 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Most emphatically......yes!!!!!! |
W. Ray Williams |
If by church you mean a building where people gather to preach, pray and sing. That is just a building and an institution of man.
If you mean......Go to a place where the people of God meet together and share in a community of faith, then no!!!!!
For the first three centuries of "church" people met in houses in relatively small groups of believers. It was only when Constatine deeded government buildings to the Christians that churches began to meet En masse.
There is no Biblical requirement to meet in a modern church building. There is a requirement to gather with people of like faith and share the faith journey, growing and being made stronger by each other and the Word of God.
Also, we are now the house.....the Father's house being built up like stones.
Lastly, only the Jewish Christians regularly attended synagogue, and then only for a while. In general they were shunned by the Jewish community. Th pagans who converted were never synagogue goers, but just house church people.
We should never "forsake the gathering .......". But it does not have to be in the modernist expression of church as a building that we go to.
I would rather we be the church, in community, reaching out to the lost.
_________________
Pax,
Ray |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 881
12/18/11 7:10 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Clint Wills |
| philunderwood wrote: | The better question to ask might be 'Can you go to church and still be a Christian?'
Most church-goers are horrible Christ-followers. |
I love statements like this. Have you met "most church-goers"? I admittedly have not met most church-goers, but in my experience I have seen much better Christ-followers inside church than I have outside church. I have really only ever attended two churches in my life, and in both of those, the VAST majority of the people are terrific Christ-followers. That doesn't make them perfect people, or even really great people in some cases - it does mean that they are people that are trying. Not everyone, of course, but I'd say 8 out of 10 adults...which is much better than the people I have met outside the church - and certainly better than the "Christians" that I have met that say they don't need to go to church.
To answer the original question, no, you don't HAVE to go to church in order to be a Christian. However, from what I have seen, you have a much better chance of sustaining a relationship with Jesus if you sustain a relationship with other Christians. The easiest place to make that happen would seem to be church. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5163
12/18/11 8:30 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
philunderwood |
| Quote: | | Have you met "most church-goers"? |
Why, of course.
I will amend it to just include my history.
_________________
Live an epiK life!
Discover More...
http://www.refocusing.org
A Mission in Formation
www.bluewaterinthekeys.com |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3954
12/18/11 8:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Clint Wills |
| philunderwood wrote: | | Quote: | | Have you met "most church-goers"? |
Why, of course.
I will amend it to just include my history. |
 |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5163
12/18/11 8:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
You don't have to, you get to.
The assembly we are exhorted to not forsake is that part of the body of Christ to which the Spirit of Christ has connected us.
Making people think the church is a physical building they must come to or a weekly meeting they must attend in order to be saved (or to stay saved) is just pointless dead religion. Lots of people attend church every week without being vitally connected to the head, which is Christ.
The church which is His body is what matters. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12802
12/18/11 10:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| w. Ray |
Cojak |
|
|
| |
|
| Something I noticed... |
seanr25 |
Most of the responses that were "pro going to church" are from pastors. Now I understand that probably a majority of Acts posters are pastors, but still.... Pastors want people to go to church and will bend and twist scriptures to "prove" to people that Jesus wants us to be in a building labeled "church" in order to grow in our spiritual walk.
Its hogwash, and they are just trying to keep their jobs relevant. My spiritual walk with God has been hampered more in church than outside of it. If the churches of today would act and operate as they should, and the people in them acted as they should, then churches would be a beacon of hope to their communities. I don't want any pastors to think that I am "hating" on them, my dad is a pastor and I love him and respect him. But if we are all honest with ourselves, and read the bible without any preconceived notions, then we can agree that there is NOTHING in the bible about attending church. That is a very American/Western thing to do. What about those people that live in places where it is illegal to attend a Christian church? Are they just going to flake out and turn from Christ because they didn't attend a weekly meeting and give their membership dues, er.. I mean, tithes? I would dare say that their faith in Christ makes most American Christians look like lazy, spoiled children.
If you were offended by anything I wrote, then GOOD! You need to be offended, quit trying to make everyone fit into your little box of religiosity, step out of it yourself and quit drinking the kool-aid. Your walk with Jesus needs to be based on more than following some man-made rules and customs. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 445
12/19/11 12:09 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Chuckle... |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Whenever I say things like I said earlier to the congregation I pastor (and I do because it is the truth), I always follow up by saying, "Now please don't anybody take what I'm saying as a reason for not going to church, I'm just saying coming to church doesn't make you a Christian, nor does it mean that you're necessarily being discipled and connected to the body of Christ as you need to be." |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12802
12/19/11 12:23 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Isn't it weird... |
Clint Wills |
That in this thread we have seen the people in church both lambasted for how they behave as well as praised because the people ARE the church? Can we have it both ways? I think we'd all acknowledge that the church is the people, and not a building or organization. So, doesn't that change the way we answer this question? I mean, either we should go to church because it means we are uniting with fellow believers, or we shouldn't because those same fellow believers are jerks that wouldn't know following Christ if it bit them on the rear.
We are bound to ALL fellow believers...this is a Kingdom, right? I'm certainly not saying that everyone in a church building on Sunday mornings is a believer, but it's probably the largest regular gathering of believers on earth. We have a responsibility to the Kingdom of God, and doing everything we can to advance that Kingdom. From the sounds of hearing some of you, the best place for us to help advance the Kingdom is within the walls of our church buildings. Apparently at some of your churches there are more people that need to experience God's genuine love than there are anywhere else. How can we, in the same breath, say that we need to minister to the lost outside of church, and say that the people IN the church are equally as lost?? Our fellow believers - no matter how mature or immature that we perceive them to be - need us...and we need them really. That is what a Kingdom is to me. We are a group of people who are reigned over by God. When something comes against the Kingdom of God (which we know to always be powers and principalities) then we need to unit together to stand against that attack. That is not dependent on what other people do, or how other people behave - that is dependent on us doing what our King expects of us. Fortunately, we really don't have to fight at all - God can do that part. The point is that whether you like Joel Osteen or Mark Driscoll or any of the other polarizing Christian leaders, unless you are prepared to say that they are definitely NOT Christians, then we are on the same team. We will spend eternity with these guys.
This post really has less to do with church attendance as it does this sentiment that the church (in part or as a whole) is garbage and therefore should be abandon. The church (organization) isn't perfect because it's full of people who aren't perfect. The only way that it will ever get any better is for those who do understand and believe in becoming disciples to affect change. The church body still remains the single biggest avenue by which to get the gospel to the masses. Why not use that tool to reach the masses rather than flying solo and complaining about how the church isn't doing anything. From what I have seen, the people that complain about the church are generally some of the least effective evangelists there are. I may very well attend the best church in America, but I look around our body and become so overwhelmed with the people I serve with. Sure there are slackers, but they don't really stand out. There are also unbelievers that attend FH - and that is something I wouldn't change for the world. So, yeah - you might find several people in at Father's House who aren't Christ followers yet, but I wouldn't be a bit shy about inviting any unbelieving friend that I have to get to know the people of Father's House. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5163
12/19/11 12:38 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| 4golf wrote: | | Disobedence to Gods Word, I.e not going to church is Sin! |
What if you go to church, but church doesn't do what the Bible says it should do?
Hebrews 10
24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25Not 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.
This is the one passage of scripture that is used to tell people to 'go to church.' And what does it indicate we should do when we assemble? It says to 'exhort one another.'
What are most modern church meetings like? Mainly, you sit there and listen to one person give an exhortation. I Corinthians 14, especially verse 26, would seem to indicate that early church meetings were very much a mutual edification situation. It was not the case that just one person, called the pastor, would speak. 'Every one of you' spoke, sang, etc. to edify the assembly. That was the case in Corinth. And Paul's restriction on it was not to sit down and let the pastor speak. It was to 'let all things be done unto edifying.'
Why is it that so few church meetings focus on mutual edification and instead of focused on the ministry of 'the pastor.' And where is this one-man pastorate ministry in scripture? Where does the Bible teach that there should be only one person speaking one message in the form of one sermon in church. Where is the focus on mutual edification we see in the one verse we use to tell people they must go to church?
Sure, we might exhort one another through congregational singing. The New Testament doesn't say much about congregational singing. We could speak to ourselves in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs by singing solos, and I Corinthians 14:26 gives evidence that this may have been the way they did it in the early church. I suppose if we through in a little historical arguments from the end of the institution of the Lord's Supper, they 'sang an hymn' and it was Jewish tradition for a family to sing from certain Psalms 'congregationally.' That requires some assumptions. Luther gave us congregational singing as an important church tradition from what I've read. Before that, there was a lot of listening to the choir sing. Antiphonal singing is also ancient.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/19/11 3:32 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
I have spent some time in the house church movement. The early church met in homes, and some of the house church people go that way because they have a desire to do every thing 'by the book' and have as scriptural of church as possible. Many church traditions about how pastoral positions are set up, what pastors do, who speaks in church, etc. have really no basis in scripture. A lot of house church people throw out those traditions and try to stick really closely to scripture.
There are also house church people who just really want to be organic, unhierarchical. Some of them have an attitude toward traditional or institutional churches. There are missionaries from institutional churches that go into starting house churches as a contextual way to plant churches on mission fields. Or they do it because it just makes so much sense, since you don't need lots of money to start churches the way they did it in the Bible, and house church gatherings can be a tad bit less flamable than church buildings with steeples on top. In country I know of, it can be nearly impossible to get a permit to build a church building in some regions.
My idea of a house church, as they call it, is a group of believers who regularly meet together. In a church meeting, the saints take turns speaking and singing in an orderly manner in accordance with I Corinthians 14 and other passages, exercising their spiritual gifts to edify the body. The Lord's Supper is partaken of as a meal at the end or during the gathering, not just as a pot luck taken lightly, but at least bread and cup are treated seriously remembering the words of Christ. I can't say I've seen each and every element in any particular house church I've been in.
Some of the house church people what I would consider a looser view of house church. I went to a house church for a while in Jakarta with a certain fellow. This man had a brother who later became a TV actor there, who was also involved in similar ministry to younger people. His idea of a church was 'sharing-sharing lah." Okay, that doesn't translate, but it has to do with sitting around and sharing. They'd meet in a coffee house or restaurant or whatever.
I'm not against meeting in a coffee house, but I'd encountered people with the 'sharing-sharing lah' attitude about church. I get the impression that it doesn't leave a lot of room for deep Bible study or Bible teaching. It is difficult for me to see how prophecy could flow from person to person in the way described in I Corinthians 14 in a restaurant--not one you rent out, but sitting next to all the other customers. Maybe those guys were just really bold, but it would hamper I would think, on prayer and intercession, singing to exhort one another, and some of the other exercises of spiritual gifts to meet in a restaurant with unbelievers present. Not to mention the issue of being considerate to people there discussing things, having business luncheons, etc. I don't like the idea of house church or nontraditional churches just being 'church-lite'.
George Barna has done some research on believers getting their church-like experience outside of conventional church meetings, not in church buildings. For example, some people meet in homes or in office prayer meetings or whatever. I can see how people who meet in office prayer meetings could say that they fulfill the requirement to assemble together without going to a conventional 'church.'
One of my concerns with office prayer meetings as a fulfillment of the requirement for 'church' is the fact that an emphasis is placed on family and households in the epistles. Paul writes to the saints in Ephesus to speak to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. He then writes to them to submit to one another: wives to husbands....children obey your parents... slaves submit to masters. He is addressing the members of households right after telling believers to submit to one another. Having office prayer meetings be your 'church' would cut the family off from church meetings, and I think that is not healthy. I suppose if someone is single, that doesn't seem like a big deal, but I believe it is healthy for singles to interact with families in church. And separating church from family life would make it hard for a church to produce elders Biblically.
Honestly, I think most denominations, including Pentecostal ones, have missed the boat on how elders/overseers of the church are raised. I prefer to use those terms rather than 'pastors' because those are the terms Paul uses most and it is clearer what they are and what they do. Elders and overseers are to pastor. But before an overseer is appointing, he must first rule his own house well. His children must obey him with the proper respect. He should be the husband of one wife. The preparation and proof of pastoral ministry must first be seen in the man's own home.
The emphasis on calling, imo, is way off. Instead of a man claiming to be called, shouldn't our attitude be that if he is called and walking in his call, this will be demonstrated in ruling his own house well? And why is the emphasis in so many denominations and churches on having finished certain academic coursework and getting a degree rather than meeting these character and lifestyle qualifications laid out in scripture?
Some of the house churches take the requirements for eldership quite seriously. They have a plurality of elders who pastor the flock. They may not take turns giving long monologues, but will participate and watch out while the saints use their gifts to edify the assembly.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/19/11 3:57 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| War Eagle wrote: | | Folks who don't need the church, don't need a pastor, and if a person doesn't need a pastor, shepherd, mentor, or teacher in their life . . . I'll just say I struggle with that ideology and Christianity being coequal. |
I disagree with the idea that a pastor makes a church a church. Did you know that the Biblical pattern is for a brand new church to start without an official appointed pastor-- apart from Christ? That is a wordy way of putting it. I don't want to say churches started in the New Testament without a pastor because Jesus is a Pastor (Shepherd) and the chief Pastor of the church.
Take a look at the end of Acts 14 some time. The apostles Paul and Barnabas went from city to city, doing the work the Spirit had called them to do. They preached. Where they preached, people believed and they assembled together as churches. At first for perhaps several months to a couple of years, these churches didn't have what we would call 'a pastor' besides Christ. Paul and Barnabas didn't stick around in every church. They left to preach elsewhere. These believers must have had I Cor. 14:26 and Hebrews 10:24-25 type meetings where the believers spoke to edify others in the meetings instead of just warming a pew listening to a sermon.
Let's take a look at Acts 14
21And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
The fact that they appointed elders in every church proves that these churches were churches when there were no elders appointed in them yet. Acts 20:28 shows that elders 'pastored' (KJV says feed) the flock of God. I Peter 5 shows this also if you do a word study.
So in the early stages of a church, we see that there was no appointed pastor? Why?
1. Elders were appointed FROM WITHIN the very churches they would pastor.
2. Paul said that an overseer was not to be a NOVICE. Some time was necessary for them to mature.
So churches had no official appointed pastor, aside from Christ, during these initial stages. This is certainly an important Biblical pattern to keep in mind when planting churches in unreached mission fields. It sure makes a lot more sense than thinking you have to send a person to a Bible college for every single church you want to plant, instead of patiently letting God raise up elders from within these very congregations. It also helps to have elders from the same people-group you are reaching rather than bringing them in from another people group people who are not a part of the congregation they are pastoring.
Here is something else to notice.
Acts 12:2As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Acts 14:26And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.
I can infer from this passage that appointing elders the way they did was part of the work they were given, and as such, it was Holy Ghost approved.
So I can see evidence for the Holy Ghost approving
- leaving new churches without appointed elders
- plural eldership
- raising up elders FROM WITHIN their own congregations.
But I CANNOT find evidence for Holy Ghost approval for these ideas
- the idea that a brand new church has to have an appointed pastor
- the one man pastorate
- bringing in a 'hired gun' from the outside.
I'm not saying God can't work through or around a system like that. But I can't find strong evidence in the Bible for the Holy Ghost endorsing such things.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/19/11 4:09 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Link |
4golf |
| I loved your three replys, good stuff. You asked me if the church you are going to does not do what the Bibles says it should be doing. My answer is ; Find a new church! If you pastor is not a humble man of God and not living what the Word of God says he should be; Vote him out! If your church is just a meeting place a couple says of the week and not doing the work Jesus call His Disciples to do leave! I agree 100% what you said about pentcostals. They do so much wrong; They are the worst when it comes to discipleship, preaching the Word of God.I have said time and time again if you say you have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and all you are doing is talking in tongues and you are not leading people to Jesus, guess what; You don't have the Acts 2 Baptism of the Holy Spirit. If a church is not about the Work of Jesus first and formost it is just a meeting place with a cross on top! I am sick of programs! Keep searching untill you find a church lead by a humble man of God.They are "Very" rare to find today, but don't stop till you find one! Be Blessed |
Bound By Beaulah
Posts: 1003
12/19/11 8:36 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bradfreeman |
| Link wrote: | | George Barna has done some research on believers getting their church-like experience outside of conventional church meetings, not in church buildings. |
Have you read "Pagan Christianity"?
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
12/19/11 10:14 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Isn't it weird... |
bradfreeman |
| Clint Wills wrote: | | This post really has less to do with church attendance as it does this sentiment that the church (in part or as a whole) is garbage and therefore should be abandon. |
I don't think there is anyone on here who couldn't write for 3 pages about the problems with the institutional church.
| Quote: | | The church (organization) isn't perfect because it's full of people who aren't perfect. The only way that it will ever get any better is for those who do understand and believe in becoming disciples to affect change. |
I wonder how much of our energy, money, time and attention we should invest in the institution. For example, how many MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of dollars are spent each year on salaries for cronies and facilities that are used 3 hours a week--it is largely a waste of money and energy that could be put to MUCH better use. How many more decades should we waste on the institution? There are voices shouting like trumpets for much needed change. I've been personally shouting for 15 years. It just doesn't appear to be happening.
| Quote: | | The church body still remains the single biggest avenue by which to get the gospel to the masses. |
I assume by "church body" you mean people and I agree whole-heartedly. That won't change, even if we return to a fellowship model that more closely resembles the organic, participatory model of the NT and less closely resembles the pagan temples and practices of Constantine's day.
| Quote: | | Why not use that tool to reach the masses rather than flying solo and complaining about how the church isn't doing anything. From what I have seen, the people that complain about the church are generally some of the least effective evangelists there are. |
If our goal is to win loyalists to the institution, then you are probably right. If our goal is to convert people to saving relationship with God, then I don't think the institution has an edge over individuals.
| Quote: | | I may very well attend the best church in America, but I look around our body and become so overwhelmed with the people I serve with. Sure there are slackers, but they don't really stand out. There are also unbelievers that attend FH - and that is something I wouldn't change for the world. So, yeah - you might find several people in at Father's House who aren't Christ followers yet, but I wouldn't be a bit shy about inviting any unbelieving friend that I have to get to know the people of Father's House. |
Threads sometimes take on a life of their own. I enjoy observing what people assume about the intention of a thread and the comments threads enable them to vent. The POINT of this thread...I think we should soften our condemnation of those who find other means of "assembling".
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
12/19/11 10:31 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Going to Church |
Lifer |
Let me start by saying that by my most conservative estimate, I have been to church well over 15,000 times. So for me personally, going to church is something I cherish. I have been in many church buildings and have been able to feel the Spirit of God as soon as I walked inside. I have also felt God's spirit in my home, in a motel room, in my car, outside and almost anywhere I have ever been. I believe in going to church.
The question is, "Can you be a Christian without going to church?" I suppose it is a question to spark interest and to engage others in discussion. As far as I am concerned, it is a rather dumb question. There are people all over the world who risk their own lives by professing Jesus Christ as their savior, yet they have no church to attend. Most of the thought provoking questions posted here are only unique to the USA. Jesus said, "You must be born again." He did not say, you must attend church 2.5 times a week to inherit eternal life.
I believe any time we can meet with fellow Christians and get into prayer and learning the scriptures, God is pleased. If you think by going to church, you are superior to Christians who do not attend church, you need to pray that God will remove the pride from your life. Sometimes I might even entertain the question, "Can you be a Christian and still attend church?" |
Friendly Face
Posts: 394
12/19/11 10:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Going to Church |
Cojak |
| Lifer wrote: | I believe in going to church............................
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
.............................The question is, "Can you be a Christian without going to church?".............................................. "Can you be a Christian and still attend church?" |
The entire comment is a very good entry!!!! 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24282
12/19/11 11:22 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Isn't it weird... |
Clint Wills |
| bradfreeman wrote: | | Clint Wills wrote: | | This post really has less to do with church attendance as it does this sentiment that the church (in part or as a whole) is garbage and therefore should be abandon. |
I don't think there is anyone on here who couldn't write for 3 pages about the problems with the institutional church.
| Quote: | | The church (organization) isn't perfect because it's full of people who aren't perfect. The only way that it will ever get any better is for those who do understand and believe in becoming disciples to affect change. |
I wonder how much of our energy, money, time and attention we should invest in the institution. For example, how many MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of dollars are spent each year on salaries for cronies and facilities that are used 3 hours a week--it is largely a waste of money and energy that could be put to MUCH better use. How many more decades should we waste on the institution? There are voices shouting like trumpets for much needed change. I've been personally shouting for 15 years. It just doesn't appear to be happening.
| Quote: | | The church body still remains the single biggest avenue by which to get the gospel to the masses. |
I assume by "church body" you mean people and I agree whole-heartedly. That won't change, even if we return to a fellowship model that more closely resembles the organic, participatory model of the NT and less closely resembles the pagan temples and practices of Constantine's day.
| Quote: | | Why not use that tool to reach the masses rather than flying solo and complaining about how the church isn't doing anything. From what I have seen, the people that complain about the church are generally some of the least effective evangelists there are. |
If our goal is to win loyalists to the institution, then you are probably right. If our goal is to convert people to saving relationship with God, then I don't think the institution has an edge over individuals.
| Quote: | | I may very well attend the best church in America, but I look around our body and become so overwhelmed with the people I serve with. Sure there are slackers, but they don't really stand out. There are also unbelievers that attend FH - and that is something I wouldn't change for the world. So, yeah - you might find several people in at Father's House who aren't Christ followers yet, but I wouldn't be a bit shy about inviting any unbelieving friend that I have to get to know the people of Father's House. |
Threads sometimes take on a life of their own. I enjoy observing what people assume about the intention of a thread and the comments threads enable them to vent. The POINT of this thread...I think we should soften our condemnation of those who find other means of "assembling". |
My assumption, based on the original post, was that assembling at all is institutional church. You asked if going to a Sunday morning meeting was a requirement of being a Christian. Home churches have regular meetings, fellowship based groups have regular *scheduled* meetings. At what point is that not a church meeting?? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5163
12/19/11 11:42 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Link |
Link |
| 4golf wrote: | | I loved your three replys, good stuff. You asked me if the church you are going to does not do what the Bibles says it should be doing. My answer is ; Find a new church! If you pastor is not a humble man of God and not living what the Word of God says he should be; Vote him out! |
Except that these are some of the unbiblical things I am talking about. who says a church is supposed to have 'the pastor' the way we see it now? I can't find that in the Bible.
'The pastor' stands up and gives a 30 to 45 minute oration every week while the rest sit in silence. The apostles appointed elders to pastor and oversee the churches. Where does it say their job was to 'preach the sermon' or that there should be one big sermon? What about the I Corinthians 14:26 activities carried out by the body that the Bible DOES talk about?
Why would church nee to be about one man, besides Christ Jesus? If you have a whole body of people ministering, why is church centered on one pastor? If you have a group of elders like we see in the Bible, why would you think of church as being about 'the pastor' when there are several men pastoring? And who says their role in speaking in the assembly necessarily has to be so prominent that their identity equals the churches identity? If 'every one of you' is exhorting the assembly, and no one teaches false doctrine or causes trouble, a visitor just might not know who they are the first time he attends.
And where does this idea of 'voting' the preacher out come from? Can you do that in the COG, where most people on the forum are from? Where does the idea of voting the preacher out because he isn't humble enough come from? I can't find that in the Bible. The apostles appointed elders in the Bible. If someone wouldn't repent of a sin, they could be cut off from fellowship. Elders are no exception if there are two or three witnesses. But voting someone out, based on a majority? Can you vote someone who prophesies out of the church if they aren't humble enough? Should we vote out the person with a gift of helps who isn't humble enough.
(Be that as it may, there are a number of other ways a church can be 'more Biblical' than another besides church structure and church government issues, like by loving others. I don't decided where to go to church based on which church is 'more Biblical.' If I believe the Lord wants me going somewhere with the traditional pastor setup, I do that. Sometimes a church has a lot of opportunities where I can minister.)
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/19/11 2:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Link |
Clint Wills |
| Link wrote: |
Why would church nee to be about one man, besides Christ Jesus? |
If a church is about anyone other than Jesus, then it's wrong. Whether that is one man, a group of leaders or the entire congregation. You're absolutely right, ideally the church isn't all about one man. Once again, as has been common in this thread, this is painting with a pretty broad brush. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5163
12/19/11 2:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
