Certainly not!

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Certainly not!

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

New Testament Teaching VS. The Traditions of Men (CH)
Re:

The Church not a Democracy
Date: 2001, Apr 24
From: RTC

A. Saints are silent and passive in the church meeting only if they are sleeping or have wandering thoughts. [read Richard Steel's Remedy for Wandering Thoughts in Worship]The fact that worshippers [and we are supposed to worship] attend to the Word as it is being read is worship. This is tantamount to God spaeking and it behoves us to engage our minds and heart and entire being to hearing God speak. This is not a passive activity. When the pastor lead in [public] pray, we pray actively with him and when we sing the psalms we sing them to His praise. ++When Paul talks about participation he was referring to 1 Cor 14:26, he wasn’t talking about mere brain-wave activity in the brain. A. The clergy-laity distinction is not helpful although there is a difference in ministration. Not all are called to preached and hence not gifted for it. ++On the contrary, all are called to preach (the gospel) and all are called to teach (one another in Christ), though some are gifted. And the point still stands that the clergy-laity distinction is unbiblical no matter how you justify it. A. The pastor is not the supreme haed of the church but Christ. He is but one of the elders of the church. ++Yet if asked to picture the church, the pastor ranks top on the org chart. In reality the pastor becomes the functional head whereas Christ becomes the nominal head (in name and theology only). And when people keep saying “ask the pastor”, “get pastor approval”, “the pastor decide”, that is enough to tell you who they think is in charge. 'Obey those who rule over you' [Heb.13:17] means there are those who rule and there are those who are ruled. ++Not true. That’s the typical ecclesiastical order that King James wanted the translators to preserve so that he could retain control over the church. The word rule over is never found in the original language. The superior-subordinate notion is alien to the NT church. A. We have to use some titles, as a mark of respect and because of courtesy. [Mr, Mrs. Dr etc]. ++In the secular world, maybe true. But in the church of Christ, that would be spiritual pride. Mr and Mrs are to signify gender and greeting to new people or strangers. But if one is obsessed with being called Mr and Mrs and Dr every time, then it is an ego problem. We need to ask ourselves, why can’t we address someone by name and drop the title in the church? Are the titles designed to elevate someone? What is the effect of putting a “REV” in front of a name? Is it biblical? Is it to distinguish the status of believers? Who is reverend except God? We have even the most reverend! If that is not usurping the prerogatives of God, then what is? The terms 'elder', 'deacon' or 'pastor' relate to the office and is not a title and should not be used as such. ++Elder denotes the maturity and dignity of an older person. It refers to the person, and not an office to be filled. Deacon and pastor are functions, not offices or titles. Sad to say, many attach them as prefixes to names, thus they are titles given to men. When Christ said we are not to call any man master, teacher or father etc, he could not have meant it literally. Othewise we would have to address them as 'a man who has authority over me' , 'the person whose job is to teach' and our 'male parent'. ++Jesus was referring to the use of religious titles. He was not prohibiting the recognition of biological relationships. He spoke in that context of people exalting themselves. Rather all in the church are brothers in relationship and servants in ministry. A. The preaching elder is the pastor' and is devoted to the ministry of preaching and pastoral duties. The ruling elders assist him in ruling the church. They are all equal and are concerned with spiritual matters. Deacons are to be concerned with temporal issues. ++The point is that the elevation of a pastor over the elders is non-biblical and forced. Pastoring is what elders do. All elders must be able to teach and preach, though some do it more. That signifies personal capacity, and does not indicate a dichotomy. Only Christ rules the church, leaders do not rule. They lead by example. A. The church is united in Christ and as the members attend to the means of grace, are built up. ++What is “means of grace”? Where did you get this idea from? A. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.[Rom.10:17]. The feedback the pastor gets is from his pastoral visitations. Christ never invited any to have a dialogue with Him. We never hear him say,"Let's discuss about my divinity today shall we? ++On the contrary, Christ used the interactive method of teaching most. He asked many questions and taught many through the Q&A method. We learn by asking questions and having them answered. The feedback you talk about is unlikely to be in existence. That there are 'polished' and 'professional' sermons we do not deny but there is nothing that men have not touched and not abuse. This does not invalidate the methods that God is pleased to bless. The foolishness of preaching seemed to be just that to those who decry preaching. ++Preaching is a term used for proclamation of the Gospel to unbelievers. Teaching is the term used for the strengthening of believers. We preach the gospel to unbelievers but we teach the Scriptures to believers. That was how the NT uses the terms. The sermon is a product of Greek rhetoric, and though God speaks through it (since He honors His Word), yet the Bible knows nothing of this kind of sermon. God does not speak to one man or a limited few who monopolises the stand by rotation via a monologue. Please read “To Preach or Not to Preach” available from SKS. A. Only lawfully ordained ministers of the gospel can administer the sacraments. ++Which part of Scriptures do you have to base this? A. We need to meet somewhere and a 'church' building would be most suitable to house a sizeable number. The building should be simple with just a pulpit and pews for the worshippers. The preacher has to speak from somewhere and the people has to sit somewhere. But the popish trimmings [stained-glass, organs, crosses, flowers, candles etc] we can do without. ++In fact, we can well do without the entire church building. Church meetings were designed to be held in a house setting where full participation can take place, including the Lord’s Supper in the context of a real meal. The early church had no pulpit or pews in rows. They did not practice lecturing the church. Theirs was a family gathering held in a family setting in a family atmosphere. It was informal and interactive. Teaching was spontaneous and not the domain of any one person, no matter how talented or gifted he is. The early church valued full participation in small numbers, unlike today where we value silence in meetings and participation only in the mind. That’s not the kind of participation the early church knew. We have departed from God’s way of building up the saints.