Marlakins

Marla's adventure from Aplastic Anemia and beyond

58 Comments »

1. patti said,

   March 25, 2008 at 10:33 pm

   Hey Marla, feel free to delete what I wrote from the other thread if you want so it’s not in two places. I don’t care one way or the other. Just figured it would save bandwidth.

   Well, our friend didn’t go to church with us tonight. We were disappointed but God may have worked something else out which I think is totally humorous. We were all up in the playroom talking to our contractor today while he was doing sheetrock. However this happened (I still haven’t figured it out), our friend got left up there alone and our contractor ended up having a really good chat with him. This guy is very bold for the Lord and is always telling people about Jesus. So, our friend may have gotten a dose of the gospel anyway. Sometimes, it’s easier taking it from a stranger then someone you’re close to. But I have to say, the Lord is really using this trip to work on this guy spiritually! It is amazing to sit back and see the Holy Spirit work. Wow!

   Oh, Marla, I wanted to comment on your statement about church being for believers and not to bring the lost to. On the one hand, I understand that. Paul would preach on the streets and the deciples preached on the streets to the lost. Paul went to churches where he taught the believers. And most of the churches that my husband and I affiliate with still have street preaching ministries. So in that respect, some places do have the gospel being preached on the streets. However, I would say in general, this is not common anymore. So in some ways, the only way someone might hear the gospel other then from a friend or something is if they go to a gospel preaching church. So I can see both sides of that one. However, we are called to spread the gospel and I think it’s important we do it however we can. My husband and I put bible tracts in every bill we pay, when we leave a tip we always leave one with it, etc. So there are ways other then church, but today I think that’s the major way people hear the gospel anymore.

   Andrea, you play the organ right? What is the best way to find a piano teacher that actually inspires the students? My piano teacher (whom I wasn’t thrilled with anyway) has boged out on us and I have to find a new one soon. Everyone I talk to they just don’t seem to love the music in a way that instills it in my kids. Their last piano teacher was so awesome at this. He loved music and so it naturally flowed into my children and they worked hard at practice! Now it’s like pulling teeth daily to get them through practice. It’s frustrating to see that love wane. If we can get them under a good teacher for a few more years I think they will fall in love with the music; but it’s a learned thing. Know what I mean? I can’t figure out how to go about finding a better teacher.

   Most of the people we know are christians that teach. But just because they play well, doesn’t mean they teach well. KWIM? Any thoughts on where to look? I don’t even care if they’re not christian. Although my children are learning music for the ministry, their teacher needn’t be a christian. Any ideas for me?

   Okay, off now.

   patti

2. Administrator said,

   March 26, 2008 at 1:11 am

   Hi Patti:

   Got a few moments here, so will just chip away at one of the comments you made about you didn’t think Paul was going to home churches. We do feel that Paul was going to home churches because it is historically agreed upon by historians that church buildings weren’t discussed or addressed until about the 3rd Century AD. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and his apostles. It’s true that in the beginning they met in the Temple and the synagogs, but later the Jews didn’t want them in the synagogs (and there was only one Temple). So Christians had to meet else where. When Jesus sent out the apostles to spread the gospel, they went from house to house. They were instructed to dust off their sandals as a testimony when the household refused them. I can imagine that at times for certain occasions they may have rented a room or place to meet like during the last supper, but for regular gatherings, which seems to have been weekly or even daily, I think it was primarily done in homes. Also one big part of church or ekklesia was breaking bread. Consider cooking facilities for all this breaking of bread (which appear to be full meals, not snacks or tiny little flecks of crackers and a thimble sized grape juice). In those days they didn’t have refrigeration and all the cooking conveniences we have today to prepare food. It’s likely they cooked from their houses and served there as well. In 2 John the situation is John writing to a woman who is believed to be having church in her house. John writes, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, nor greet him. For he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.” It seems to indicate that she was having church in her house because why is he saying in her house and not in the church or at church? Her house seems to be synonymous with where they met. John wrote “your” house, not the house of God or the house of Christians, etc.

   And quickly, Andrea, it’s true that some could stop going to churches because of arrogant reasons, but it doesn’t have to be. On the contrary, there are legitimate reasons to stop going to churches such as they are not following the way churches should be run according to the examples shown to us by the apostles. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandants”. Jesus Himself insisted that those who do love Him will obey what He commanded. (John 14:15-21) So going to a church that follows the commands of Jesus is of utmost importance, and not just a matter of being arrogant. The examples given to us along with the instructions in there on how church or ekklesia should be run is written in the Bible. As an example check out 1 Timothy 3 for qualifications for deacons. And also consider exploring what exactly is a deacon back then and now? It’s good for us to explore that. I certainly don’t want to “knowingly” part take in disobeying God’s commandants just because I’m afraid someone might think I’m being arrogant. For us, it’s not a matter of no church is perfect because of people being sinful because we all are. The issue is when we know what the Bible tells us, do we follow it? Is the church following it or ignoring clear Biblical instructions? You can’t please everyone, but at least I would like to “try” to please God.

   Okay, it’s late again. Back later! I’m glad to be able to discuss this with you ladies, and look forward to you insight that I may not be aware of.

   Marla

3. Andrea said,

   March 26, 2008 at 4:30 pm

   I agree, Marla, there are many non-arrogant reasons to stop going to church. I certainly certainly don’t think you are arrogant!! Heavens no! Also I think the Church with a capital C is more important than individual churches, and any believer is part of that!

   I feel we are each called by God to a particular church, to a home church, to simply live out our beliefs at home. I am sure God called me to my church–there is a story I will tell you sometime. Now that I’m there, does the church always follow the Bible? I would say probably not. But to me, it’s more important that I obey God and stay there and try to help the church to be as close to Christ’s teachings as it can be. I will say that I think the fine people in my church come very very close.

   Now, as to finding a good piano teacher, word of mouth is the best way. The best piano teachers don’t have to advertise. Talk to other parents in your area, see what you can come up with. You’re right–it’s important to have a teacher who can inspire. A lot of it is really about the teacher’s ability to form a good relationship, to feel out who the child is and what will inspire him. Some students really need a lot of praise and encouragement, others need you to continually raise the bar to challenge them. A lot of older kids need to be helped to find music they can connect with, as they grow more distinct in their tastes. And older kids, too, need instruction in the nonmusical parts of music–how to deal with their own mistakes, how to practice, how to motivate themselves to practice. And, of course, they need a teacher who truly loves music, and teaching, and their students!

   None of this really helps you find a teacher, though–you gotta go local.

   Good luck!

4. Administrator said,

   March 27, 2008 at 1:02 pm

   Hi Ladies:

   Have another moment to add a little more comments. First of all, thanks Andrea for explaining that I didn’t come across as being arrogant. Heaven forbid! I know that the Bible tells us that God hates a haughty look. He oppresses the proud, but gives grace to the humble. So I try to always remember to step back from time to time to do self examination before giving my opinions or points of view. The ‘ole “take the log out of your own eye, first, before pointing out the speck in your brother’s eye.” Course sometimes we’re not so good at self-examination!

   Patti, I wanted to add a bit more comment on the home church thing. While it’s true that we (our family) aren’t thrilled with “institutionalized” churches “partly” because of the building (we don’t feel that it’s an efficient way to use money to spread the gospel or to help the poor, i.e. mortgages for the buildings, regular maintenance for upkeep, faculty salaries, etc take away from helping the poor), but the bigger issue that we have is the way current churches are structured/operated.

   1 Cor 12 explains how we all have different spiritual gifts, some for prophecy, some for hospitality, some for discerning spirits, etc. In 1 Cor 14, it goes on to explain order in church meetings.

   “How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.”

   This seems to indicate that there was “interaction” between the men (the women were to remain silent during these meetings). Large congregations don’t lend themselves to effective intimate interaction. The current churches generally only have one pastor who pretty much takes the whole show while all the rest of the men just sit and listen (sounds like a good way to train the men to become hearers, but not doers). It is not customary in today’s churches to have dialog between the men during service as it was in the New Testament as described in 1 Cor 14:26-35. Today if a man has a question, he would have to keep it to himself until “after” the church service. I don’t think that was the way things were done in the original Christian gatherings we believe was church. We see this as “quenching the spirit” (which the Bible tells us “Quench not the Spirit,” Thes 5:19 because no other man in church is able to share his gift, just the pastor) and actually the format of one man alone speaking to the whole congregation is more akin to the traditions of the Catholic church (instead of the priest, we have a pastor), from which, by the way, current churches are modeled after (since modern protestant churches are basically reforms of the Catholic church). .

   Perhaps since we seem to agree that church is basically a meeting of believers (two or more people meeting), we need to review what church is for in the first place. It is my understanding that church is for the edification of the body of Christ. Now the question is does the church full-fill that? Today it seems like an epidemic amongst Christians to try to bring potential converts to church. That may or may not be wrong, and I think we do this because that’s what our pastors encourage. But, what we think this has done is make regular church services more of an “evangelistic” event rather than focusing more on building up the body of Christ. Sure they build up the “numbers” of bodies sitting in the pews donating money, but not necessarily building up the older members spiritually. The older, more mature Christian gets starved and pretty much are forced to drink milk week after week, year after year instead of eating meat. Remember church is for the edification (building up) of the body of Christ. When we were babes we drank milk, but as we mature we need meat. Having every church service geared to evangelize to any potential converts (who need milk because they are not ready for meat) week after week essentially neglects the older members who need meat. And it’s no wonder that so many Christians carry their Bibles all over the place, but don’t really know or understand what’s inside the book. They’re essentially perpetual babes in Christ. Many Christians stay babes because many of our pastors are keeping them that way through lack of weening as a result of the regular church services being geared more toward “converts” than building up the body of Christ. Remember, when one part suffers, all suffer.

   Anyway, those have been some of our thoughts on today’s churches, but there are quite a few more on how the churches are run which helped us decide to just stop going. When you start looking into all the things that matter to us, it becomes very, very difficult to find a good church, and we haven’t even really spoken about “doctrine” beliefs. We petty much won’t bother going to any churches that hold to evolution. And that alone will knock out a lot of churches.

   Okay, out of time again. Chat laters!

   Marla

5. patti said,

   March 28, 2008 at 10:49 pm

   Lots to comment on but it’s getting so late……

   When you say that Paul went to “house” churches, I believe it was because there were no church “buildings” back then as we know them now. Not because there was a “home church” movement. People (churches) met in homes. But they were still a church as the bible defines a church as the gathering of God’s people to hear the word preached. Paul called them churches when he wrote letters to them. Paul both taught and preached and there is truly a difference. So the sense that having a house church today is more like what Paul did I think is not an even comparison simply in the sense that homes were the only place the early christians met simply out of need. But I still think house churches today can fulfill the requirement of “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” The bigger issue I have with house churches is what I stated above. The ones we have been to and know of (and know many people who belong to them) do not both preach and teach. They spend time “sharing.” While that’s a nice word, I do not think it covers what Paul did in the NT as far as preaching and teaching goes. Someone shares this thought, someone else shares a thought, etc. etc. without any formal teaching/preaching going on. It is entirely possible that your experience of house churches is different from ours simply because every place is different. Just like churches in the south are different then churches here in Idaho (as so told by our pastor who’s southern). So, I still think house churches are fine so long as they follow a model that Paul set for preaching and teaching and it doesn’t become a gossip or whatever conversation fest in the name of “church.”

   I think the “building” thing is outside bible bounds. Do I agree with churches that go into debt for a building or only have one preacher? Absolutely. But I can say there are churches out there (they are the only kind I’ve ever been in) that build simple buildings (they look more like banks!) on a total cash basis (build as you go) and there is more then one preacher/teacher in the church. I have a very limited exposure of churches and have been very blessed in 17yrs to have only been in good, solid, bible believing churches. I realize that that is NOT the case in most of this country. I wish it were! But I’m not nieve enough to think it is. But I think not going for any part of the “building” thing isn’t covered scripturally. God doesn’t say not “to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together so long as the building is what you or I think it should be.” I think a church needs to be open about how people’s tithes are used, etc. I like what my old pastor used to say. When we would have an annual business meeting to lay out the finances of the church and how much the different preachers were being paid, etc. he used to say no one needs an air conditioned dog house. They truly were making what the average Joe Schmoe in town was making. I always appreciated that. But I KNOW that is almost never the case. I could careless if a christian goes to a building that calls itself a “church” or meets in someones home, I think the important thing is the NT is clear what preaching and teaching is and does and I think that is what has to be followed.

   As far as the conversing part of being in church. Ya know, Paul preached for 3hrs at one point and there is no indication that there was any “conversation/question/answer” type thing was going on. Usually the place for that is in a sunday school or teaching type class (of which I’ve been in many) and not necessarily during a time of preaching when a pastor is preaching what God has told him to. I do think there are instances of both in the NT. Sometimes when Paul is teaching the brethren and their asking questions and times when he’s simply preaching to them. There are a lot of conversations in the NT in terms of learning but nothing during what appears to be preaching times that I can see. Paul did mostly teaching and when he did preach there were few (if any) interruptions that I can see.

   Evangelizing is the great commission. We were told to go and preach the gospel and baptize people. Sometimes people bring others that are lost to church because that person won’t listen to their friend, but they’ll listen to someone else. There are a million reasons why we bring lost people to church. Sometimes to enforce what we’ve already told them, sometimes to show them that christians are not ogres, etc. etc. etc. I don’t think it matters. The reality is, most people will not hear the gospel today unless they are in a church that is preaching it. Perhaps if christians everywhere were fulfilling the great commission then churches wouldn’t need to preach salvation. I think however a person gets the gospel is sufficient for them to make a decision about Christ. I’ve not ever been in a church where they only preach salvation every service. Never. Our pastors have preached both the milk and meat depending on what God told them to preach that week and that was it. At the end during an invitation time they might ask if anyone is not saved or wants to be saved. They may give 3 or 4 verses out of Romans regarding salvation, but that is never the whole message every service. I’m thinking the times I have heard our pastors preach the entire sermon on the gospel of salvation is Christmas, Easter and a few other key times simply because there is likely to be more unsaved people at those times and it’s an chance to give folks the gospel that are likely unsaved. But mostly, they preach to the flock that is theirs. I think the other thing my husband and I have always appreciated about our pastors is their transparency. They have also always felt that a HUGE portion of what people tithe should go out of the church towards missions. And I think that’s another good indicator of how healthy a church is, is how important they feel it is to support others that are going out. Whether it’s planting churches in America or someone going overseas, it’s still important to support the gospel going out in fulfillment of the great commission.

   In the State of Oregon there are literally 5 bible believing churches. Oh, there are A LOT of churches. But there are 5 that are preaching the truth and not doctrines that are off, etc. etc. etc. Ron and I drove an hour each way to church for 12yrs. And even that church, by the time we left had become a numbers game and the preaching was horrible. We were starving. We knew God wanted us to move for one reason and that was to put our family back under solid bible teaching again. We also ran into administration issues there that we thought were very wrong (think deacon board, etc). Nonetheless, we have basically been spoiled over the years in that we have usually had very solid bible teaching AND preaching (there is a difference) in churches that weren’t money hungry (tithing was between you and God), spent God’s money wisely, and were truly blessed by God in their preaching. I know that throughout America today churches like that are so few and far between. I think it’s so sad and heartbreaking as well. I think it just points that much more to Christ’s return as things continue to turn south. When I think of the state of churches today I think of Revelation where Christ is standing at the door and knocking. If you read that passage he is standing at the door of a church telling them if they’ll open the door he’ll come in to them! That is where America is heading. Christ is often not found is many of the churches that call themselves a “church” today. And I guess all we can do is live out the truth until the Lord returns……

   Oh, and Marla, I don’t think you’ve ever come across as arrogant! You’re too humble to be arrogant.

   patti

   oy. Oh yeah. Doctrine is a whole other issue!

6. Administrator said,

   March 29, 2008 at 10:32 am

   Hi Patti:

   I read your recent reply, and will go over it again (particularly check out the Bible references you made in connection with your explanation of them) a bit later when I have more time. However, I’m seeing that it may be good at this point to define terminology. I’m not sure what you mean by a “home church movement.” While I do think we agree that it doesn’t matter “where” Christians meet for church, the issue is “how” church is conducted and how the group is organized such as hierarchy amongst the members. I do think the Bible gives us references regarding how church ought to be conducted such as in 1 Cor 14. But more on that later after I’ve reviewed what you wrote to make sure I’m understanding it and that your references support what you wrote.

   Also, I would like more clarification of what you mean about all they do is spend time “sharing.” What exactly do you mean there? I do think 1 Cor 14 says that each person has a gift, and thus each one takes “turns” presenting that. If that’s what you mean by sharing, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with “sharing,” and that it is biblical for church. I understand that the “content” of what’s being presented during church is important, but much of the Bible deals with how we live our lives. How can we take the messages in the Bible and apply them practically to our every day lives? So again, when we “share,” it can be issues regarding how to apply the scriptures to us on a practical level. Much of the Bible is actually very practical like helping the poor, the orphans, the widows, etc. So I’m a bit confused about what you mean when you say “sharing” as if it has no place in church.

   So basically, I’d like more clarification on what is a “home church,” what is “sharing,” and I think it would also be good to look up what is a pastor, a deacon, a bishop, etc.

   I’m not sure that certain issues are “outside” of the Bible. Personally, I feel that we can learn things from the Bible from not only what is says, but also from what it does “not” say. So I’m reluctant to agree that the importance of church “buildings” are outside of the Bible. Oh, and also, at this moment I’m thinking it might also be good to look at evangelism vs church. Is there a difference? Or is it the same thing? Hmmm. I do know that there are certain things for believers, and certain things for non-believers, i.e. tongues are for believers, prophesy for both believers and non-believers. Something like that, but will look it up more when I have a bit more time.

   Also, thanks Patti, for your comment of how you see my attitude. I do think that you ladies have helped me grow and reinforce self-examination. You know it’s easy to think things for yourself and apply them to yourself and family, but when we start to discuss these issues, it makes me step back a bit because I am concerned that I don’t mislead others due to arrogance. I want to leave room for other angles that I may have not considered, which likely is a lot of angles! And that is actually one purpose for “church” when members “discuss” what the Bible has to say about certain issues. One concept in the Bible that has stuck with me and makes me very cautious about “telling” others of what the Bible says is the portion where it says “6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Ack! So I do take Bible interpretations very seriously and feel that anyone who “teaches” or “shares” what’s in the Bible says should proceed with caution lest they mislead or preach falsely (and this is also why it’s so important that church is run properly and lead by “qualified” members). Also, and I know I’m starting to go off on a tangent here, but I don’t want to “presume” what God thinks or feels if it is not clearly expressed in the Bible. I say this because often I hear or read of people saying that God “wants” this or that. Or I will succeed because God promised it to me. Did He? Does God really want this or that? James 4:13-16 says,

   “13Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:

   14Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

   15For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.

   16But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.”

   This is why I “try” to always go back to the Bible and see if that’s what it really says and refrain from telling people what God will or will not do like God will protect you if you do such and such. Or God will cure you if you do such and such. I don’t want to assume things or force “my” opinion of something just because I want to be right (although when I think something is very “clear” in the Bible, I am pretty stubborn and opinionated about it, heheh). So I thank you two for your patience with me and for taking the time to dialog here. If anything, it has helped me. By the way, I don’t find either of you to be arrogant either.

   Take care,

   Marla

7. Andrea said,

   March 30, 2008 at 12:30 pm

   Hi ladies–This is a most most interesting and wonderful discussion. I could sit at the computer for hours and hours, there are so many issues, but here’s just a few things that jumped out at me . . .

   One has to do with the purpose of a church, to build up the body of Christ, and that reminds me of something a beloved (now retired) pastor said to us. People were moaning and groaning about our small congregation (our membership is about 80, congregation averages 40) and she (whole ‘nother topic, the fact that it was a “she”) said, “whoever is called to our church by God, will show up. It’s not for us to say how big our congregation is, it’s up to God. And look, the disciples only numbered 12. But they were quite influential now, weren’t they?” I am not disagreeing that we are called to evangelize, but there is something about a small congregation that builds itself up spiritually, you can feel the spirit increasing from month to month. I can see Marla’s point –and I had never thought of it this way–that an emphasis on evangelism means that a lot of energy goes into seeking out and welcoming and integrating new members, and that energy is not directed toward current members’ spiritual muscle becoming stronger.

   Another thing that jumped out at me is the thing about going back to the Bible . . . it’s so easy to think you know what’s in there, and, come to find out, you’ve subtly changed it in your mind to suit your own ideas! That millstone passage is striking to me too, Marla, and a real caution to us all to be very sure before we start talking too confidently about what God wants.

   OK, that’s all for now.

   Andrea (one of the “Humble Three”!)

8. Andrea said,

   March 30, 2008 at 5:46 pm

   So, now I will comment a little on the idea of women speaking or teaching in church. Obviously I feel OK about it as our present pastor is a woman and I love her a lot and think she is possibly the best Christian I have ever known.

   So, how do I reconcile this with the Bible?

   What I have noticed is that the Bible has to be interpreted. And, in interpreting it, you have to decide which passages are most important. I give more importance to what Jesus actually said than to either the epistles or the Old Testament.

   Jesus himself, in Matthew 7, says, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.” To me, other rules and regulations–women keeping their heads covered and not speaking in church for example, or Old Testament prohibitions on eating seafood–are interpretations of the “essence”, maybe applicable to our specific sitations, maybe not.

   If someone feels called by God to a church in which women are not permitted to teach, that should be respected. So I feel should the call of someone who feels called, as I do, to a church in which women do teach and speak freely. Our God is a God who clearly loves diversity–just look at the numbers of species of birds!

   What Jesus emphasized is that we be ever-mindful of the spirit of the law, not the letter. What continually bothered him about the scribes and pharisees was their mindless adherence to the letter while ignoring the spirit. The spirit of the law is loving God and your neighbor as yourself.

   This does not mean that there is no moral code, no rules, but that all rules must be evaluated, if we are to follow Jesus, in light of the spirit of love. Paul points out that eating things that Jews considered “unclean” was not, in itself, a sin. But if it bothers someone else, and you ignore their discomfort, then he says it becomes a sin.

   So with women speaking in church. If it really offends someone for women to preach, then that is something i should respect and not foist on others.

   But in the relative “privacy” of my own church, I feel that those of us who have benefitted from the preaching of an inspired woman are, like the Jews who ate “unclean” food, not sinning per se.

   Andrea

   PS–Interesting fact about our pastor–she was an atheist–a “flaming atheist”, she says–for 20 years. She worked in a nursing home where part of her job was to arrange for pastors to come in and do church services. She had to stay with the residents, so she ended up sitting through a lot of services, and that was how she got converted. “Isn’t God clever?’ she is fond of saying.

9. Administrator said,

   March 31, 2008 at 11:30 am

   Hello Ladies:

   Oh boy, lots to comment on! But I only have a few moments for now, but will try to hop back on later. First of all, Patti, I went over your post again just now, and realized that you didn’t give any Bible references! I thought you did the first time I read over it, so that’s why I said that I wanted to check out your references to see if it/they supported your position.

   One thing I’m recalling is when Jesus and/or the apostles went to the temple or synagogs. They are said to be teaching in the Temple or synagog. How is that if they are not rabbis, they were speaking in the Temple and synagogs? The Pharasees and Saducees didn’t accept them, yet they are speaking there. Seems they were participating in conversation in the Temple during that time. It seems that type of exchange is what the Jews were familiar with and thus also the early Christians when they got together. Even when Jesus taught, people asked Him questions, and He answered them right there. Types of questions asked of Him during His time with the crowds were, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, then NIcodemus asked yet another question, “How can these things be?” Jesus answers again. The rich young ruler asked Jesus “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answers him, and the man continues to answer, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” Jesus replies back. These look like dialog to me. Sometimes when He was teaching, people would bring sick people to Him or give Him messages in the midst of His speaking to the people. Then Jesus would ask the crowd questions, i.e. “Why is this man blind?” He didn’t send the blind man away and say, “Not now, Buddy, I’m preaching. Come back later.” No, He dealt with it right there and then. I feel there was quite a bit of interaction during teaching and preaching.

   Looking back at your post, you seemed to indicate that the home church you participated in did not teach or peach, but only shared. I still would like more elaboration on that one because if the men talk politics, then they can also apply scripture to their world views to help each other know the proper action they should take, i.e. which government laws or candidates to vote for using Biblical references to support their thinking. This would help us know how to apply Biblical principals to our lives on a more practical level. The the importance of church elders like deacons is to help keep the discussions/meetings in order. Paul, btw, is referred to as a deacon, and deacons are to oversee and guide. 1 Tim elaborates more on the qualifications of an elder like they are not to be novices, etc. It could be that the particular home church you visited didn’t have a very good structure or mature elders to guide them (yes, home churches should have elders), so that could be a problem, too. I guess what I’m thinking here is that the same problems you claim of a house church can also apply to a church which meets in a building. But I think having the building can increase the problems with the structure/function of the church, i.e the financial issues like I mentioned in an earlier post can be a burden on its members that you wouldn’t have with a home church. Our largest disagreement is how churches are run and organized such as the hierarchy of members and how church time is spent. Out of curiosity, how long is your church service? And how long is the actual “message?” I would say on average the usual churches we’ve been to have been about an hour long, with the first half hour mostly with greeting and music. The second half hour is mostly preaching and invitation to anyone who wants to be saved, My feeling is less than half an hour actual preaching is not much time, and definitely not much time for dialog. (This is not to say that I didn’t hear some pretty good messages! I have! But I don’t think the set up is adequate and could be even better in a more intimate setting where people are allowed to dialog. If people broke bread together, as in a home church, then church could be longer because we wouldn’t all be rushing out to have lunch. Lunch would already be there). Even if churches run on a cash basis (no debt, but build along the way), that money building that building is not being spent on the poor, but maybe instead on a nice lawn, or a new swing set, new pulpit, new pews, carpeting, painting, office equipment, utilities, salaries, etc. Why not just meet in a place that doesn’t generate any extra bills? Even Paul didn’t get paid monetarily for preaching, nor did he have a church where he was designated to preached from week after week, or day to day. Gee, I don’t think any of the apostles did either. They went from synagog to synagog, and house to house. Another thing is that homes are much more personal. People will generally not let just anyone into their homes. You would be more likely to know a new member if they came into your home or at least make it a point to now who that person is. But it is much easier to miss a new member who just walks into a building. Also with a dialog setup, it’s easier to know/discover the wolves in sheep’s clothing. You will hear them speak unlike in an institutionalized setting, you can easily have people there who don’t even really believe in the Bible, but just like the religion part of it. The Bible tells us to be careful with doctrine. If a person doesn’t hold the same doctrine, don’t let them in. How would you know that unless you hear them speak? From the mouth comes what’s in the heart. Today’s institutionalized churches makes it easy for a wolf in sheep’s clothing to mingle amongst it’s members. Not a good thing especially for the babes in Christ.

   Okay, I’m out of time again, but I also wanted to comment on the Great Commission and of course Andrea’s recent insights.

   Toodles for now!

   Marla

10. Andrea said,

    March 31, 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Super-interesting points, Marla. I agree with all of them, actually! But I feel called, by God, to my church–which has some, but not all, of the problems with church you mention. Most of the problems we don’t have, have to do with our very small size. I think big churches are wonderful hiding places for wolves in sheeps’ clothing. I’ve seen it happen alot, I’m afraid.

    A small church (or home church), there ain’t nowhere to hide. Our small church is especially transparent because it’s just one room! Factions and gossip have no where to go, literally!

    Well, I’ll look forward to hearing more from you, Patti, take care, Andrea

11. patti said,

    April 19, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    Okay – so it’s only taken me 3 weeks to get back here! Sorry. I will have to take your questions in little sections because I don’t have a ton of time.

    Marla – to define the “home church movement” – there is a body of believers that believes that all churches that meet in church buildings are contrary to the NT biblical church that Paul started and that the only true way to be in “compliance” with the NT church is to attend a “home church.”

    A “home church” by what I understand and have known it to be is a person’s home where believers meet to “discuss” the bible. Some home churches have a “formal” type preaching time, others just “talk,” “share,” whatever you want to call it, about the bible and what they think, etc. etc.

    Those are the defintions that I’m working off of when I talk about a “home church.” Hope that helps.

    My definition (based on what I’ve seen and know of others doing) of “sharing” is people sitting around talking about what they *think* the scriptures mean. Or, better yet, that it’s okay for everyone to have their own meaning for the scriptures regardless of wheather or not their “meaning” is truly what the bible is saying. 2 Peter 1:20 says “knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” The bible doesn’t require someone’s private interpretation if they are rightly dividing the Word according to 2 Tim. 2:15 and 3:16. While Peter was specifically talking about prophecy – the principal that I’m trying to lay the groundwork for is that the scriptures say what they say and one either believes it or they don’t. I have seen home church situations where it’s “well, you believe that, but I believe this.” Nowhere do I see that Paul in any situation allowed for that kind of “teaching.”

    As far as discussing how to apply the bible to our everyday lives, Paul preached that clearly. And he taught it. There is a difference between preaching and teaching. Teaching tends to be more interactive then preaching does (think of a school teacher, students asking questions, etc.). But Paul clearly lays out that preaching is necessary . I’ll cover the scripture on that one further down because it will muddy these waters.

    So anyways, a “house church” is fine when the bible is being both preached and taught and there is clearly order. In a church setting this will frequently be layed out as Sunday School and a regular service. SS being a time of teaching. Paul said to the Corinthians that all things are to be done decently and in order. If there is some sort of order to what goes on and the people clearly walk away with being fed from God’s Word, then fine. Building or no building, this is “the church.” However, I do NOT believe, that house churches are right because it’s “what Paul did.” If you read the epistles Paul frequently starts his letters “to the church that is at ……” Ephesus, Corinth, etc. He does not say, “to the house church that is at…..” They met in homes because that met the need of that day. Period. Not because they were setting some precedent for future believers.

    As for the spiritual gifts – did you mean 1 Corin. 12? Ch. 14 discusses when tongues is acceptable and what they are for. Ch. 12 covers the spiritual gifts. So – I’m gonna run with Ch. 12 assuming you meant that. Chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians covers the body of believers and that each has different gifts that God uses among a body of believers. Whether those gifts are used in a formal church building among the body of believers or a house church body of believers is neither here nor there. There was infighting amongs the Corinthians and Paul was trying to make them understand that it takes everyone’s gift to make the body function smoothly. Not somehow that “sharing” by chatting back and forth is using a person’s spiritual gifts. I don’t know how you get that out of that chapter. Um… And Ch 14 gets into some serious doctrine, so I’ll leave that for another time.

    On to Christ in the temple – Maybe I’m reading what you wrote wrong, but how do you get Christ or the apostles were having a conversation in the temples and synagogues from the words saying they were “teaching” in the temple? Christ was a Jew, as were the others. Being in the temple would have been acceptable for him. This is where I part hairs with people. It is “filling in the blanks” to say they were having a conversation because they weren’t rabbis. The bible says they were “teaching” in the temple or synagogue. It does not say they were having a conversation. That is where I think people like to install what they believe with what God’s Word says. Christ and the apostles/deciples were known to have authority. I think that authority gave them the right to teach in the temple. Obviously, the rabbis let them teach. They didn’t just kick a rabbi off his podium. Okay – humor – I just discovered I had written “rabbit” instead of rabbi. Hee hee.

    I’ll insert another thought here real quick….. There are those who believe the bible is a good guide and there are those that believe the bible is THE Word of God as John 1:1 says. I fall in the latter camp. I believe every jot and tittle of that book. Nothing less, and nothing more.

    So, did Christ converse in the temple or was he teaching the people? The bible says he was teaching. It does not say he answered questions, it does not say he conversed with them. He taught them. He read from the scrolls one scripture states in the gospels. So I take the bible at it’s word and do not add conversing to it. If a person wants to look into the history of something, I think that’s fine. But God wrote this book and adding to it because of what some man wrote about the history of something is still adding to God’s Word. That’s just something to think about.

    Okay – I got seriously interrupted here so I don’t have time to go any further. Lots to answer still. Sorry. I’ll keep trying.

    Have a good night.

    patti

12. Administrator said,

    April 20, 2008 at 1:36 am

    Hello Patti:

    Thanks for your comments and insight. Don’t know how far I’ll get, but I’ll start.

    First of all, I also come from the belief that the Bible is the word of God. I also believe that it should not be interpreted any which why that fits you. I do believe that when it was written, there was a meaning and intent, and not meant to be taken whichever way sounds nice and frilly. So understand that when I share what I understand from what I read, it is not because I’m trying to make it fit what I want. I do want to understand what it is God wants us to do. BUT I “also” think the Bible is a “guide.” Jesus tells us to follow Him, i.e. do as He does, be like Him. Well, how do we be like Him but by paying attention to what He did as an “example” to us on how to behave “today,” 2000 years later. Why do you think there is so much in the NT about the churches and what they did? We learn and follow by example, both good examples and bad examples of churches and how people conducted themselves and the consequences. From there we fashion how to behave today. Jesus showed us by example how we are to love one another. He did not just “say” to love one another, He also “showed” us how to love by how He treated people (the multitudes) and gave us His life for us.

    Having said that, the Bible does tell Christians not to be divided or argue over petty things. Whether we hold church in a building or not is petty, I think. I think it would be perfectly fine to have church at a park. But “how” church is conducted is not petty, but important. “How” church is conducted is the real issue here. And this is where I think our current churches have problems.

    So what is church? Is church a place where “only” preaching takes place? When Bible study time comes, it’s no longer church? If so, where in the Bible is that stated? If teaching is to be done in church, how does the teacher know that what he’s teaching is being understood when none of his students respond? If he has no communication with his students, then is he really teaching or just speaking out into the wind? If you teach your child math, then he should be able to demonstrate the he can solve math problems. If he can not, then you have not taught him math. You may have said a lot of things, but he may not have learned anything. Another consideration is that there are different ways to teach. Some teaching is by example, other teaching is through stories, etc. Which type of teaching is “allowed” in “church?” Only the ones where we sit and listen?

    If you only follow what’s in the Bible as you say you do, then tell me where it states that they have a choir sing to the congregation/church before each service, and then later at the end have a call for any new converts to come forward at each church meeting to accept Christ into his heart? Where does it state that only the pastor should read and preach to the church congregation? Have we “added” something to the Bible here?

    You state that you only follow what’s written in the Bible, but words have meanings, which calls us to action. And “action” is what God wants from us. “Faith without works is dead.” What people “do” (their actions) are examples to us. We should not ignore examples (actions) in the Bible and discard them as “old,” “antiquated,” and only done during “that time period.” I think to ignore or discard what was done in the past (particularly how Christians met and structured their gatherings in the past) as irrelevant for us today is missing “a lot” of what the Bible has to tell us. Observing their examples is “NOT” “ADDING” to the Bible. What they did is “in” the Bible, don’t omit that. The examples I quoted are in the Bible, I didn’t make those up. I didn’t “add” to the Bible, I “quoted” it.

    Regarding the temple and the synagogue, the reason why I mention it is to show you the “format” that they were accustomed to. Their format allowed for conversation in the temple with the teachers. Thus if that is what the Jews were accustomed to, then it stands to reason that they would later hold their church meetings in a similar fashion. The way we hold church today is similar to the “Catholic” traditions, not the Jewish traditions, as far as I understand. Take Luke 2 for example when Jesus was only 12 years old. His parents went to the Feast of Passover in Jerusalem. When they finished, the found that Jesus was missing, so they looked for Him, and they found Him in the temple amongst the teachers. Luke 2:46 says,

    “And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.”

    Notice that Jesus was only 12 years old (in the temple), yet He was there “hearing” AND “asking” them questions. He was “permitted to speak” and ask questions. The next verse even states that they were amazed with His “answers.” Is this different from the “chatting back and forth” that you seem to think has no place in church?

    When we learn, we learn not only by “words,” but by what we “see” (actions). Much of the what is in the Bible is not just to “tell” us what to do, but also to give us an “example” of how to do or not to do things.

    I’m getting the impression that the house church you visited wasn’t very well structured and that they didn’t really follow the Bible. Their members seem to have been very weak in their understanding of the Bible if they just accepted any old interpretation and thought that was okay. We also would not continue to go to a church that accepted any old interpretation even if they held it in a house. It’s not the house that makes a church any more that it is a building that makes a church. Having a building doesn’t make the church structure any better.

    I agree that ekklesia meetings should be held in an orderly fashion, but there can be order where there is more interaction than just one pastor preaching to the choir.

    Regarding whether the Bible addressed the “churches” but not the”house churches” is neither here nor there because a church is not a house OR a building. The “church” (the group of Christians, the family who gather to observe the Lord’s supper as brothers, ekklesia) were being addressed, not a house, not a building, and not even the pastor, but the church (the members) as a whole.

    Okay, it’s late, so better shove off.

    Marla

13. Andrea said,

    April 20, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Hey ladies, No time to really get into this. Tom’s coming home for 2 days, hooray, and I gotta cook him a good dinner!

    Just want to say that I do think much depends on how a home church, or a church-church, is run. If people in either place are trying to push and pull and nudge the Bible to fit their own personal agendas, that just won’t do, and it can certainly happen in both places.

    I realized, too, that in a way I have both. I have a church with a preacher. But I also have a twice a month Bible study, which really functions as a sort of midweek home church. We pray, we study the Bible, we read it aloud. And I realized that I think it is a good Bible study because it is well-run, because people don’t try to bend the Scripture every which-way to make them feel better, but we all really try to figure out what it really calls us to do, now, in 2008. Just IMO.

    OK, gotta go. The house could use a clean, too! Andrea

14. patti said,

    April 20, 2008 at 10:05 pm

    Ah. The people I have been exposed to are usually one or the other, rarely both when it comes to the bible is a “guide” or it’s God’s Word. So I think we’re on the same page. When I was saying the guide thing I was thinking of those that do not believe it to be the Word of God but *merely* a guide.

    I’ll cover the money issue when/if we talk about church structure.

    Okay, I found some questions I missed. I’ll answer real quick. Our church has a 50 minute Sunday school class and the actual preaching is about 45min. to 1hr. Our morning services generally go about 1.5hrs. The first half hour being singing/greeting, etc. (which is biblical). You want chapter and verse don’t you? My general impression of even good preaching churches today is people today are less concerned with the preaching/teaching of God’s Word and more concerned about what they’re going to do after church. Pastors have come to believe that if they preach longer then an hour they’re going to “lose” people either in numbers or just in their minds wandering. People today would have not survived Paul preaching a 3hr sermon. I think that’s a sad commentary on just how important we feel it is that Christ died for our sins. I personally have no trouble sitting through long messages (and there have been plenty), but I know many people who do have trouble with that. To the point that they get mad that the preacher went so long. So largely, I think pastors/churches today have lost ground in an effort to “keep people happy.” I didn’t see any different mentality when we home churched. I don’t have a problem with some sort of loose schedule/time frame; but mostly people want to go for an hour and leave (home church or formal church building). Christ died for the church (body of believers). I don’t understand the mentality that people don’t have time to spend under the Word of God. Maybe I’m just weird. And from the sounds of what you wrote, Marla, you guys are of the same opinion?

    Paul was called a deacon but if you look at the life of Paul and where he preached (house to house, church to church) he would be considered more of an evangelist. His journeys are referred to as “missionary” journeys. So he could also be considered a missionary. He was not the pastor of a local church. Timothy was a pastor, for example. So you can’t pattern a “church” (house or otherwise) off of Paul by saying there should be different preachers every week because he was someplace new every week. Unless I misunderstood what you wrote. Paul was an evangelist that traveled church to church to preach and admonish and encourage the brethren and pastors. Which is generally what evangelists of today do (okay – the ones I know. Not the Oral Roberts’, Pat Robertsons, etc. – I don’t call them evangelists, I call them thieves).

    I think what might be more profitable for our purposes (because I think we all agree that the “church” is an assembly of believers regardless of where they formally gather) is to talk about biblical principles for how a church is to be run. It seems, Marla, that that is where you and hub differ or see things different from how churches are today. Am I correct on that?
    That’s just a thought. Ha! I can’t even develop it right now! What do ya think? Shall we head thatta way?

    Also, Marla, are you on Jen’s update list? If you are, do you know how Samuel is doing in the hosp. right now? I’ve been praying so hard for them this past few weeks.

    Patti

15. patti said,

    April 21, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Marla, Jen updated today. Been praying so hard for Samuel that I was worried…..

    patti

16. Administrator said,

    April 22, 2008 at 9:20 am

    Hi Patti and Andrea:

    Hope you’re having a great time with Tom visiting, Andrea!

    Patti, yes, I’ve been keeping up with little Samuel’s updates. It’s been just awful, and the whole thing has had me all bound up.

    Got in late last night celebrating my dad’s 77th birthday, so things got a little behind here for me. Will try to hop back on later.

    Marla

17. Administrator said,

    April 23, 2008 at 11:40 am

    Hola, hola:

    Wanted to add a quick entry since I can see I’m pressed for time again. But I did want to confirm that yes, it’s the way church is structured today that is our primary concern, but a smaller part of that is the money spent on a separate building used to house church services. The building just kinda adds the icing on the cake, but isn’t the cake. Course, I do want to add that while I don’t think any of this affects whether we have eternal life or not, I do think it affects how effective Christians can be.

    Anyway, another quick comment is in respect to what you (Patti) wrote about Paul being more of an evangelist. Now if that’s true (which sounds very likely), then that actually supports my position more than yours because you were using Paul’s 3 hour preaching as an example of people “not” conversing in church, i.e. they supposedly just sat and listened. So if your claim that Paul was not technically a pastor (which I do agree with, btw), so we should not model how we conduct church after him, then Paul’s 3 hour preaching should not necessarily (or always) be a model by which we hold church gatherings. I know I have a few more thoughts on that type of thing, but even if we are not to model our church gatherings with what Paul did, he did tell Timothy how church should be conducted and also the Corinthians how church should be conducted. So we still listen to Paul regardless of whether sometimes he preached for 3 hours or not.

    Okay, will stop here for now. Last Sunday we watched the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, movie and boy, my list of things to read and study grows “LONG.” Ha! I want to comment on that in another post, but I think it’s best for me to read more about the arguments first. As if my other readings on WWII in the Pacific and this thread on Bible issues isn’t time consuming enough without all the rest of each day’s chores. Sigh. Another thought that has weighed on my mind more recently is prayer. Maybe one of these days we can chat about that.

    Laters ladies!

    Marla

18. Andrea said,

    April 24, 2008 at 6:36 pm

    Hi ladies–Well, on the church thing, I am on a different page from both of you I think. I think that “where two are gathered in my name . . .”, and I think that buildings that are churches and home churches are equally awesome.

    Certainly, I am going to disagree with how some money is spent in any church, home or otherwise. Certainly, from my point of view there will be less effectiveness when there is an expensive building to support. But I feel that church is a wonderful thing, a great thing, even if it is less effective than it could be.

    Now, as to prayer–there is one of my favorite favorite topics. Would love to hear your thoughts on it.

    Andrea

19. Andrea said,

    April 24, 2008 at 6:41 pm

    Two more things–we had a wonderful time with Tom, thanks for asking. He’s such a joy to my heart.

    And I thought you might be interested in a very thoughtful letter that was written to the local paper with regard to the fitness review I participated in. This woman is not a part of the church, nor was she part of our committee, but she has a good grasp of the issues.

    http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/OPINION/804240410/-1/NEWS09

    Good night!

    Andrea

20. Administrator said,

    April 25, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    Hello Ladies:

    Glad to hear that you had a wonderful time with Tom, Andrea! That’s so good to hear!

    That’s interesting that your fitness review ended up in the local paper. Now that is different, but a good point by the author that if docs, lawyers, and other businesses are reviewed publicly, then why not pastors? The Bible does state that leaders of the church should have good standing even amongst non-believers. Hmmm.

    Patti, you made some good points about people not having long enough attention spans or ability to keep their interest on a long and lengthy church service. I agree that happens, but it seems logical that we are always going to have some people that just can’t hang with long services. After all, didn’t that one guy listening to Paul fall asleep and fell out of a window? Maybe there’s something to be learned from that, ha! And I think it’s also another good reason why discussion is helpful during church gatherings. Discussion helps keep us awake and more involved and thinking more actively about the issues at hand. Now this is not to say that there is no preaching going on during church meetings when one person is preaching. And yes, this is where I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean that church meetings should have different preachers every week coming in, what I meant about “taking turns” is that the “members” of the church should be able to take turns sharing their gifts during the church gatherings. So if one is good at preaching, then he can preach. When he is done, then someone else can expound more on that and so on. This is what we think it means in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33, church gatherings are to be held in an orderly fashion “each person taking turns,” i.e. if anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, “each in turn,” and let one interpret. It goes on to say “let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.” Basically, you will have a mix of things going on during church gatherings, but all taking turns, not running over one another. The purpose is for edification and encouragement.

    Another part that I think also seems to suggest to me that there is discussion during church gatherings is the part where it talks about women being silent in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says this:

    34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

    35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

    Now if everyone were just sitting quietly in church then why tell the women to be silent? Shouldn’t they already be quietly listen to the pastor preach? I think the reason why the women are told to be silent is because there is active discussion going on, which the men should only participate in. The reason women are to be silent is addressed in 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

    “11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

    12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

    13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

    Some people say that it was customary in those days for the women to remain silent, but I don’t think so for the reason given in 1 Timothy above. What stands out to me is verse 14, Adam was not deceived by the serpent, but Eve was. Eve ate the fruit because the serpent deceived her, but Adam ate the fruit not because he was deceived, but because Eve gave it to him, and he knew what she had done. One of the pastors I recall said that it is kind of a love story where Adam knew he was sinning and going to die by eating the fruit, but did it anyway because he wanted to follow Eve because he loved her. Therefore it is not a good idea for women to be teaching men. And therefore, it is not a good idea to have a woman pastor where she’ll be teaching many men. And since the Bible also warns about those who teach have a greater responsibility to not mislead the flock, then I think that’s another reason why women (who are more easily deceived than men according to Paul), should not be leaders teaching men in church. I’ll have to find the passage for that for the exact verse for teachers being more careful, but I think it mentions that teachers will be judged more heavily if they lead anyone astray. That principal does not diminish with time or change because we are no longer held accountable to Old Testament laws. The concept of women staying silent in church and not teaching men in church should be upheld even today for the sake of not misleading the flock. Sure we can get into more specifics and examples, but that’s the bottom line. Whether women speak in church does not appear to fall in the same category of whether one feels guilty about eating meat or not, it’s “not” a matter of comfort or what’s good for you may not be good for me type thing. Women not speaking in church is a matter of ensuring that scripture is interpreted properly AND that men take their place that God intended for them as head over the woman. Women can teach men, but in silence by example. And women are also instructed to teach children and other women.
    Okay, I’m being summoned again. Will try to hop back on later.

    Marla

21. patti said,

    June 16, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    Boy it’s been a long time since I’ve hit here. Not that I forgot! Only that I had to choose between health postings, or church postings.

    I’m going to give this a quick hit but will probably not do it justice.

    Okay, I Corin 14 has to do with the issue of tongues and the local new testament church – not how “orderly” a church is run. Yes, we can apply doing things “decently and in order” but that isn’t the issue that passage is dealing with. The only “order” Paul discusses in this chapter is on the issue of tongues and how they are to be done, if they’re going to be done. Now there’s a topic for another post (tongues are NOT for the church age).

    The issue with women keeping silent in the churches seems to apply to women not preaching or teaching in church. Not because there is discussion going on. I think I said earlier, women teaching a sunday school class to children (the olders teaching the youngers), or to other women appears to be acceptable in scripture. A women behind the pulpit clearly defies this scripture. While you can somewhat “interpret” what ISN’T said in the bible – I do not think you can jump from women keeping silent to they’re keeping silent because discussion is going on. That’s just too big of a leap for me. There are clearly some areas where what isn’t said is implied. As in, “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his cloths not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals and his feet not be burned?” Prov. 6:27-28. Clearly, the answer is implied here. This is a really obvious one. I know there are other passages that God makes implications that aren’t so obvious, but my point is that when there’s a point to be made from what’s NOT stated, it’s still fairly easy to “read” what God’s saying. Also, I believe there will be other scriptures to back that up if one comes up with a point that’s “not” stated.

    The only other point I wanted to make real quick was something you said about church buildings. You mentioned that by having a church building that is money that is being taken away from the ministry to others (poor, etc). I think I would dispute that by saying that a place to gather because folks have outgrown a home (where many many churches start) or a grange, etc. is not a detraction from God’s work, it provides the ability to increase God’s work. If it were not for our church (which is small by comparison to where we got married), we’d have less ability to know the needs of missionaries around the world because while we can track a few, our church has their pulse on way more then we do. The church we married in does more then a half million dollars a year in missions giving. Those missionaries are going out according to Matt. 28 leading souls to Christ. Paul said some would plant, some would water and some would harvest. For those that are going out the local church (building or home) is what supports them. For those of us at home, our mission field is right where we’re at. Those funds allow us to into nursing homes and have activities and gatherings for the lost where they’ll hear the gospel. I will admit that I am very sheltered when it comes to churches. We have always been in very God fearing, God honoring churches where bringing people to Christ and helping the Christian to grow is their purpose. We’ve also only been in churches where money issues were clearly in order. I know that the majority of churches in this country are not like that. But I do not think having a “building” hampers any work for Christ. Good grief. People having house churches make a house payment. Does that hamper their work for Christ? Well, I suppose only if they’re not tithing.

    I think, that we all agree that being in church (whether it’s a house church or a church building) is clearly what God commands when he says to “forsake not the assembling of ourselves” as some would do. So the only real question in this case is are we all in God’s house at least on the “first day of the week” according to the NT tradition? I think that is the issue. If we’re not, why not? If the issue is, “there’s no place to go” then create that place. Because God never commands what he doesn’t provide for.

    Okay, now I really gotta go. I feel like I’m dropping bombs but time is so limited I wanted to at least get this out.

    patti

22. Administrator said,

    June 17, 2008 at 12:37 am

    Hi Patti

    Was about to turn off the computer when I just saw your post. To keep it simple and because it’s late, I suggest you read over the passages I posted just before yours. Particularly regarding women speaking in church. I think it’s pretty clear. I know people don’t like to hear it especially in this day and age of women vying for equal rights and wanting to put their 2 cents in many things. I’ll repost below:

    1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says this:

    34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

    35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

    Please note that women are to keep silence in the churches and if they want to “learn” any thing, (it doesn’t say “teach” or “preach” anything here), then ask their husbands at home. It is implying that speaking such as asking questions results in learning. Not every time people speak is for teaching and preaching. Hence discussion can be inferred. It seems to be implying that the men learned by asking and discussing, but the women were not to do that. If you recall the custom in those days was for the men to discuss with one another, asking each other questions and answering, encouraging one another. The Bible even mentions to “persuade” one another. How do you encourage or persuade one another if you don’t speak? I gave you several examples of that such as when Jesus was speaking and questions were being asked of Him as He was speaking. This was for the purpose of learning as well as teaching. Yes, the Bible says women can teach other women AND children, but not men in church.

    You state that you think I am making a leap that women staying silent means that discussion is going on in church. I don’t think so for the reasons I mentioned in above post(s), which I think is supported by several other examples of how meetings took place (which I provided examples in previous posts) and is not a leap at all, but very logical. Many, many times Jesus spoke in parables for which we have to “unravel” or search out the meaning. Not everything is laid plain “purposely.” We are told to seek to find. Not everything is just laid out for us without making the effort to understand. So I disagree with your comment that I am trying to piece things together that the Bible doesn’t say or imply. The Bible implies plenty of things which I believe we are meant to find and understand, particularly for those who seek. I also disagree with you that Paul was only talking about order when speaking in tongues. He said “all” things were to be done decently and in order (1 Cor 14:40), “not” “just” tongues to be in order. (Which by the way, women remaining silent was part of that order and is mentioned right in that chapter about how church is to be conducted).

    While I do agree with you that the Bible does tell us that women should not teach or preach to men, I don’t believe that the women staying silent only refers to that, but also as members participating in church gatherings because if you take a closer look at the passage I just provided above (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), it doesn’t even mention women teaching and preaching at all, but rather if they want to “learn” anything, ask their husbands at home. I encourage you to take a look at it. So I don’t agree with your interpretation that it’s referring “only” to women teaching and preaching, but also to participating in discussions during church gatherings. That passage is clearly referring to the women learning, not teaching OR preaching. So if they’re not teaching or preaching, then why else would they be told to remain silent, unless they were asking questions or making comments to learn? And why not tell the men to be quiet and if they want to learn anything ask later? Or are we to assume then that only women were making noise in church so they didn’t have to tell the men to be quiet, just the women? I don’t think so because of the passages I quoted from 1 Timothy in my previous post explains it in further detail. He makes it even clearer leaving little room for a leap at all. Paul states, women were to be silent because they are not to teach men “because”. . . (he proceeds to explain!) (Discussion is part of teaching.  The Socratic method was popular in their day).  The woman was in transgression, the man was not, so she should not be teaching men in church matters. This has nothing to do with customs of the time or laws of the old testament or conveniences or guilt, but that the woman was deceived and the man was not. How much clearer can you get?

    I still stand with the building issue (and wages for church employees, too, for that matter. Even Paul supported himself during his ministry, which is documented in the Bible. The apostles moved from house to house and did not build separate dwellings for themselves that I see any mention of), but will discuss that more some other time.

    Okay, bed awaits. . . turned out I typed more than I expected, but oh well. . .

    Marla

23. patti said,

    June 17, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    Well, I’ve read over and over again I Corin. 14 and also the verses in I Tim. that you quoted. I still stand where I stood before.

    “Paul states, women were to be silent because they are not to teach men “because”. . .” – this is what you quoted above. Yep. The women weren’t to teach the men. I think this only backs up I Corin. 14 in that women were to be kept silent. Why? Because they are so easily deceived. My guess is we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

    I don’t think anyone would dispute bible discussion is a good thing. I think *most* Sunday school classes allow for people to ask questions, etc. of what is being discussed. The question is, is bible discussion alone sufficient to fulfill the NT tradition of preaching? I’d say no. If a house “church” is simply people sitting around talking about the bible without someone clearly leading then I do not think that is biblical. At what point do everyone’s opinions of what they “think” the bible is saying become solid bible teaching on doctrine? It can’t. There needs to be a clear line of what a group believes the bible says regarding major doctrines and leadership in teaching and preaching those doctrines. Like I said before, house churches are fine so long as besides a sunday school type discussion there is regular preaching and leadership of the flock. I don’t see any NT church that did not have a leader that led the preaching and teaching. God gives clear guidelines to the shephard of the flock. “Where two or more are gathered in my name” Christ is among them, does not mean that “two or more simply having bible discussions” is a church. There is a difference.

    But like I said above, I don’t think the issue is do we think house churches are right or wrong. I think we’ve all agreed that if run biblically, they are fine. The issue is, are we in God’s house (be it a home or a church) and not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together? There are nuances and differences outside of salvation that we will never have answered until Christ returns and we can ask God personally. Outside of those, are we under the preaching, teaching, fellowship of God’s Word and with God’s people weekly?

    Gotta jet.

    patti

24. Administrator said,

    June 18, 2008 at 11:17 am

    Hi Patti:

    Well, I’m glad that at least you half way agree. But I do think that you’re ignoring or overlooking the “other half.” You quoted only “part” of my point (the point where I agreed with you!). I’m curious how you can interpret my other point in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to mean “teaching” when it clearly talks about “learning”:

    34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

    35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

    The above is clearly speaking of the women staying silent “in church” and only ask their husbands at home if they want to “learn,” not teach. I think that is pretty straight forward especially in light of how the men were known to have discussions at their meetings. It is commonly agreed upon amongst Biblical scholars that Jesus’ way of teaching was Socratic–Socrates was known to discuss things with his students which involved questions and answers, and his style is known as the Socratic method. I even gave the example of when Jesus was just a young child in the temple asking the teachers there questions, and they did not rebuke him as a young boy from asking questions of the teachers. It was a thing that was common and likely encouraged. Perhaps something to look up is is there a difference in the Bible of Bible study and church? If you know about the difference please point out scripture (book, chapters and verses) to back up your explanation. I’d appreciate that.

    There are really several questions to examine, but to address your comment about a leader, while it is true that there should be members who are strong in their belief AND understanding of scripture, it should be clear that it is only Christ who is the head and true leader, not any man or any priest or pastor you want to put up in front of the people that so many so admire. There is a downfall to that for which heed should be taken. Once a human leader is upheld at the head of the church, often the members will follow that human leader “first” before following what they read with their own eyes of what’s written in the Bible. Even if it’s contradicting. They will leave the studying to the pastor because he’s “so trained.” And that is the tendency of people in general just as it was in the day when the people no longer wanted judges to interpret God’s will, but instead asked for a single human king to lead them (Samuel appointed Saul because as God said the people have rejected Him):

    1 Samuel 7 (KJV)

    “7And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”

    As such those people were subjected to the ways of the king they appointed, and like-wise, “I” think, people subject themselves to their pastors or church leaders today who will blindly follow their interpretation of the Bible without question (if they’re even paying attention in church, anyway). People often times are not inclined to “check” and “verify” what a pastor in a pulpit says (they’re usually just glad the service is over). They will just think that he “knows” what he is talking about because he is their “leader.” Similar to how people put all their trusts in conventional doctors because “they’re the experts.” The No-one-else-can-heal-but-the-doctors mentality. Never mind that many leaders disagree with one another (like many medical doctors disagree with one another). That, I believe, is a major contributor to quenching the spirit, since no other members are encouraged to check and verify the teachings of their pastor. Not only that, to help keep the members coming back and tithing, then the pastors tend to be lenient with scripture interpretation and “avoid” touchy subjects that are not popular or controversial. They have to play the game of not offending anyone especially since their income is dependent upon how many butts sit in his church and tithe. Tithing is another involving topic that should be addressed, too.

    When you mention the men speaking in church, it sounds to me as if you think they have no insight and nothing valuable to say unless they’re a leader. I think that’s a problem. Men should be leaders/heads of their families, and they should be trained how to do that. Men should be taught and trained in scripture and thus why so much interaction is necessary because they need to be skilled in thought processes and reasoning. We need strong God fearing men, not only “one.” Even the Bereans verified scripture and is commended in the book Acts. According to the Book of Acts, Chapter 17 verse 11, Paul of Tarsus and Silas preached at Berea, and the inhabitants “eagerly examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so”, and many of them believed. They didn’t just sit there and accept what was being told them, they eagerly examined the scriptures. This likely involved a lot of interaction, asking, checking, cross-referencing, etc.

    Both house churches and building churches can have problems. But I do think a building and all it trappings makes it a burden on the members.

    Toodleu!

    Marla

25. Administrator said,

    June 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Okay, I’m back. So much to say, but so little time! But now that I’m back, I wanted to say that I’m glad that you read 1 Corinthians 14 over and over again. So since you did, I’m sure you noticed the following verses:

    26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

    Notice, “every one of you has. . . ” It implies that each member has something to share at the church gathering. Then it proceeds to explain how all should take turns and be in order. In verse 31 it says:

    31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

    Notice, “all may prophesy one by one. . . ” Sounds like they are taking turns.

    Just above that when it was bringing in the subject of phrophesying, then it says verse 29:

    “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.”

    This sounds like, let the brother speak, then when he’s done, it’s open for others to judge, comment, discuss.

    Then it goes on about how the women are to remain silent. This just after Paul is talking about how the church meeting should be held where each man brings in something to share be it a psalm a doctrine, etc. and then judge what he just presented, and then the women are to remain silent. If the women want to learn, ask at home. I think it is so clear that the men were actively discussing things during church. To deny that after reading 1 Corinthians 14 over and over again is either not understanding it or being intellectually dishonest.

    I don’t think any of this will change our status regarding salvation, but I do think it matters with how effective we are as Christians. I’m not going to pretend I do every thing the Bible says I should, but at least I will admit when I see what it says that that’s what was done and I’m not doing it. I think people tend to be caught up in the ways they’ve grown accustomed, which is understandable. The problem comes when interpreting scripture and then trying to fit scripture to what we’re used to, but not looking at it for what it says. For instance, the scripture tells us to encourage each other daily. That’s what we’re supposed to do when we meet. Where does it say that we have to have church only once a week? And on the first of the week? Resting on the Sabath is OT doctrine that we are no longer bound to after Christ died for us. Having church once a week at the first of the week is only a tradition of men. It seems to me that they (NT believers) were meeting “daily.” Once a week was not enough. But that’s not convenient for us today, is it? And so we make excuses why that doesn’t apply to us today. Rather than just admit that we’re not doing what the NT tells us to do, we twist and turn and squint to read plain passages and examples to mean something else. I think that’s backwards. We should use scripture as our guide, then make our daily lives fit scripture. At the very least, accept what it says even if we aren’t abiding by it. If something is evil, it’s evil. If it’s good, it’s good. Whether we are doing it or not.

    Okay, off my soap box. . .

    Marla

26. Andrea said,

    June 19, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    Hi my friends–Well, I’m completely in a different box from both of you on this one, both in the “women speaking” and the “church building” category.

    I go with the following–Beware of false teachers, wolves in sheeps’ clothing. By their fruits you shall know them. For a good vine cannot produce bad fruit, or vice versa.

    (Talk about lazy! I am the REALLY lazy one in this trio–I will not walk the 12 feet to my bedroom to find the chapter and verse in the Bible. It’s in Matthew.)

    For me, Jesus trumps Paul. If a church produces “good fruit”, as far as I am concerned, it is part of a good vine. Good fruit? Compassion, joy, faith, love, self-control, sexual morality, honesty, generosity. Bad fruit? Corruption, fear, dishonesty, violence, anger, greed, selfishness and so on.

    You ladies both produce good fruit. That’s how I know you are connected to the True Vine. My hope and prayer is that I do too.

    Good night! Andrea

27. Administrator said,

    June 20, 2008 at 12:39 am

    Ah, Andrea, Andrea!

    I think this is the verse you meant?

    Matthew 7:15-16 (KJV)

    15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

    16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

    I think more insight regarding what “fruit” is is further explained in the following Gospels. I’ve pasted them below:

    Matthew 12:33-34 (King James Version)

    33Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

    34O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

    and

    Luke 6:44-45 (King James Version)

    44For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

    45A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

    I personally think that the last verse I quoted above (Luke 45) is clearest and the other verses support it. Basically, the fruit is what comes out of a man’s heart–i.e. the things he says or confesses, but not necessarily his deeds because anyone can do good things, but with bad motives. A person can lie and speak evil, but still do seemingly good “works.” (Hence the warning to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing). But what’s in the “heart” is truly the source of the good fruit. And the passages above indicate that what is “spoken” shows what’s in the heart. So it seems that listening to what people “say”, i.e. do they speak truths, do they lie, do they say hurtful things, etc. is the gauge for good fruit. It seems that judging by fruits is for individual people, not for whole churches because churches don’t speak. Individual people do.

    Eh, ya know, I have more to say about Jesus and Paul’s authority, but it’s late, so I’ll save it for later.

    Patti, you made this comment in your post above:

    “I don’t see any NT church that did not have a leader that led the preaching and teaching.”

    Now that got me curious, so I’m currently looking up the churches mentioned in the NT and trying to find any references to their “leaders.” I wasn’t aware that any were mentioned for any specific church, so I am going back to review to make sure. Since you believe that they all had leaders perhaps you can help me out and show me where in the Bible these leaders are and what churches they lead? I’ll get back later with what I dig up when I can get to it. The list of stuff to look up is getting long again, and I still have all my other stuff I want to read, heheheh.

    So good night for now! Thanks for the push to do more Bible study!

    Marla

28. Administrator said,

    June 21, 2008 at 12:25 am

    Okay, Patti:

    I just finished my list of churches that I saw mentioned in the NT. Here it is:

    church in Jerusalem
    church in Judaea, Galilee, Sumaria
    church in Antioch
    church in Syria and Cilicia
    church in Cenchrea
    churches of the gentiles
    Corinth
    Galatia
    Philippi
    Colosse
    Laodicea
    Thessalonica
    church of Asia
    churches of Macedonia
    church in Babylon
    and the 7 churches in Revelation-Ephesus, Smjrna, Pergamos, Thyatire, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea.

    So far, I have not found any leaders of any of those churches named. Please help me out here.

    I checked in each Epistle to the churches first because those are the easiest to go through. Paul addressed the epistles primarily to the churches, but no specific person as head/leader. Here’s an example of the first letter to the Corinthians:

    1 Corinthians 1

    1Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

    2Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their’s and our’s:

    3Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Verse 2 shows who the letter is addressed to–the church of God which is at Corinth and to them that are called to be saints. No specific person addressed as the head of the church given there.

    Paul’s letter to the Galatians also doesn’t address a leader. Here is the greeting:

    Galatians 1

    1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

    2And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

    Again, who the letter is addressed to is in verse 2–unto the churches of Galatia. I don’t see any leader addressed.

    Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is address as follows:

    Ephesians 1

    1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

    Again, no leader mentioned, but rather it is addressed to “the saints which are at Ephesus. . .and the faithful in Christ Jesus.”

    Paul’s letter addressed to the Philippians is as follows:

    Philippians 1

    1Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

    Again, no names mentioned, but addressed to all the saints and the bishops and deacons (plural for those, so who knows how many there were? These are not necessarily leaders that is equivalent to a single pastor like today, but more like overseers that help keep things in order. And I never said anything was wrong with that and according to 1 Timothy this is advisable, but doesn’t appear that it says every church has to have one. 1 Timothy does have Paul’s instructions regarding the pre-requisites for them, tho).

    Paul’s letter to the Colossians is addressed as follows:

    Colossians 1

    1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,

    2To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Again, Paul’s letter is addressed to no particular leader, but to the saints and faithful brethren at Colosse.

    Finally Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians reads like this:

    1 Thessalonians 1

    1Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Again, no specific person as leader addressed, just the church of the Thessalonians.

    So I’m not sure at this point, Patti, where you think that all the churches in the NT had a leader for teaching and preaching. I’m not seeing at this point where you get that idea from.

    I still have to go through Acts but it’s a bit late for now. My original quick perusal didn’t reveal any leaders, but mostly just mentions the location of the churches such as the ones I listed above, but I should go over it more slowly. There are some places where Paul says something to the affect of send my greetings to such and such, but generally doesn’t say that that person has any specific capacity in the church, and thus nothing to link them as leader.

    Maybe you can point me to a few verses? I’d appreciate it.

    Take care,

    Marla

29. patti said,

    June 21, 2008 at 12:44 am

    Well, this is a rare opportunity for me! Everyone is outside “camping” for the night so the house is totally quiet. Daddy is with them so there’s nothing I HAVE to do for the business. Whoa. What will I do with myself? hee hee. Come here, of course!

    I’ll try to go in order – forgive me if I miss something.

    1) I am not disputing that conversation took place amongst church members. But there is nothing to indicate that church should ONLY be conversation going both directions. Paul spends too much time preaching to the churches for me to believe that it’s acceptable to only have conversation/discussion in a group. What is the point of evening mentioning pastors (Eph. 4:11) if discussion is all that needs to take place? Why not just have anyone lead it? Just for fun, I looked up the word “conversation” and “discussion” in the bible. I used a Strong’s Concordance which lists every word in the King James Bible. Here’s what I came up with: There are 20 verses pertaining to conversation. Of them, all 20 verses were pertaining to someone speaking godly in their speech or behavior. Which, in a group discussion, would be important for someone to do this. However, none of these verses uses conversation in the sense of discussing things regarding the bible (ie, bible study). Variations of the word conversation are not in the bible. The word “discussion” does not appear in the bible nor were there any variations of it.

    Then I looked up the word “preach” and its variations. The word preach shows up 50 times (47 of those in the NT). The word “preached” 61 times (60 of those in the NT). “Preacher” 11 times (4 times in the NT). “Preacheth” 3 times (all NT). “Preaching” 27 times (26 in NT). Here’s a sampling:

    Mark 3:14 “And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,”…

    Luke 4:43 “And he said unto them, “I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.”

    Romans 15:19 “…..I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.”

    I Tim. 2:7 “Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, …..a teacher of the gentiles in faith and verity.”

    II Tim. 4:17 “…..That by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear:…..”

    I Thess. 2:9 “…..we preached unto you the gospel of God.”

    What’s my point? Clearly, just from this word study, God puts more emphasis on the preaching of the gospel then he does on any “bible study” or discussion that might take place. I think that the local NT church has established a time of “teaching” (that word appears 25 times, 23 in NT) in the form of Sunday school type classes. Or, “discussion” in home groups. BUT, it clearly, biblically, does not take the place of preaching. Over and over again, both the gospels and epistles state we are to “preach” the gospel. The word gospel is used in two forms. Both definitions coming from the greek concordance of the NT.

    1) to announce good news, declare, bring glad tidings, preach. – this would be preaching salvation according to God’s Word.

    2) a good message – ie. the whole counsel of God preached (holy living, godliness, etc.)

    So, in both of those, preaching is to cover both salvation and how we are to live once we are born again. Both definitions were used depending on which verse is looked at.

    What I can find, is that there is a clear case for church (be it in a home or a church building) to spend their time preaching the Word of God. I also see the room made for teaching – which generally involves asking questions, going more conversationally. *Most* NT, bible believing (and I stress bible believing) churches use their sunday school hour for “teaching” and their other services for “preaching.” Our Tuesday night is also a teaching time. Others might have a Wednesday night teaching/preaching time (depends on the church whether it teaches or preaches mid-week).

    Of the verses you quoted, you nearly always have to come out with, “see, they were talking.” But what you can’t show me is the actual scriptures that give the instruction for what you’re saying a “church” is supposed to be. There’s a big difference. People can infer anything they want from scripture. But what does it say? Just by the number of times God emphasizes “preaching” in the bible and taken with what those verses are preaching about, we can clearly see what God is teaching us. Preaching is important. More important then whatever “discussion” or “conversation” you might believe is right for the NT church.

    This comment you made, “The problem comes when interpreting scripture and then trying to fit scripture to what we’re used to, but not looking at it for what it says” is exactly what I think you are doing. Although what you believe now may not be what you’re “used to,” you are making it fit what you believe now. I can clearly show you Christ preaching and Paul preaching in over 100 places in scripture. You cannot CLEARLY show me where God shows discussing the bible is what he calls “church.” You can find inferences. That’s a HUGE difference.

    “Perhaps something to look up is is there a difference in the Bible of Bible study and church? If you know about the difference please point out scripture (book, chapters and verses) to back up your explanation. I’d appreciate that.” – I decided this would be a good place to insert this question and what I found…..

    The word “study” (since “bible study” isn’t in the bible) shows up 3 times (twice in the NT).

    I Thess. 5:11 “And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business……”

    2 Tim. 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

    In both those verses, the “studying” to be done, was to be done alone. So in my mind, “bible study” is something we ought to be doing on our own. Which if you take the verses that talk about seeking God early in the morning, etc. would be the time that people would be alone and likely to “study.”

    “Church” shows up 80 times (obviously all NT).
    “Churches” shows up 38 times.

    From the greek defintion (which I’ll tell you I hate going back to because God gave us an English bible – but for you I will )- a calling out, a popular meeting – especially religious, members on earth or saints in heaven or both. An assembly.

    So the biblical definition is the church is a “body of believers (using what scripture calls christians).

    Romans 16:5 “Likewise greet the church that is in their house…..” (which would seem to indicate there may have been churches in other then people’s homes – “that is in their house”). But whatever – that’s not a point I’d write home about.

    I Corin. 4:17 – “For this cause…..as I teach every where in every church.” indicating he’s not speaking about the “universal church” but in each church (the building) he goes to.

    Just from looking up the word “study” and church(es), it appears to me that they are two very different things. Not claiming to be right, that’s just what it looks like to me.

    New subject.

    As far as what you said about the people following a man, tithing, etc. I see a couple of things. First, it sounds like you guys have been burned somewhat. Second, man is sinful. We are all sinners. There are going to be those that follow a man, and God knows it and will judge them. There are those that stand up claiming to be men of God but are wolves in sheeps clothing. But you know what? Not every pastor is like that, and not every believer is deceived. And not putting oneself under a GOOD pastor who is doing things biblically as far as keeping the finances open, having the church make decisions (not the pastor or deacon board), is exactly what God wants us to do. I do not think God expects us to sit under someone who is not preaching the Word of God, the whole counsel of God or managing God’s money (the tithe and offerings) in a biblical and upright manner. I think that’s the perfect case for a “home church” to be started under. To provide a place for those people that want to do it right. That is the reason we went to the home church we did. But not putting oneself under the authority that God gives a pastor to shepard the flock, I believe is not being in the will of God. It is truly, “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.”

    Heb. 13:17 “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they WATCH FOR YOUR SOULS, AS THEY MUST GIVE ACCOUNT, THAT THEY MAY DO IT WITH JOY, AND NOT WITH GRIEF: for that is unprofitable for you.”

    Heb. 10:25 “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.”

    God doesn’t lightly choose men to sheperd his flock. The constraints and rules and judgements are a horrendous responsibility. But I believe, in today’s churches, so many things aren’t being done biblically that satan is using that to turn believers away from where God says they should be.

    Acts 20:7 “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”

    I Corin. 16:2 “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

    The first day of the week is significant because it is the day Christ arose and the day those first christians met to fellowship and have the Lord’s supper.

    I had to look in one of my commentaries about the first day of the week. After the people were called christians in Antioch they starting meeting on the first day of the week because that is the day Christ arose from the dead. There were also two “breaking of the bread” scenarios. There was the Lord’s supper, but also just a regular meal. Which my commentary says is what I Corin. 16 was. Paul came to eat with the deciples and preach to them before he left the next morning.

    I only mentioned once a week because many christians aren’t even doing this (which I consider the bare minimum). NT christians were present to hear preaching whenever Paul (or Peter, etc.) was preaching. Christ was nearly always flocked by people. I think that would bode for us being available (to the best of one’s ability) to be in services whenever there is preaching and teaching going on. But that’s just my personal opinion. As a family, we are in church whenever the doors are open with some exceptions. If we are on vacation and away from a church we know is good. We also do not plan our vacations around church activities. Obviously if someone is sick one of us has to stay home, etc. etc. etc.

    Andrea, it’s one thing to be in a “different box” then someone. God has room for different “administrations (I Corin. 12:5).” But the truth is, God’s Word does not conflict with itself. A person cannot on one hand say they use the standard of the production of fruit but then ignore what God says about a subject (ie. women in the pulpit, homosexuality, church buildings, whatever the issue may be). God is not two faced. He says what he means and means what he says. If God says that good fruit cannot come from a bad tree and vice versa then his command of a women keeping silent in the church is part of a church producing “good fruit.” Does that mean everyone in that church isn’t producing good fruit? No. But does it mean that church is bibilical according to the standard God has set? Absolutely not. That’s why I always specify “bible believing church (or person).” It can’t be both ways. Either one believes the Word of God and abides by it, or they do not. God is very black and white although these days most churches are trying to make him grey by accepting all sorts of things that God calls wrong and abomindable (sp??). Make sense?

    “For me, Jesus trumps Paul.” Okay – I part ways with this. Again, God’s Word NEVER contradicts itself. There is nothing Paul preached that Jesus didn’t preach/teach. Also, keep in mind, that Christ came as the Messiah to the Jews. It was not until late in the book of Acts(13:46) that God sent Paul to the gentiles. My point here is, much of what Christ preached was specific to the Jew. We are not jews. But I digress, because none of that matters. Christ and Paul preached the same gospel. God’s word is either ALL true, or it’s ALL false. There is no middle ground. And God’s word NEVER contradicts itself. So if you see something Christ taught/said, I can guarantee you it was no different then what Paul taught/preached. God is not double minded.

    Last stop – church leadership. Okay – not EVERY church Paul addresses does he address anyone in leadership. Sorry. The ones I found are:

    Phil. 1:1 – Paul addresses the saints of Christ Jesus with the “bishops and deacons”

    Col. 1:7 – Paul acknowledges that Epaphras, a faithful minister of Christ, told him of their faithfulness. Epaphras apparently had enough authority (leadership) to know the state of that flock.

    Timothy was a proselyte of Paul and a pastor. As a pastor he was in leadership.

    Titus was a leader. Paul left him in Crete to ordain elders in every city (Titus 1:5)

    Paul calls himself a leader (Titus 1:7) – “as I appointed thee”

    In Philemon, Paul addresses “Apphia and Archippus and the church in thy house” – being their home, I would assume they were in leadership

    Okay – so only in 3 instances is Paul clearly addressing leaders (Tim., Titus, and Epaphras). There is still evidence of leadership in those particular churches. Paul also spends a good amount of time explaining the qualifications one must meet to be a deacon, a pastor, a bishop. So obviously he expected the churches to have leadership or there would have been no point in him explaining all that.

    Okay – this was LONNNNGGGGG. I had time! I actually so appreciate the chance to really sit down and study my bible. I read it daily but it’s just not the same as “studying” and thus – not even I am living that verse to “study to shew myself approved.” I rarely get time to do this kind of stuff and this was good for me.

    I hope – with all christian love- since the internet has no voice, that none of this came out wrong sounding. If it did, I ask forgiveness ahead of time. It’s hard without the benefit of two way conversation to say things clearly sometimes. Marla, you are really good at being clear. I appreciate that when I read your stuff.

    Off to bed ladies. Have a good night.

    patti

30. Administrator said,

    June 21, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    Hi Patti:

    Thanks for your reply and also glad that you finally had the time to do some studying! Lots of things to cover, so I’ll see how far I can get.

    First of all, I “originally” had no problem with preaching in church. I don’t recall I said that it was wrong or bad, but now with more examination, I have some reservations (which I’ll explain a bit below). The issue was/is that in today’s churches, there is ONLY preaching going on and none of the other things Paul discusses with the Corinthians of how they should hold church gatherings. In today’s church gatherings (or what we call church) there are no other members sharing a psalm, or doctrine, or tongue, or revelation, or interpretation. There is generally “only” preaching by the one pastor. That does not sound very much like how Paul said church gatherings should be.

    Now I know that there is a place for preaching. Paul did a lot of it as well as the other disciples and that’s why it is mentioned so much in the NT. But let’s consider how is preaching related to church gatherings? First of all, Paul and the apostles were not heads of any one church. Yes, they preached where they went. They were “evangelizing.” They didn’t preach at the same church every week, week after week as their church gathering. You might liken their preaching at the various churches like we have guest speakers at times, but their preaching didn’t mean that that was how church was held there each week. So I don’t think that every time the word “preach” is mentioned or references to preaching is made that it always associated with how church is to be held each week. If you look at all the references you gave me on preaching, they were all referring to evangelizing where Paul or the apostles were going “out” to spread the gospel. This is different from believers coming together to encourage one another on a regular basis. Evangelism is generally to spread the word in hopes of gaining new believers.

    So this brings me to another thing. When you look at 1 Cor 14:26 again, it lists the things that is done when believers gather for church. This chapter is specifically speaking about how church is to be conducted, not evangelism. The list again is sharing a psalm, a doctrine, a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation. They prophesy one by one, and then they judge what was presented. Interestingly, there is no mention of preaching. Do you think preaching was left out in error? Perhaps preaching is for another purpose–evangelism. In church gatherings, they are already believers, there is no need to evangelize to them. The church gatherings for believers is for the edification of one another, to encourage in love and good deeds. How can you do that in today’s church services when the pastor takes up all the time preaching, and no one else is encouraged to speak? Sure you’re pastor’s message might encourage you, but how do the rest of the members encourage one another in church? What I think has happened is that church today has been turned into weekly evangelistic events and does not really conform to how church was held in the NT where believers came together to encourage one another in love and good deeds.

    Preaching does have it’s place, but I question whether today’s churches use it in place of what true church gatherings were intended to be (for believers to come together to encourage one another). It seems to me that today what we ordinarily call church is actually evangelizing, and perhaps what we call Bible study (group study) is actually closer to what church originally was. And so going way back to how this whole thread started, I think church is for believers, and not the place to strive to take possible new converts.

    Okay, I’ve gotta dash for now, but still have a bit more to say. However, I did want to look up some of the passages you listed above, and noticed that the one you reference 1 Thess. 5:11 “And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business……” doesn’t match what my Bible has for that. This is what 1 Thes 5:11 says from what I see:

    “11Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.”

    Please check and provide the what you meant. Thanks.

    Marla

31. Administrator said,

    June 21, 2008 at 7:56 pm

    Okay, I have another moment to chip away a little more. I found your scripture reference from 1 Thessalonians. It’s 1 Thess “4″:11, not 5:11. Anyway, that verse doesn’t appear to have anything to do with studying quietly. I’ll quote it below:

    11And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;

    The word study is in reference to “striving,” like “study to become a skilled workman.” In this case Paul is telling them to “strive to live a quiet life, minding your own business, etc.” This has nothing to do with Bible study or specifically how one should behave in church meetings, but how they are to strive to live their lives. In other words, don’t be raucous, cantankerous, disorderly, and the like, but strive to live quietly, peacefully, minding your own business, etc. So I don’t think this verse applies to studying quietly at all. It’s not saying study quietly and alone, it’s saying strive (study) to live quietly, peaceably.

    The second verse you quoted on studying is in 1 Tim 2:15

    15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    Eh, where does it say to study alone? or quietly? Paul is telling Timothy to study, but where does it say quietly and alone? Certainly I don’t expect him to be yelling and screaming while studying anyway, but discussion in study time is not being noisy anyway. It should be done orderly. And even so, there is no rule that you can’t study alone, so that’s not even an issue here. Paul is just telling Timothy to study. As far as I see, it doesn’t say where or how, just do it. And if he’s studying alone, that’s not church anyway, so has nothing to do with church discussions.

    So I don’t think those two verses you supplied imply that there should be no discussion during church gatherings.

    Regarding church leaders, I have not been trying to say there there should be no leaders. As you may recall I specifically state that there should be knowledgeable men regarding scripture in church. Clearly there are requirements for deacons and bishops. My objection has been with how church is conducted these days. Sure there should be leadership to oversee and guide, I never said that was wrong. My question is, is just preaching throughout all the church services week after week by “one” pastor really what church is all about? I don’t think so for all the reasons I mentioned above. But I will definitely try to do more studying on it because I do think this subject is important.

    Okay, will take another computer break, but before I quit, I came across this passage which kind of made me chuckle. It’s Paul to the Corinthians:

    2 Corinthians 11:8-10

    8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

    9And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.

    10As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.

    I have been under the impression that Paul is known to have supported himself during his ministry, but I had not realized that at times he did get support from the other churches. But I chuckled at his description of it, that he “robbed” the other churches. Ha ha.

    More later. . .

    Marla

32. patti said,

    June 21, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    Just a quick note as I need to be off to bed tonight. While the time stamp says I posted around 12:45am, I was up until 3:00am. I started typing around midnightish. Maybe that’s why the time stamp. Anyways, I’m beat.

    Sorry about the reference mistype. It was late.

    I apparently didn’t make myself very clear with much of this because I feel like most of what I was trying to say went misunderstood. My point with “studying” was that there is no indication that groups got together and studied. From those scriptures it appeared that whatever was being studied (I know the quietness, etc) was that it was individual. Paul spoke that directly to Timothy. Not to a bunch of people. So while not directly related to “bible study” (because that didn’t exist), the point was that in both instances where the word “study” is mentioned it appears to be a one person thing. To say that because Paul didn’t tell Timothy he couldn’t do it in a group means that Timothy could have gone off an studied in a group is NOT what this says. Paul points it at one person. An individual. You cannot read things into scriptures that are blatantly not there. As a side note, how many people do you know study for college exams or any other “test” with a group of people? Except in rare cases (I have been in group exam situations), people study alone. That is just practical. So as a real life example, I would say it’s rare for people to “study” in groups.

    Second thing real quick and I will not be able to develop this tonight. I Corin. 14 is a chapter that gets really messed with and usually incorrectly so. Paul was chastising the Corinthian church because there was so much arguing amongst them about what was right. Keep in mind the church at Corinth had a large number of jews and people who had gotten saved during the time of Pentecost (the book of Acts preaching), etc. These people were mixed up doctrinally and Paul was trying to set them straight with how to be orderly. There is a whole lot more to this especially because the only “prophesying” that is biblical today is someone repeating what the prophesying of the bible is. There is no extracurricular prophecy today. Therefore there is no interpretation of that prophecy today. Bible prophecy says what it says. There is no interpretting it. The bible says that scripture is of no private interpretation. Chapter and verse will have to be supplied later. You have to be very careful with how this is being read. Okay, I wish I had time to develop this further but I don’t.

    Same issue with preaching as with “studying.” My point was that God clearly puts emphasis on the preaching of the gospel as well as how to live in Christ. Both definitions I gave are used throughout the verses that use “preach, preaching, preached, etc.” Preaching in church on how we are to live in Christ is biblical. Both things need to be done. Doing one or the other would leave a church unbalanced.

    One last thought…. I almost feel like this is a futile conversation and as such, am wondering if I could be using my time more wisely (as per my husband’s wonderings)? It feels like the decisions you have made regarding church are truly not made for bibilical reasons, but because you have been in or seen something in a church you saw was biblically wrong and as such have decided to throw the baby out with the bath water. Because not every church is being run the way it should, going to church is thereby not necessary. And to bolster that decision you’ve decided to find scriptures that you think you can infer enough out of to take this stand. Because that’s how it “feels” coming acrossed a computer, I think there isn’t much more I can say. I can certainly develop and lay out I Corin. 14 which I think would be profitable because it’s a chapter many people take wrong. But beyond that, I think I’ve made what points I wanted to regarding “bible study” being the equivelant of a biblical NT church.

    I could just be tired and may think differently tomorrow. I don’t know. Perhaps in person this would be easier to understand points being made. Not sure.

    Gotta jet. Night.

    patti

33. Administrator said,

    June 22, 2008 at 2:06 am

    Hi Patti:

    Sorry that you’re pooped from staying up so late. I do appreciate that you took the time to share what you’ve studied. While it’s true that the computer doesn’t allow us to “hear” our voices or intonations or even see our expressions, the good thing about it is that the written word is easier to follow and go back and re-read if some detail is forgotten. Even the Bible is written and apparently the Lord saw it fit to communicate to us through writing just as we are writing to communicate now. For example,. we don’t audibly hear God’s voice or see His face when we read scripture, but we can still learn a great deal from the written form.

    Regarding the studying, I see what you’re saying, but it just kinda shows my point about Bible study. Why do we separate studying scripture from church today? They didn’t seem to do that in the NT church. They studied scripture in church. I just don’t see any evidence that studying scripture should be separated from church gatherings.

    You tell me I can’t point out in scripture exactly what church is, and that’s true because it doesn’t say church is xyz. Even Biblical scholars today don’t all agree on what church is. But I think one thing is clear is that Paul did described in Corinthians what should occur during church gatherings, and a lot of it is mentioned in 1 Cor 14, which is not happening in most churches today.

    It appears true that Paul was addressing the fact that the Corinthians were arguing, but Paul told them to do things in order. He didn’t tell them okay quit sharing psalms, revelations, doctrines, interpretations, etc. and have only one of you preach to everyone. Instead he told them to take turns and be in order. Take turns, listen to your brothers, and meanwhile you women, stay silent. He even said don’t forbid speaking in tongues. He preferred prophesying, but don’t forbid speaking in tongues if someone can interpret. In 1 Cor 14:36-37 Paul writes to the effect that, if you think you’re more godly or know God’s intent better than what I’ve just written (regarding church function), then know that this is from the Lord. It alludes to the idea that he knew that the Corinthians might try to turn around and say why what Paul just wrote wasn’t right, and it should be done a different way. But Paul made sure to say that it was the command of the Lord, and obviously the Lord knows better than they.

    1 Cor 14:36-37

    36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

    37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

    Sure we can study alone, but keep in mind that they didn’t have Bibles available to them like we do today since the NT wasn’t completely written and compiled yet (obviously because Paul was still writing at that time). So it’s not like each family had their own Bible to quietly study at home. Also it’s likely not every one could read, but they could converse or interact to learn. So when they met, verbally reciting scripture would have been common because there likely weren’t a bunch of copies of scripture all around. Someone had to read it out loud for others to hear it. Likely people had to inquire as to what scripture was available. People in those times commonly got together to discuss things. That’s what people do even today and in years past (why do you think pubs are so popular amongst the guys? They get together to yak and try to solve the problems of the world over a pint, ha. People commonly get together for conferences where people fly in from all around the world to meet and discuss in groups. I don’t find that such a foreign concept). So while the Bible doesn’t specifically mention Bible study, it does encourage believers to examine scripture which would have likely had to be while they were assembled together because they likely didn’t all have personal written copies of scripture. Maybe you can appreciate how discussion was unavoidable if one wanted to learn something.

    Thanks for you concern about possible miscommunication over the net. I am concerned about that, too, but we can only try our best, huh? I do find your assessment of us not going to church a bit amusing because you speak as if church is a building, it’s not, it’s the gathering of people, the assembly. We haven’t stopped “going to church,” we just don’t go to a “building” that has a church name above it to meet for church gatherings. Particularly since what people associate with churches today are not operating in the fashion church operated in the Bible. To put it plainly, from what we’ve observed, many so called churches aren’t really churches according to scripture. We were going to those so-called-churches when we realized that, and hence we stopped. We didn’t stop going to those first, then tried to fit scripture to that. On the contrary, we were going and even church hopped for a while to find a church that truly followed the scriptures. I can think of about 15 churches we’ve been to. And we did meet some very nice people! But the truth is they weren’t following scripture in various ways. The passages in scripture regarding disassociating with heretics is what really compelled us to stop participating in those. And so here we are.

    Time for bed! Yikes!

    Toodles!

    Marla

34. Andrea said,

    June 23, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    Yes, I agree with you Marla, that that last passage is the clearest, and also that it is clear that it is more what people say than what they do that is indicative of where their heart is.

    It is also true that churches don’t speak, in a strict sense. Yet I feel that a spirit-filled church can change the hearts of its members, and their words can be true and good–”good fruit” indeed, stemming in part from the power of the Christian community.

    As to the rest of the discussion, I’m too tired to follow it. But, carry on!

    Andrea

35. Administrator said,

    June 24, 2008 at 10:24 am

    Hi Andrea:

    You’ve raised a good point about how each one of us can influence one another. It reminds me of several scripture verses, but one in particular is from Proverbs 27:17 which reads:

    17Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

    I’d have to look for it and double check, but I think this is in reference to how the interaction of people (particularly those concerned with the things of God) affect one another. Think about how rubbing two iron swords against each other sharpens both blades (similar to how chefs sharpen and straighten their kitchen knives, heheh). It’s an analogy to two or so people sharpening their wits or knowledge of the Lord by interacting and discussing, etc. with one another. Interacting and discussing can help to fine-tune, or hone in to how to understand and follow the scriptures more closely.

    I know there are quite a few other verses regarding how we effect or influence one another particularly regarding kind words and vice versa, so I would agree that Christian members will affect each other one way or another. Hopefully in the good way as you say! But who actually changes the heart? Hmmm. There are some concepts that have disturbed me regarding some passages. From those passages I think only God truly can change the heart of some because there some references in the Bible about how God hardens the hearts of some. For those whose hearts are hardened, I don’t think we have the power to change them. (You know like the story of how the Pharaoh’s heart was hardened and all. And how in the book of Romans it discusses how some people’s consciences have been seared, so they can no longer see the truth).

    Okay, must dash.

    Marla

36. Andrea said,

    June 26, 2008 at 10:10 am

    Thinking a little about the “church-building” issue over the past days, this is what has come to me–We are instructed in the Bible as to God’s will for us, but we are free to choose various tools to enact that will. For example, we are commanded to “love mercy”–a tool for “loving mercy” might be a car with which we drive a shut-in neighbor to do her shopping.

    I see the church building as just another tool. I can’t buy that God says “Go to church” (to an actual building) nor can I buy that he says “Don’t.” He says “Obey
    me.”

    Just because there were not church buildings at the time of Acts, that does not mean that some people might be called to use them now, just as some might be called to use a car in the service of God, even though there are no cars in Acts, either. However, the Church is the people, not the building. Someone could also be called NOT to participate in a small-c church. IMO.

    **********

    Yes, certainly we influence each other, and certainly in the end it is God, not ourselves nor our neighbors, who changes our hearts, for good or ill.

    Gotta go, Andrea

37. Andrea said,

    June 26, 2008 at 10:10 am

    Thinking a little about the “church-building” issue over the past days, this is what has come to me–We are instructed in the Bible as to God’s will for us, but we are free to choose various tools to enact that will. For example, we are commanded to “love mercy”–a tool for “loving mercy” might be a car with which we drive a shut-in neighbor to do her shopping.

    I see the church building as just another tool. I can’t buy that God says “Go to church” (to an actual building) nor can I buy that he says “Don’t.” He says “Obey
    me.”

    Just because there were not church buildings at the time of Acts, that does not mean that nobody is called to use them now, just as some might be called to use a car in the service of God, even though there are no cars in Acts, either. However, the Church is the people, not the building. Someone could also be called NOT to participate in a small-c church. IMO.

    **********

    Yes, certainly we influence each other, and certainly in the end it is God, not ourselves nor our neighbors, who changes our hearts, for good or ill.

    Gotta go, Andrea

38. Administrator said,

    June 26, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Hi Andrea:

    Yes, that’s another good point you present. And I do agree that it doesn’t matter “where” church is held, even if it is in a building. The problem has been, as far as we see, is that churches today don’t operate in a fashion like the NT churches did, and since the building is nothing really in terms of how well a church functions, then the building is just an added burden because it’s not needed in order to follow God’s word Having buildings also contributes to perpetuating the misconception that church is a building. We feel that the way church is conducted today commonly quenches the spirit and harbors breeding grounds for more misunderstanding of what church is all about. (You may even notice in our own discussions here, when we are using the term “church” the meaning shifts back and forth to reference the building and also the church gathering members. That’s how confused it has become today.) So sure we can use a building to meet in, or even a cave, or park, or pub. It doesn’t matter. But when we start putting money into the building for it’s support, upkeep, employees, etc., then money is being diverted from being spent on the poor and needy. And I know there is a fine line here because I can understand paying for services for people who might prepare or deliver food and clothing, etc., but to support a building and staff, is not necessary to follow God. Particularly in light of passages regarding profit. For instance take 1 Timothy 3:8:

    8Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

    Lucre is profit. Perhaps we should look at what profit means? Profit is the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions. In Biblical terms, I think profit is money earned “beyond” what is used for food and clothing for the poor and other needy. The collections in the NT, it appears, were for the poor and needy. When you start taking in more money so that you can have a savings, a brand new car, a color TV, a paid gardener, etc, you are starting to move into more than just support, but profit. I don’t think the Bible is saying there is anything wrong with profit in and of itself, particularly if you have your own business. But it is not proper to make profit from teaching people about Christ. And that is what is happening in a lot of churches today. It’s become a business.

    The gift of God is free. If you stopped paying your pastor for preaching, would he continue to come out week after week to preach to you? I’m guessing some would, but I’d bet many would not and go somewhere else where they can earn money for preaching. If your preacher is willing to come preach to you for free, then you may have found someone with a heart of gold there (but then there are the other issues of doctrine). But many churches today are for profit whether they say it or not or even realize it or not. And that is only one problem that we don’t want to encourage by participating in it. We don’t want to encourage lucre from the spreading the gospel.

    Now having said all that, what if church members “want” to pay for all the extras for the pastors, buildings, employees, etc? I suppose that’s fine, too, but they should know that it’s not something the Bible requires. Nor is it Biblical in the sense that God told us it should be done. It’s just something you choose to do likely because that’s what the churches today tell us. And here is where I think Christians start to become less effective as Christians with helping the poor and needy. Think of all the church buildings and staff involved in running all the churches we have throughout the world. How much money is therefore diverted from the poor and needy to go into all these churches? I’d say billions of dollars throughout the years. The buildings, I think, have become a thorn in that respect. There’s other aspects I could discuss, but that’s just one regarding profit and church buildings.

    Hey Patti:

    I know there’s a lot more stuff from our conversation that I still haven’t addressed, but would like to. But for now, I’d like to comment on your mention about there no longer being prophesy today. First of all, prophesy doesn’t “only” involve foretelling the future. It’s true that the prophets did commonly foretell of future events, but that is not all prophets were about. Take for instance 1 Corinthians 14:3:

    3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

    From the above passage we see that the other things prophets do is edify, exhort, and comfort. And I’m going to assume here they do that by using scripture. So I would not agree that there is no prophesying going on, although it may not be of foretelling the future from new divine revelation. Also, if you look in the book of Revelation, there is mention of prophets there. Here’s an example from Revelation 11:3:

    3And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

    As far as I understand, the above event described in Revelation is still yet to come. These witnesses will (future tense) prophesy as well as have extra power that the Lord gives them. But what will they prophesy? It doesn’t seem like they will be prophesying about the future since there is no mention of that, but more along the lines of things that will convict the peoples’ hearts, and thus why the people are so happy once the prophets are killed. Revelation described the people celebrating when these two prophets are killed because, it seems, they didn’t like the messages these prophets were giving. If you recall what Jonah, the prophet, did as he went into Ninevah. He went around telling the people to repent from their evil ways. Jonah’s warning was sufficient. It was along the lines of “change your ways, or God will destroy you.” And they did change their ways, and God did “not” destroy them. That is an example how a prophet did not just tell the future, he also went out “admonishing” people to try to bring them back to God. It could conceivable be compared to us today saying, “if you don’t follow God’s words, the will be consequences and life can be hard for you.” We’re not foretelling the future like a psychic, but rather foretelling future in the lines of reaping what you sow. I think the Bible is a lot more practical than what we let it be.

    Okay, so there are 2 more of my cents. I need to get back to my chores.

    Marla

39. Administrator said,

    June 26, 2008 at 5:43 pm

    It’s me again. If you recall in one of my previous posts, I mentioned that I originally had nothing against preaching in church, only that I did have issues with “only” “one” person preaching in church week after week, without other church members being allowed to share. When I looked at 1 Corinthians14:26, I was surprised to see that amongst the list of things Paul said to take turns with, he didn’t mention preaching. I found that a bit curious because teaching and sharing doctrine can involve preaching. Or vice versa. It occurred to me that the way the sentence is formed, it’s not proper to say “every one of you has a ‘preach”‘ (although technically he could have said, every one of you has a “preaching.”) Therefore, I wondered if any of those words such as “doctrine” could encompass preaching. I also wanted to know more about prophesying particularly in light of the fact that Paul said he preferred prophesying. So I looked up what the Greek had to say for the word prophesying and found there are several definitions. This is “one” of the definitions for prophēteuō.

    1) under like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others

    http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4395&t=kjv

    Now that definition seems to fit 1 Corinthians 14:3

    3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

    At any rate, “doctrine” is in there, and doctrine involves teaching (the word in Greek is didachē), which can also involve preaching. The fact still remains that Paul did stay to take turns. So I think I’m fine with preaching in church, but I do think that the male members should be taking turns and being more active in church, not just one pastor hogging up the platform.

    Again, 1 Cor 14:26

    26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

    Marla

40. Andrea said,

    June 26, 2008 at 7:13 pm

    Hi, This is sort of a change of subject, but not really.

    Have either of you read “In This House of Brede” by Rumer Godden? I am rereading it now.

    Godden, in this novel about Benedictine nuns, expresses, better than I could, the relationship between the Church (capital C meaning the body of believers) and various structures, choices, tools that are used to do Christ’s work– in this case an Abbey.

    It’s also a great read.

    Andrea

41. Administrator said,

    June 26, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    Hi Andrea:

    No, I haven’t read the book, but I just put a hold on it at my library. It is listed in the Fiction Department. I also checked it out on Amazon to read a little more on it, oye! 656 pages? I’ll see how far I get with it. Sounds interesting, tho, so look forward to when it comes in. I’m currently reading the Speedwell, but it’s not flowing as easily to me as The Bounty did.

    I probably should read that book first since you feel it is applicable to our conversation before commenting, but. . . regarding tools, while I can see your point, it should also be noted that some tools work well, while others don’t work very well. And yet others don’t work at all.

    Thanks for the suggestion! I look forward to reading the book.

    Marla

42. patti said,

    June 27, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    Hey ladies,

    I don’t have a ton of time so I’ll have to be brief. I was also instructed that I’m taking too much time here (on this subject). Sooooo..

    1) Regarding church attendance – Marla, you said yourself you had not been to “church” in 5yrs. Based on that, I took that to mean even a house church since “church” can be anywhere we want. If that is incorrect please clarify.

    2) Re: prophesy – I’m thinking of charasmatics these days. If you’ve never been in a charasmatic church (my husband grew up this way and I’ve been to several churches with him) – they teach that when they speak in tongues they are propesying things that are NOT in the bible but are extra-biblical. This is the kind of prophesy I’m talking about. True prophesying in the NT would be people warning what the bible says is to come. The bible also gives instruction on how to test a true prophet of God. In the OT, God spoke to people to tell what was to come (Samuel, Moses, Elijah, etc.etc. etc.) God does not do that today because he gave us the bible.

    3) Christ said “For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.” While Christ was referring to the grumbling the disciples were doing about the ointment that had been poured on him going to the poor instead, he makes the point that there will always be poor people. While we are instructed to take care of widows, the fatherless, etc. I do not see where we are somehow supposed to be taking care of all the poor that exist. We can be compassionate and help those truly in need, but this idea that a church building takes from people doing that is not true. Good grief, I’ve seen benevolence funds in the hundreds of thousands that get given to people in the community (not just church folks) every year. Having a group of people that are all gathered under one roof pooling their funds is allowing for much larger numbers of people to be helped then if there were 5 people in a church. I just don’t get how somehow it’s all about helping poor people.

    4) Some points you’ve made have made sense, others not. I do not believe it’s possible to have a perfect church run like in the days of Paul simply by the shear numbers of christians (believers) that now exist. They need somewhere to meet that is reasonable and buildings meet that need. Yes, there are ALWAYS going to be people who do it unbiblically in terms of money and leadership, but that doesn’t exempt us from doing what God says. God’s Word stands true in every word but he does NOT come out and state that a church is run XYZ other then to be decently and in order, Giving rules for leadership, etc. In fact, I Corin. 12:5-6 states, “And there are difference of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.” The bible sets forth basic biblical doctrines. Salvation, baptism, second coming, rapture, tribulation, etc. These basic doctrines are where we are to hang our hat. We are to follow the commands laid out for us (not forsaking the assembling of ourselves, etc. etc. – there are a ton). That’s it. God does not say, “you must have a church exactly as Paul, Timothy, Titus, etc. ran their church.” There are going to be different administrations of how a church is run, how many pastors are there, how much discussion takes place, etc. etc. etc. But to not go to church at all because a person “can’t find a biblical NT church” is horse hockey in my book. Having been in both house churches and regular church building churches, there are churches out there that are preaching and teaching correct biblical doctrine that someone can go to. I know in Oregon they are few and far between. Been there, done that. We literally drove an hour each way for 12yrs going to church because there was nothing closer. The one house church we attended closer to home had a couple doctrinal issues (eternal security – not) that we had to part ways with. So I KNOW there are not always a lot of churches available. If there isn’t, then I do believe it’s incumbant upon us (usually husbands/fathers as the head of the home) to either find a house church or start one.

    I have no illusions that I’ll ever convince you that it’s wrong not to be in some church group. Whether it’s weekly discussion with some sort of preaching or whatever administration you’re comfortable with, the bible is clear that that is where every believer should be on the first day of the week.

    I know I’ve missed many many things in this post but I have to limit my time on this. I’ve got other fish to fry that I need to devote some time to right now.

    Been good chatting.

    patti

43. Andrea said,

    June 28, 2008 at 8:07 am

    Well, I still feel it’s not a matter of “either-or”. I think it’s a matter of “both-and.” I think it’s a matter of call, of discerning one’s own call. Is God calling you to a church, or not? A particular church? A home church? Your issues with doctrine can be, IMO, a way of God speaking to your heart and saying, “Not here, not for you, I want you elsewhere, an hour away, right at home.” Another person might find himself called strongly to the very church whose doctrine God steered you away from.

    God’s bottom line, IMO, is obedience to Him. He does not ask the same of all of us. Indeed, a look at his world quickly demonstrates that he is a God in love with variety and diversity. How many different species of birds are there? Insects? How many varieties of sky? Why not, then, a variety of expressions of love of Christ?

    Ok, I am now called to go out to my church’s flea market!

    Andrea

44. Administrator said,

    June 28, 2008 at 6:12 pm

    Hello, Ladies:

    Hope you found some good deals at the flea market, Andrea! Ha ha!

    First of all, I do want to say thanks for sticking out with this discussion for all this time. I appreciate it and have actually enjoyed it especially in light of the fact that it has encouraged me to look more closely in to scripture (and myself) and help to reinforce my beliefs as well as take a closer look at things that I had not noticed before. I have found myself meditating on scripture while doing my chores trying to understand how various concepts fit together. It’s actually fitting much more tightly for me, so if nothing else, I have benefited from these exchanges. (Sorry to poop you out, Patti). Just last night I was looking at the word “love” in the NT and wondered why it was translated in different ways (charity vs love in Corinthians) and similar ways (the discourse between Peter and Jesus when Jesus was asking if he loved Him) in various passages. I found some pretty interesting things which only confirms more to me how consistent the Bible is, so I am encouraged and am glad to have the time to chip away at it.

    Anyway, to get back to the topic at hand, I think this might be a good time to step back and recall what started this thread in the first place. It all started when you two were asking for prayers for some non-believer friends to go to your respective churches. While I certainly understand that your intentions were good, I could not, according to my conscience, agree that I would pray for that. Rather than just say, “no,” I attempted to explain my reasons. But as you likely know by now, the reason is a bit involved. The bottom line is that I believe true church gatherings are for believers, and are not necessarily a place to strive to take potential converts. True church gatherings, from my understanding, is for the edification of it’s members, not a place to expend all energy on evangelizing to potential converts. If you want to evangelize to someone, then it doesn’t matter where it’s done, but don’t use up fellowship time for evangelism. Why take them to a meeting that is for another purpose? My explanation was further complicated by the fact that I don’t think what is commonly thought of as church today is really church in the NT sense. If you use the definition of believers getting together as church, then okay, it’s church, but they are not meeting for the same reasons as in the NT. Do you think 1) most Christians today know that when they meet they are supposed to encourage one another? I think many don’t even consider that, but rather I think the reason many go is because 2) they think they’re just supposed to meet regularly and that somehow just getting their butts in church fulfills their duty as good, acceptable Christians. There’s a difference there. The number 1 purpose is to help and encourage one another, the number 2 purpose is self serving.

    By the way, Patti, you mentioned that not putting ourselves under the wing of a pastor is forsaking the assembly of ourselves. I would appreciate some scriptural support for that (book and verses). I personally would be very surprised if you can support that claim without reading into scripture. Also, you mentioned that the reference to 2 or 3 meeting together in the name of Christ does not constitute church. I would like to also get scriptural support for that since you said there is a big difference. As far as I understand, the word “church” is translated to mean “assembly,” but how many people constitute an assembly has been the million dollar question. As far as I know, there is no other reference to that other than the 2 or more meeting together. So, if you have any “direct” quote of “how many” people meeting constitute church, then I’d love to see it. I’m sure many Biblical scholars would like to see it, too.

    One of the wonderful things I think God has provided for us is a way to worship Him in very simple ways. He has told us that His yoke is easy and His burden light. People living in lands where Christianity is against the law can meet in secret in very small numbers (2 or 3) and still be following God’s reminder to us to not forsake the gathering of ourselves. Many Christians live in countries where worshiping Jesus is punishable by death and meeting in large numbers would draw attention to them, thus endangering their lives. Large gatherings are hard to miss and they can be persecuted and even wiped out easily. The purpose to meet is to encourage one another, not draw attention to themselves. God tells us His ways are easy. God makes it easy for us to worship Him. But, I think we make it hard and more complicated than it needs to be.

    Matthew 11:27-29

    28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

    29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

    I could get into more about today’s churches and how they spend or waste money. I haven’t even started on the topic of idolatry or covetousness, either. Some of the things I’ve read on church finances breaks down what percentage of donations go where, it stated that commonly something like 20% or less goes to charity. Basically, most of the donations don’t even go to the poor or needy. And imagine the large churches? Just as an example, one of the churches we went to is a Christian church as far as their belief in Christ is concerned. But finance-wise, their expenditures are very revealing as to where their heart lies. When we found out that their prized pipe organ cost the church $1 million, it just makes me sick. Sure there are degrees of waste, some less than others, but waste nonetheless. Aren’t we supposed to be good stewards? I can go on about tithes, too, but should really save that for another time.

    You also mentioned that you “don’t get how it’s all about the poor.” Well, let’s take a look at what “it’s” all about. God made us for His pleasure. We fell out of grace. Jesus came and redeemed us. And Jesus left us with some commands to follow until His return.

    Mark 12:28-30

    28And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

    29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

    30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

    So we see that we are to love God first and foremost. How do we do that? John 21:15-17 gives us a bit more insight as to what might be expected of us if we love God.

    John 21:15-17

    15So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

    16He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

    17He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

    What He appeared to be saying was “if you love, Me, then feed my sheep.”  While I’m sure feeding the flock can also refer to teaching, it does point to the need to supply the flock with their basic needs. There is quite a bit about the poor and needy in scripture, but for now the verse that comes to mind is this.

    James 1:27

    27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

    I haven’t seen anything in scripture telling us to financially support pastors, deacons, or elders. Sure it states that a worker is worthy of his wage, but in the same breath He says to eat what is put before you. It seems to indicate that food was a form of payment or support. When the disciples were sent out to evangelize, they were told to take nothing.

    Matthew 10:9-10

    9Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,

    10Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

    Paul kept in touch and abreast with the churches from prison. He didn’t need a church building to keep tabs on them.

    Regarding the poor being with us always? I don’t take that to mean that since they will always be there, just ignore them since you can’t feed them all. I take that to show us how easy it is for us to love God because since there are so many poor, we have so many opportunities to show God’s love and to show God that we love Him.

    Matthew 25:37-40

    37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

    38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

    39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

    40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

    It appears God values it when we help the needy in Jesus’s name. He appears to take it personally. Jesus didn’t value the scribes who collected offerings. Jesus said they were white washed tombs with dead men’s bones and robbed widows of their money.

    The woman pouring the expensive oil was okay because she was anointing Jesus for his burial. Quite a different purpose than what churches use funds for today.

    Churches can seemingly be doing right according to the world’s standards, but we need to conform to God’s standards. The following passage should serve as a warning that not all works are acceptable to God.

    Matthew 7:22-24

    22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

    23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:”

    Sure no church is perfect, but we can try to at least do the things we can and not just compromise because no one’s perfect. And particularly because there are consequences to our actions and decisions. There are things that can be easily changed, but few are willing to change. Here’s another example of a church described in Revelation that seemed to have everything, but God said they were “dead.” There are “works” that God does not honor.

    Revelation 3

    1And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

    2Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

    Whew, okay, I need a break. . .

    Marla

45. Administrator said,

    June 28, 2008 at 9:57 pm

    Oh, I forgot to mention, being a widow or orphan during the time of Christ is equated to poverty because women and children couldn’t own property back then.  If the husband died, the first male or male kin would inherit or control whatever finances there were.   Many times even today, widows and orphans, especially in third-world countries end up in poverty.

    Marla

46. Administrator said,

    June 28, 2008 at 11:29 pm

    For a little more info, here’s a short clip from a group trying to help widows and orphans in their plight against poverty:

    http://www.greenscarfday.com/vision.html

    “Why widows and orphans? It is estimated that 25,000 people die every day from hunger-related diseases. 78% of them are women and children.

    In most parts of the developing world, women and children are dependant upon their male caregiver to provide them with food, clothing and shelter. Upon the death of this male, their widows and orphans are hurled into an uncertain and turbulent future. Due to a chronic lack of education for women in these areas, widows often lack the skills to gain employment and gain an income. They are left to fend for themselves and rely on the generosity of strangers to help them survive.”

    Marla

47. Andrea said,

    June 29, 2008 at 3:54 am

    Thanks for all the insight, Marla.

    Christians are, indeed, to encourage each other. And that’s why I want my bil to go to church. He badly needs the encouragement he will find there. It is a very supportive, encouraging church.

    I find that it is easier to truly uplift and encourage folks in the church environment than outside it. Just as many hands make light work, many loving hearts and smiles are better able to uplift the sad and needy folks who come in the door.

    The uplifting feeling I can get from an hour in the company of other believers makes me better equipped to feed the hurting sheep and lambs I encounter during the week (and I encounter plenty–do you?). The music I make and hear there gives me and others the strength we need to “love one another”, to care for the poor, during the week.

    Which brings me to the organ. How much is it right to spend on an organ? How can you measure the amount of encouragement someone in the pews can get from having their bones shaken by the playing of a dedicated organist? What is that worth?

    I think God gives us some guidelines on this. The “first fruits”, He says, go to him–10%. So, I’d say that 20% to charity is good!

    Jesus also bluntly points out in his parables that we need to take our gifts–both monetary and spiritual–and invest them, make them grow. So, if a person is given by God a gift for the organ (I am not one of these, but I know some), does he/she not have an obligation to God to invest that gift, to practice and study and yes, to play on a really good instrument? Jesus points out that the son who just saved his money did not please the master.

    Before I started working in my present church, I sang in a choir in a bigger church. We had a wonderful choir director who was a great organist. (I don’t know how much the organ cost. Alot, I’m sure.) He continually reminded us that we were there to minister, not just to have a good time showing off how musical we were. We were to think of the people in the pews and hope that we were encouraging them with our music, as the BIble says we should. If we were singing something very well known, he would say, Sing it like you mean it. There may be someone out there hearing it for the first time. Or, for the last time.

    If we were singing at a service that might not be well attended, he would say, We will sing with the same quality whether there are 100 people or 2 people.

    After the benediction, we would all sit down while he played a 4-5 minute piece on the organ. I would close my eyes. My ribs would vibrate. Nothing, nothing spoke to me so clearly of God and His presence as those organ voluntaries.

    So–I do see your point, Marla. I am just thinking that there are many ways to love one another, to feed God’s lambs, and I am thinking that a beautiful building to come to and beautiful music may be one of them, may be part of God’s plan.

    Certainly, churches should be very certain that they tithe!

    Andrea

48. Administrator said,

    June 29, 2008 at 8:19 am

    Hi Andrea:

    Thanks for your comments, and certainly the Bible does tell us that we each have our own gifts. King David loved music and even danced wildly at one time, too (for which his wife despised him, yikes).

    As far as meeting people to encourage, I don’t think I meet any less people to encourage now then when I was attending regular churches. The people at the churches I went to seemed like busy people not too interested in hanging around much. Many of them were very legalistic and didn’t question much of anything. They just went with the flow. Lots of them had grown up in Christian families, so it was just something they did all their lives. No questions asked. We didn’t find much room there to encourage anyone. So lucky you that you have interested members. Some churches were so big that we had no idea if anyone new came in or not. They have “forms” to fill out if you were new. Not very personal at all and understandably so because they just can’t spread themselves out enough to devote much time to very many people.

    We have actually found it easier to speak to people about Jesus outside of the church settings. Brian is much more gifted at it than I am. He’s not shy at all, and while I struck up a nice conversation with the woman sitting next to me on the airplane, it was Brian who boldly (and gently) explained the gospel to her. As she and I talked of different things, I found that she was an atheist, who was greatly disturbed at one of her sons because she said that he was living in a foreign country supposedly for the purpose of church ministry while living off of donations. She said he didn’t do anything, and that she felt from their conversations it appeared like he and his wife were vacationing on other people’s money. She clearly expressed her distaste for that. She was even whispering by this time about it as if she were very ashamed. After Brian conversed with her and explained about salvation, she said she had never heard it explained that way. As we were disembarking, she even stopped to tell us how much she enjoyed our conversation and she liked Brian’s explanations very much. She felt his explanation was more agreeable and exposed a more loving God. So I don’t think church is the only place to share the gospel. It can be done anywhere. For us, the churches we visited were not fertile ground. The atmosphere was not encouraging to us, either. It didn’t feel warm. The surroundings were too rigid for us. We did visit some smaller churches, but those didn’t work too well either. The problems we encountered there tended to be doctrinal more than financial. It seemed that because they were small, they were overly cautious not to offended anyone because they really wanted their numbers to grow. They didn’t want to scare anyone off. While I liked the pastor much better at one of the small churches, Brian disagreed with some doctrinal issues, which we felt were important.

    Anyway, I do think it is clear that some works are more acceptable to God than other works. I don’t consider them all the same. Even as far back as Cain and Abel, God accepted Abel’s sacrifice, but not Cain’s. It’s up to God which He will accept or not. I do enjoy music a lot. Used to love to go to concerts and had a pretty good album collection at one point. But I don’t think any of that made me any better at loving other people or worshiping God better. Sure it felt good. Music can give us a rush. But it doesn’t feed the hungry, nor cloth them. Does it administer to the sick? Hmmm. Now there might be some use there! But music can be done A Capella, too. There isn’t a need to spend thousands of dollars on an instrument to worship God. Members can even purchase their own instruments if they really want them, and not use church funds for that. I would be much more agreeable to that. But this talk of purchasing instruments and such as a form of worship is where I think we start to move into idolatry and covetousness, another problem churches struggle with.

    Tithing? There is much to be said regarding that. Perhaps you’ve read some of the board discussions for and against tithing? And how applicable it is to us today? If I can get around to it, I would like to present the arguments here. Might be good to examine it. Much has changed since the OT. I admit that I was a bit surprised at your comment of 20% being good because the way I saw it, giving 20% of the total donations is like withholding 80% of what should be given. If your plate was only 20% full, then you’d be 80% hungry. It’s like having 100% in the bank, but the bank only giving you 20% and keeping the rest. That’s highway robbery. But that’s another story since what is commonly understood about tithes is different from what it was originally anyway from many generations ago.

    Bottom line, I do agree that we all have different gifts. We can encourage each other in different ways. But we should also keep in mind that the Bible tells us all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. Some works are more acceptable to God than others. If we want to please God, then we should search his word to find what exactly is pleasing to Him because He does make clear that there are some things that He hates. It’s not always just a matter of what feels good. Hmmmm. But love is the central theme. Maybe we should do a Bible study on that? What did God have to say about love? Or better yet, what does God want of us? That might be a much shorter discussion? Ha, ha. Or what does the Bible say about art and music?

    Okay, must dash for now. Happy Sunday.

    Marla

49. Administrator said,

    June 29, 2008 at 10:25 am

    Andrea:

    I just wanted to clarify that I have nothing against music. God does want us to be happy (each has a psalm), but I’m discussing it in context of expenditures. Instruments can be relatively cheap in comparison to buying a whole building that will need continual maintenance. So music and instruments was never my first qualm with church gatherings. Although a $1million organ is just not necessary, I don’t care how good you are. If a person were a skilled instrument maker and donated his time to make it, that’s another thing. But to “pay” donation money for it? That’s just not being a good steward as far as I see.

    Take care, and happy singing!

    Marla

50. Andrea said,

    June 29, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    I do understand you are not “against” music.

    I do feel that music does feed the hungry, spiritually speaking. Mother Teresa taught that, if someone is physically hungry, you give them bread–but spiritual hunger is just as destructive, and, yes, can be fed with music, and other things too.

    It is certainly true that conveying the truth about Jesus can be done just as well, maybe better, outside the church as in. It sounds as though Brian has a gift for that. Not everyone does. For those who do not have such a gift, in my experience the structure of a church can provide a tool for encouragement. I have seen some remarkable things happen in that building.

    An organ, too, can be a tool for encouragement.

    As to the donations, my idea of the donations is that they are given to help the “business” end of the church–the keeping of the doors open, the maintenance of the Tool-for-Encouragement–not only for the physically hungry, but to keep the doors open for the spiritually starved. But a church needs to be careful, of course, that it doesn’t ONLY serve itself, and that it does send at least 10% away.

    At least, that’s how I see it.

    A Bible study on love! There’s a beautiful idea!

    Andrea

51. BumbleBee said,

    June 30, 2008 at 2:56 am

    Spreading the Gospel is often mentioned as a main objective of Christian activities, often as if any actions by Christians can be measured as good or bad by how well the Gospel is spread abroad. This may put at a disadvantage Christians who may not have a gift to speak clearly to individuals impromptu.

    The Apostles were given by Jesus Christ a command to preach the Gospel to every creature. These were all men who came in contact with Jesus, almost all of whom lived closely with Him for years. They had special gifts along with their special mandate. Yet this great commission, as it is called, is not repeated as specifically commanded to any but apostles. Further admonitions outside of the four Gospel books which were written to the various churches conspicuously absent of a great commission.

    Instead, there is a lower-keyed approach to those outside the churches than “preaching to every creature.” Peter for example, says to be ready to give an answer to one who asks about the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear (1 Peter 3:15). Notice that Peter did not say to bring them to church to hear someone who can speak better than you can with persuasive words.

    Even Paul came to the Corinthians with meekness and fear not with persuasive words so that the Gospel would not be made ineffectual. “And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom” (1 Corinthians 2:3-4). It is not desirable to have to wait for someone to present the Gospel who has greater skill. If a person cannot explain the Gospel in simple terms in his own words, then the more Biblical solution would be to get that deficient Christian to better come to terms with what he or she actually believes rather than to toss a non-believer to a professionally paid orator.

    We need to also understand that mere cleverness of words are not the strongest tool to relay the message of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ had miracles in abundance, yet very many were left in unbelief. The 11 Apostles were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus, and they also preformed many signs and wonders, yet the world largely remained unbelieving. Jesus taught the multitudes, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven ” (Matthew 5:16). Peter taught, “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives” (1 Peter 3:1).

    Way too much weight is place upon the effectiveness of a good speaker for bringing people to believe in Jesus Christ, since every one who believes in Jesus should be showing the world His truth by his or her good deeds. As we have heard, “Actions speak louder than words.” What is it that Christians are so afraid of to live a lot of good deeds and when asked answer what is the reason for our hope in Christ? Are Christians not living a life of good deeds? If so don’t take non-believers to your church to hear a message that you are not living. If you are living the Gospel, then YOU are the most effective person to answer the questions, not some stranger on a stage. YOU are the most effective person to answer the questions about the hope that is in YOUR heart, not some preacher whose life they are not seeing, or a preacher who might even be cheating secretly on his wife for all they know.

    A poor retarded youth who lives every day doing good and kind things for others as he is inspired by the life of Jesus is a much or better a testimony in all his limited vocabulary than a seminary educated professional who hides himself inside a quiet air conditioned plush office preparing Sunday sermons.

    The real Christian abundant life exists outside of the religious Alice and Wonderland stained glass, wood pew, million dollar organs, Bose stereo systems and tie-clad professionalism. The real Christian abundant life is out on the streets, in the work places, on the school grounds and parks, in homes, in the marketplaces, in the real world places, daily not just Sundays in, just as Jesus feasted with prostitutes with VD, tax gatherers and sinners, while the self-righteous religious leaders complained. These are places where the people of the world see us and evaluate us in the context of life, not in some gilded sanctuary.

    Yet when those who believe in Christ come together we are called out of the world into the contexts of our homes to share food with one another as a meal as Jesus did with his disciples. We are not religiously chained to a dead church building mortgage, high priced experts, tithes or other religious burdens. This is not a business but an extended family. It is not a place of religious contrivances but of genuine family familiarity. Kids spread toys across the floor. We eat, mess things up, fill our tummies and the men share as the spirit moves without pre-contrived scheduling. People come and go at their leisure, There are no guilt trips to keep NAZI-like perceptions of perfection. We encourage one another to love and good deeds for now and to prepare us for when we are out in the world so that our effectiveness amongst unbelievers is greatly enhanced “that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Any dummy can live the power of the Gospel. It takes a true religious professional to mess it up.

52. Administrator said,

    June 30, 2008 at 9:41 am

    Hello Ladies and BumbleBee:

    I’ve been thinking about this thread, why it got started, the discussions that have transpired, and the current outcome. My thoughts this morning is that I feel that I have “somewhat” sufficiently explained my understanding of church and its purpose. I never got into other aspects that I think are pertinent, such as idolatry and covetousness in our churches today, but I do feel that a lot of what has been on my heart I have shared. Whether anyone agrees with me or not is still out there, but that’s okay because my intent was to share. In the process I find that I not only opened up my heart to you, but you also have opened up your heart to me. In that respect, I feel that perhaps we have a little more understanding of each other. I see that as a good thing! This discussion has been very revealing as to what our beliefs are. As Christians, I think that is desirable in that we now know where we each stand regarding doctrine even if we don’t all agree.

    BumbleBee, you struck a note with me. I know I tend to be timid, but overall, I think I am secure in my understanding of the basics of the Bible. From your post, I wonder if perhaps part of my timidity stems from the fact that I am not confident in the ways I explain myself. For instance, look how long and how many posts it took me to explain myself in the above thread. I think in the back of my mind, I feel that many people won’t want to spend that much time discussing these things, not to mention that I’m almost guaranteed that there will be opposition. And so I am reluctant to even broach the subject. But that doesn’t stop the niggling feeling I have in my heart when for instance someone asks me to pray for something. I believe in prayer, but I don’t always agree with praying for what I have been asked to pray for. It puts me in an awkward position. But now you have broached another soft spot for me, and that is I should know what I believe clearly enough to present an answer clearly when asked and that I should not be adversed to opposition AND I should not be lazy to take the time to organize my thoughts. I admit that part of the reason I stay quite is that it’s time consuming! My goal is to share what I can even if it is not going to be accepted so long as I do it in honesty and for good intentions. I think you summed it up beautifully that our sharing the gospel can be done simply, while I on the other hand took the long round about way of doing it. I see that is something I need to work on. Thank you.

    For now, let’s see where the spirit moves. . .

    Marla

53. Andrea said,

    June 30, 2008 at 6:36 pm

    A beautiful essay on the gospel, Bumblebee. I stand by my church, and my organ, as being effective too. But of course you are right. They are not necessary, and they can be impediments. I just don’t think they always are.

    As to your ideas about prayer, Marla–my favorite solution to this dilemma is to go ahead and ask for whatever, but always with the underlying idea, even if not voiced, of “Thy will be done.” Often we pray for things that aren’t God’s will. Jesus did, when he asked that “this cup” be taken away from him. It’s OK. God understands, but He also will answer as He thinks best, not as we want.

    Andrea

54. Administrator said,

    June 30, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    Hi Andrea:

    You make a good point. I knew that if we asked amiss we should expect not to have our prayers answered, but it appears it’s no sin to ask for something that may not be God’s will. It just felt wrong to me to ask Him for something that doesn’t seem right or proper. Like I’m asking God to do something against His will. Doesn’t feel right to me or fair. What I have done in the past is to pray to know what I should be praying for, ha ha! What I usually come up with is for the person to come closer to God. How that would happen is up to God.

    Thanks for your insight. It does lessen the uneasiness to know that there’s no harm if I do pray for the wrong thing. I just won’t get it. . .

    I pray that your bil gets the peace and comfort that he needs.

    Marla

55. patti said,

    July 2, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    So much to say but no time! Quickly, bumblebee, that was so well said! Paul says that some plant, some water, and some harvest. So not everyone is going to be a bold witness, some will sweetly water those that have been witnessed to, etc. etc. While our christian witness is lived and spoken out in the world we function in, I have known people (my mom being one) that absolutely will not listen to anyone outside of a church. So for my mom, getting her to church to hear the gospel is the only way she would hear it. I know people that won’t listen to friends or family but will listen to a stranger in a pulpit regarding salvation. So you have to be careful to blanket say that church is not for evangelizing at all. While church is for the growing and edifying of the christian, it can also be used to get the gospel out at times.

    Marla, I again say, you are right. There are lots of churches not functioning doctrinally correct, fiscally wise (good stewardship), etc. But I also KNOW there are churches that are doing those things. That’s why I think it’s throwing the baby out with the bath water to say churches today are run wrong. Not all of them are. We have plenty of discussion during our Sunday school classes and lots on Tuesday night bible study nights. Of the three and a half to four hours a week we’re in church, only 1hr of that is preaching. The rest is bible teaching and freely asking/answering questions. I don’t think that’s much unlike what we saw with Paul, Timothy or Titus. I totally understand the organ thing because I’m with you on that one. Our old church spent $23K on a grand piano they did not need and so many people were so angry that it was done so wrongly. The people were told, not consulted and voted on. Then they ran short on other needs. Needless to say, we knew we were leaving shortly and they have lost A LOT of families since that time. While not for that reason, I know that most folks felt like that was a very bad thing. So, yes, churches screw up. Hopefully, they’ll repent and get right. And God’s grace allows for mistakes to be made. But ya know what, all of us that left went out and found a church that was preaching and teaching the whole counsel of God. That has open and good stewardship practices, etc. I’m just saying it’s not fair or right to cast all churches in the same light of what you’ve seen. We have not compromised one bit on anything that is of absolute critical importance with the bible. Doctrines, spiritual music, teaching, preaching, etc. The things that are absolutes are absolutes. There is room for other “administrations” beyond that. But with ya on that organ thing. Oh man! A church can worship in music acapella for goodness sakes.

    I think you mistook what I said about obeying those that have the rule over you. The bible clearly states we are to obey the earthly shepard God has put over us because he watches over our souls. I put the reference in a previous post. IF we weren’t supposed to be in a church where there is clearly a shepard leading the flock, why would God have stated this? I meant for that to mean a meeting (church) where there is no leadership (which is how I see “house churches” sometimes run) is not working biblically either.

    The forsaking of assembling is regarding just being a part of an assembly. Wherever that assembly may be. Simply, are we a part of an assembly? Basic, straight forward question.

    Tithing. Here’s how we see it: God owns everything we have. Everything. He loans it to us to be a good steward of, to care for, to borrow. He only asks for 10% of that back of ALL our firstfruits. So, we count a firstfruit everything we receive. Now, we can’t give God 10% of our garden. BUT, we can give it to people who need it or don’t have it available to them. And that’s what we do. When we sold our house, you bet, 10% of everything we made on it went back to God’s work. Offerings above and beyond that go towards missions and building funds (we meet in a daycare center) as God provides (which he always does). Tithing isn’t giving God 10% of what is ours. It’s giving him 10% of what is already his and being a good steward of what he’s left here for us. We’re are very strict with this. We have taught our children to be a good steward of their clothing, their shoes, their books, their toys, our home, etc. because those things all belong to God and we are blessed to have what we do. Many people have much less. When I have time I’ll post out the scriptures I’ve got on my fridge about this.

    Okay, I don’t know if I covered all the questions you asked but I have to jet. If I missed something, tell me. This is getting long and I keep having to scroll up to see what I missed and I know I missed stuff.

    patti

56. Administrator said,

    July 3, 2008 at 7:48 am

    HI Patti:

    I’m glad to hear that your feel the same way about spending $ on things like pianos and such. Gosh, I’ve seen and heard enough about starving people to feel very uncomfortable sitting in a church thats spending thousands and thousands of dollars on dead objects while people are slowly dying of hunger every day. It’s not for me. I don’t find any encouragement in that.

    I thought I was pretty clear that I was not “blanketing” that there should not be any preaching going on church. I specifically pointed out that preaching in church gathering was fine (if you recall my posts on the definitions of doctrine and prophesying, etc). I also thought I made it perfectly clear that my problem was that not that the churches today preach or evangelize, but that they seem to have forgotten the “other” things of which NT church was originally for. Another problem is that churches today are used almost exclusively for evangelizing.

    I also thought I made it clear that we have not forsaken the assembling of ourselves. We have only stopped attending churches that meet in church “buildings” that require financial support for its upkeep.

    As far as tithes, we do donate for certain causes, but we do not tithe. Tithing is an OT law of Moses wherein 10% of your produce was given to the Levites (the Priest clan). In the OT before we were redeemed, we needed mediators to God. The Levites functioned as that mediator. After Jesus died for us, the veil in the Temple was torn in two. Meaning the function of the mediators is no longer in effect. Each believer can now come to God through Jesus Christ “alone.” We don’t need animal sacrifices or mediators anymore. So there are no Levites or “mediators” to tithe to for support anymore. BUT we still donate for the poor and needy whatever our hearts desire. Jesus is clear that we should not forget the poor and needy, but He did not state how much is required to give, only that you give with a cheerful heart. Personally we have chosen not to give to churches where the money is spent on buildings and anything to support those buildings because we prefer that all or as much as possible of what we donate goes to the poor and needy, not to pay for some building or gym or pipe organ, etc. That is our preference, and we believe it is perfectly Biblical.

    As far as pointing out all the things that you didn’t cover, gee, I think I covered a lot, and really don’t want to have to repeat everything primarily because this will get long again, and you’ll have to scroll up and down again, anyway. So I don’t see it being much different. Perhaps if ever you have more time and feel the interest to know what I had shared regarding this topic, then you can print out this page and read it that way. Scrolling back and forth certainly can make things difficult, but printing it out should make it clearer than spoken words because you can go over it as many times as you need. I have tried to make it as clear as I knew how. I’m sure there can always be more added, but it’ll just get longer, ha!

    Well, I think we may have come to some understanding here. I hope, anyway. When I can get around to it, I wanted to share some of the things that I’ve learned on stuff like love and prayer. Particularly since I’d like to hear what others have learned about it, too. Brian encourages me to do that so that my thoughts can be scrutinized by other believers. It should help me grow. I’m a bit reluctant to mix it up in this long thread, but I don’t see a way to make a subcategory here. Hmmm. Might have to just start a new thread. This one got long enough.

    It’s been a good chat, I think. Thanks, again Patti, Andrea, and BumbleBee!

    Marla

57. patti said,

    August 8, 2008 at 8:41 pm

    Grrrrrr. What I posted didn’t show up. I’ve been having trouble getting on this site. Is it by chance in the spam filter, Marla, or do I need to rewrite it? thanks,

    patti

58. Administrator said,

    August 9, 2008 at 10:09 am

    Hi Patti:

    I’m just headed out the door right now, but I didn’t see any post from you in the spam filter. I’ll also try to get back to you later on the corn silk.

    Marla

Leave a Comment

• Pages

  • About
  • Andrea’s Natural Anti-bug Treatment for Dogs
  • Marlene’s Natural Deoderant Suggestion
  • Onion Puree Soup Recipe
  • Packing Herbs
  • The Beginning of Steele’s Chronicle

• Recent Posts

  • 07/29/2010: South Dakota
  • 07/25/2010: Cotton
  • 07/23/2010: Quote Friday
  • 07/20/2010: GMO in Haiti?
  • 07/19/2010: Another Pin Cushion
  • 07/16/2010: Quote Friday
  • 07/14/2010: Pin Cushions
  • 07/09/2010: Quote Friday
  • 07/06/2010: My Independence Day Anniversary!!!
  • 07/04/2010: How Dare This Old Man Make Sense Before Congress

• Recently Commented

  • Ganseys
    07/26/2010 04:59 am
    7 Comments
  • My Independence Day Anniversary!!!
    07/19/2010 09:44 am
    5 Comments
  • Some Compensation for American Indians
    06/07/2010 10:04 pm
    1 Comment
  • The Freedom Flotilla on Memorial Day
    06/06/2010 12:08 am
    7 Comments
  • Spin Off from Steele’s Chronicle
    05/25/2010 05:15 pm
    489 Comments
  • Aaron in the Kitchen
    05/15/2010 09:28 pm
    3 Comments
  • Immigration Stuff on Earth Day
    05/03/2010 07:16 am
    4 Comments
  • My Baby on the Dean’s List
    04/30/2010 08:57 am
    8 Comments
  • Craft Update
    03/29/2010 09:41 am
    2 Comments
  • Thai Woodcarvings
    03/15/2010 09:03 pm
    3 Comments

• Archives

  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006

• Categories

  • Anything goes
  • Book Reviews
  • Church Issues and Bible Interpretations
  • cooking
  • family stuff
  • felt projects
  • food and restaurants
  • gardening
  • God
  • Health-related–Natural Alternative Treatments
  • Historical Trivia
  • History
  • Hmmm Moments
  • hobbies
  • humor
  • knitting and crocheting
  • Movie commentary
  • museums
  • Playing the Tourist
  • quilting
  • quotes
  • Spin Off from Steele's Chronicle
  • Steele's MDS Herb Chronicle
  • Treatment Decisions
  • Uncategorized

• Search

• Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • Wordpress
  • 
  • 
  • options

Design by Beccary · Sponsored by Weblogs.us · XHTML · CSS