Agora Messageboard now functions as a quorum. Please click
to join as a member. We want to hear from you... A query that needs an answer,
a word to uplift the people, a statement of concern that needs prayer, a cry
for help...
God bless you...
Previous Messageboard have been archived.
Answers 
church in Jurong West vicinity 
City Harvest (Liz R.)
Sorry, City Harvest is not Traditional Church, Lolz...eom (Emmanuel)
The true City (Ivan)
Impressive (RTC)
What great feats of men to turn the wasteland into a holy masterpiece sanctuary of God! (Ivan)
All praise to a great God who rewards those with great faith (and also gives grace to those with mustard-seed faith) (Keith)
You are probably thinking (RTC)
what i think (Keith)
Similarities? (RTC)
let's forget about ourselves and magnify the Lord and worship Him... (Keith)
|
three questions: 1. do all cellgroups (from different churches) share the same underlying paradigm? ++Undoubtedly yes. The paradigm is not unlike that of modern corporations. It is the paradigm of institutions. If we again draw a line below, with the NT organic (house) church on one end of the spectrum and the full blown IBM corporation, I think it won’t be too difficult to place where the majority of churches lie. In terms of operations, structure, chain of command, protocol, many churches would lie towards the right side of the line. And here’s a secret, if you are in a full blown mega-cell church, you do not lie in the middle, you are at the extreme right end. Organic Church _____________________________ Institutional Church 2. are all cellgroups run in the same way? ++What do you think? Maybe not all cell groups adopt the 4Ws. But I think, barring some exceptional meetings, most meetings take place with a time of songs, Bible Study led by the leader, prayer. There may not be a fixed time allocated to each aspect but still there is the usual one and a half to two hour limit. I’ve led CGs for years and have been member also for years. It looks the same everywhere. It is a 2 hour meeting led by the leader. Mutual ministry is slightly more than the Sunday Service but never the type that 1 Cor 14:26. In short, the meetings of 1 Cor 14:26 do not take place in the cellgroups, or they are but a pale reflection, no matter how ardent supporters claim they do. Or maybe some will accuse me of just talking about my own experience. Well, then perhaps they can tell me how different theirs is. 3. it is impossible to have cellgroups that truly model the house churches in NT? ++If you can show me a cellgroup that is a truly a house church, I can show you then that this cell group is not a cell group. It will be a house church meeting as a church, outside organised Christianity. i believe that we both share the same understanding of the definition of corporate worship. as opposed to personal worship, corporate worship involves a group of people. it doesn't matter whether the group is less than a dozen or more than a thousand. ++OK. But I will still contend that the early church knows nothing of a worship service consisting of hundreds of people, not to say thousands. To them, mutual-participation is the order of the day. Everyone participates. That there is a passive audience with a few active in front is a foreign and unthinkable arrangement for them. it's the joy of witnessing a multitude of people of different background, age, and race praising and worshipping our Lord under the same roof. that is not to say that i don't like worshipping in a smaller group. fact is, i enjoy worshipping as a cellgroup also. ++I’m sure it is an impressive thing. I have felt the same way before. I know that feeling of being in something big, perhaps that is the feeling when nonbelievers feel in a big concert by a popular singer. But when I look at this phenomenon in the context of the NT, I do not find any basis for it. So no matter how much I like that or feel good in such a context, I must in good conscience give way to the NT expression of small intimate meetings. YOU: ++That's understandable. So what were some of the changes noted before and after the change from home to building? ME: there are certainly changes. some may be perceived as positive, and others, negative. but frankly, i would say i see more good than bad. ++Like? YOU: ++How would you assess your statement with reference to the NT who did it all without the church buildings? ME: as i said earlier, it doesn't matter to me whether the objectives are met in a church building (like how it's commonly being done now) or in a house (like in the NT times). ++Let’s see and analyse further. Probably some of the common objectives for church buildings are: 1) can accommodate many people 2) can hear the pastor preach 3) have a nice corporate worship 4) nonbelievers can be invited to come and be evangelised (come and hear my pastor preach mentality) None of the above reasons can be readily supported with Scriptures, except maybe reason 4. In fact, none of the above reasons give a biblical picture of what a church is. Then let’s see what NT objectives the church building fail to achieve: 1) There’s no participation from the congregation as described in 1 Cor 14:26 (that’s enough to indict church buildings!) 2) It doesn’t breed intimacy and relationship 3) It does not promote a family atmosphere with the formality of the service Then let’s see what house church can achieve: 1) open-participatory meetings 2) nonbelievers can still come in 3) intimacy is fostered with informality 4) reinforces the idea of church as household 5) evangelism as something every believer does outside the meetings (everyone go and preach mentality) 6) encourages hospitality 7) Money raised can be channeled directly to needs rather than overheads Maybe others may agree or disagree with my assessment. FYI, I was born and bred in the IC for many, many years. I know what I am talking about. As I look at the above, I realise how better the ways of God are. i agree it is important to look to the Scripture. but where it is not explicitly taught as a principle or a guideline, i wouldn't insist on strict adherence to a "pattern" that has been derived from the narratives of the text. ++Unless you can demonstrate that the pattern has no impact at all on the spiritual principle behind it, I don’t believe you can rightfully say that. For example, the way the early church taught one another was through interaction. Jesus taught His disciples through questions and answers. The same with Paul when he was teaching the church, or even when preaching the Gospel. Yet today the Greek method of rhetoric is highly used, with pastors teaching in a one-way format week in and week out. Questions are not entertained except in a cell group but then the pastor is not there to answer questions! No wonder many complained about a lack of knowledge in God’s Word in churches today. I am not advocating a do or die strict conformity “let’s replicate everything in the NT” mentality. I am using persuasion and reasoning, not issuing commands or death threats. I am telling you that we depart from the NT practices to our own peril and disadvantage. I am saying that we should depart from the arrogance of the 21st century we-are-smarter-now mentality that looks upon the NT practices as outmoded or arcane, belittling those who seeks the simple ways of the first century church as “living in the old-fashioned past”. Like the OT, the NT was written for our instruction and serve as examples for us. I believe the statements “church in the house of…” was not repeated often to give sanction to the modern idea of the cell-church system, but to tell us the very essence of the what the church is like, the household of God. the 'how' is important. but the 'why' is much more important. i'm quite flexible about how/where a worship service is conducted. but i will not compromise when it comes to why we gather for worship. ++Very often the “why is more important than how” reasoning is used to dispense totally with the how, or to seriously undermine it, so as to keep the status quo. I hope that's not the case here. I do not believe we can have one without the other, and yet do justice to both things. The “how to” can affect how well you do the “why”. |
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page