How did the Body of Christ come to be comprised of 25-40% unbelievers?

[Castor Muscular]

How responsible is the "pastor" for the percentage of unbelievers?

If he preaches properly, wouldn't they eventually leave, or accept Christ?

I don't think so.  The pastor/sermon model is a theatrical model.  People come to see a performance.  Even if the lost don't like the performance, the social aspects of church will probably keep them coming.  Some might even ENJOY not liking the sermon.

The gathering of the Body of Christ in NT times was not the least bit theatrical, and not centered on one person preaching.  They came together to edify and admonish one another.  I don't think unbelievers would want to be involved in that, unless they're on the cusp of being saved.

Not liking the sermon gives them a topic around the dinner table ....

Yup. 

The other extreme is for the pastor to water down the sermons so much that he gets the unbelievers to respond to the invitation.  Then you have a church with 25%-40% self-deluded non-Christians instead of 25%-40% unbelievers playing church.

 

[christundivided]

I don't think so.  The pastor/sermon model is a theatrical model.  People come to see a performance...


The gathering of the Body of Christ in NT times was not the least bit theatrical, and not centered on one person preaching.  They came together to edify and admonish one another. 

This is pretty much malarkey.  The Corinthian church, who were coming together for the love feast presumably, messed things up royally.  The idea that "the NT church" in early times was purer than today is just goofy idealism.  And the notion of the sermon not being important is so far out in left field that it is laughable.  The NT is replete with conceptual data that honors the preaching of the word, and the prominence of the word amongst the people of God.  Mot to mention the historical evangelical data that shows the opposite of what you claim.

Do you really believe the early NT church wasn't purer than today? You should really reconsider what you've written.

Now... I do agree... it wasn't trouble free. In fact, it was rather dirty business at times. Yet, they did have the apostles and those apostles had power. Real power. Not like some today who rule through pretense. Also, you have what's written to the "seven churches" towards the end of the "early church" age. You basically have an appeal to "former things". Times when they "ran well".

 

[ALAYMAN]

I don't think so.  The pastor/sermon model is a theatrical model.  People come to see a performance...


The gathering of the Body of Christ in NT times was not the least bit theatrical, and not centered on one person preaching.  They came together to edify and admonish one another. 

This is pretty much malarkey.  The Corinthian church, who were coming together for the love feast presumably, messed things up royally.  The idea that "the NT church" in early times was purer than today is just goofy idealism.  And the notion of the sermon not being important is so far out in left field that it is laughable.  The NT is replete with conceptual data that honors the preaching of the word, and the prominence of the word amongst the people of God.  Mot to mention the historical evangelical data that shows the opposite of what you claim.

Do you really believe the early NT church wasn't purer than today? You should really reconsider what you've written.

Now... I do agree... it wasn't trouble free. In fact, it was rather dirty business at times. Yet, they did have the apostles and those apostles had power. Real power. Not like some today who rule through pretense. Also, you have what's written to the "seven churches" towards the end of the "early church" age. You basically have an appeal to "former things". Times when they "ran well".

Well, I think the main thing I was pointing out was that people who nostalgically think things were better back in the good ol days are usually deluding themselves.  Human nature hasn't changed from the beginning.  Aside from the Corinthian reference, you have plenty of problems mentioned in relationship to numerous other churches, from self-righteous judaizers, to gnostic corruption, and Paul's warning that people are so soon removed to another gospel.  All in all, I'd say that they had enough problems to qualify for a dysfunctionality award.   In our time, we just have 24/7 coverage via telecommunications to demonstrate all the wonkiness.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Well, I think the main thing I was pointing out was that people who nostalgically think things were better back in the good ol days are usually deluding themselves.  Human nature hasn't changed from the beginning.  Aside from the Corinthian reference, you have plenty of problems mentioned in relationship to numerous other churches, from self-righteous judaizers, to gnostic corruption, and Paul's warning that people are so soon removed to another gospel.  All in all, I'd say that they had enough problems to qualify for a dysfunctionality award.   In our time, we just have 24/7 coverage via telecommunications to demonstrate all the wonkiness.

Nothing nostalgic.  I'm not even arguing that there were no problems.

But it was a better model for building up the Body of Christ.  Personally, I think that's indisputable, but I know you and others disagree. 

The current pastor/sermon model may not be totally useless, but it's a crime to paralyze 99% of the Body in the process.  And it IS clearly a theatrical model.  All the elements of theater are there. 

 

[Timothy]

Well, I think the main thing I was pointing out was that people who nostalgically think things were better back in the good ol days are usually deluding themselves.  Human nature hasn't changed from the beginning.  Aside from the Corinthian reference, you have plenty of problems mentioned in relationship to numerous other churches, from self-righteous judaizers, to gnostic corruption, and Paul's warning that people are so soon removed to another gospel.  All in all, I'd say that they had enough problems to qualify for a dysfunctionality award.   In our time, we just have 24/7 coverage via telecommunications to demonstrate all the wonkiness.

Nothing nostalgic.  I'm not even arguing that there were no problems.

But it was a better model for building up the Body of Christ.  Personally, I think that's indisputable, but I know you and others disagree. 

The current pastor/sermon model may not be totally useless, but it's a crime to paralyze 99% of the Body in the process.  And it IS clearly a theatrical model.  All the elements of theater are there.

Including applauding .... after special music. And yet, I am told the applause are for God. Really? hmmmmm

 

[christundivided]

Well, I think the main thing I was pointing out was that people who nostalgically think things were better back in the good ol days are usually deluding themselves.  Human nature hasn't changed from the beginning.  Aside from the Corinthian reference, you have plenty of problems mentioned in relationship to numerous other churches, from self-righteous judaizers, to gnostic corruption, and Paul's warning that people are so soon removed to another gospel.  All in all, I'd say that they had enough problems to qualify for a dysfunctionality award.   In our time, we just have 24/7 coverage via telecommunications to demonstrate all the wonkiness.

Nothing nostalgic.  I'm not even arguing that there were no problems.

But it was a better model for building up the Body of Christ.  Personally, I think that's indisputable, but I know you and others disagree. 

The current pastor/sermon model may not be totally useless, but it's a crime to paralyze 99% of the Body in the process.  And it IS clearly a theatrical model.  All the elements of theater are there.

The theatrical element has always been there. Take for example the Christ's sermon on the mount.

I do agree that its worse now than in the early church. Not particular because of the method but because of the people.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Can you imagine what it would be like if people could stand up and be heard during a sermon or the Lord's Supper?  Ideally, it would be positively edifying, but I'd also like to be able to stand up in a current theatrical church and say, "Hey.  That's not what Paul is saying there.  He's not talking about unconfessed sin.  He's talking about the rude and unruly behavior of the saints taking the Lord's supper, and that being an indication they are not respecting the meaning.  If you're so hot on unconfessed sin, then what about the 25%-40% of this congregation who you told me yesterday are still lost?  Many of them are going to partake, and being lost, they are by definition people with unconfessed sin." 

Sorry, just had to rant on that.

But seriously, imagine a compromise between the current model and the old.  Let the pastor pause several times during the sermon to give people the opportunity to speak.  It's not the model I'd like most, but at least that gives the rest of the Body the chance to edify the pastor, and everyone else, too.  And if the pastor is teaching error, then correct it!  Even if he stands by his interpretation, at least the whole assembly gets to hear both sides.  What a concept!

 

[Castor Muscular]

The theatrical element has always been there. Take for example the Christ's sermon on the mount.

Oh, come now.  That was JESUS.  The NT church didn't do that.  At least it was never recorded. 

 

[Timothy]

Can you imagine what it would be like if people could stand up and be heard during a sermon or the Lord's Supper?  Ideally, it would be positively edifying, but I'd also like to be able to stand up in a current theatrical church and say, "Hey.  That's not what Paul is saying there.  He's not talking about unconfessed sin.  He's talking about the rude and unruly behavior of the saints taking the Lord's supper, and that being an indication they are not respecting the meaning.  If you're so hot on unconfessed sin, then what about the 25%-40% of this congregation who you told me yesterday are still lost?  Many of them are going to partake, and being lost, they are by definition people with unconfessed sin." 

Sorry, just had to rant on that.

But seriously, imagine a compromise between the current model and the old.  Let the pastor pause several times during the sermon to give people the opportunity to speak.  It's not the model I'd like most, but at least that gives the rest of the Body the chance to edify the pastor, and everyone else, too.  And if the pastor is teaching error, then correct it!  Even if he stands by his interpretation, at least the whole assembly gets to hear both sides.  What a concept!

Isn't Sunday School sort of a compromise? At our Church you can ask questions ....

That, and Bible Study .... at homes ...

I don't mind corporate worship ... just so it doesn't become "it"

 

[christundivided]

The theatrical element has always been there. Take for example the Christ's sermon on the mount.

Oh, come now.  That was JESUS.  The NT church didn't do that.  At least it was never recorded.

Yes, your right... but its not like later.....Paul took a LONG time to preach in Acts 20 and poor Eutychus fell three stories and died. Paul then stopped, raised him from the dead and preached on until morning.

I'd call that pretty "theatrical".

 

[Castor Muscular]

Isn't Sunday School sort of a compromise? At our Church you can ask questions ....

That, and Bible Study .... at homes ...

I don't mind corporate worship ... just so it doesn't become "it"

Yes, it is a compromise.  And one I enjoy.  In fact, I often used to go to Sunday school and skip the service. 

Also, see the Milpitas thread on "corporate worship".  That isn't the purpose of church. 

EDIT:  Whoops, that wasn't the thread.  I forget where we address that.  Might even be in this thread somewhere.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Yes, your right... but its not like later.....Paul took a LONG time to preach in Acts 20 and poor Eutychus fell three stories and died. Paul then stopped, raised him from the dead and preached on until morning.

I'd call that pretty "theatrical".

I wouldn't.  I'd call it boring your audience to death, literally.    No, seriously, when I say "theatrical" I don't mean nobody speaks at length.  I mean the entire system is set up as theater.  And that's what the common "church" is today.  You even get a program as you go in. 

 

[christundivided]

Yes, your right... but its not like later.....Paul took a LONG time to preach in Acts 20 and poor Eutychus fell three stories and died. Paul then stopped, raised him from the dead and preached on until morning.

I'd call that pretty "theatrical".

I wouldn't.  I'd call it boring your audience to death, literally.    No, seriously, when I say "theatrical" I don't mean nobody speaks at length.  I mean the entire system is set up as theater.  And that's what the common "church" is today.  You even get a program as you go in.

You're right about that.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]No, seriously, when I say "theatrical" I don't mean nobody speaks at length.  I mean the entire system is set up as theater.  And that's what the common "church" is today.  You even get a program as you go in. [/quote]

We get a program when you walk it...

...but it's to facilitate the non-theater aspects of the service like the corporate readings and such.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The current pastor/sermon model may not be totally useless, but it's a crime to paralyze 99% of the Body in the process.  And it IS clearly a theatrical model.  All the elements of theater are there.

Well, participating in worship via the preached word is hardly paralyzing if the sermon is properly crafted.

 

[Castor Muscular]

The current pastor/sermon model may not be totally useless, but it's a crime to paralyze 99% of the Body in the process.  And it IS clearly a theatrical model.  All the elements of theater are there.

Well, participating in worship via the preached word is hardly paralyzing if the sermon is properly crafted.

You clearly don't get my meaning, but I doubt if it would matter. 

 

[Patebald]

How would you go about purifying the church so that it once again is comprised of near 100% believers?

Is this serious? I'm having trouble believing it is.

 

[Castor Muscular]

How would you go about purifying the church so that it once again is comprised of near 100% believers?

Is this serious? I'm having trouble believing it is.

Read the rest of that line of conversation. 

 

[Patebald]

Read the rest of that line of conversation.

Yeah... I just did. My original question doesn't change one bit

 

[Castor Muscular]

Read the rest of that line of conversation.

Yeah... I just did. My original question doesn't change one bit

Then you have a reading comprehension problem.  I explained what I mean already.  I'm not going to do it again.