New Testament Church Proliferation Digest

 

Spreading the Gospel via House Churches

 


New Testament Church Proliferation Digest Sunday, April 7 2002 Vol 02 : 068
[NTCP] re: query
Re: [NTCP] What is 'PREACHING'? - response from Sam
Re: [NTCP] What is 'PREACHING'?
Re: [NTCP] What is 'PREACHING'?

Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 21:29:56 -0500
From: forwarded
Subject: [NTCP] re: query


From: "Link"

Link in response to Michael Millier

>... it becomes obvious that I wasn't trying to use 1 Cor. 14:40 by itself as
>proof for traditional liturgy. Only that TAXIS counters a "spineless" meeting
>style, with no real organization. If that is true, and TAXIS means "an
>ordered or arranged sequence" (LOUW-NIDA LEXICON), then the whole of 1 Cor. 14
>lends itself better to some sort of liturgical backdrop rather than a
>"Quaker-esque" gathering because Paul demands an orderly unfolding of the
>church's meetings-- *especially* where spiritual utterances are employed. If
>some sort of liturgy (set order of service) were necessary back then,

When I read the passage,I suspect that the 'order' or 'taxis' Paul talks about
is, primarily, the order he describes in the passage. I one sitting by receives
a word while a prophet is speaking, the prophet is to yield the floor. This is
an aspect of 'order.' The passage doesn't mention anything about an elaborate
liturgy. Are we justified in reading the whole concept of a traditional liturgy
into the passage? I suspect it's a bit too much to think that Paul is invoking
the whole concept of liturgy by using the word 'taxis' even if the word is used
to refer to liturgical order in other contexts. The passage itself contains
instructions for a type of order that Paul may have had in mind. Is there any
other use of the word in the book to lend evidence to your conclusion?

>No, the "liturgy" he commanded was intended to keep the "spontaneous and
>Spirit-led" aspects of church meetings from degenerating into mayhem-- kind of
>like the stuff you are experiencing at your parents' church. Where's the beef?

I wouldn't say the church meeting was just 'mayhem.' It was extremely informal.
Israelites danced in temple worship. These people danced and did stuff during
their time of singing. I went back with my parents the next week. We don't have
our own car yet, and we will probably go with them for a while.

The 'sermon' was a little better the next week. I think the first week I went
the 'sermon' was just some comments the pastor made before prophetic ministry,
which they had scheduled for a long time.

Last week, the pastor shared about how the church needed to be more organic,
rather than an organization. He said the Lord showed him that He would go
through and destroy organizational church structure, or something along those
lines, in the time to come. A lot of what he was saying is the say stuff house
church people say. I emailed him some things about the meetings. I pointed out
some of the things in I Corinthians 14 and asked why 10 people in the front
prophesied, and asked if people in the congregation were free to give a word. I
Corinthians prescribes a different order for prophesying. ( I did this in a
non-confrontational, long message.)

The prophesying in that first meeting seemed to be on target. The words for my
wife and I seemed to go right along with what the Lord was doing in our lives,
and the ministries and callings we already had.

TC suggested we run from a church where the word isn't preached. I don't know
that the word isn't preached at that church. If some of the body parts there do
function in their gifts (some of them I've met before) they may have some good
teaching. The 'pastor' there now may be able to contribute a lot to the
congregation, but I don't think they will get a 'balanced diet' just off of his
teaching if every sermon is like the two he has given. But I don't think we
should expect that a church should get a 'balanced diet' from just one body
part. The church is made up of many parts, and we all need each other. Even
Paul, when he went out to do the work, didn't go out alone.

>I'm going to go through some of the same culture-shock
>when I return to the States (God willing) for a visit this June. I know. Just
>give me "the look" when you see I'm being too critical. Please. Look forward
>to seeing you (Link) there and meeting your wife. And child?

So it's a visit now? I thought you were moving here? Any plans for the
Philippine or India ministries?

>P.S. Regarding your (Link's) request for advice ("Legitimate church planting"
>thread, Apr. 1 post), I say that it is a *commandment* to "test" (Gk.
>DOKIMADZETE- imperative verb) prophetic words (1 Thes. 5:20, 21). What does
>that guy think he is saying? When the wicked Ahaz had doubts about a
>particular prophecy, God afforded him the opportunity to ask for a confirming
>sign (Isa. 7:3-14). How much more for someone who is not wicked, but only
>wanting to be affirmed. This would not be an act of unbelief on your part,
>Link. Ask in faith. And believe that God will confirm His will to you (Jam.
>1:5-8). He will not reproach you for it (Jam. 1:5). If God does not confirm
>that man's prophecy by an additional sign, then only "hold fast [to] what is
>good" (1 Thes. 5:21, i.e., disregard what that guy said). That is my advice.

That is an interesting approach to testing prophecy. Being the 'person of the
book' that you are, can you give me a specific example of someone who asked God
directly to give him a sign to confirm a prophet's word? The example you gave
is of Isaiah prophesying, and the king asking Isaiah to give him a sign from
the Lord. Do you have any evidence for a prophet giving a sign, and the person
asking God directly for a sign of the prophet's word? The prophet's integrity,
and the validity of his word, was tied up in the sign he gave. What is the
connection between the prophet's word, and me asking for a sign that does or
does not come to pass.

Once I did something similar. Someone gave me a word. I asked for a sign, that
if it were true that God would make lightening strike in a field in a certain
period of time. I didn't see any lightening. I can't remember if that was a
word that came to pass or didn't when the time period was up. I may have asked
for lightening to strike if the word was false, too. This method hasn't worked
so well for me.

The Jews read this and the passage where it says that if a prophet gives a sign
in the name of the Lord that does not come to pass, not to hear him. They would
demand that Christ gave them a sign. Jesus gave the sign of 'destroy this
temple and in three days I will raise it up' as a sign of his authority to
clean out the temple, and the 'sign of the prophet Jonah' when the Jews asked
Him for a sign. Both signs pointed to His resurrection.

Some are confused that Jesus would do miracles and then those who did not
believe in Him would ask for a sign. A sign can be a short-term prophecy, whose
fulfillment is given as evidence of another prophecy. For example, when Isaiah
predicted that Hezekiah would go up to the house of the Lord (which meant he
would live) the sign Isaiah gave was that the Lord would make the shadow move
backwards a certain amount. When the short term prophecy about the shadow was
fulfilled, it served as a sign for the longer-term prophecy.

Paul wrote that the Greeks sought after wisdom, and the Jews required a sign.
But unto them that believe, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

The Jews wanted wisdom. From what I've read, some Christian evangelists, say
around the 200's, encountered hecklers who asked inductive or deductive logical
answers of evangelists, trying to get them to prove their Gospel according to
their method of logic. The evangelists offered a Jewish method of proof--
witnesses. The Greeks thought this method of logic was 'wisdom.' But Christ was
made true wisdom to Christians.

The Jews sought a sign. I can just imagine Jews asking Paul in the synagogue to
predict some future event, call down fire from heaven, or perform some other
sign to prove his message. Paul probably pointed to witnesses of the
resurrection as evidence. Who knows whether he performed any signs? Jesus'
resurrection is the ultimate sign.

I have a question, did the Jews have a right to demand a sign from Christ or
from Paul? If they had been righteous would they have had a right?

The passage about the prophet who gives a false sign does not REQUIRE the
prophet to give a sign.

There is a passage in Exodus that is a little fuzzy in my mind right now, from
the burning bush passage. God gives Moses a sign he requests that the Lord
called him. After he led the children' of Israel out of Egypt, then he would
know that the Lord had sent him to do it-- something along those lines.

Anyway, I don't see where the Bible gives us a right to ask for a sign. Let's
say Christian X gives Christian Y a prophecy. Christian Y prays, without enough
faith, asking amiss, that if X's prophecy is true, for him (Y) to win the
Publisher's Clearing House 10 million dollar sweepstakes. Y doesn't win, so he
concludes that X's prophecy is false. Is this a fair conclusion?

The Bible explains some factors for when a prayer is answered. Here a few:

1. ask in faith. 2. Christ' word abides in us 3. not asking amiss, to consume
it on our lusts 4. asking according to God's will

Y not winning the 10 million dollars may not have anything to do with X's
prophecy. The Bible doesn't promise that God will answer our prayers if we ask
them as signs to confirm a prophet's words. It is possible that Y's prayer in
this scenario, is not answered because of some other factor besides X's
prophecy not being true.

Do you have any examples or teaching from scripture about this method of
testing prophecy?

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


Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 07:50:53 -0500
From: jferris
Subject: Re: [NTCP] What is 'PREACHING'? - response from Sam

Link wrote:

>In a large, mature, city level church, we should expect an evangelist, but in
>a church of a dozen people, are we guaranteed that God will make one person an
>evangelist?
>
Dear Link,

Good point. Where there is already a church in a city, what is happening in a
house is not "a church", but rather "the church" meeting in that house. This is
to say, "that portion of the city church that meets in that place." It is only
a part of "a church", not the whole or even "a whole".

But the point was "What is preaching?", and in another context I was recently
reminded of an observation from the past that I think should be part of the
mix:

The following email was written two years ago to a local pastor:

"Dear ________,

I haven't shared this with anyone else, in fact it is not even altogether
coherent in my own heart and mind yet, but I thought I might be able to give it
expression with you, in the hope that you might be able to understand, kind of,
woman to woman.

I could site a lot of Scripture as foundational to what I'm about to share, but
trusting that we are not at war, I would like to try to come at this thing
peacefully. In any case, a macho biker dude like yourself might just have to
fasten your seat belt.

In the letter to Nate, I talked about "the other words" of God. What God is
saying, but "in other words". Jesus shared with his disciples about their
having been made clean by the words that He had shared with them. Paul talks
about "the washing of water by the word". To come at people with Bible verses
is like coming at them with a sand blaster. It may be better than stoning, but
it is not as easy to take as washing with water. As I am beginning to
understand it, our responsibility, even hunger, in the Lord is to be so exposed
to the Scriptures, that they become liquid in our hearts, That they come out of
us "in other words", like a fountain of life, like a spring of living water,
like milk and honey, for others. Romans 1 has us without excuse if we don't
learn about our creator from what he has made, and, in the first instance, what
he has made is "male and female". Two simple words, seemingly obvious on the
face of it, but each containing a package of information, even revelation, that
the church has barely touched. The Scriptures, however, draw on their content
in many, and amazing ways. That's what I want to do now, not so much an
exposition of the Scripture but an expression of my own feeling, understood in
the light of the Biblical revelation.

I've been dry for a long time. I came to Golden Valley from an environment
where there were those who I had been feeding for many years. Feeding at a deep
and very intimate level. I wasn't here very long before, even my milk dried up.
I would like to share with you a little bit about that, you know, just one
mother to another. I never saw the process in this context before, but recently
my milk has come back in, and in such a copious amount that I have been forced
to finally understand some of the word pictures in the Scripture.

I don't know how it was around your house, perhaps before your own children
were weened, you were not even in a position to notice, but in my house, when
the children were still nursing, the minute they let out the slightest cry to
be fed, my wife would go off like a New York City fire boat. If I was in the
same room, and she was not covered, I would get wet. If she tried to take the
child to her breast too quickly, they would just about drown. Even after,
things would settle down some, there was need for periodic "burping".

If, in the midst of this wonderful early nurturing process, the babe is taken
away, perhaps due to a permanent loss, the first thing that happes is that the
breasts get engorged. Not properly relieved, this can be extremely painful. I'm
guessing this is what you might suffer, if something came between you and those
that you are feeding. But when everything is working right, a balance gets
established where the stimulation of milk production is just right for the
amount needed. As the babe matures, and there is none to take its place, the
milk finally dries up, and that phase of nurture is ended.

In and by the Spirit, we are heading into a land flowing with milk and honey,
some of that milk, by the grace of God, and the power of His Spirit, will be
flowing out of us, if The Lord is merciful, and we know He is.

God Bless you today!

Yours in Christ,

Jay

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


Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 21:23:12 EST
From: TheologusCrucis
Subject: Re: [NTCP] What is 'PREACHING'?

Sam,

Thought I'd reply to several points you had brought up in your most recent
post. This is a good thread! You wrote:

>>I would like to suggest that if Paul was true to himself and his
convictions he WOULD NOT have inflicted a Judaic form of teaching on the
Gentile converts.>In fact if Acts 17, and the dialogue at the Aeropagus is any
indication, Paul would have articulated to the Gentiles in a Gentile form and
structure, and not a Judaic one.>So, I personally cannot hold to the belief
that he would have inflicted the Gentiles with anything from the Midrash. The
dialogue at the Areopagus, although among philosophers and thinkers, reveal
that Paul used common Greek thought, and quoted from known Greek philosophers.
He won his hearers by using their own language and systems of thought. Perhaps
we could learn a lesson or two from Paul on that one!>>One of the strong points
of the house church movement that I've seen is just this aspect, the give and
take of dialogue in a teaching environment. I have to say that since I've been
involved in the whole house church thing, I've rarely heard someone preach.>And
you know what TC, I have gone to 'meetings' where I have been bored out of my
skull listening to a 'good sermon' and 'solid exegesis'. I felt like walking
out on more than one occassion. I have found benefit in those preaching
environments where the emphasis was on the practical and learning new ministry
tools. But, I have not really been edified, which is what the 'church
gathering' is supposed to be about! So, what are these meetings then,
'apostolic'? Perhaps. But that is for another discussion! :-)

>Most of our
preaching style today is based on the Greco-Roman style of rhetoric, of a
person trying to prove a point. Not exactly body participation is it?>>I think
there should be a definite distinction made between preaching and teaching.
They are two very different things.>They do not have to be different. In fact
some would argue that the five fold should be 'four fold' with the combination
of 'teacher/preacher' as one of the ministry gifts. I do believe that there are
differences between teaching and preaching, but not enough to say that they are
not the same gift. I think they are, and the context and situation dictates
how one preaches or teaches.>No, the kind of preaching that we need to recover
to go along with the Lord's table as part of a real meal deal, not the 'holy
snack' the institutional church has continually propagated, and the full
participation of not only what you call 'elders' and 'deacons' for you can have
legitimate church WITHOUT those 'offices'.>>

Sam, if these were not thought of an authority or leadership in the church why
the qualifications? You can have a church without these people -- they may
temporarily be gone, or the church may be in the middle of replacing or
searching for a person(s) to be these things. But a church isn't a church
without these people.>TC, how do you explain, (1) Paul's lack of appointing
these elders or deacons, and (2) his clear statement that we should not hastely
appoint them in the first place! The church is not the church because these
people are present! Paul established churches without them and they were
churches! So, maybe, just maybe, we, us, the 'leaders' need to take a reality
check and realize that for the church to be the church, we are not as necessary
as we think we are! Perhaps, the understanding should be that we yield to the
Spirit, and allow Him in His time to appoint the elders and deacons WHEN they
are needed!

....I think we need to read between the lines of the scripture narratives to
see and understand just how much under attack the church was from its very
inception. Paul passed on to Titus and Timothy the responsibility to appoint
the elders and deacons, but how and why they did it is just as important as
their existence. I am not debating the need for leadership. What I am bothered
by is in giving pre-eminence to such leadership that is not evident in the NT
passages. We give undue attention to leadership in the modern church. My
understanding by viewing the NT evidence is that these people were meant to be
involved in crisis intervention and not take over churches and be the head
honcho. In fact, Paul argued in Acts 20 with the elders and told them that
some of them would gather around themselves people from flock! Paul was already
revealing the danger of people taking this leadership gift and using it in the
wrong context. Should we not ourselves?

>I agree with you about the Lord's
Supper, but on adifferent account. I also believe that Communion is too often
"tacked on" to the service, and has been lacking to say the least!>I personally
think the central focus of the gathering should be 'communion', as our desire
is to focus on Christ and the life we have in Him, by giving Him pre-eminence
in all things. We gather in His Name, and we eat of Him and drink of Him.
Surely, the repast should be the central focus, and all else flow from that.
That is why the gatherings should be small and intimate. It is certainly more
real and tangible and vibrant.>>I agree with your contention about their being
appointed. My opinion is that preaching lays a foundation for teaching -- and
instead of some "altar call" at the end, why not a question and answer session?
There is a lot of room for flexibility here, Sam, so why not have a dialogue
after?

>TC, I have tried it both ways. I found that if I engaged the people in
an active dialogue from the start, that most people open up and dialogue. You
will always have a group of listeners who hardly talk, but they are absorbing
and thinking all the way through, and often one on one, you end up in a great
dialogue after the fact too! Some people try to dominate given the
opportunity, but if I am sensitive to where the discussion is going, even while
teaching/preaching I can redirect the discussion by encouraging others to join
in.

I must prefer the inter active dialogue DURING the preaching/teaching, than
after. One main reason. I may forget what I wanted to say if I have to wait to
the end. Also, where you read about Paul, the Greek term implies interaction
that interupted the speaker. I believe in these divine interruptions, for even
when we look at 1 Cor. 14: 26 ff., the person prophesying is to be silent when
another speaks. So interuptions and interactive discussion were incouraged in
my view in the NT gatherings.Sam,

Thought I'd reply to several points you had brought up in your most recent
post. This is a good thread! You wrote:

>>I would like to suggest that if Paul was true to himself and his convictions
he WOULD NOT have inflicted a Judaic form of teaching on the Gentile converts.

Why not? The Midrash was an excellent way to teach, one that would have been
second nature to Paul. Was it you, or someone else, that said that what we
practiced today was more of a Greco-Roman style of preaching that discouraged
participation? Is this what Paul did?

>>In fact if Acts 17, and the dialogue at the Aeropagus is any
indication, Paul would have articulated to the Gentiles in a Gentile form and
structure, and not a Judaic one.

I have just read the text in Acts 17, and I really don't understand you
allusion to the word "discussion." It seems to me that they ask him to enlarge
on what he had been arguing with the philosophers in the middle of town to a
civil occasion -- they asked him to give a discourse that he used to proclaim
Christ crucified and risen as judge before the city elders and citizens. What
dialogue?

>>So, I personally cannot hold to the belief that he would have inflicted the
>>Gentiles with anything from the Midrash. The dialogue at the Areopagus,
>>although among philosophers and thinkers, reveal that Paul used common Greek
>>thought, and quoted from known Greek philosophers. He won his hearers by
>>using their own language and systems of thought. Perhaps we could learn a
>>lesson or two from Paul on
that one!

I'm a little puzzled by how you view the Jewish method of Midrash. You seem to
have a negative view although it is what you would like to be involved in: a
participatory teaching technique.

I agree that we can use Paul as an example of how to proclaim the Gospel -- but
it was still thru the foolishness of preaching, i.e., one person speaking while
the rest listen that still happened, and must happen now.

I wrote:

>>One of the strong points of the house church movement that I've seen is just
>>this
aspect, the give and take of dialogue in a teaching environment. I have to say
that since I've been involved in the whole house church thing, I've rarely
heard someone preach.

You replied:

>>And you know what TC, I have gone to 'meetings' where I have been bored out
of my skull listening to a 'good sermon' and 'solid exegesis'. I felt like
walking out on more than one occassion. I have found benefit in those
preaching environments where the emphasis was on the practical and learning
new ministry tools. But, I have not really been edified, which is what the
'church gathering' is supposed to be about! So, what are these meetings then,
'apostolic'? Perhaps. But that is for another discussion! :-)

Remember my quote in my prior post. Preaching is using God's words, and is not
a neat, dry, and hermeneutically sound lecture with God as the subject! I know
exactly what you mean! That type of preaching doesn't get into anyone's
kitchen, as my grandfather used to say ;)

Ahh, yes. Here it was that you wrote:

>>Most of our preaching style today is based on the Greco-Roman style
of rhetoric, of a person trying to prove a point. Not exactly body
participation is it?

I replied:

>>I think there should be a definite distinction made between preaching and
teaching. They are two very different things.

To which you replied:

>>They do not have to be different. In fact some would argue that the five
fold should be 'four fold' with the combination of 'teacher/preacher' as one of
the ministry gifts. I do believe that there are differences between teaching
and preaching, but not enough to say that they are not the same gift. I think
they are, and the context and situation dictates how one preaches or teaches.

I believe they are different, and they are not the same gift. I believe that a
person can be gifted to do both, however. Just as not every pastor is an Elder
but every Elder is a pastor, so every gift is a teacher but not all are
preachers.

As to the Lord's table, you wrote:

>>No, the kind of preaching that we need to recover to go along with the
Lord's table as part of a real meal deal, not the 'holy snack' the
institutional church has continually propagated, and the full participation of
not only what you call 'elders' and 'deacons' for you can have legitimate
church WITHOUT those 'offices'.

I replied:

>>Sam, if these were not thought of an authority or leadership in the church
why the qualifications? You can have a church without these people -- they may
temporarily be gone, or the church may be in the middle of replacing or
searching for a person(s) to be these things. But a church isn't a church
without these people.

To which you responded:

>>TC, how do you explain, (1) Paul's lack of appointing these elders or
deacons, and (2) his clear statement that we should not hastely appoint them in
the first place! The church is not the church because these people are
present! Paul established churches without them and they were churches! So,
maybe, just maybe, we, us, the 'leaders' need to take a reality check and
realize that for the church to be the church, we are not as necessary as we
think we are! Perhaps, the understanding should be that we yield to the
Spirit, and allow Him in His time to appoint the elders and deacons WHEN they
are needed!

....I think we need to read between the lines of the scripture narratives to
see and understand just how much under attack the church was from its very
inception. Paul passed on to Titus and Timothy the responsibility to appoint
the elders and deacons, but how and why they did it is just as important as
their existence. I am not debating the need for leadership. What I am bothered
by is in giving pre-eminence to such leadership that is not evident in the NT
passages. We give undue attention to leadership in the modern church. My
understanding by viewing the NT evidence is that these people were meant to be
involved in crisis intervention and not take over churches and be the head
honcho. In fact, Paul argued in Acts 20 with the elders and told them that
some of them would gather around themselves people from flock! Paul was already
revealing the danger of people taking this leadership gift and using it in the
wrong context. Should we not ourselves?

I would say that he was following his own advice: new converts should not be
leaders in the church. And yes, they were churches. Yet I believe that it
wasn't Paul's intentions to leave them leaderless! He did return, and he did
then appoint Elder and Deacons. It isn't "we leaders" who make us important, it
is the Scriptures that describe the necessity of these people. True, there have
been those who have taken advantage. But let's face it -- a people who should
have been steeped in the Word let it happen.

And this is just an aside: Most of Paul's letters are to correct errors in
doctrine and to discipline behavior unacceptable to the elect -- which probably
happened because the Elder(s) and Deacon(s) hadn't been appointed yet, as it is
their job to "have a strong and steadfast belief in the trustworthy message he
was taught; then he will be able to encourage others with right teaching and
show those who oppose it where they are wrong (Titus 1:9 NLT)." I've noticed a
lot of house church groups in the same boat, Sam; they desperately need a
"Elder(s)/pastor(s)" to shepherd them in God's direction.

I wrote:

>>I agree with you about the Lord's Supper, but on adifferent account. I also
>>believe that Communion is too often "tacked on"
to the service, and has been lacking to say the least!

You wrote:

>>I personally think the central focus of the gathering should be 'communion',
as our desire is to focus on Christ and the life we have in Him, by giving Him
pre-eminence in all things. We gather in His Name, and we eat of Him and drink
of Him. Surely, the repast should be the central focus, and all else flow from
that. That is why the gatherings should be small and intimate. It is
certainly more real and tangible and vibrant.


My idea is different. Communion, IMHO, isn't about us per say, but is about the
renewal of the New Testament, the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant -- it is
the assembly called out to be judged and to be justified by God in His mercy
and grace thru Christ's death a resurrection. It is our shared faith in the
message, and not our response or it's impact in our lives that unifies the
assembly.

That is why I believe the preaching of the Gospel, and not just to unbelievers,
is so important! We need someone outside of ourselves telling us that this
really isn't to good to be true, that a righteous and Holy God has justified
sinners!

I wrote:

>>I agree with your contention about their being appointed. My opinion is
that preaching lays a foundation for teaching -- and instead of some "altar
call" at the end, why not a question and answer session? There is a lot of room
for flexibility here, Sam, so why not have a dialogue after?

To which you responded:

>>TC, I have tried it both ways. I found that if I engaged the people in an
active dialogue from the start, that most people open up and dialogue. You
will always have a group of listeners who hardly talk, but they are absorbing
and thinking all the way through, and often one on one, you end up in a great
dialogue after the fact too! Some people try to dominate given the
opportunity, but if I am sensitive to where the discussion is going, even while
teaching/preaching I can redirect the discussion by encouraging others to join
in.

I must prefer the inter active dialogue DURING the preaching/teaching, than
after. One main reason. I may forget what I wanted to say if I have to wait to
the end. Also, where you read about Paul, the Greek term implies interaction
that interupted the speaker. I believe in these divine interruptions, for even
when we look at 1 Cor. 14: 26 ff., the person prophesying is to be silent when
another speaks. So interuptions and interactive discussion were incouraged in
my view in the NT gatherings.

I dunno, Sam, I still say preaching is by definition a monologue: God speaking
to the Body. Personally, I hate to interrupt or be interrupted. I think what
you are describing is you being a very, very, good teacher:o)! But like I say,
this is my opinion. I would never dream of trying to bind anyone else to my
interpretation of Scripture. This is only for your consideration and is not me
trying to change how you do things or judge how you do things!

I pray God's blessings to you and yours, Sam.

TC

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


Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 17:19:15 EDT
From: TheologusCrucis
Subject: Re: [NTCP] What is 'PREACHING'?

Nathan,

Howdy! Sorry for the delay in replying to your post.

You wrote:

>>From what I can tell, Paul used preaching as a means to reach the unsaved
population, not during gatherings with other believers. Do we really need
preaching in our gatherings or just teaching??Nathan,

Howdy! Sorry for the delay in replying to your post.

You wrote:

>>From what I can tell, Paul used preaching as a means to reach the unsaved
>>population, not during gatherings with other believers. Do we really need
>>preaching in our gatherings or just teaching??

I think we need both -- yet in discipleship there is more teaching than
preaching.

I believe, and this is just my opinion, that the meeting on the Lord's day was
different from the meetings on the rest of the week days. I believe the
Apostles loosely followed the Jewish synagogue liturgy, and on the Lord's day
they preached, celebrated the Lord's Supper, and had the prayers. On the other
days they met in houses and were taught and discipled, which also included the
Lord's Supper and prayers.

So, yes, once a week I think that one of the folks God has gifted to preach and
encourage and equip the Body should stand up and proclaim the Gospel yet
again...

TC


End of New Testament Church Proliferation Digest V2 #68 < Previous Digest Next Digest >



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