What happened to our meetings?

[handy]

Jethro,

The New Testament doesn't give us any outline or model on the minute by minute breakdown of the assemblies. I would surmise the early church assembled much as we do...a specific time for corporate worship that would include communion, and then other times, prayer times, scripture study time, etc.

Paul's instructions to the Corinthians stressed that those who were moved by the Spirit had the ability to talk and be heard, and that all were able to be served communion, and most of all, that everything needed to be done in a decent and orderly fashion.

Which is essentially how our church operates. We have a time when all can share what the Lord has laid upon the hearts to share, to ask questions, to be instructed and give instruction. We also have the time to focus upon worshiping the Lord. All is done decently and in order.

I don't see anything that is done in our services that would be in any kind of violation of what Paul said to the Corinthians.

You see Sunday School / Church as a division. I'm not sure exactly why? It's simply moving from one part of assembly to the next. We gather together, have coffee (we're Lutheran, coffee is a must. ;) ) and sometime someone brings coffee cake or whatever. We start with prayer, then discuss the Bible, ask questions, learn from our pastors yes, (who have a lot of knowledge and wisdom) but also from others... sometimes there are very lively discussions, other times, it's more quiet, but it's the time for sharing and for learning what others have to give. Then we move into our more formal worship, starting with confessing our sins before the Lord and seeking His forgiveness, then hymns and psalms, reading God's word, more hymns listening to the sermon, more hymns.

Then the assembly transitions yet again, going from taking in God's word via hearing and singing, to partaking in communion. At the end of communion the worship portion of our assembly is closed and there is one last transition...that of fellowshipping together before taking leave of one another. This involves more coffee and snacks, tidying things up, cleaning the communion utensils, chatting, and the last one out turns out the lights and locks the doors.

In what way is any of this violating what Paul is instructed the Corinthians to do?

 

[Elijah674]

Hey young'ins, note 1 Peter 4:17 for the 'time has come that judgement must begin [at the house of God: and if it FIRST begine at us]...'

And what is our responsibility??
_________________________

Perhaps one might see the requirement of God before the Virgin Candlestick was removed! It was finally so, but not in this chapter. Rev. 2:5 + Matt. 23:38's Total DESOLATION with Christ STRIVING with them in Person. Their Full/Cup as seen in the Matt. 25's CLOSED DOOR. (ibid.10)

Jer. 15

[15] O LORD, thou knowest: remember me, and visit me, and revenge me of my persecutors; take me not away in thy longsuffering: know that for thy sake I have suffered rebuke.
(All this from Christ's Very Own!)

[16] Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.









(You know, Matt. 4:4 & the John 1 ones!
See Deut. 8:3 if you want? see also Eccl. 1:9-10 + Eccl. 3:15 for this repeat of prophrcy)

[17] I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for thou hast filled me with indignation.


(and these ones were the Lord’s own professed people! That seems easy enough to understand for even the 'milk' drinking ones?? No names are mentioned, but it was the WHOLE OF THE PARTAKING FOLD, HUH?? 'Rev. 18:4' Just one quick thought of ones projected brothers,.. 'and don't forget the professed sisters!' when they are seen in Rev. 3:16-17's Lukewarm also, & then just say that they die in that [sick luke/warm love relationship], are they really to be SPEWED OUT as the Word of God states! NO question intended! And Jer. goes on....)

[18] Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, which refuseth to be healed? wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar, and as waters that fail?






(Now pay apt attention to what God requires of us guy's, or Jer. if that is your problem??)

[19] Therefore thus saith the LORD, If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me: and [[if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them]].







(Did you get that?? re/read what God REQUIRES! Then jump to Rev. 18:4 for the reason why!)

[20] And I will make thee unto this people a fenced brasen wall: and [[they shall fight against thee]], but they shall not prevail against thee: for I am with thee to save thee and to deliver thee, saith the LORD.



(and now see Matt. 10:5-38 for some more of God Eccl. 3:15 REPEATS!)

OK: You might need to look a tad part further for what made God + Jer, sick? Try Rev. 18:4 again?? or the garbage of the Rev. 17:5 'brothers' of some of the professed ones here! And 2 Peter 2:19-22's 'VOMIT'as is in verse 19.. while they 'promise them liberty', you know, only an work/less believe’ism.


---Elijah

 

[stovebolts]

I thought everyone believes that this is referring to plants, animals, etc.
with one reason being that "all things" do NOT refer to people,
i.e. it does NOT mean, "Thou hast put all people in subjection under man's feet."

Even if that were so (and I respectfully disagree), it contradicts your earlier statement.

What happened was ...
2) SATAN -- is the god and ruler of this world, and the enemy of our souls

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro,

The New Testament doesn't give us any outline or model on the minute by minute breakdown of the assemblies. I would surmise the early church assembled much as we do...a specific time for corporate worship that would include communion, and then other times, prayer times, scripture study time, etc.

Paul's instructions to the Corinthians stressed that those who were moved by the Spirit had the ability to talk and be heard, and that all were able to be served communion, and most of all, that everything needed to be done in a decent and orderly fashion.

Which is essentially how our church operates. We have a time when all can share what the Lord has laid upon the hearts to share, to ask questions, to be instructed and give instruction. We also have the time to focus upon worshiping the Lord. All is done decently and in order.

I don't see anything that is done in our services that would be in any kind of violation of what Paul said to the Corinthians.

You see Sunday School / Church as a division. I'm not sure exactly why? It's simply moving from one part of assembly to the next. We gather together, have coffee (we're Lutheran, coffee is a must. ;) ) and sometime someone brings coffee cake or whatever. We start with prayer, then discuss the Bible, ask questions, learn from our pastors yes, (who have a lot of knowledge and wisdom) but also from others... sometimes there are very lively discussions, other times, it's more quiet, but it's the time for sharing and for learning what others have to give. Then we move into our more formal worship, starting with confessing our sins before the Lord and seeking His forgiveness, then hymns and psalms, reading God's word, more hymns listening to the sermon, more hymns.

Then the assembly transitions yet again, going from taking in God's word via hearing and singing, to partaking in communion. At the end of communion the worship portion of our assembly is closed and there is one last transition...that of fellowshipping together before taking leave of one another. This involves more coffee and snacks, tidying things up, cleaning the communion utensils, chatting, and the last one out turns out the lights and locks the doors.

In what way is any of this violating what Paul is instructed the Corinthians to do?

Why is the time split into two parts, with the part that Paul stresses being completely separated from what has become known as the church's tradition of meeting together we see today? Is it impossible to worship God in the same meeting room and time where the saints encourage and build each other up through discussion of the scriptures and their application to our lives? Who decided to split it and make the essential part optional? I do know the Sunday School movement started about 200 years ago or so. Anybody have any more information about that?

This has nothing to do with what gifts explicitly should or shouldn't be practiced in the meetings. The point is, Paul says we are built up and encouraged through each other, not through rigid, reverential liturgy, or a blind sense of duty to an empty command to 'not forsake the gathering together' that legalistically fulfills that command but doesn't do what we are commanded to meet together for.

 

[handy]

Why is the time split into two parts, with the part that Paul stresses being completely separated from what has become known as the church's tradition of meeting together we see today? Is it impossible to worship God in the same meeting room and time where the saints encourage and build each other up through discussion of the scriptures and their application to our lives? Who decided to split it and make the essential part optional? I do know the Sunday School movement started about 200 years ago or so. Anybody have any more information about that?

This has nothing to do with what gifts explicitly should or shouldn't be practiced in the meetings. The point is, Paul says we are built up and encouraged through each other, not through rigid, reverential liturgy, or a blind sense of duty to an empty command to 'not forsake the gathering together' that legalistically fulfills that command but doesn't do what we are commanded to meet together for.

But we are built up and encouraged through each other and doing what we are commanded to meet together for, even during reverential liturgy. Paul also stressed elsewhere that we share psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...all part of the liturgy. We see the model of a pastor reading the Scriptures then expounding upon them when Jesus read from Isaiah and then preached that the words were being fulfilled right then...also, communion climax of the liturgy...how does communion NOT build up and bring together God's people?

It seems Jethro, that you have some kind of issue with what has become traditional in liturgical church assemblies. However, there is nothing wrong in them, not when they fulfill exactly what has been laid out for us as important when we meet together...that people be equipped and strengthened through God's word, that we have opportunity to share what God has laid upon our hearts, that we encourage each other in songs, psalms, and hymns, that we share communion with one another. I can also add that we take up collections and also that we just bond in love and friendship.

Again I ask of you, explain why you believe that these principles of assembly are not being fulfilled in what has become traditional in assemblies that have a Sunday school hour and a worship service following.

As for this: Who decided to split it and make the essential part optional?

I guess part of my confusion as to your issue here has to do with the fact that I've never yet been to a church wherein the leadership has indicated that the adult Sunday school hour should be considered "optional". By the way, my pastor hates the term "Sunday School". He has named the first hour of assembly "Bible Class" and it's considered every bit as important as the liturgy. I've certainly never viewed Sunday School as optional any more than I've considered the worship service as mandatory.

As for the "who decided to split it" part of your question...does it really matter all that much? Does it really matter that for many churches there is an organized flow to what is done when?

One thing to keep in mind here is that different people do have different needs. We did go to a church that operated much as you seem to be advocating....the "fellowship celebration" as they called it, incorporated singing, preaching, discussion, snacks, coffee, fellowship all jumbled together. It was all very loose. To my mind, and to my husband's, it seemed very chaotic. The pastor was constantly being interrupted during his sermon by folks asking questions or making comments. Discussion would travel down rabbit trails, as human discussion so often does...then the pastor would find his place again and try to get back to the sermon. The service often ran very late, simply because of the lack of organization. Several times, the pastor just jettisoned his sermon in the middle of it... Meanwhile, folks were getting up and down getting coffee or juice and cookies. To Steve and I, it was very uncomfortable and even disrespectful. It seemed far more like a rather chaotic Bible study than a formal assembly of God's people. Also, in the entire time we went...which was for about 3-4 months...they never once served communion. Coffee and cookies aplenty...not body and blood though.

Now, I'm sure that many in that particular church loved their services and felt that the Spirit was really "moving". I'm a fairly spiritual person myself and I gotta say...I really never felt in connection with God's Spirit there. Now, at our liturgical traditional church that we are currently going to...I feel in complete union with God's Spirit every time.

 

[Elijah674]

But we are built up and encouraged through each other and doing what we are commanded to meet together for, even during reverential liturgy. Paul also stressed elsewhere that we share psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...all part of the liturgy. We see the model of a pastor reading the Scriptures then expounding upon them when Jesus read from Isaiah and then preached that the words were being fulfilled right then...also, communion climax of the liturgy...how does communion NOT build up and bring together God's people?

It seems Jethro, that you have some kind of issue with what has become traditional in liturgical church assemblies. However, there is nothing wrong in them, not when they fulfill exactly what has been laid out for us as important when we meet together...that people be equipped and strengthened through God's word, that we have opportunity to share what God has laid upon our hearts, that we encourage each other in songs, psalms, and hymns, that we share communion with one another. I can also add that we take up collections and also that we just bond in love and friendship.

Again I ask of you, explain why you believe that these principles of assembly are not being fulfilled in what has become traditional in assemblies that have a Sunday school hour and a worship service following.

As for this: Who decided to split it and make the essential part optional?

I guess part of my confusion as to your issue here has to do with the fact that I've never yet been to a church wherein the leadership has indicated that the adult Sunday school hour should be considered "optional". By the way, my pastor hates the term "Sunday School". He has named the first hour of assembly "Bible Class" and it's considered every bit as important as the liturgy. I've certainly never viewed Sunday School as optional any more than I've considered the worship service as mandatory.

As for the "who decided to split it" part of your question...does it really matter all that much? Does it really matter that for many churches there is an organized flow to what is done when?

One thing to keep in mind here is that different people do have different needs. We did go to a church that operated much as you seem to be advocating....the "fellowship celebration" as they called it, incorporated singing, preaching, discussion, snacks, coffee, fellowship all jumbled together. It was all very loose. To my mind, and to my husband's, it seemed very chaotic. The pastor was constantly being interrupted during his sermon by folks asking questions or making comments. Discussion would travel down rabbit trails, as human discussion so often does...then the pastor would find his place again and try to get back to the sermon. The service often ran very late, simply because of the lack of organization. Several times, the pastor just jettisoned his sermon in the middle of it... Meanwhile, folks were getting up and down getting coffee or juice and cookies. To Steve and I, it was very uncomfortable and even disrespectful. It seemed far more like a rather chaotic Bible study than a formal assembly of God's people. Also, in the entire time we went...which was for about 3-4 months...they never once served communion. Coffee and cookies aplenty...not body and blood though.

Now, I'm sure that many in that particular church loved their services and felt that the Spirit was really "moving". I'm a fairly spiritual person myself and I gotta say...I really never felt in connection with God's Spirit there. Now, at our liturgical traditional church that we are currently going to...I feel in complete union with God's Spirit every time.

Some seem to be different! Principle (Truth) is not to be tested by excitement, emotion or 'feelings' to keep one in the Rev. 18:4 verse. (even was seen in John 10:16)

--Elijah

 

[Mike]

Jethro, you never answered my last post, unless I'm missing it. Did you put me on your "ignore list" again?

How many people attend a typical service where you worship?

To me, this is an important question. We have in-home Bible studies at our house. The optimal size for such a group, we've found, is ~8 people. When it gets larger, it is more difficult for each person to contribute meaningfully, and it's more likely to get off topic. As the number grows, it becomes more and more difficult to manage. People get frustrated and unfulfilled.

If a church has a congregation of 50 to 300 (a range I'm thinking is typical), it seems to me anything other than "instruction" by a pastor or lay-person would be necessary. An attempt to have a give-and-take discussion with a group of people this size would be dysfunctional and ineffective. You would have to demonstrate for me how it wouldn't be. Most people who enter into a meeting where contribution by the members is encouraged want to make their opinion or interpretation known. It seems they would inevitably feel frustrated by the inability to participate with such a size group.

I would rather have the people who know how to play music, play the worship music; the people who know how to take care of the sound, do the sound; the people who are the shepherds, do the shepherding. With congregations of this size, it seems best to have one person attempt to achieve one of the main goals of worship - to strengthen and empower those sitting in the pews to get out of the pews, walk out of the church, and share the Gospel with the world. IMO, any other kind of format with that size group would be chaos. It wouldn't achieve that goal.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro, you never answered my last post, unless I'm missing it. Did you put me on your "ignore list" again?

No way! You're from Michigan. Michigan people aren't allowed on my ignore list.

How many people attend a typical service where you worship?

60 to 80. But they don't conform to the open meeting style put forth by Paul.

To me, this is an important question. We have in-home Bible studies at our house. The optimal size for such a group, we've found, is ~8 people. When it gets larger, it is more difficult for each person to contribute meaningfully, and it's more likely to get off topic. As the number grows, it becomes more and more difficult to manage. People get frustrated and unfulfilled.

If a church has a congregation of 50 to 300 (a range I'm thinking is typical), it seems to me anything other than "instruction" by a pastor or lay-person would be necessary. An attempt to have a give-and-take discussion with a group of people this size would be dysfunctional and ineffective. You would have to demonstrate for me how it wouldn't be.

I think a college classroom comes the closest to demonstrating how the concept works to someone who has not experienced it for themselves in the church. The 'instructor' has a prepared 'lesson' constructed in a question and answer kind of way.

Most people who enter into a meeting where contribution by the members is encouraged want to make their opinion or interpretation known. It seems they would inevitably feel frustrated by the inability to participate with such a size group.

I think 60 people is about as big as a group should be for this kind of meeting. Just think of one of your college classes--manageable size, easy going, discussion encouraged and made possible, message geared to be interactively delivered to the people in a series of interactive steps, chaos almost non-existent, troublemakers quickly taken care of. It works.

I would rather have the people who know how to play music, play the worship music; the people who know how to take care of the sound, do the sound; the people who are the shepherds, do the shepherding.

That still happens. In fact, this is exactly the setting where people discover their gifts...and have the opportunity to even walk in them.

With congregations of this size, it seems best to have one person attempt to achieve one of the main goals of worship - to strengthen and empower those sitting in the pews to get out of the pews, walk out of the church, and share the Gospel with the world.

Well, that's the common belief among many of us Christians these days...that our gifts are for outside of the church to be worked on behalf of unbelievers. God gave the gifts to his people to build his people up. But the way we do church these days that is almost completely suppressed.

IMO, any other kind of format with that size group would be chaos. It wouldn't achieve that goal.

Just think how about how well it works in the college setting and you'll get an idea of how it can and does work for a gathering of the saints.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But we are built up and encouraged through each other and doing what we are commanded to meet together for, even during reverential liturgy.

How can that happen when the only person speaking is the pastor, or a church leader or two?

Paul also stressed elsewhere that we share psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...all part of the liturgy.

"16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts." (Col. 3:16 NIV1984)

See the interactivity in the passage? How does liturgy represent what Paul is saying here about interactivity among us?

We see the model of a pastor reading the Scriptures then expounding upon them when Jesus read from Isaiah and then preached that the words were being fulfilled right then...

Think of the times when the crowd engaged Jesus when he spoke publicly. He talked to them. He did not tell them to shut up, or that it was not allowed to do that. He talked to them.

...also, communion climax of the liturgy...how does communion NOT build up and bring together God's people?

It can as long as it's not some empty, rigid, route, legalistic ritual.

It seems Jethro, that you have some kind of issue with what has become traditional in liturgical church assemblies. However, there is nothing wrong in them, not when they fulfill exactly what has been laid out for us as important when we meet together...that people be equipped and strengthened through God's word...

If your pastor happens to be David Jeremiah then I suppose that could happen. No disrespect intended to our church leaders, but for the rest of us...?

...that we have opportunity to share what God has laid upon our hearts, that we encourage each other in songs, psalms, and hymns...

But this is exactly what I'm saying is not allowed to be done in the traditional church meeting we know today. We have relegated that, the stuff Paul says builds us up, to other meetings. Meetings generally regarded as optional and not essential like the traditional main meeting.

...that we share communion with one another.

I was a Christian prolly 15 years before communion became meaningful to me instead of the cold dead ritual it is in churches these days. And it became meaningful for me through my own reading of the scriptures, not through the guidance of a church leader or someone else in the congregation during communion.

Again I ask of you, explain why you believe that these principles of assembly are not being fulfilled in what has become traditional in assemblies that have a Sunday school hour and a worship service following.

Because you're tacking on the rigid, quiet, and reverential part that somehow has become what the church thinks is God's will for how we are to meet together, when the truth is the open Bible study time before that is closer to what God intends to happen among us when we meet together.

As for this: Who decided to split it and make the essential part optional?

I guess part of my confusion as to your issue here has to do with the fact that I've never yet been to a church wherein the leadership has indicated that the adult Sunday school hour should be considered "optional".

I'll bet you a cheese danish even your church advertises them as two separate and distinct meetings. And of course any pastor wants everybody to attend the Bible study and not see it as optional, but it is, and prolly even he considers the reverential, liturgical part of the morning's activities where no one interacts with each other as Paul says we should do to be the actual 'going to church' part.

By the way, my pastor hates the term "Sunday School". He has named the first hour of assembly "Bible Class" and it's considered every bit as important as the liturgy.

Make it all one big service without an advertised break, then there will be credibility to what you're saying. But I'm guessing it's not viewed that way at all. There's a clean break in between both, with particular things reserved for each part, right?

I've certainly never viewed Sunday School as optional any more than I've considered the worship service as mandatory.

Maybe you personally, but my experience with the church has shown me otherwise. The belief is traditional church is mandatory and is what God wants and expects...and Bible studies, well...good, but not so mandatory. This is proven out time and time again when the two conflict with each other and the traditional meeting wins out over the interactive, low key, open Bible study...the place where what God wants to happen among us actually happens. How sad. And people are oblivious to this truth.

As for the "who decided to split it" part of your question...does it really matter all that much? Does it really matter that for many churches there is an organized flow to what is done when?

Organization is good. That's not the point. The point is relegating that which actually does the good among us is not the focal point of our meeting together.

One thing to keep in mind here is that different people do have different needs. We did go to a church that operated much as you seem to be advocating....the "fellowship celebration" as they called it, incorporated singing, preaching, discussion, snacks, coffee, fellowship all jumbled together. It was all very loose. To my mind, and to my husband's, it seemed very chaotic. The pastor was constantly being interrupted during his sermon by folks asking questions or making comments. Discussion would travel down rabbit trails, as human discussion so often does...then the pastor would find his place again and try to get back to the sermon. The service often ran very late, simply because of the lack of organization. Several times, the pastor just jettisoned his sermon in the middle of it... Meanwhile, folks were getting up and down getting coffee or juice and cookies. To Steve and I, it was very uncomfortable and even disrespectful. It seemed far more like a rather chaotic Bible study than a formal assembly of God's people. Also, in the entire time we went...which was for about 3-4 months...they never once served communion. Coffee and cookies aplenty...not body and blood though.

What makes you think this represents what I believe should happen in an open meeting and how it operates? As I explained to Mike, think of an open but controlled time of sharing in a college classroom. For people who have not experienced a Biblical meeting of the saints that's as close an example as I can think of to demonstrate how one runs.

Now, I'm sure that many in that particular church loved their services and felt that the Spirit was really "moving". I'm a fairly spiritual person myself and I gotta say...I really never felt in connection with God's Spirit there. Now, at our liturgical traditional church that we are currently going to...I feel in complete union with God's Spirit every time.

...and I'm glad for you. Wouldn't it be nice if you could share the move of that Spirit during that meeting? But as it is, I'm guessing you are required to sit still and be quiet. That is incredibly frustrating when you sense the inspiration of the Spirit and you wish you had a godly, respectful, and controlled outlet for it...and people who were actually interested in seeing that happen in a meeting of the saints. It's seems so many people in the churches I've been in are mostly just satisfying an empty requirement to 'not forsake the gathering together' that somehow pleases God.

 

[Elijah674]

Jethro, you never answered my last post, unless I'm missing it. Did you put me on your "ignore list" again?

How many people attend a typical service where you worship?

To me, this is an important question. We have in-home Bible studies at our house. The optimal size for such a group, we've found, is ~8 people. When it gets larger, it is more difficult for each person to contribute meaningfully, and it's more likely to get off topic. As the number grows, it becomes more and more difficult to manage. People get frustrated and unfulfilled.

If a church has a congregation of 50 to 300 (a range I'm thinking is typical), it seems to me anything other than "instruction" by a pastor or lay-person would be necessary. An attempt to have a give-and-take discussion with a group of people this size would be dysfunctional and ineffective. You would have to demonstrate for me how it wouldn't be. Most people who enter into a meeting where contribution by the members is encouraged want to make their opinion or interpretation known. It seems they would inevitably feel frustrated by the inability to participate with such a size group.

I would rather have the people who know how to play music, play the worship music; the people who know how to take care of the sound, do the sound; the people who are the shepherds, do the shepherding. With congregations of this size, it seems best to have one person attempt to achieve one of the main goals of worship - to strengthen and empower those sitting in the pews to get out of the pews, walk out of the church, and share the Gospel with the world. IMO, any other kind of format with that size group would be chaos. It wouldn't achieve that goal.

Mike, mods cannot be put on ignor list can they??
--Elijah

 

[handy]

Your suggestion of a college classroom...well, that's exactly what the first part of our assemblies are like.

I'm still not sure why you think the time that is more focused on worshiping God through psalm, hymn, song, the readings and sermon, prayers and communion is somehow less important than the sharing time.

You've said several times that the sharing part is the "biblical" part... and yet the psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, reading of God's word and sermon and especially communion are all equally as "biblical"...

So I still fail to understand why you believe an assembly that flows from your "college class" setting, through to a liturgical setting, through to communion somehow "fails" in achieving what the Scriptures teach us should be the purpose of our assemblies...

Really, Jethro, I'd like to see you break it down as to how and why the traditional church model in which there is time to share with and learn from each other during "Sunday School", "Bible class" or "second hour" (this is what they referred to Sunday school as in the AofG church I went to that had that portion after the "church" service...how this model is NOT fulfilling what the Bible teaches us to do when we assemble.

By the way, you mentioned "I'll bet you a cheese danish even your church advertises them as two separate and distinct meetings."... YUM!!! You can email one to me right away :D...our church doesn't advertise at all and the beginning of our assembly is 9:00am.

I want to be clear that I don't have a problem with any particular structure of any particular assembly. I think I've mentioned on this thread, but if I didn't I'll mention again, that the assembly model I personally liked the most was the one AofG that had the readings, sermon, prayers, and singing prior to the "second hour". Then we could discuss specifically what was mentioned in the sermon.

However, I also like the way we do it at the church I currently attend, because the pastor generally uses his sermon, which is always based on the readings (and we already know which readings will be for the day) and we can discuss things. Then his sermon becomes more of a "summing up".

At any rate, since the Bible doesn't give us any particular structure to assemblies that we must rigidly follow, I don't see how it truly matters which way an assembly is conducted. What matters is that we fulfill what the Bible teaches us to accomplish in our assemblies...which every church I've attended, except for the "fellowship celebration", has done.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Your suggestion of a college classroom...well, that's exactly what the first part of our assemblies are like.

Excellent. You're probably way ahead of a lot of churches then.

I'm still not sure why you think the time that is more focused on worshiping God through psalm, hymn, song, the readings and sermon, prayers and communion is somehow less important than the sharing time.

I'm not saying it is less important. I'm saying how you do it is what takes it out of God's plan for how these kinds of things are to build up his people. Relegating those things to a solemn, reverential setting where the body is not allowed to share the way it is in your study time, and thinking that is what God's will for 'church' really is, that is what is wrong.

You've said several times that the sharing part is the "biblical" part... and yet the psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, reading of God's word and sermon and especially communion are all equally as "biblical"...

Only if you keep them in the same setting as the sharing part.

So I still fail to understand why you believe an assembly that flows from your "college class" setting, through to a liturgical setting, through to communion somehow "fails" in achieving what the Scriptures teach us should be the purpose of our assemblies...

If you didn't break it in parts and kept it in the same atmosphere and openness of your study time then it would be Biblical...meaning it would serve the intended effectiveness that way provides for the body of Christ.

Really, Jethro, I'd like to see you break it down as to how and why the traditional church model in which there is time to share with and learn from each other during "Sunday School", "Bible class" or "second hour" (this is what they referred to Sunday school as in the AofG church I went to that had that portion after the "church" service...how this model is NOT fulfilling what the Bible teaches us to do when we assemble.

Because the quiet, reverential part stifles and suppresses the gifts within the body. Gifts that are manifest through interactive sharing, not through the quiet reverence of liturgical procedures.

By the way, you mentioned "I'll bet you a cheese danish even your church advertises them as two separate and distinct meetings."... YUM!!! You can email one to me right away :D...our church doesn't advertise at all and the beginning of our assembly is 9:00am.

PM me the website for your church, and/or a copy of the program you hand out, or a picture of your marquee. Anything that will prove to me it is clearly understood that the entire morning's events are one big service with no perceived breaks that isolate the main traditional liturgy as the real 'church' part of the morning, and the Bible study as another.

It's great if it really is the way you're making it out to be. But you're still straying from Biblical guidance when you decide that what you do in the second half has to be quiet, reverential, and non-participatory (as I've been explaining that). Why can't worship and prayer and song just flow right out of your study and sharing time? Is it because there is this perceived belief that those things have to be in what has become known in the church today as the traditional Sunday morning service?

I want to be clear that I don't have a problem with any particular structure of any particular assembly. I think I've mentioned on this thread, but if I didn't I'll mention again, that the assembly model I personally liked the most was the one AofG that had the readings, sermon, prayers, and singing prior to the "second hour". Then we could discuss specifically what was mentioned in the sermon.

However, I also like the way we do it at the church I currently attend, because the pastor generally uses his sermon, which is always based on the readings (and we already know which readings will be for the day) and we can discuss things. Then his sermon becomes more of a "summing up".

All I ask is, "why this specific set aside time where the church does NOT do what Paul teaches?" It's not about the details and structure. It's about letting the body be the body with all it's gifts brought out for everyone's benefit under the authority and control of anointed leaders of the church who can and know how to do that. Who decided that will not happen in our meetings? Who did that!?!?

At any rate, since the Bible doesn't give us any particular structure to assemblies that we must rigidly follow, I don't see how it truly matters which way an assembly is conducted. What matters is that we fulfill what the Bible teaches us to accomplish in our assemblies...which every church I've attended, except for the "fellowship celebration", has done.

How can what the Bible says must happen among us, and how that happens, be fulfilled in the main traditional 'church' meeting where no one is allowed to speak or share or make their spiritual contribution to the assembly? And instead relegate that to other optional meetings? Who decided it would be this way? Who decided Paul was wrong and that the way many churches are now doing it is the right and correct and good way?

 

[Elijah674]

Your suggestion of a college classroom...well, that's exactly what the first part of our assemblies are like.

I'm still not sure why you think the time that is more focused on worshiping God through psalm, hymn, song, the readings and sermon, prayers and communion is somehow less important than the sharing time.

You've said several times that the sharing part is the "biblical" part... and yet the psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, reading of God's word and sermon and especially communion are all equally as "biblical"...

So I still fail to understand why you believe an assembly that flows from your "college class" setting, through to a liturgical setting, through to communion somehow "fails" in achieving what the Scriptures teach us should be the purpose of our assemblies...

Really, Jethro, I'd like to see you break it down as to how and why the traditional church model in which there is time to share with and learn from each other during "Sunday School", "Bible class" or "second hour" (this is what they referred to Sunday school as in the AofG church I went to that had that portion after the "church" service...how this model is NOT fulfilling what the Bible teaches us to do when we assemble.

By the way, you mentioned "I'll bet you a cheese danish even your church advertises them as two separate and distinct meetings."... YUM!!! You can email one to me right away :D...our church doesn't advertise at all and the beginning of our assembly is 9:00am.

I want to be clear that I don't have a problem with any particular structure of any particular assembly. I think I've mentioned on this thread, but if I didn't I'll mention again, that the assembly model I personally liked the most was the one AofG that had the readings, sermon, prayers, and singing prior to the "second hour". Then we could discuss specifically what was mentioned in the sermon.

However, I also like the way we do it at the church I currently attend, because the pastor generally uses his sermon, which is always based on the readings (and we already know which readings will be for the day) and we can discuss things. Then his sermon becomes more of a "summing up".

At any rate, since the Bible doesn't give us any particular structure to assemblies that we must rigidly follow, I don't see how it truly matters which way an assembly is conducted. What matters is that we fulfill what the Bible teaches us to accomplish in our assemblies...which every church I've attended, except for the "fellowship celebration", has done.

I was not asked, but it is the captive audience setting & being 'yoked in Partaking Rev. 18:4 open sins 'membership' that caused our removal of membership. My wife & mine.

--Elijah

 

[handy]

PM me the website for your church, and/or a copy of the program you hand out, or a picture of your marquee. Anything that will prove to me it is clearly understood that the entire morning's events are one big service with no perceived breaks that isolate the main traditional liturgy as the real 'church' part of the morning, and the Bible study as another.

Ummm, our church doesn't have a website and scanning in the bulletin, resizing and adding it to a PM seems like a lot of work for an "e" danish, even a cheese one.

I did look over the bulletin and no time is mentioned on the bulletin at all. Just the date. I do remember, we had to call the pastor and ask when services began when we first went to the church. I think the pastor prefers it that way, so that he gets a chance to talk to folks before they come...

You've said that having psalms-hymns-songs, bible readings, sermons, prayers and communion are biblical "Only if you keep them in the same setting as the sharing part."

Really?

Seriously?

In what universe is taking a 15 minute break so that parents can gather kids, folks can relieve some of that Lutheran coffee in the rest room and regathering in a different room in the same building not be considered the same setting...

Jethro, you seem to be getting really legalistic here and putting a burden on assemblies that the Scriptures don't even begin to allude to.

This is beginning to remind me a lot of the "women must be silent in the assemblies" thread where someone has taken a verse out of pretty much the same portion of scripture and is being wholly legalistic and holding people to the exact letter and insinuating that there is something less than a full measure of devotion on the part of those who disagree with their narrow interpretation of one verse.

I think the burden of proof is rather upon you, my friend, to show that there is...anywhere at all in the Scriptures, a mandate that all assemblies have no breaks, no segues, and no movement from one emphasis to another...

I don't believe it's in there.... Any argument to the contrary would have to be an argument based upon inferences and extrapolations of what Paul said.

Frankly, I don't even see how it's possible to move from the kind of sharing that you speak of into communion without a break... however, if someone pulls it off...OK...fine...

But to say that somehow my church, Mike's church and about 90% of the churches out there aren't being "biblical" simply because they have different emphasis during different times seems to be going beyond the idea of having a different vision of what assemblies can be, to being judgmental...saying that doing it the way we do it "takes it out of God's plan" is mere prejudice on your part...
I view what Paul is saying to the Corinthians as being instruction as to how the various gifts are to be shared when they are shared during the assembly... not as an outline of how the assembly is to be followed with no freedom to organize as best fits a particular congregation.

You say, "Relegating those things to a solemn, reverential setting where the body is not allowed to share the way it is in your study time, and thinking that is what God's will for 'church' really is, that is what is wrong."

Wrong? In what way wrong and by what authority do you say "wrong"...

Certainly not by the authority of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14-26-33... Paul was merely correcting the chaos of what had become the Corinthian assemblies... he wasn't dictating for all time the one and only way an assembly can operate in these few verses.

For one thing, Paul doesn't mention prayer and yet we know that prayer should always be a part of our assemblies. He also doesn't mention communion here, and we know that communion needs to be part of our assemblies as well. Nor are collections, spiritual songs and hymns, readings from the Scriptures, sermons... Yet we know all of these things that are not mentioned here in 1 Corinthians 14 are mentioned in other places in the new testament and should be a part of the assembly.

This fact and this fact alone is enough for me to reject the idea that 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 is the one and only outline for an assembly for God's churches.

The truth is...there is no outline... only things that are mentioned that we need to have be a part of our assemblies so that we can all be equipped. Things mentioned in this passages...as well as in other passages.

I will say though that there is one thing that is never present in our assemblies... not because I think that it is stifled... I don't think so, but no one speaks in tongues. Just has never happened.

I did ask our pastor about that... about how he would handle it if someone started speaking in tongues and he merely said that he would wait to see if anyone interpreted... and if no one did, he'd tell the person speaking in tongues to sit back down and remain quiet. If someone did interpret...and the interpretation was in line with biblical truth...then it would be treated with the same respect as anyone who shared any other truth with the congregation.

I was only asking out of curiosity... I'm not gifted with tongues and to tell the truth, I'm not particularly desirous of tongues... I am gifted in other areas. And, it may very well be that no one else in the congregation is gifted with tongues.

That is the one thing mentioned that I don't see at our assemblies. Other than that... I think our church really does a wonderful job at making sure that everyone who wants to share their gifts have the opportunity to do so.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You've said that having psalms-hymns-songs, bible readings, sermons, prayers and communion are biblical "Only if you keep them in the same setting as the sharing part."

Really?

Seriously?

You misunderstand. You will be following Paul's Biblical teaching if you do them the way he says to do them; interactively, not one-sided. It's not a legalistic instruction. It's the way that best fulfills the goal of building up the body in our meeting together. We build each other up through the open interaction of our various gifts of encouragement, wisdom, knowledge, etc., and obviously, a one sided service where the congregation is required to be quiet can't do that. Is it the pastor, and perhaps a song leader, who are supposed to do all the things Paul says happens in a meeting of the saints? That's completely contrary to Paul's detailed instructions about the gifts and the body of Christ and how best to administer them effectively. But that is exactly what our present day church tradition dictates. And which will deliver a lot of resistance if you try to challenge it.

In what universe is taking a 15 minute break so that parents can gather kids, folks can relieve some of that Lutheran coffee in the rest room and regathering in a different room in the same building not be considered the same setting...

Because the way you run the second half is different from the first half. The potty break is not the issue. It's the intent to change the atmosphere of the meeting and make a clear division between the two. The second part being the part that deviates from Paul's instructions on what way best builds the body up.

Jethro, you seem to be getting really legalistic here and putting a burden on assemblies that the Scriptures don't even begin to allude to.

I think you're an honest person. At the very least Paul's instructions allude to what I'm saying. Even you would have to agree with that.

This is beginning to remind me a lot of the "women must be silent in the assemblies" thread where someone has taken a verse out of pretty much the same portion of scripture and is being wholly legalistic and holding people to the exact letter and insinuating that there is something less than a full measure of devotion on the part of those who disagree with their narrow interpretation of one verse.

It's not about devotion. It's about knowing what works and what doesn't work so good and realizing the Bible doesn't leave us clueless as to what does work. But in a present day church that is largely unfamiliar with how the openness of body ministry works it will be hard for some to imagine how what he says could possibly be valuable. Add to that how easy it is for tradition to become truth and you've got a hard case to sell. I know this very well. I thank God that he crafted my circumstances and experiences so that I can know the truth and see how truly effective Paul's instructions reall are.

I think the burden of proof is rather upon you, my friend, to show that there is...anywhere at all in the Scriptures, a mandate that all assemblies have no breaks, no segues, and no movement from one emphasis to another...

Well, as long as you only see my argument as an argument for legalism you won't understand I'm not arguing for what you think I am. You probably won't understand this easily but what I'm saying is actually a remedy for cold, dead legalism! Without getting into a long winded explanation, legalism is best understood in this discussion in the example of the command to 'not forsake the meeting together of ourselves'. Legalism simply fulfills the command...no matter what good or effectiveness actually comes out of doing that. What I'm defending is meeting together for the purpose of actually fulfilling that which God has us assembling for. See the difference?

I don't believe it's in there.... Any argument to the contrary would have to be an argument based upon inferences and extrapolations of what Paul said.

Frankly, I don't even see how it's possible to move from the kind of sharing that you speak of into communion without a break... however, if someone pulls it off...OK...fine...

It works great. But it is true, open meetings are not to be led by just anybody willing and available to do it. You have to be gifted to be able to do it well. It is definitely a gift and a calling. In fact, if the church had obeyed Paul's instructions all along we would not have the problem of so many well-intentioned people going into ministry who really don't have the calling to do that.


I'm going to bed. If there's anything else to respond to in the rest of your post I'll try to do it tomorrow.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

When and why did the church stop doing this and instead adopt a one-sided sermonizing, liturgical and ceremonial tradition of meeting together?

"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)


For the sake of this thread let's understand 'prophecy' in regard to it's 'forthtelling', not 'foretelling' meaning. Think of the prophets, who certainly foretold future events, but who primarily expounded on the truths of God via the power of their calling through the Holy Spirit.

Do you think it possible that a new movement back to Biblical guidelines on how to meet together could catch on and succeed?

It all started when the Roman Catholic Church built big, giant cathedrals and gathered masses of people together and found it to be good.