Real Church

[subllibrm]

Because this bears repeating:  Show me the scriptural support for the purpose of an assembly being a silent, passive laity listening to a sermon by a single pastor/preacher/orator.

Since your description is at best an exaggeration there is no way to answer the question. I do know that we are not be quarrelsome. I know that meetings are not to be free-for-alls. There is abundant support for the idea that someone is teaching while others are learning. I know we are to do things in an orderly fashion. I know the vast majority of churches meeting these criteria. And I know that I have never met this guy you keep insisting all pastors to be. Your bias clouds the conversation by the willful blindness you adopt toward anything that does not line up with what you believe to be the norm. Or put another way; ask someone who actually believes what you describe. Accusing the pastors here of something they don't believe and then demand that they defend it is a ridiculous demand.

Oh, and while you continue to curse the (perceived) darkness you still refuse to articulate the light that will rectify the (non-existent) problem.

BTW I am no where near passive. Ask my church family. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Because this bears repeating:  Show me the scriptural support for the purpose of an assembly being a silent, passive laity listening to a sermon by a single pastor/preacher/orator.

Since your description is at best an exaggeration there is no way to answer the question. I do know that we are not be quarrelsome. I know that meetings are not to be free-for-alls. There is abundant support for the idea that someone is teaching while others are learning. I know we are to do things in an orderly fashion. I know the vast majority of churches meeting these criteria. And I know that I have never met this guy you keep insisting all pastors to be. Your bias clouds the conversation by the willful blindness you adopt toward anything that does not line up with what you believe to be the norm. Or put another way; ask someone who actually believes what you describe. Accusing the pastors here of something they don't believe and then demand that they defend it is a ridiculous demand.

Oh, and while you continue to curse the (perceived) darkness you still refuse to articulate the light that will rectify the (non-existent) problem.

BTW I am no where near passive. Ask my church family. 

In other words, you have no scriptural support. 

In short, the need for the pulpit, acoustics, etc., is driven by a model of how an assembly should be held; a model nowhere to be found in scripture. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Because this bears repeating:  Show me the scriptural support for the purpose of an assembly being a silent, passive laity listening to a sermon by a single pastor/preacher/orator.

Since your description is at best an exaggeration there is no way to answer the question. I do know that we are not be quarrelsome. I know that meetings are not to be free-for-alls. There is abundant support for the idea that someone is teaching while others are learning. I know we are to do things in an orderly fashion. I know the vast majority of churches meeting these criteria. And I know that I have never met this guy you keep insisting all pastors to be. Your bias clouds the conversation by the willful blindness you adopt toward anything that does not line up with what you believe to be the norm. Or put another way; ask someone who actually believes what you describe. Accusing the pastors here of something they don't believe and then demand that they defend it is a ridiculous demand.

Oh, and while you continue to curse the (perceived) darkness you still refuse to articulate the light that will rectify the (non-existent) problem.

BTW I am no where near passive. Ask my church family. 

In other words, you have no scriptural support. 

In short, the need for the pulpit, acoustics, etc., is driven by a model of how an assembly should be held; a model nowhere to be found in scripture.

Which allows for a myriad of allowable settings.

I believe the home church method is probably the most effective concerning accountability and edification toward one another but that does not mean meeting elsewhere is prohibited. I'm sure holding church services in prison cells or in the woods in China is not ideal either but God works through individuals and not simply the setting.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Because this bears repeating:  Show me the scriptural support for the purpose of an assembly being a silent, passive laity listening to a sermon by a single pastor/preacher/orator.

Since your description is at best an exaggeration there is no way to answer the question. I do know that we are not be quarrelsome. I know that meetings are not to be free-for-alls. There is abundant support for the idea that someone is teaching while others are learning. I know we are to do things in an orderly fashion. I know the vast majority of churches meeting these criteria. And I know that I have never met this guy you keep insisting all pastors to be. Your bias clouds the conversation by the willful blindness you adopt toward anything that does not line up with what you believe to be the norm. Or put another way; ask someone who actually believes what you describe. Accusing the pastors here of something they don't believe and then demand that they defend it is a ridiculous demand.

Oh, and while you continue to curse the (perceived) darkness you still refuse to articulate the light that will rectify the (non-existent) problem.

BTW I am no where near passive. Ask my church family. 

In other words, you have no scriptural support. 

In short, the need for the pulpit, acoustics, etc., is driven by a model of how an assembly should be held; a model nowhere to be found in scripture.

Which allows for a myriad of allowable settings.

Yes, I agree.  However, they were defending a building structure that draws the focus of the laity to a single individual  by saying it's built that way so that everyone can hear the sermon.  Sure, that's true.  But the idea that the assembly is all about people coming to hear a sermon is nowhere found in scripture. 

So, is it wrong just because the model doesn't exist in scripture?  No, not necessarily.  But is it a bad idea for other reasons?  Yes.  It focuses the laity's attention on one MAN, and not on the one Christ.  That is not a good thing, and the evidence for the problems it creates is everywhere.  For example, pastor scandals are a big deal because the man they've been worshiping as a leader has fallen.  That should tell you something about misplaced worship. 

Pastors will deny that it is worship, but Jesus is very particular about these things.  8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant.  Jesus is God, a jealous God. 

And this un-scriptural model forbids the checks and balances and wisdom inherent in "29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged."

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

In traditional Protestant church architecture, the centrality of the pulpit is symbolic of the centrality of the Word preached to the corporate worship service.

Contrast a traditonal Roman Catholic church, where the pulpit (ambo) is off to the left, because the altar and the sacraments have the central position.

Elevating the pulpit in either case is, of course, a practical necessity if the sermon is to be heard clearly.

Because this bears repeating.

Because this bears repeating, yet again!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Because this bears repeating:  Show me the scriptural support for the purpose of an assembly being a silent, passive laity listening to a sermon by a single pastor/preacher/orator.

Since your description is at best an exaggeration there is no way to answer the question. I do know that we are not be quarrelsome. I know that meetings are not to be free-for-alls. There is abundant support for the idea that someone is teaching while others are learning. I know we are to do things in an orderly fashion. I know the vast majority of churches meeting these criteria. And I know that I have never met this guy you keep insisting all pastors to be. Your bias clouds the conversation by the willful blindness you adopt toward anything that does not line up with what you believe to be the norm. Or put another way; ask someone who actually believes what you describe. Accusing the pastors here of something they don't believe and then demand that they defend it is a ridiculous demand.

Oh, and while you continue to curse the (perceived) darkness you still refuse to articulate the light that will rectify the (non-existent) problem.

BTW I am no where near passive. Ask my church family. 

In other words, you have no scriptural support. 

In short, the need for the pulpit, acoustics, etc., is driven by a model of how an assembly should be held; a model nowhere to be found in scripture.

Which allows for a myriad of allowable settings.

Yes, I agree.  However, they were defending a building structure that draws the focus of the laity to a single individual  by saying it's built that way so that everyone can hear the sermon.  Sure, that's true.  But the idea that the assembly is all about people coming to hear a sermon is nowhere found in scripture. 

So, is it wrong just because the model doesn't exist in scripture?  No, not necessarily.  But is it a bad idea for other reasons?  Yes.  It focuses the laity's attention on one MAN, and not on the one Christ.  That is not a good thing, and the evidence for the problems it creates is everywhere.  For example, pastor scandals are a big deal because the man they've been worshiping as a leader has fallen.  That should tell you something about misplaced worship. 

Pastors will deny that it is worship, but Jesus is very particular about these things.  8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant.  Jesus is God, a jealous God. 

And this un-scriptural model forbids the checks and balances and wisdom inherent in "29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged."

I don't deny that it is not the best method to accomplish discipleship and edification of the church as Jesus taught but it still isn't prohibited. In essence, when one lives on McDonalds food for every meal might not be healthy, but he can survive doing so and certainly isn't illegal.

Your points are valid but when it comes to what is allowable and what isn't, the area is completely gray as far as I see it.

 

[subllibrm]

Because this bears repeating:  Show me the scriptural support for the purpose of an assembly being a silent, passive laity listening to a sermon by a single pastor/preacher/orator.

Since your description is at best an exaggeration there is no way to answer the question. I do know that we are not be quarrelsome. I know that meetings are not to be free-for-alls. There is abundant support for the idea that someone is teaching while others are learning. I know we are to do things in an orderly fashion. I know the vast majority of churches meeting these criteria. And I know that I have never met this guy you keep insisting all pastors to be. Your bias clouds the conversation by the willful blindness you adopt toward anything that does not line up with what you believe to be the norm. Or put another way; ask someone who actually believes what you describe. Accusing the pastors here of something they don't believe and then demand that they defend it is a ridiculous demand.

Oh, and while you continue to curse the (perceived) darkness you still refuse to articulate the light that will rectify the (non-existent) problem.

BTW I am no where near passive. Ask my church family. 

In other words, you have no scriptural support. 

In short, the need for the pulpit, acoustics, etc., is driven by a model of how an assembly should be held; a model nowhere to be found in scripture.

In other words you have shown nothing to indicate that anyone is doing anything wrong. Griping about architecture is just straining at gnats to itch your anger. Nothing you have shared speak a whit to the structure of the building or layout of the assembly.

And I see no scriptural command of how things are "supposed to be" or support for your vile accusations against the men here. What you have done is taken a description of how assemblies are to interact and have extrapolated it to match your bias and conclude that yours is the only possible way for those conditions to occur. Reading into scripture what you want it to say to justify your judge and grudge attitude.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

And I see no scriptural command of how things are "supposed to be"

Then you are very ignorant of scripture. 

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

There are many more instructions on how things are "supposed to be" and how things are "not supposed to be".  Read the Bible.  You'll find them.  But you won't find this:  "One preacher should give a sermon, and the others should listen.  And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, let him keep it to himself and approach the pastor about it in private, where it can be easily ignored." 

That doesn't mean it isn't permissible.  It just isn't indicated in scripture, and IMO, it has many problems. 

 

[Prin.Ciples]

And I see no scriptural command of how things are "supposed to be"

Then you are very ignorant of scripture. 

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

There are many more instructions on how things are "supposed to be" and how things are "not supposed to be".  Read the Bible.  You'll find them.  But you won't find this:  "One preacher should give a sermon, and the others should listen.  And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, let him keep it to himself and approach the pastor about it in private, where it can be easily ignored."

While I agree with some of what you've said.... there are many examples in the Scriptures inwhich a "preacher" or "speaker" is the central focus of a worship or teaching assembly. As the apostles and teachers spread out throughout the known world at the time, they were the center focus of worship services they attended or rather.... lead. Granted, this doesn't always have to be the case. Plus, we certainly aren't entertain great men "of God" today that were central to the message two thousand years ago.

I do believe that the average "worship leader" is afraid of share much of anything from a gifted member of the body of Christ. If they did, then the members would see just how bad they've had it for so long!!!!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

And I see no scriptural command of how things are "supposed to be"

Then you are very ignorant of scripture. 

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

There are many more instructions on how things are "supposed to be" and how things are "not supposed to be".  Read the Bible.  You'll find them.  But you won't find this:  "One preacher should give a sermon, and the others should listen.  And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, let him keep it to himself and approach the pastor about it in private, where it can be easily ignored."

While I agree with some of what you've said.... there are many examples in the Scriptures inwhich a "preacher" or "speaker" is the central focus of a worship or teaching assembly. As the apostles and teachers spread out throughout the known world at the time, they were the center focus of worship services they attended or rather.... lead. Granted, this doesn't always have to be the case. Plus, we certainly aren't entertain great men "of God" today that were central to the message two thousand years ago.

I do believe that the average "worship leader" is afraid of share much of anything from a gifted member of the body of Christ. If they did, then the members would see just how bad they've had it for so long!!!!

Yes, as I said, it's not like it's not permitted.  But in the early days, apostles and Paul traveled and preached wherever they went.  And look at the purpose: 

20 You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. 21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

They were traveling preachers to spread the good news.  It wasn't weekly preaching at a "church building" for the edification of the laity, much less mutual edification (which requires the kind of interaction in 1 Cor 14). 

So the NT Biblical examples of a preacher vs. today's preacher are apples and oranges.

 

[Ransom]

Then you are very ignorant of scripture.

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

There are many more instructions on how things are "supposed to be" and how things are "not suppo

We interrupt this speaker with a revelation. Rogue is being silly.

(It's obvious the context of this passage is contrasting the wrong way of doing things [everyone trying to talk at once] with the right way [only two or three people speaking, and doing so in turn].)

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Then you are very ignorant of scripture.

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

There are many more instructions on how things are "supposed to be" and how things are "not suppo

We interrupt this speaker with a revelation. Rogue is being silly.

(It's obvious the context of this passage is contrasting the wrong way of doing things [everyone trying to talk at once] with the right way [only two or three people speaking, and doing so in turn].)

Huh, Rogue, wanna read what you posted again?

So, let me help you. Someone is sitting in verse 30, which is stated in contrast to verse 29, the one speaking, who is not sitting. Now, the one in verse 29, he could be lying down, but that seems unlikely. He could be kneeling down, but that seems unlikely. Seems more likely that the one speaking in verse 29 is standing, the rest sitting.

Now Rogue, this is your quote not mine. You are quoting the NIV. The speaker stands and speaks to those who sit. The NIV is not my authourity, it is your authourity, or at least these verses from the NIV are, because you quote it or at least them authoritatively.

you asked:

Because this bears repeating:  Show me the scriptural support for the purpose of an assembly being a silent, passive laity listening to a sermon by a single pastor/preacher/orator.

You answered your own question when you quoted 1 Corinthians 14:29-31. That's what it says to do.

you said:

There are many more instructions on how things are "supposed to be" and how things are "not supposed to be".  Read the Bible.  You'll find them.  But you won't find this:  "One preacher should give a sermon, and the others should listen.

Umm, seems the scripture you quoted several times in this thread says while one is speaking the others should be sitting, and, presumably, looking at him while he is speaking. No?

you also said:

So, is it wrong just because the model doesn't exist in scripture?  No, not necessarily.  But is it a bad idea for other reasons?  Yes.  It focuses the laity's attention on one MAN, and not on the one Christ.

But it seems the scripture you quoted says they should sit and listen and pay attention to the one speaking. You basically said "don't do what the scripture I quoted says to do, except, well, do part of what the scripture I quoted says to do, the part I say it says to do, do that, ignore the rest."

You contradict the very scripture you quote to support your argument.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Then you are very ignorant of scripture.

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

There are many more instructions on how things are "supposed to be" and how things are "not suppo

We interrupt this speaker with a revelation. Rogue is being silly.

(It's obvious the context of this passage is contrasting the wrong way of doing things [everyone trying to talk at once] with the right way [only two or three people speaking, and doing so in turn].)

Correct.  As opposed to what pastors will tell you is the "right" right way [only the pastor speaks and the laity is to remain seated and silent]. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Umm, seems the scripture you quoted several times in this thread says while one is speaking the others should be sitting, and, presumably, looking at him while he is speaking. No?

Say what?  What are you babbling on about?  At my assembly, when someone is speaking, they're standing.  When the next person speaks, that person stands and the former speaker sits down.  We don't speak over each other.  Nobody speaks in tongues without a translator (nobody speaks in tongues at all, actually).  That sounds exactly like what is being taught in 1 Cor 14. 

Another assembly hires a preacher to teach them 40-60 minutes every Sunday while they all sit like a good theater audience and listen (or sleep).  While that may not be forbidden by the Bible, it's not taught in the Bible either.  Whatever floats your boat (or pays your bills), man. 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Umm, seems the scripture you quoted several times in this thread says while one is speaking the others should be sitting, and, presumably, looking at him while he is speaking. No?

Say what?  What are you babbling on about?  At my assembly, when someone is speaking, they're standing.  When the next person speaks, that person stands and the former speaker sits down.  We don't speak over each other.  Nobody speaks in tongues without a translator (nobody speaks in tongues at all, actually).  That sounds exactly like what is being taught in 1 Cor 14. 

Another assembly hires a preacher to teach them 40-60 minutes every Sunday while they all sit like a good theater audience and listen (or sleep).  While that may not be forbidden by the Bible, it's not taught in the Bible either.  Whatever floats your boat (or pays your bills), man.

You mean you focus your attention on one man while they speak? You clearly said that was wrong, people would focus their attention on a man and not on Christ.

 

[Ransom]

Correct.  As opposed to what pastors will tell you is the "right" right way [only the pastor speaks and the laity is to remain seated and silent]. 

Um, no, not at all "as opposed to" this. Eisegete much?

Paul is not prescribing a particular form of church government or order of service. He is contrasting disorderly and orderly conduct. And in any case, two or three at most (v. 27) does not exclude "one."

 

[Ransom]

We don't speak over each other.

Oh, so you do sit there passively listening to one man, as long as it's his turn.

 

[prophet]

The usual divide here, once again rears its ugly head.
It appears most evangelicals read the Scripture, like that lawyer 2,000 years ago, seeking to justify themselves rather than adapt to God's way.

We have had such a corruption of Western politics, that the words "checks and balances" have become empty classroom rhetoric, rather than urgent self defense mechanisms.

Thankfully, to Native Americans:
Everyone seated in a circle, with only the elder men speaking, in turn, is normal, so ICor. 14 makes perfect sense to us.

Earnestly Contend.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

The usual divide here, once again rears its ugly head.
It appears most evangelicals read the Scripture, like that lawyer 2,000 years ago, seeking to justify themselves rather than adapt to God's way.

We have had such a corruption of Western politics, that the words "checks and balances" have become empty classroom rhetoric, rather than urgent self defense mechanisms.

Thankfully, to Native Americans:
Everyone seated in a circle, with only the elder men speaking, in turn, is normal, so ICor. 14 makes perfect sense to us.

Earnestly Contend.

prophet, there are more than a couple of divides here on the issue.

You advocate that there must be a plurality of elders for the church to exist.

I advocate that a plurality is fine, but not necessary, and that the plurality must have a reason to exist, in other words there needs to be a reasonable ration regarding leadership, and within the plurality there must be a focal point.

But there are others here who advocate that there must be a plurality, they say that they do not desire to be in leadership, but in practice they themselves must be part of that plurality because to deny them the right and opportunity to be included in the plurality is lording it over them, and in practice the group must remain small enough for them to control it without being in leadership. The truth is that mentality is far more destructive and counter productve than the MOG mentality that many here are vehemently against.

 

[prophet]

The usual divide here, once again rears its ugly head.
It appears most evangelicals read the Scripture, like that lawyer 2,000 years ago, seeking to justify themselves rather than adapt to God's way.

We have had such a corruption of Western politics, that the words "checks and balances" have become empty classroom rhetoric, rather than urgent self defense mechanisms.

Thankfully, to Native Americans:
Everyone seated in a circle, with only the elder men speaking, in turn, is normal, so ICor. 14 makes perfect sense to us.

Earnestly Contend.

prophet, there are more than a couple of divides here on the issue.

You advocate that there must be a plurality of elders for the church to exist.

I advocate that a plurality is fine, but not necessary, and that the plurality must have a reason to exist, in other words there needs to be a reasonable ration regarding leadership, and within the plurality there must be a focal point.

But there are others here who advocate that there must be a plurality, they say that they do not desire to be in leadership, but in practice they themselves must be part of that plurality because to deny them the right and opportunity to be included in the plurality is lording it over them, and in practice the group must remain small enough for them to control it without being in leadership. The truth is that mentality is far more destructive and counter productve than the MOG mentality that many here are vehemently against.

I can't find any place in Scripture where Jesus or any Apostle overturned the plurality of leadership that Jesus established when He first called out the Church.

You are looking from a post RCC takeover position, saying (for all intents and purposes) :"show me in Scripture where it says I have to overturn Rome's error".

R.T., and I , and others, are saying, "if God never told us to anoint a single leader, than we shouldn't, and o, by the way, we see where we are told not to".