New Testament Church Proliferation Digest

 

Spreading the Gospel via House Churches

 


New Testament Church Proliferation Digest Tuesday, March 5 2002 Vol 02 : 051
Re: [NTCP] Your home a training and equipping centre
[NTCP] Re: Your home a training and equipping centre
[NTCP] Export Business
Re: [NTCP] RE: Confronting the evidence
[NTCP] RE: Confronting the evidence
Re: [NTCP] RE: Confronting the evidence
[NTCP] RE: Confronting the evidence
Re: [NTCP] RE: Confronting the evidence is wearing a little thin now...
[NTCP] wearing a little thin now...
Re: [NTCP] Export Business

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:41:08 -0500
From: jferris
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Your home a training and equipping centre

Samuel Buick wrote:

>What about all of you out there? Ever thought of opening up your home, not
>for 'meetings' but for gatherings that express the life of Christ, and making
>your home a safe place for people to experience LIFE, and then seeing the
>ministry of Jesus flow out of the life of Jesus in them?

Dear Sam,

Can you say, "tear the roof off"?

I really appreciated this latest post, and it brought to mind a word of
encouragement that I sent to a pastor friend of mine yesterday:

"I received another revelation, and it came as I was thinking about my own
experience. Namely, and I don't think that there has ever been an exception,
every time I have been at my spiritual best, I have been in the most trouble
with others.

This is the connection that finally came:

Jesus said wait until you receive power. Of course the power He was speaking of
was The promised Holy Spirit Who would not only bring us the things that are
His, but conform us to His image.

He said, in effect, Don't go anywhere or do anything until you hear from me.
(Who knows, perhaps if they hadn't gone ahead and chosen Matthias, they might
have been more open to receive Paul when the time came.)

Ok so far? Now put this together with something else Jesus said: "I send you
forth like sheep among wolves..."

When?

When the Holy Spirit comes. Before that, He didn't send them anywhere. On the
contrary, He told them to wait.

Those who go without being sent, are not sent by Jesus or The Holy Spirit, they
are sent by "the world, the flesh, and the devil". So far from being "sheep
among wolves", they are "wolves in sheeps clothing".

I would like to suggest even another word picture of the way it works, at
least, if my experience is any indication. Let's call it, "a duck in a shooting
gallery". I don't know how many times I have felt like that.

This morning I finally realized that it is the same thing. "A sheep among
wolves" is like "a duck in a shooting gallery". "And you shall be my
witnesses..."

The Holy Spirit fixes it so they can't miss it. When my son, Tim got baptised
in The Holy Spirit, his older brother, William said, "Tim is the most
convincing evidence for the existance of God I have ever seen."

So who wants to be "a duck in a shooting gallery"?

Once we understand what's going on, not many.

So the tendency is to get out of the gallery, shut down, or trade places with
the ones doing the shooting. I think all of these have been used as a kind of
spiritual birth control. I know, I've tried them myself, especially shutting
down and getting out of the gallery.

I feel like I've tried everything, and none of it works. Oh, It works as birth
control, but the cry of my heart, and I think yours, is for children.

As a result our calling is sure; "sheep among wolves", or "ducks in a shooting
gallery". That is the way Jesus sends us, and that is what the Holy Spirit
makes us. That's the way it was for Jesus, and He was careful to tell us that
it would be no different for us. He also told us to count the cost, and there
it is...

"Quack!!"

So here I am, 30 years later, still trying to get a handle on the cost, and He
said that that is the first thing I should have done.

"Go figure."

A couple of weeks ago at a leadership meeting, the topic came up again, and I
said that "being wonded in the house of our friends is part of the process."
It is the way that Jesus was perfected, and it is the same with us. One pastor
was so shocked, he responded be saying, "Are you saying that we are supposed to
be wounded in the house of our friends?"

My response:

"Where else?"

It is only in the house of our friends that we can get to know the difference
between makebelieve love, and the real thing. God's kind of love doesn't go
away when "iniquity abounds". Makebelieve love is for make believers, and God's
kind of love, the kind that knows the cross, is for true believers.

Make believers can be very convincing until they are willing to be in the house
of friends. That's where the truth comes out. We need to love one another
deeply, because the the first ones deceived by makebelievers are themselves. We
need to find out sooner rather than later, so we can repent now and avoid the
rush.

To share the gospel, is to put people at risk of wounding. This needs to be
shared early on, and done so with the revelation that this is the only way
that we can get to know the Love of God. Because, getting to know the love of
God is what it is all about, and God's kind of love is not makebelieve.

Yours in Christ,

Jay


------- <><><> -------


Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:14:53 -0800
From: Dan Snyder
Subject: [NTCP] Re: Your home a training and equipping centre

Jay writes:
>
Brother Jay,

You reminded me of Matthew 24:45 and 49. Both relate to God's household.

In one verse there's "give them food". In the other there's "beat his fellow
slaves".

What a contrast!

I hope when the Lord comes he'll find us giving them food.

"Lord Jesus, we ask for Your mercy and Your grace that even today we'd be the
feeders and not the beaters."

It does seems that sometimes the wounds come - even from our fellow believers.

That's the time we can experience the Christ who lives in our spirit as the
real Joseph - the one who knows how to bear being mistreated by his brothers
and still want to give them food - for the sake of God's economy.

Praise the "Joseph" who lives in us!

Dan


------- <><><> -------


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:52:46 +0100 (MET)
From: david.cummings(--AT--)gmx.net

Subject: [NTCP] Export Business

Link,

I am very interested in this. I know of some people who are interested in
helping develop an import business just like this. can you give me some more
info or people I can get into contact with.

David


------- <><><> -------


Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:28:00 -0500
From: jferris
Subject: Re: [NTCP] RE: Confronting the evidence

Deborah wrote:

>... If the ancient church often had one bishop serving several local
>expressions of Christ's one body, how is that "divi[sion]"? I don't want to
>"white wash[] the status quo". God forbid! But neither do I want to demonize
>that which is not censured in the least by the "plumb line".
>
>--MICHAEL
Jerusalem

Dear Michael,

Let's call this "ecclesiastical culture clash". That way, it will continue to
include what is on your heart, and provide some room for what is increasingly
on mine in these last days.

It has to do with "Jewish roots", Messianic Jewish Prophets, restoration of
Apostles and prophets, signs and wonders, Hebraic/Greek thinking, "... one new
man out of the two... " "testing everything", deception, and swallowing things
whole.

I think there may be a couple of other things as well, but, for now, that's
enough to get started with.

I have been somewhat reserved where the Jewish roots movement is concerned. It
has not been because I embrace "replacement theology", but it does have
something to do with what I Would call fulfillment theology. I am not among
those who believe that God had a "plan B". I believe that there was always and
only "plan A", and it is still in the process of coming to pass, of being
fulfilled.

That said, I have to admit that the Sudden and very significant impact of
Messianic Jewish prophets in my life, has me in a season of re-evaluation. I am
sufficiently impresses with what I am seeing, to be considering a very
spiritual understanding of Romans 11:15: "For if the casting away of them be
the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life
from the dead?

It certainly appears that The Lord has entered into a season of "receiving",
and the vitality of the Messianic Jewish influence already looks like life from
the dead.

I think Howard Morgan has focused on some of the reason, with his emphasis on
the difference between Greek and Hebraic thinking. If you haven't heard him on
that subject, it is well worth the time to listen to his tape or tapes.

I am very much enjoying, and blessed by these Messianic Jewish prophets, and,
not to exclude Bearded Bill, Jewish scholars. I believe that there is a
tremendous restoration going on in the "receiving" of their revelation.

I have a number of concerns which are part of my present wrestling with The
Lord about all of this. Having been instructed by The Word to "Test
everything", I am very much in a testing mode, because there is much that needs
to be tested in these very pregnant days.

One of the attractions of a nearby leaders meeting, (It has been existence
weekly for over thirty years.) has been its gate like quality. It has been a
place of interaction. On Tuesday, I shared my concern that the meeting be kept
a place of interaction rather than over riding agendas or "dog and pony shows".
I felt like my heart was heard.

There was good interaction, and a particular speaker was very sensitive as he
took center stage. I use the expression "center stage" not in any derogatory
way in the present context, but to bring into view a reality which is always
there in any meeting, even of the saints, and especially the leadership
meetings of the saints. In this connection, I should say that whenever two or
three get together "Christ is in the midst." This is also true for leaders
meetings. Two or three elders, and Christ is in the midst. It is not a very big
stretch to translate "in the midst", as "center stage". When there is only one
elder, the elder himself is center stage, and that is, and has been a real
problem.

The speaker used the opportunity given to begin to address a very real concern,
he called it "culture clash". This is perhaps one of the greatest enemies of
revival, either by resistance or manipulation, this is a great source of the
grieving of the Holy Spirit, who is the nuclear reactor of revival.

One aspect of ecclesiastical culture clash is the format of Christian meetings.
For Evangelical America, all the other elements of the meeting have taken
second place to one man dominated preaching. The Scripture, on the other hand,
counsels, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any
thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." I
Corinthians 14:29,30

This nearby leaders meeting has been sensitive to this need, at least, as I
have experienced it. What we need, and what I believe is in the heart of God is
the "body He desired.." What is lacking has been the revelation of the Body. It
has been replaced by the vision or revelation of a man. I believe that this has
been very harmful, and has led to an ecclesiastical culture which is very
dangerous; "See to it that no one deceives you..."

Because we only know in part, it is very important for the "parts" to be in
proper function one with another. There is still a superstar or "stage center"
mentality in the church, and, not only is it getting worse, but puts us in
great jeopardy with the advent of the Messianic Jewish Prophets. They certainly
appear to be closer to the real thing than anything I have seen, and there is a
temptation to swallow them whole, rather than test their message, spirit, and
person.

Please don't misunderstand, I am not trying to undermine their credibility, but
just sharing the honest concerns of my heart given the power of their gifting,
whether in their Hebraic thinking or in the signs and wonders which seem to be
part of the package.

One aspect of my concern is that the Evangelical/Pentacostal/Charismatic Church
in America has been preprogrammed to embrace the Jewish culture". So much so
that we are increasingly in danger of throwing out the Greek. I believe,
however, that "making of twain, one new man.." means that there is plenty of
flesh that has to go from both camps.

It was not necessarily a Gentile context when Jesus warned, "See that no one
deceives you..." nor was it a Gentile context when Paul elaborated the same
warning to the Galatians.

Another concern is that this is a season of the restoration of apostles and
prophets, and so there is an increasingly open door to their acceptance.

What I am saying is that there has now entered the picture a prophetic
influence that is so compelling, all things considered, that we are in danger
of failing to, "test them that say..."

All the while, it is a body that God is after, a body that is one new man,
fully functional with each part doing its work by that which every joint
supplies.

This Body has been eclipsed, obliterated, and all but destroyed by the man
centered ecclesiastical culture of the past, and my concern is that this
present season doesn't leave it that way, only changing the men, the racial
bias, and the titles.

I believe, that we serve a relational Lord, that this is at the heart of
Hebraic thinking, and I am praying that we do not run right by relationship
into the arms of Jewish prophetic domination of the Church.

"Take heed therefore unto yourselveS, and to all the flock, over the which the
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood." Acts 20:28 Interesting it doesn't say, "yourself
and the flockS".

Yours in Christ,

Jay

P.S. t occurs to me that the place of women is another one of those things that
the Bible doesn't explicitly spell out, but it does, at least, give us
Galatians 3:28, throwing the door wide open, as the surrounding culture is
ready to walk through it. Unfortunately our inherited ecclesiastical culture is
more reluctant to give up one man domination than it is to include women in a
significant role in church government.


------- <><><> -------


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:10:32 +0200
From: "Deborah"
Subject: [NTCP] RE: Confronting the evidence

As everyone's interest has waned on the "mono-bishop" issue (including mine,
... whew, you all have been wearing me out! :-)), I post these last few(?)
comments. Feel free to respond, but I will not return a post ... on this
topic, I mean. Thanks for all the good interaction, and for the good examples
to me (better than mine, I'm afraid) of people maintaining sanguine spirits in
the heat of debate. I have enjoyed myself, and you all are the primary reason.
Hope it has been edifying for you too.

David A. wrote:

>First, why O why do you keep quoting Ignatius? He did NOT teach that the
>overseers and elders were the same - a thing which you just acknowledged is
>this same message?!?! Why are you bringing his testimonies to us as "evidence?"

You asked now. That's the only reason why I am momentarily "flip[ping] the
dial to the Church Father channel. (Back to the Bible [... hey that's a great
name for a show!] in a minute). There are at least two ways to view ole bro
Ignatius: 1) He was a problem, the harbinger of Christian compromise with the
world.

Or

2) He was a particularly prolific literary representative (and I do mean
*representative*) of godly Apostolic and post-Apostolic age Christianity.

I see him in the second category, David. You and many house church folk
obviously see him in the first. Our initial assumptions certainly determine
how we each color the evidence, don't they? I believe he is innocent until
*proven* guilty. You, on the other hand .... The burden of proof falls
heavily upon you (all) to demonstrate that Ignatius' mono-bishop focus was a
sell-out, and not a sanctioned and fairly universal interpretation/application
of the biblical data. After all, I have shown that Ignatius was writing to
several congregations in Asia which *all* had MONOEPISCOPACIES, as witnessed by
his letters. The same holds true for Philippi in Macedonia. He didn't make
them do that, David-- trade in their plurality models for a mono-bishop. He
just wrote to them as he found them on his way to be killed by the Romans.
Beyond a doubt, each of those churches had established MONOEPISCOPACIES
independent of his influence. Why? The "lemming syndrom"?

Not only that, but Ignatius himself represented Antioch as its mono-bishop and
spoke with insider's knowledge of Jerusalem as a MONOEPISCOPACY from James'
time on-- corroborated for us by other sources. You see, Ignatius (martyred c.
115 A.D.) is not our only witness to the far-reaching practice of
MONOEPISCOPACY, but Polycarp (bad guy too?-- martyred c. 130? A.D., Asia),
Justin (bad guy too?-- martyred c. 165 A.D., Samaritan converted in Ephesus),
Irenaeus (bad guy too?-- martyred c. 200 A.D., Gaul), and Eusebius (bad guy
too?-- died c. 340 A.D., Palestine), among others, all testify to the practice
of MONOEPISCOPACY from the earliest times. In the major churches. So you
can't maintain that Ignatius was simply an bedeviled fluke. A blite to the
faithful. For in truth, he was just one of many witnesses to MONOEPISCOPACY
from this primitive period.

Funny, one can bring to this list a Jewish custom or two as evidence for NT
practice and hardly an eyebrow is raised. When used with discernment, I agree
that such practices may be useful (even necessary!) in illuminating *some*
passages of Scripture. An extra-biblical usage of a Greek word may be fronted,
and most of us think that's cool and relevant. And it might be so. Even when
someone offers a personal revelation, few on this list seem to mind-- although
that kind of thing sets off alarms in my spirit. But when the next-generation
inheriters of the Apostolic Church are placed in the dock as witnesses (except
for Hermas, for whatever reason), suddenly we hear: "Objection, yer honor!".
As if there could be no discernable connection between their beliefs and the
godly men who taught them. One has to wonder why, ... if not for the reason
that the NT Church we have created in our imaginations, and the Church that
actually *was* are two different things.

>Do you think you can have it both ways?

In a sense, yes. Not in the way you seem to be reading me. But when I see the
Bible teaching something in *general* terms, then the "fathers" applying that
teaching a certain way with no violations of commandments-- just a contextually
relevent extention of the biblical model-- then, yes, I think I (we) can have
it both ways. I reiterate that I personally remain cautious about extending
scriptural paradigms-- it *can* start a momentum in the wrong direction. But I
remain adamant that it is wrong to say it is wrong! We are not omniscient.
That is my point! This sweeping condemnation of brothers and sisters in
Christ, and their often well-prayed-for, well-thought-out ideas for church
polity in their own settings, has got to stop!!!

>Your message is a huge self-contradiction, my brother.

No. Not true. A little complicated perhaps, with such a flood of new
information. For that I apologize. But logically consistent, it is:

The Bible condemns all evil. The Bible does not condemn MONOEPISCOPACY
THEREFORE: MONOEPISCOPACY is not evil

If you can prove that MONOEPISCOPACY (in its best forms) falls under one of the
broad categories, such as the "works of the flesh" or any other listed or
isolated vices in the canonized Scriptures, then I will join the chorus against
it. Otherwise, mine will remain a dissenting voice on this discussion group,
calling for the reining-in of our inter-church censurship-- translate that, in
this case, "divisiveness" ... a practice very much condemned in the Bible (Rom.
16:17, 1 Cor. 1:10; 12:25; Tit. 3:10).

>Lay Greek aside, consider your modus operand with respect to a simple
>statement in English. Pointing into my mouth, I declare: "The tooth is a sign
>of God's creative genius. The tooth must have a steady blood supply. Etc."
>Would you then infer that I only had ONE tooth??? Or that one tooth was much,
>much larger in size than the others??? Well, that's how you seem to handle
>"THE bishop."

THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE! It falls in line with what both Link and Jim Rutz have
suggested. And again, I think there is merit to your interpretation(s). But I
have enough experience in the way languages work that I do not fully trust
myself (or others from outside the linguistic loop of a time or area) when it
comes to such subtleties. When I see a native Greek speaker like Ignatius,
Polycarp, Justin, Ireneaus, Eusebius, etc.- with cultural insider's knowledge--
applying the definite article (not to mention the whole concept of
overseership) in a different way than I might, I pay them some heed. I don't
have to agree with them every time (I DON'T!), but I at least hear their input.

My personal approach to Church unity is to listen to *reasons* for certain
biblical interpretations. If any fits within the grammar and flow-of-thought
of a particular passage, yet it doesn't agree with *my* understanding of what
that section says, I "allow it to pass". I know I am not omniscient, so I make
room for differing views in the mix of biblical interpretation(s). You say TON
EPISKOPON means one thing in context. Makes sense to me. Ignatius and others
seem to apply the phrase differently, but from what I have studied of Jewish
thought-- and Eastern Christianity, by the way-- it makes sense too. What I do
then is simply move over and allow both views to sit next to me on the bench.
Neither is heretical. Neither is condemned anywhere in Scripture. So I just
say "yes," "yes" to both of you since no major doctrine of Scripture is in
danger. It is frustrating to some, I know, but at risk is a greater issue:
Christian unity (Eph. 4:3). And I can live with some ambiguity to achieve that
end.

>Can you name for me ONE historian, Mike, who attributes a body of
>equal-in-rank elder-bishops, to the teachings and practices of Ignatius? If
>you cannot, I am going to have to conclude that both of your feet are still
>firmly planted in mid air with respect to this matter.

No, I cannot name one because I would close the book as soon as I read him/her
say that. I've read Ignatius. For sure he saw a distinction between THE
bishop and the presbytery. That much has been clear as we have read his stuff
together on this thread. Right? But I was not using Ignatius to corroborate
an equal-in-rank view of things. I used him (and others from his time) to
demonstrate with what latitude these early guys understood the Pauline wording
of TON EPISKOPON. That's it. Care to join me as I soak my feet in a cloud?
It's big enough for another pair of "dogs". ;-)

>... you need, imo, to go beyond the didactic "requirement passages" in "the
>Pastorals" to the daily narratives and histories and admit to ntcp that there
>is NO NADA ZIP ZERO record of a church with ONE elder.

I freely admit this. But we then need to go beyond what simply *was* to what
may then be allowed. Is there any hint in "the Pastorals," the "daily
narratives," and/or the "histories" that plurality models are *binding*, or
that MONOEPISCOPACY is innately evil? Or even universally unwise?

We have two examples (one from the "Pastorals" and one from the
"narrative/histories" that early church leaders wore "cloaks" (HIMATION-- Act.
12:8, about Peter and PHELONES-- 2 Tim. 4:13, about Paul). Do we necessarily
have to make a binding requirement for Christian leaders to wear cloaks. Just
'cause they did in the Bible? Is there room for diverse cultural expressions
of clothing in different settings despite the scriptural examples provided?
Why not make some room for varying church polity since aspects of it are left
biblically *indefinite*? Such as the required number of overseers/elders.

Another illustration: drinking alcohol can lead to abuse. But is it altogether
forbidden in Scripture? Or is it permitted within certain parameters? The
*potential* for abuse does not across-the-board disqualify a practice.
Drunkenness and even alcoholism can result from imbibing. Does that
necessarily make drinking wrong? AUTOCRACY is an abusive extreme which can
result from a mono-bishop set-up. But does the abuse disqualify the practice
altogether? Don't just react. Consider. It is not wise to add rules to the
revelation. I am calling the members of this list to a responsible freedom (1
Cor. 8:9; Gal. 5:13; Jam. 2:12, 13; 1 Pet. 2:16; and indulge me in an
application of Col. 2:21).

>Here's the reason that a plurality of elders is ALWAYS addressed in the day by
>day scriptural accounts: older ones are/were in EVERY social setting to which
>the gospel went. Period.

Glad you're so certain, David. I guess there were some *big* sociological
changes that took place in the few years between the first and second
generations of those early congregations. Remember, Ignatius was the *2nd*
bishop of the Antioch church-- a congregation that was planted just a little
over a decade after Paul became a follower of Jesus (Act. 11:19-26).

>But it AIN'T' THE NORM.

I'm not arguing that MONOEPISCOPACY was (or should be) the norm. I'm arguing
that it is allowed.

>NO - a millions times no, my brother - EVERY-ALL-EACH christian
>elder/senior/older one is commanded, commissioned, charged to be a shepherd,
>overseer, and teacher.

But not on the same level as all others! Otherwise there would be no differing
requirements for "overseers" than for other functions within the Body. The
overseer(s) is enjoined to walk a straighter path than some older believers
who, because of certain choices or spiritual immaturity, are barred from church
servant-leadership (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1). But not from the Body. Or every other
ministry.

>YOUR plan REMOVES all but one from their God-ordained role in each church.
>THIS IS PRECISELY THE EFFECT OF IGNATIUS AND MANY OTHERS, NO DOUBT.

My plan? My plan is to follow Jesus according to the revelation of God's
divinely inspired word, through the unction of the Holy Spirit. That involves
premitting what is permitted and forbidding what is forbidden. (That by the way
is what "binding and loosing" means-- a Hebrew idiom). MONOEPISCOPACY does not
*necessarily* lead to what Stephanie has aptly called, "the silence of the
lambs". It can. It has. But there are instances where it has not. Many.
The fault was not in MONOEPISCOPACY itself, but with those individual overseers
who did not meet the requirements of leadership in 1 Tim. and Tit., or who once
did but later fell from the standard. Either way, the evil is in the *abuse*
of authority, not in MONOEPISCOPACY itself-- a distinction you need to make.

>You know, Mike, I am in the Teamsters Union. Guess how many checks the average
>retiree draws. 18. Many of these older guys have little or nothing to live for
>and feel useless and just take the downhill spiral. Many of these men are the
>unseen victims of your unreal theory of church polity which strips them of
>their purpose, duty, and dignity.

If they are Jesus' disciples, meet the requirements for overseership, and are
willing (1 Tim. 3:1), then put 'em to work. But that does not make a
scriptural case for *only* alowing a plurality polity model. 'Nuff said 'bout
dat.

Michael
Jerusalem

P.S. Linkus bar Hud, your Feb. 28 comments about 1 Tim. 3/Tit. 1, the
Ante-Nicene Church, and MONOEPISCOPACY kind of tell me you've been out of the
loop. Rather than re-hash AD NAUSEUM what no one on this list disputes (or
wants to read again!)-- that the testimony of the post-biblical writings at the
very least showed a strong tendency toward MONOEPISCOPACY (there were
exceptions though)-- I refer you to the NTCP archives for the primary texts.
The question was never what the non-canonical writings were saying, but whether
their evidence has any relevance in interpreting the inspired writings and
toward how Church polity may be done today. :-) CIAO.


------- <><><> -------


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:24:18 -0500
From: "Michael Gastin"
Subject: Re: [NTCP] RE: Confronting the evidence

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Deborah" To: Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002
8:10 AM
Subject: [NTCP] RE: Confronting the evidence

>The Bible condemns all evil. The Bible does not condemn MONOEPISCOPACY
>THEREFORE: MONOEPISCOPACY is not evil

Hey! Look at that! Aristotelian logic.

Sorry, but I studied that in college and never really had a chance to refer
back to it until now. For all the money I spent and the long hours too, I
figured I had to jump on the above comment just to feel a little better about
my college career.

Now, if brother Michael has mentioned BF Skinner and his black box, or if he
had rolled out some cognitive dissonance theory, I would have kept my mouth
shut, because that plays into modern society every day ... but Aristotelian
logic is another story.

hee hee!

Mike ~ ~ ~ ntcp info page: http://world-missions.org/planting ~ ~ ~

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:04:02 -0800
From: Dan Snyder
Subject: [NTCP] RE: Confronting the evidence

Dear Michael,

I hope I could encourage you to post one more time on the "bishop" thread.

I guess I still have one big question left over from the whole debate.

And that's why is the "mono-bishop" such a big thing with you?

Maybe to help me understand, could you share how the saints practice in the
place where you are? Is it a "one man" situation? Or do you have an extra-local
"bishop" who oversees your group and others?

I ask because I'm not really not sure why you're defending the "one man"
situation so strongly. I sense with you it's a BIG point.

Am I reading you wrong?

I can't tell if your interest in this matter is just academic (pick one side in
a debate and give it your all... kind of like a sport)... or is there some
practical application for where you're at right now?

But I do get the sense your heart may be tied to this matter.

Can you help me try to see why?

Thanks, bro.

Dan


------- <><><> -------


Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 13:46:24 -0500
From: "Samuel Buick"
Subject: Re: [NTCP] RE: Confronting the evidence is wearing a little thin now...

Hi Everyone!

As a member of this list I just want to say that:

1. This thread on 'bishops'is wearing thin to the point I don't even want to
check the emails anymore

2. I would like to suggest that those who desire to keep the thread alive to do
so off list.

3. It is hard to even begin another thread or threads when we keep harping back
to the merits/derision of the monoepiscopate

Please for those of us who are fed up with it... keep the debate off list and
let's re-focus on other things.

Thanks,

Sam


------- <><><> -------


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:10:43 -0800
From: Dan Snyder
Subject: [NTCP] wearing a little thin now...

Amen Sam.

I'll take your request as from the Lord :)

Sorry brothers, for my post keeping this thing going again this morning.

(Michael, I'd still like to learn what's really on your heart though concerning
the "bishop" matter... so how about emailing me privately).

Hallelujah for being balanced by the brothers!

Dan


------- <><><> -------


Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 04:14:28 -0500
From: forwarded
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Export Business

From: Link Hudson

For some reason I don't seem to have gotten your email until just now. I'm
getting ready to move from Indonesia.

What kind of importing are your friends wanting to do? My problem is I need to
find people on this end who are really wanting to import for ministry who have
actual experience. The problem here is quality control.

My monitor went out, so I have to do email off a laptop on the web. If there is
something very specific you'd like me to do for you on this before i go, maybe
I can try. I'm pressed for time, but if I can do soemthing to get the ball
rolling, I'd like to.

Link


End of New Testament Church Proliferation Digest V2 #51 < Previous Digest Next Digest >

house church eldership servanthood lord's day lord's supper world missions