Sunday 'Church' tradition vs. small groups

[Adullam]

But if you look closely, you will see that there was already disunity, which Paul speaks about. And that was in his time. And while the Bible records how the early church met, it is descriptive and is in no way whatsoever prescriptive.

That disunity could be corrected when there existed true leaders from God...without having the option to run to a different denomination or hide in a bigger church. A person can put on a show on sunday...but intimacy in the Spirit causes those rebellious ones to keep away.

And looking at how the Church is now, there is no way that, for all intents and purposes, a near infinite increase in the number of groups meeting would result in increased unity. The disunity would increase proportionally to the number of groups. If the church is so lacking in unity now, further fracturing it will exacerbate the problem.

This is backwards reasoning. Having no place to hide gets rid of the dis-unity. Having a true leadership that is recognized as being from God brings unity. The Protestant movement has brought about a tower of babel scenario where everyone has gone their separate ways. Do you realize that many denominations now even have gay ministers? Is this the kind of unity you are speaking of?

This is a significant problem in the argument for small groups only. And, as I have mentioned a couple of times now, the likelihood of error and heresy being taught would likely increase proportionally as well.

These two significant problems alone should give one a tremendous amount of caution in arguing for small groups only.

Your argument only works if you can honestly see that the church is already broken up into small groups called denominations. You should be against them.


Christianity always has and always will be a religion.

Christianity used to be a relationship with God and an intimacy with God and His people. That's before the sunday religious "service" kicked in.


And with many more small groups, we would have that many more denominations and Jesuses (pl?).

A church is not a denomination with a headquarters in another city....like a food chain with franchises. If someone cannot see the carnal nature of such enterprises then they are really beyond help.


And the way to deal with this is by increasing the number of groups and decentralizing authority? In stead of having a Mc Church every few blocks, you would have many types of churches on every block. Talk of picking and choosing.

I am talking about a centralized authority in the same location as the church. The bible speaks of the church in a given city. Paul doesn't write to...the denomination that baptizes in Jesus name...(as opposed to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) but rather to ALL the believers in a given city...there being NO dis-unity.



And yet small groups in favour of larger Sunday service would significantly increase disunity.

The opposite is true...the congregations are based on a franchise that seeks to make money for the "staff" so they can make the same kind of living as other "trades". The church is run as a business. It is incorporated like a business. The pastor is hired to increase sales figures. If people flock away from his franchise then he will be fired....irregardless of whether he is in the truth or not. THIS is what has brought much confusion. We are following Mammon...not God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...I still go to church, but just classes and bible studies and avoid the liturgies.

That's the word that I'm looking for!

I don't see a mandate in scripture to gather together to fulfill liturgical procedures. In fact, my experience has shown that to be quite useless in fulfilling the purpose for which Paul says the saints are to meet together. But centuries of tradition and lack of knowledge, and experience, of what the Bible shows us must be done in a meeting of the saints to fulfill the purpose for which we do that makes broaching the subject the same as touching the apple of ones eye, for no one believes there is any legitimate, God ordained alternative to what they are already doing, and have been doing.

And, true, it's not a matter of salvation. It's a matter of building God's people into what they really are supposed to be. And few in and out of the church would argue that the church in general is indeed very big, but very immature by Biblical standards. And because of that, her witness is like the salt that is no longer good for anything but to be trampled on by men.

Keep checking back in. As time permits let's talk about this some more.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I see where you're coming from, but most churches have a bible study available; usually after the service. That may be the small intimate group you're looking for.

If that small group does all that the main Sunday service tradition does, and more, do I still need the Sunday tradition?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think you would be happier if you also belonged to a full-fledged church.

Happier in what way if a smaller, informal group fills all the needs and requirements for meeting together?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...sometimes you need a small group to avoid false doctrine to teach and edify.

Actually, that's what I do now, as I haven't been to a church service in over a year now. Ironically, the smaller group of people who really want to learn are right there in church, so instead of having home groups, I still go to church, but just classes and bible studies and avoid the liturgies.

I do know that in almost every church I've been to there has been a core group that to me comprise the true, sincere, and faithful followers of Christ. They're the one's that have filled their whole lives up with God and seek relevant and stimulating conversation about the faith. And smaller, informal groups is the only place they can get that.

In my last church I used to come in for the Bible study and then sneek out the door and go home while everybody was filing into the main sanctuary for the traditional Sunday service. It felt awkward because I knew many would be judging me if they knew what I was doing, not knowing I had just had more 'church' than they thought imaginable or possible.

And that's how I like to keep it---- church #1 people hardly know I exist. You may find church #2 people right there in your own church, and can allot time right there to study with them without the need to hold it in someone's home.

Everybody seems to think of these smaller, informal meetings as home meetings only. Why not meet in churches but with the intent of abandoning the Sunday service traditions of stoicism and inactive reverence and instead holding controlled, interactive, open meetings under the same kind of leadership?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...while the Bible records how the early church met, it is descriptive and is in no way whatsoever prescriptive.

Show us.

And looking at how the Church is now, there is no way that, for all intents and purposes, a near infinite increase in the number of groups meeting would result in increased unity. The disunity would increase proportionally to the number of groups. If the church is so lacking in unity now, further fracturing it will exacerbate the problem.

No. Unity would be increased, because heresy could be controlled better by a system where congregates can openly discuss matters of the faith out in the open.

This is a significant problem in the argument for small groups only. And, as I have mentioned a couple of times now, the likelihood of error and heresy being taught would likely increase proportionally as well.

This simply is not true. It would decrease.

Take the example of tithing being discussed in another thread. It is hardly taught by the leadership of the church the way it was taught and practiced in the law. But every time a pastor or teacher tells a congregation that God wants us to tithe in such a such a way people who don't know better have no choice but to accept it, and people like me who know better have no way to bring it up for discussion--not so the pastor can be destroyed and embarrassed in front of everybody, but so we can all learn together and come to the truth and be built up and edified together. Probably the biggest fallacy in the way we do things today is thinking the pastor and elders have the market cornered on knowledge and wisdom and giftedness. THAT is how heresy thrives.

These two significant problems alone should give one a tremendous amount of caution in arguing for small groups only.

...Just so we understand...smaller, open groups. Smaller so they can be open. Open to honest, edifying discussion where all the members and our gifts work together to grow us up into Christ....just as Paul says that must happen.

And with many more small groups, we would have that many more denominations and Jesuses (pl?).
And the way to deal with this is by increasing the number of groups and decentralizing authority?

Done properly there will be no decentralizing of authority.

Start thinking about this as opening up what is now our Sunday morning service tradition time into smaller, and therefore interactive, times where the body "grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work" (Eph. 4:16 NIV1984).

In stead of having a Mc Church every few blocks, you would have many types of churches on every block. Talk of picking and choosing.

Not if you maintain an order and hierarchy of gifted, knowledgeable pastors and elders. Pastors and elders who are also accountable to the body of Christ, not just to themselves, as it is now.

And yet small groups in favour of larger Sunday service would significantly increase disunity.

No, it would decrease it, as more and more people learn the truths of the faith from more than just a biased leadership of a particular denomination or sect. Just the fact that people would actually be learning and growing (for the small interactive groups make that possible), that in and of itself will increase true unity among true believers.

 

[Free]

Show us.

It's there for you to read in Scripture.

No. Unity would be increased, because heresy could be controlled better by a system where congregates can openly discuss matters of the faith out in the open.

Not at all. Error would increase. You've just given much more autonomy to each group, increasing division and the likelihood of error being taught. Unity might increase among the members of each group but overall you've created more disunity by splitting up larger bodies.

This simply is not true. It would decrease.

Take the example of tithing being discussed in another thread. It is hardly taught by the leadership of the church the way it was taught and practiced in the law. But every time a pastor or teacher tells a congregation that God wants us to tithe in such a such a way people who don't know better have no choice but to accept it, and people like me who know better have no way to bring it up for discussion--not so the pastor can be destroyed and embarrassed in front of everybody, but so we can all learn together and come to the truth and be built up and edified together. Probably the biggest fallacy in the way we do things today is thinking the pastor and elders have the market cornered on knowledge and wisdom and giftedness. THAT is how heresy thrives.

Again, generalizations. And, no, that is not how heresy thrives. Heresy and error thrive when there is little to no accountability for leadership; when authority is decentralized and the church is fractured. And that is precisely what home-church-only groups would cause to happen.

...Just so we understand...smaller, open groups. Smaller so they can be open. Open to honest, edifying discussion where all the members and our gifts work together to grow us up into Christ....just as Paul says that must happen.

You are presuming that none of this happens in larger churches.

Done properly there will be no decentralizing of authority.

Start thinking about this as opening up what is now our Sunday morning service tradition time into smaller, and therefore interactive, times where the body "grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work" (Eph. 4:16 NIV1984).

This just presumes that churches don't already do these things. And it can result in nothing but the decentralizing of authority.

Not if you maintain an order and hierarchy of gifted, knowledgeable pastors and elders. Pastors and elders who are also accountable to the body of Christ, not just to themselves, as it is now.

Again, generalizing. Sure, there are some "independent" churches where the leadership isn't accountable to anyone, but most every denominational church's leadership is accountable to the larger denomination.

Your model has a very loose leadership that really isn't accountable to anyone. This has nothing to do with personal accountability between church members, but leadership's accountability to larger governing bodies to ensure some standard of truthfulness to the Scriptures and core Christian doctrine is being maintained.

No, it would decrease it, as more and more people learn the truths of the faith from more than just a biased leadership of a particular denomination or sect. Just the fact that people would actually be learning and growing (for the small interactive groups make that possible), that in and of itself will increase true unity among true believers.

What you're implying here further supports my position. While I disagree, for the most part, with denominations, having denominations is better then not. If there is very little unity among larger denominations and the churches of those denominations, there will be even further disunity by creating significantly more smaller groups out of the larger ones. I cannot see how one could argue otherwise.


Truthfully, all I have seen thus far are arguments based on presumption and generalizations, and no real substantial argument against the Sunday church service has been put forward. We need both the Sunday service and small group meetings.

 

[Free]

The opposite is true...the congregations are based on a franchise that seeks to make money for the "staff" so they can make the same kind of living as other "trades". The church is run as a business. It is incorporated like a business. The pastor is hired to increase sales figures. If people flock away from his franchise then he will be fired....irregardless of whether he is in the truth or not. THIS is what has brought much confusion. We are following Mammon...not God.

 

[jasoncran]

free they wont get that. if you had ten houses churches all not fellowshipping with each other they will have some disagreements. its the way it is.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Not at all. Error would increase. You've just given much more autonomy to each group, increasing division and the likelihood of error being taught. Unity might increase among the members of each group but overall you've created more disunity by splitting up larger bodies.

No, the likelihood of error would not increase. How can error increase if the pastor/ elders are still in the same network of leadership. And now they have smaller, open meetings where believers can do what Paul says must be done when the church meets and become accountable for what they teach by creating an environment where what he teaches can be examined and discussed by the congregation through open discussion. How could anyone possibly argue with that?

Again, generalizations. And, no, that is not how heresy thrives. Heresy and error thrive when there is little to no accountability for leadership...

Heresy is kept safe when it is guarded by an unapproachable plurality of leadership not open to examination through honest discussion and sharing. This is simple, observable fact.

...when authority is decentralized and the church is fractured. And that is precisely what home-church-only groups would cause to happen.

But authority will not be decentralized. The pastor/ elders will still be operating in a similar system of leadership they are now. The difference being, congregation size is kept small enough to facilitate open meetings where there is discussion and fellowship instead of one-sided monologuing that is not open to honest Biblical examination and discussion. Individual needs are met and the body of Christ is built up as we all make our own spiritual contribution to the group according to our varying gifts--gifts Paul said are ALL necessary for the maturing of the saints.

And why do you think smaller open fellowships have to be in homes only?

You are presuming that none of this happens in larger churches.

What I just described can't happen in the traditional Sunday service where everyone sits quietly while a handful of people perform execute the service.

This just presumes that churches don't already do these things.

In a traditional Sunday service kind of church it can only happen in meetings added in addition to the main Sunday service. That should tell you something, Free. And that's my whole point. If our Sunday tradition of how to meet doesn't do what we know instinctively as Christians it should be doing but doesn't do (thus the reason for the other meetings) why keep it if we can satisfy all that God intended for us by leading our main meeting in the style of the smaller open meeting that does? I've addressed all your concerns, and corrected all your misconceptions about how small groups will actually be constructed and operate, so you can see what good will happen if we go back to the Bible on how to meet as the church of God.

And it can result in nothing but the decentralizing of authority.

Not if you keep a similar structure of leadership we have now, but make that leadership more accountable to the body, not just accountable to itself (plural). It is leadership that is not open to examination by the body that fosters heresy, not a leadership that opens up it's meetings for discussion of topics of the faith (think of the Bereans).

In heretical movements the leadership is bound together in a common doctrine and insists the body sit still and just take what they say as fact, always maintaining some kind of fear, even innocently, of challenging them in even the littlest, most polite way. Heresies thrive where there is control of thought. This is why there are so many denominations--so many people who think they are leaders who draw ignorant people off into controlled groups where freedom of thought is not allowed.

False groups will still be allowed to exist of course, but at least they will be separated from the sincere parts of the body of Christ and anyone in a false group can still have a chance to learn real truth in an open fellowship where these things are being honestly talked about.

Again, generalizing. Sure, there are some "independent" churches where the leadership isn't accountable to anyone, but most every denominational church's leadership is accountable to the larger denomination.

...And so it would be in churches that simply open up their meetings in the way I've been describing.

Your model has a very loose leadership that really isn't accountable to anyone.

Only in the dim view of small, open fellowships that you have in your mind. All we have to do right now with what we have is open up our meetings in the way described in the Bible. Some groups can stay in their buildings. Others can find other places to meet. Some may even be in homes. But the system of leadership stays essentially the same as it is now. There will be no loose cannons.

This has nothing to do with personal accountability between church members, but leadership's accountability to larger governing bodies to ensure some standard of truthfulness to the Scriptures and core Christian doctrine is being maintained.

Monologuing pastors who are only being accountable to other pastors and leaders is actually the problem. As I said, that is actually how heresy stays safe from the scrutiny of thinking sheep. But in open meetings the leadership is open to honest and polite accountability for what it teaches to a body that is examining and discussing the scriptures with the pastor. Part of God's design for accountability is that there are also gifted people within the congregation itself who 'forth tell' (as opposed to 'foretell') the truth and are allowed to speak.

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. (1 Corinthians 14:29-31 NIV1984)

Where does this happen in any traditional Sunday service? Where is it even allowed?

What you're implying here further supports my position. While I disagree, for the most part, with denominations, having denominations is better then not. If there is very little unity among larger denominations and the churches of those denominations, there will be even further disunity by creating significantly more smaller groups out of the larger ones. I cannot see how one could argue otherwise.

I can argue it because I'm not advocating abandoning a structure and hierarchy of gifted and God ordained leadership.

Truthfully, all I have seen thus far are arguments based on presumption and generalizations, and no real substantial argument against the Sunday church service has been put forward. We need both the Sunday service and small group meetings.

I'm pretty sure I've addressed all the concerns about abandoning our traditional style of the Sunday morning service. Once a meeting is opened up in the Biblical way I've shared you will see there is no need to waste any more time and valuable resources with an ineffective, unBiblical style of meeting that leads people away from what God can do in a meeting held the way he has instructed through Paul in the NT.

 

[jasoncran]

2 really, jethro

im pentacostal myself, my church and whole demonation is pentacostal

i have seen my pastor kick kids out of service for being disruptive and talk to them later after service on why they went wrong. he has foretold of a teens death and four days later he died.he was saved

he also stopped service and had to deal with a man who meant well but disrupted the service in what he did and the elders dealt with that.

so yes it does go on.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

2 really, jethro

im pentacostal myself, my church and whole demonation is pentacostal

i have seen my pastor kick kids out of service for being disruptive and talk to them later after service on why they went wrong. he has foretold of a teens death and four days later he died.he was saved

he also stopped service and had to deal with a man who meant well but disrupted the service in what he did and the elders dealt with that.

so yes it does go on.

This doesn't represent what it means to have an open, interactive meeting.

I would expect any church in any denomination to escort disruptive people out of their meeting.

 

[jasoncran]

This doesn't represent what it means to have an open, interactive meeting.

I would expect any church in any denomination to escort disruptive people out of their meeting.

so the whole church of 100 plus should have stormed that man and rushed him outside?

the pastor saw what he was doing and dealt with it in the middle of service. he then had the elders when he stopped him take him to the foyer and talk to him.

shoot if i was in the wrong and a church did that to me. if i packed heat,it might come to a shot fired for fear of life!

 

[Adullam]

When men are saved they are then tested in the wilderness. Very few will continue to trust fully in the Lord. Most will be swept aside in the efforts of men according to their carnal reasoning. When you confront these deceived ones...they will just wipe their mouths and say-we have done nothing wrong.

BETH-AVEN

BETHAVEN

("house of nothingness, iniquity or vanity"). On the mountains of Benjamin, E. of Bethel (Josh 7:2; 18:12), between it and Michmash (1 Sam 13:5; 14:23). Near it was the "wilderness," i.e. pasture land of Bethaven (Josh 18:12.) In Hos 4:15; 5:1; 10:5 Bethel, "house of God," is called Bethaven, "house of vanity," because of Jeroboam's golden calf.

 

[elijah23]

Happier in what way if a smaller, informal group fills all the needs and requirements for meeting together?

Do you know what all your needs are? In a full-fledged church you have many ways that you can serve. We need to serve in order to be happy.

 

[elijah23]

Happier in what way if a smaller, informal group fills all the needs and requirements for meeting together?

I love singing in a choir. Can't do that in a small, informal group.

 

[elijah23]

Happier in what way if a smaller, informal group fills all the needs and requirements for meeting together?

Churches have Sunday school, youth groups, groups for old people, music ministries, and outreach ministries.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do you know what all your needs are? In a full-fledged church you have many ways that you can serve. We need to serve in order to be happy.

As I've been sharing, this is exactly why it's so important to be in an open meeting where people can actually share and interact with one another. I know from experience that a congregation of 25 to 60 people is right for this kind of meeting. That way it's big enough to be as you call a "full-fledged church", but still small enough to make open discussion and sharing possible.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I love singing in a choir. Can't do that in a small, informal group.

Why not?

I honestly don't see the need for a special choir since the whole church can and will be the choir.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Churches have Sunday school, youth groups, groups for old people, music ministries, and outreach ministries.

In a successful Spirit-filled meeting of the saints the only one's who really have special needs that can't be fully met in the regular meeting are the children.

Old people, young adults, and musicians can all minister, and be ministered to in an open meeting. And any group of people can do outreach.