater at all.  The way I put it was mitigating factors, like an interactive Sunday School class.  That helps balance the unidirectional experience of preacher/pastor-to-audience. 

By the way, do you know the origin of that expression?  Poor people used to bathe maybe once per year.  The father went first, and so on, down to the baby.  By the time the baby got into the bath, the water was so filthy you could imagine accidentally throwing the baby out with the bath water. 

Trivia for the day.

 

[Mathew Ward]

I don't know of any pastor who only wants members to sit quietly and listen. I know that pastors would love to have more folks involved in the work of the ministry.

You honestly don't know what I mean?  Please.

That would include the preaching, at least the pastors I know, for those who can teach the Scriptures.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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.

On that straw man issue, I totally agree...but I'm referring to the ones you r2 and Smellin erected...

Care to name one that you've seen from me on this topic?

You make wrong assumptions that the church today is disobedient to Scripture in its operation and structure. You are also seem to assume that discipleship can't or doesn't happen in the so called traditional church model.

Surely you can back these claims up? Or is your proof "because I said so"?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]We know more of what you think is wrong with what we believe than what you actually believe.

As I told IP, anyone who is paying attention could probably give a pretty good summary of what I believe...

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]As to my question, have you ever led or organized a 'kitchen table' type church ministry?[/quote]

...and you are clearly not paying attention because I have expounded on this before. There are several families with which we meet with on a regular basis at which time we (generally) have a potluck, pray, exhort one another, build up each other, and study Scripture. We also provide for the needs of various members in those cases where needs occur and are shared with the group. We also hang out outside these scheduled events for cookouts, meeting for lunch, random phone calls, and all manner of other ways of being involved in each others' lives.

Do I lead this? I am the primary teacher, it is at our house, and we are the ones who initially started it. At the same time, we don't have "leaders" because each person is responsible to all the others and has a role to fill in the group. We are also deliberate in me not being the sole teacher but one of several. So no, we do not lead it.
[/quote]
So, you do believer the traditional model is obedient to Scripture in its operation and structure. You also agree that discipleship takes place in the so called traditional church model? If so, we are in total agreement! If not, I was correct in my assumptions of your supposedly clear beliefs.

If you lead/teach a kitchen table church...group....assembly....your ice and kids, then according to Castor you are biased in this discussion.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I said no such thing.  Read my posts again.  If you can't understand what I'm saying, there's no point in discussing it with you.

Maybe you're just a crappy communicator in general?  Not only with your attitude, but the way you construct your arguments and syntax?  Here's what you said verbatim...

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. ...

However, it is clear you don't understand the concept of conflict of interest.  I dealt with it in magazines all the time.  If someone made money from a computer software company, they were automatically disqualified from reviewing (giving opinions about) that company's products.  It was a conflict of interest.  Good magazines don't even settle for disclosure of their relationship to the company in the review.  The perceived conflict of interest is enough to disqualify them.

Now, unless you're John Kerry, or Bill Clinton, you said that being a paid pastor presents a conflict of interest on the subject.  Or maybe you'd like to rephrase and clarify what you meant that you so poorly wrote?

Maybe he doesn't know what the meaning is is, is....but you said exactly what he said.....and you aren't getting paid for it either.....

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]So, you do believer the traditional model is obedient to Scripture in its operation and structure. You also agree that discipleship takes place in the so called traditional church model? If so, we are in total agreement! If not, I was correct in my assumptions of your supposedly clear beliefs.[/quote]

Do I believe that the traditional model can be obedient to Scripture in regards to operation and structure? That it can be a place where discipleship takes place? Sure!

Do I believe it's as easy for this to occur in churches today as they are generally operated? Nope. I believe it's far easier when you have a smaller group who doesn't associate the church with a building, where every person is intimately involved in the lives of the others.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]If you lead/teach a kitchen table church...group....assembly....your ice and kids, then according to Castor you are biased in this discussion.[/quote]

I'm sure I am biased. I'm also willing to acknowledge the benefits and pitfalls of both sides.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Maybe he doesn't know what the meaning is is, is....but you said exactly what he said.....and you aren't getting paid for it either.....

Clearly the black print on white screen conveys an entirely different meaning when Clintonian-speak rules.  But at least he didn't try to defend the Orwellian gibberish when called on it.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Better? 

Yes, that is more accurately reflective of what I stated, and what I would continue to assert.  It's based on 25+ years of being a Christian and about 15 years of being a church member.  That doesn't necessarily mean that my experience can be extrapolated to the whole of Christianity, but based on other factors that I read and hear about, I'd say that it represents a significant demographic of those who come to church meetings.  The topic of discussion is "congregational participation".  Many (especially the younger generation) feel that they are doing their duty by coming to church a couple of times a month.  Anything more than that cuts into their other pursuits.  Are you denying this as an observable truth in the congregations you've been in?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I do believe that there is a disconnect with the millennials. There may be a variety of reasons. I do know that the young adults in my orbit respond to one on one very openly and appreciate the interest and attention. I can also point to some early 20 somethings that will put who are older to shame if we are keeping attendance score. So yes I have seen what you describe but I don't think it is as clean nor clear as you present it.

As to all the other fluff and furor; while I can see the tomato's concern I believe he is throwing the baby out with the bath water. While I can see the concern that a traditionalist like you may have, I believe there is room for alteration without obliteration of the normal ways of doing church.

Small group dynamics are truly different than large congregational dynamics. What I don't understand is the idea that they compete with each other. I see them as complementary.

Our last go-round of SS electives included a "class" of breaking down the morning sermon further. How do you see it applying in your life? Where were you challenged or convicted to make a change? Who hasn't had the experience of hearing the same sermon as another and both coming away with different life applications? This is God working through the preaching of His word! We just accelerated the idea by letting folks mutually edify (for tomato and SC) each other with the words preached from the pulpit (for you and the traditional gang). What a concept!

So there is my rambling response. 

Tomato wants the average person to have a say in the service, and thinks the traditional model doesn't allow them their opportunity to "prophecy", but as you've pointed out (as well as others have in the past) the Sunday School hour is only one of several options where they can have their voice heard.  It's really much ado about nothing, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.