'PROOF' AGAINST the "OUT-OF-CHURCH" REVOLUTION?

'PROOF' AGAINST the "OUT-OF-CHURCH" REVOLUTION?-by Andrew Strom.There was quite a strong reaction on our Forum to those who have criticized Barna's REVOLUTION book. We have quite a few "Out-of-church" people who defend Barna pretty vigorously. However, I am still not sure that the REAL issues have been faced.For instance, it is very easy to dismiss Sam Storms's criticismsby pointing out that when he says we should "obey and submit" to our Christian leaders (Heb 13), the real meaning of those wordsin the Greek is far less demanding. That is quite a well-knownargument and you will get no disagreement from me.The 'Out-of-church' people also point out that Sam Storms seemsto use the term "local church" to refer to the usual Sunday morningservice in a building with a steeple, and a pastor with a tie. Theysay that such a thing did not exist in the New Testament. (-In fact, nothing like it). And again, it is difficult to argue with them there. But I still do not think we are addressing the CORE ISSUE thatcritics like Sam Storms have raised.In a nutshell, it is simply this: That the New Testament does not know ANY Christianity apart from that which is lived out in closerelationship with a real 'Body' of believers. It is impossible to findANY Christianity except "BODY" Christianity in the Bible.Not only that, but there is a huge amount of evidence right throughthe New Testament that the elders and 5-fold ministries carriedquite a bit of AUTHORITY - and God expected them to use it. Infact, if we look closely at Acts and the rest of the NT, we findthat God did very little at all without LEADERS. Apostles, evangelists, elders, etc - they were all absolutely necessary - andthe believers of that time needed to respect and heed them - or the early church would have been simply unable to function. If we read Paul's writings about "ELDERS" and also his instructions to Timothy, we see how strongly the apostles placed an emphasis on good leadership. (-See 1 Tim 3).What does all this do to Barna's contention that it is "OK" to liveout a kind of 'Body-less' Christianity? -In my view it utterly destroysit. And what does it do to the concept of a Christianity "without real leaders"? -It annihilates it completely. There is simply no other conclusion that can be reached.Now please be aware that I am not opposing "house churches"in this. What I am really targeting is the "loner" mentality - theindividualistic "just-me-and-God" type of thinking that seems tobe encouraged in parts of Barna's book. I have been around these kinds of deeply 'Out-of-church' believers now for many years, andI have observed that because of their anti-'Body' and 'anti-leader' tendencies, often they cannot take part in real "church life" at all.And I know that I was exactly the same when I myself was 'Out-of-church'.So what conclusion am I coming to here? -Simply that the entire "loner" Out-of-church movement is utterly undone by these two New Testament facts:(1) That you must have a 'Body'.(2) That this Body must have 'real' leaders.Anything less is totally "anti" New Testament. Scripture shows usagain and again that it is simply impossible to have any REAL Christian expression in the earth without these two things. And thus the entire "Out-of-church" scene is totally without foundation. I know that sounds strong, but it is a fact that we need to face up to.I was an Out-of-church "loner" myself for a a number of years. Andfor 20 years now I have been around these kinds of people. I have observed that quite a few of them have serious hang-ups (just like I did) that will largely exclude them from true "Body life" - as well as true Revival. The reality is - they have a problem with 'Body' and they have a problem with 'leaders' - but usually they cannot admit thatthe problem is THEIRS. And thus, they tend to become trouble-makers. They can't seem to help themselves, and they do not realize that there are strongholds inside them that are causing many of these problems. Some of their complaints are valid, but others are caused by these strongholds. I was exactly the same myself, and all I can say is- Please "DEEPLY RENOUNCE" these strongholds until they are gone, my friends.Personally, I had to go through a massive overhaul in my life to even see what was wrong with me in the Out-of-church scene. It happened over a 3-day period in 1993. God led me into a timeof 'DEEPLY RENOUNCING' things like pride, rebellion, hurt,rejection, self-righteousness, a critical spirit, etc. The transformation was immediate and powerful. Suddenly I could see how much of my "God doesn't need leaders" theory had come from a place of 'REBELLION' within me. Much of my "anti-Body", anti-leaderrhetoric died that day - as I deeply RENOUNCED all of these strongholds out of my life. The glory and love of God flooded in! The only advice I can give to today's "loner" Christians is to get in a room with God and "RENOUNCE AND RENOUNCE" these things until they are gone. You will notice a huge transformation in everypart of your being. Seriously - DO IT TODAY. I was teaching on thistopic a few weeks ago and a young man experienced a tremendousbreakthrough the following week by 'DEEPLY RENOUNCING' things that had been causing him a lot of spiritual problems. Itdoes work and you need to do it today. It is like "expurging" themout of you - from the depths of your being in Jesus' name.In summary, I would like to come back to the main points we havediscussed here. There is inarguable evidence throughout the NewTestament that any expression of true Christianity needs these two things: A real 'BODY' - functioning as a Body, and real 'LEADERS' - functioning as leaders. Without these things, we haveno legitimate expression of Christianity at all. I believe these are undeniable facts. And they completely undermine many of the basic tenets of the Out-of-church "Revolution". -Arguments, anyone?God bless you all.Andrew Strom.

RobertW's "Andrew Strom" here is inarguable evidence throughout the New?Testament that any expression of true Christianity needs these ?two things: A real 'BODY' - functioning as a Body, and real ?'LEADERS' - functioning as leaders. Is this two things or one? Are the 'leaders' within the body or over it. We who love the KJV have bit of a legacy issue here.“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, KJVS) as opposed to...“Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” (Acts 20:28, NKJV) Can you see the vital change of preposition where the NKJV has corrected the KJV?

Hi Ron,I hoped this would be a wonderful place for you to help us sort out the usages of the word 'Church' and Bishop's, Elder's, etc. in the KJV as it is the primary used version in many places where I go and minister or hear ministry. The way the KJV has translated those words has a direct influence on the whole hierarchy thing in many organizations. I recall you referring to the influence of the government (the King, etc.) upon the beloved translation and that we should bear this in mind as we read. However, I wish I had a good rundown of exaclty where these 'translations' and word chioces are so I know when to consider them. Can you see the vital change of preposition where the NKJV has corrected the KJV?Yes. I like the change there and never noticed it before. "Over" is quite a leap from "among". Another reason I wished to share the article of Andrew's is that it seems to balance a lot of his other teachings that seem to challenge local churches in favor of the "Out of church" movement. His emphasis on the need for being a part of a 'body' of believers (however that plays out) is worth taking note, I think. I would have said some things differently, but hopefully it will serve as a good opportunity to explore authority terms in the KJV and their influence on organized churches and organizations.God Bless,-Robert

Robert's Andrew Strom The way the KJV has translated those words has a direct influence on the whole hierarchy thing in many organizations. I recall you referring to the influence of the government (the King, etc.) upon the beloved translation and that we should bear this in mind as we read.The verse I quoted showed how the KJV used the word 'over' while the NKJV uses the word 'among'. The Greek preposition is 'en' which normally means 'within' or if in a group 'among'. Under certain conditions used with the dative case it creates what is known as an 'instrumental use' and could then be translated by the word 'by'. But the main point is that it can never be translated 'over'. 'over' is the obsession with hierarchy and status quo which typfied King James I's, the J of KJV, specification for the committee which created the KJV. I will just illustrate from the history of this verse.Here is William Tyndale's translation of 1532"Take hede therfore vnto youre selves and to all the flocke wherof the holy goost hath made you oversears to rule the congregacion of God which he hath purchased with his bloud." Acts 20:28 TyndaleHere the 'whereof' really makes the 'elders' part of the flock. Following Tyndale came Miles Coverdale Take hede therfore vnto youre selues, and to all the flocke, amonge the which the holy goost hath set you to be Bishoppes, to fede the congregacion of God, which he hath purchaced thorow his owne bloude. Acts 20:28 Coverdale - 'among which' can't be bettered in my opinion.After a few others came the The Geneva Bible (1557-1560) which hasTake heede therefore vnto your selues, and to all the flocke, whereof the holy Ghost hath made you Ouerseers, to feede the Church of God, which hee hath purchased with that his owne blood. Acts 20:28The Geneva Bible has stuck pretty much to the Tyndale line of things. In the UK the Geneva Bible was not liked by the Anglican Church generally and a new version known as the The Bishops' Bible (1568-1572) was created Take heede therfore vnto your selues, and to all the flocke, ouer the which the holy ghost hath made you ouerseers, to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his owne blood. Acts 20:28 Bishops Bible This version was the work of Anglican Bishops and was where the rot set in and the Greek preposition 'en' was translated 'over'; there is no way that 'en' should ever be translated as 'over'. It is often said that Tyndale's version was the basis of the KJV; it was not. The basis of the KJV was the Bishop's Bible which never became popular with most ordinary readers who stuck with the Geneva Bible. The ordinary folk had rejected the Bishop's Bible and King James was quite determined to create an viable alternative to that 'hated Geneva version'. He really hated the Geneva Bible because of its marginal notes; These strongly Protestant notes so infuriated King James that he considered it "seditious" and made its ownership a felony. When the KJV was finally published King James banned any further printings of the Geneva Bible.When the KJV arrived in 1611 its translation maintained the hierarchical, status quo, insistences of James and reads ake heed therefore vnto your selues, & to all the flocke, ouer the which the holy Ghost hath made you ouerseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Acts 20:28 KJV1611 editionA selection of various modern versions follows:Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. Acts 20:28 NIV - reverting to the Tyndale phraseology.Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. Acts 20:28 ESVKeep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. Acts 20:28 NRSVPay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to be shepherds of God's church, which he acquired with his own blood. Acts 20:28 ISVI think we can trace the route pretty clearly through these different translations and this is one reason why, although I honour and prefer the KJV, I know that its witness in some areas is prejudiced.

IS 'LEADERSHIP' the PROBLEM??ANDREW STROM: As you can imagine, I got all sorts of replieson the 'OUT-OF-CHURCH' question overnight. One of the majorresponses that kept coming through was basically this: "Yes - weagree that there must be a real Body and real leaders. But wherein my area can I find such a thing? -I have looked and looked."For example, BETTY: "If, as you say, I MUST have a body, where in my little town is that body??? I would joyfully join it. My only option is the institutional church. What do you want me to do?"And also JIM: 'There are many of us who are "loners", but not by choice. I have been to many "churches" in my area looking for the things you mention and believe me, it is not there. Talk about apostasy, it is everywhere, along with a good deal of deception toboot. I would appreciate knowing where one might find the type of church that would make up a Body as described that I could get involved with. It certainly doesn't seem to be any of the mainstream churches, and I have tried many smaller unknown ones too, and been even more disappointed....' Several people also sent me a list of the types of leaders theyhave found in their area, and asked me which of these they shouldsit under? - (1) Non-Spirit-filled - no anointing, (2) Controlling, (3) Casual about sin in the congregation, (4) High-handed anddomineering, (5) Never preaches on repentance or holiness, (6) Word of Faith - Prosperity, (7) A lot of 'hype' but little love, (8) Preaches endlessly on 'money' and tithing, etc, etc.What am I supposed to say to these people? Are they exaggeratingthe scope of the problem? Is it really true that there are so fewGENUINE SHEPHERDS out there? Sadly, I can at least partiallybelieve it. "But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved withcompassion on them, because they fainted, and were scatteredabroad, as sheep having no shepherd" (Mt 9:36).What an awful, awful plight the Western church is in, if these things are true. But I do know that there are SOME good shepherds around. For instance, what about the pastor's conferences that David Wilkerson holds - who do you think attends those? -Thousands of leaders. So there is at least a remnant of good shepherds out there. But perhaps they are too few and far-between?One lady named CHRISTINE wrote to me:"There is only one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this debate of sorts, and that's the deficient "shepherds" and leaders who have been the primary reason many Christians are running away to begin with! If they would tune in with the Lord, perhaps there would be unity and the "Body of Christ" would be functioning as the New Testament COMMANDED.... I can't even find one Holy Spirit led church anywhere in my area. It's the same old saga every place you go. Man-made agendas, programs that bore you to sleep, obsession with money & growth, and who will boast the loudest this Sunday about their ministries & gifts from God? "This is the main reason things have come unglued. So many good saints are tired & crushed by lukewarm, compromising preachers and lack of order & accord in the body...We are hungry for the right order as the Lord ordained, but the leaders are out of order in MOST instances. Many of us have spent genuine time before the Lord, not making waves, trying to be obedient to leaders who are completely oblivious to the voice of the Lord... In many places there is corruption you wouldn't believe, and I was in four fellowships that were totally dismantled by the hand of God for similar reasons in the past 15 years. We want to obey and commit and follow the leaders earnestly, but given the choices we have, we are sick and tired of trying. I think the shepherds need to go back to Christianity 101 and start over. They need to repent and re-commit to Christ before attempting to tend the sick and scattering sheep. "You can't just blame the saints in this situation. You must ask yourself WHY? Why are the saints scattering, looking for greener pastures? Because like the book of Amos said in ch. 8, "There would be a famine in the land, one of hearing the word of the Lord." "Right now I know many, many, on hold because we are caughtbetween a rock and a hard place.We have no sense of belonging anywhere because of the intense hypocrisy and game playing... We want so much to please the Lord, and have NO problem submitting to leadership, but where are the men of God who aresupposed to LEAD THE SHEEP? I think someone needs to address them first. We are disgusted with dead shepherds & sermons. These people pleasing, non-offensive ministries are draining the life out of the saints.... Where's the Holy Spirit? Give us something to go to and be a part of... At this point, staying home is better, at least we can seek the Lord without any pretense. "Many of us have no intention of being deliberately rebellious. But who would want to sit in a dead service led by self-centered ministers who rub shoulders with others like them? If we could find a Holy Spirit motivated Pastor and flow as the New Testament church was intended to, we'd be there whenever the doors opened...We are not against assembling together as long as it's accordingto the Bible. "If I hear one more person say, "there is no perfect church", I think I'll scream! We aren't looking for a "perfect church." We are looking to find CHRIST in the center again, and to become more CHRIST-LIKE ourselves!!! "What are we supposed to be a part of? Cake sales, yard sales, watered down sermons, program after boring program, lectures about giving more money and "a form of godliness denying the power thereof?" This is happening all across the USA. The sheep are going to be only as good as the shepherd who leads them... If the leaders are playing games, what do you expect the sheep to do? Some may be content to follow the crowd, but the Lord has called others to Himself for a meaningful relationship with Him, and the local churches aren't hearing the marching orders of the Lord! The Lord does have a remnant who are seriously determined to follow Christ and obey!"ANDREW AGAIN: Certainly some profound and undeniable pointsmade above. So what can people do for 'Body-life' who are caughtin this situation? Well, if there really is nothing else, then perhaps the below post from our Forum may be of interest. It is really only a 'partial' solution, but it is certainly better than nothing! -Take a look:JEFF writes: "I have been "Out-of-Church" for some time now, and have been wanting to - and being led by the Lord to - have a house church in my home. Recently I found a local expression of the Body of Christ that is meeting in a home. Their entire purpose is to have a home church, and raise up the men to be leaders, so that eventually, THEIR home becomes a meeting place for a home church."While there is and are leaders, the emphasis is on each man bringing something to the meeting. Instead of just one man being the one who "brings the Word of the Lord". "Just after a few weeks after "assembling together" with this group, God had led other people to my family, and us to others, that will soon be assembling in my home. "The problem with sitting in a "traditional church"... is just that. Themen just SIT. The men are to be leading, or learning to, and exercising leadership. If they just passively SIT, they are not doing what God wants them to. In my opinion, they might as well be "Out-of-Church." "God does not want MEN to SIT. He wants them to Lead. He wants them to Lead their family, and He wants them to lead others to Christ. "One big church, with one man doing the leading, does not allow other men to grow into leadership. Small groups of men, (families) afford each man the opportunity to be obedient to the Scripture: 1 Cor 14:26- "How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation...." (-NKJV)."In our meetings, we always start off with a potluck dinner. Each one brings something to eat.. and there is plenty for everyone. The rest of the meeting is no different. Each man brings some spiritualfood to eat... and there is always plenty for everyone to be exhorted. "Remember the REASON for assembling is to EXHORT ONE ANOTHER. You go to bless them.. not to be blessed by them. This requires you to bring something to the Body of Christ. This has not changed since the time the Israelites were at the Mountain of the Lord after they came out of Egypt."I encourage each one who reads this, to consider either joining a home church in their area, or starting one...."ANDREW AGAIN: As I said, the above is still only a partialsolution, because it does not stop the splintering of the Bodyinto thousands of tiny pieces. But it is certainly much better than nothing.I am convinced that the lack of TRUE SHEPHERDS in manyparts of the church today is a CRISIS that God will not allow tocontinue. One way or another, He will find good shepherds forHis sheep. This state of things really is so terribly sad. Howgrieved God must be over it. And as He has often done in the past, I am convinced He is about to bring large-scale "CHANGE". -Thatis why the coming move of God must be a 'REFORMATION', notjust a 'Revival'. -Leadership really is a huge issue to Him.God bless you, my friends.Kindest regards in Christ,Andrew Strom.--To subscribe, send a "subscribe" email to- prophetic@revivalschool.comOR send *ANY* email to- anzac-subscribe@welovegod.orgTo unsubscribe, send ANY message to: anzac-unsubscribe@welovegod.orgTo send material for consideration for publication, send to-prophetic@revivalschool.comVISIT OUR SITES ON THE NET:REVIVAL SUPERSITE - http://www.revivalschool.comPROPHETIC SUPERSITE - http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~revival/index2.htmlMODERATOR:Andrew Strom,PO Box 9852,Kansas City,MO 64134,USA.

Dear brothers, i feel that if some of you cant find a spirit filled church or even if your church is dead and the preacher is preaching the message of wealth and humanism, Then your duty is clear..PRAY. Pray for your church , pray for the leaders and the pastor, Let all pride fall by the wayside and cry out for them. Find 1 or 2 people who love God, and begin to pray for revival in your church..we must stop complaing about the Gaps in our Church and start standing in them..Love Always

{Quote} RobertI am really targeting is the "loner" mentality - the individualistic "just-me-and-God" type of thinking that seems to be encouraged in parts of Barna's book. I have been around these kinds of deeply 'Out-of-church' believers now for many years, and I have observed that because of their anti-'Body' and 'anti-leader' tendencies, often they cannot take part in real "church life" at all.{Quote} Robert The reality is - they have a problem with 'Body' and they have a problem with 'leaders' - but usually they cannot admit that the problem is THEIRS. And thus, they tend to become trouble-makers. They can't seem to help themselves, and they do not realize that there are strongholds inside them that are causing many of these problems. Some of their complaints are valid, but others are caused by these strongholds.……………………………………………………………………………………………This kind of behavior some times goes on for years. Often people who come to the Lord grow to a certain place then something happens in the church that offends them and they leave all fellowship with believers and do the Lone Ranger thing. Just like the unbeliever who has the excuse not to give his or her life to Jesus, the person who is out of fellowship has the excuse that the churches aren’t perfect. The truth is, neither is the person who has left the fellowship with believers perfect.When a believer is out of fellowship with other believers, unless the believer meets up with someone who demonstrates Christ's love to that believer or a group of people that demonstrate Christ’s love to that believer, and that believer sees a person or group who have a real walk, they continue on this road of not fellowshipping with other believers. This path of no fellowship leads a believer to a place that he or she becomes spiritually void and has taken his or her self out of God’s service. Other than the fact that God sometimes uses donkeys to speak or rocks to cry out, the believer misses the intended use that the Lord has for him or her.Often it is the gifted or people that have been given vision that fall into this. People that God would normally be using in his service end up being used by the enemy to divide the brethren and dissemble with the lips. Instead of being able to walk in the peace that God intends for the Christian, he or she is walking in a path of contention all the time. I’ve seen this in many people and the terrible truth is, for fourteen years I walked this Lone Ranger path myself.It was so easy to see faults in others and not in myself. Why did I expect perfection in others, when if I would have been honest, didn’t find it in myself? Sure, I was self-righteous and did and did not do things that I should and shouldn’t have done, but was I perfect in everything I did and didn’t do? If I was having such a great walk with the Lord, why did I separate myself from the rest of the Church? Why didn't I pray for pastors and congregations that were having trouble? Why didn’t I try to help these pastors and congregations that were having trouble instead of cutting them to threads with the words of my mouth, if I was in fact more spiritual than they were? As Keith Daniels might say, "You liar"!!!!In Christ,GaryE.................................................As far as the excuse that people in church are hypocrites, I remember an evangelists in a church service saying that it is better to go to church with them than to go to hell with them. :-)

Hi Gary, just a note. Those quotes should be attributed to Andrew Strom not to Robert.

ANDREW AGAIN: I am convinced that the lack of TRUE SHEPHERDS in manyparts of the church today is a CRISIS that God will not allow tocontinue. One way or another, He will find good shepherds forHis sheep. This state of things really is so terribly sad. Howgrieved God must be over it. And as He has often done in the past, I am convinced He is about to bring large-scale "CHANGE". -Thatis why the coming move of God must be a 'REFORMATION', notjust a 'Revival'. -Leadership really is a huge issue to Him.God bless you, my friends.Kindest regards in Christ,Andrew Strom. I think Andrew's last response after hearing back from those who are "out of church" gives a full picture of the "whys".........and his final assessment of the state of many Shepherds out there, I believe, is correct. Many so called "mature" Christians are "out of church", not due to imperfections they see, or offenses they may have encountered, they are out of "church" because of Shepherds leading the sheep astray---pure and simple. The "outed ones" to not want to appear to others weaker in the faith or even unsaved neighbors as supporting what God has called "sin". Some seem to forget that one doesn't have to "be in the midst" in order to pray!I do believe Andrew after hearing all sides has come to valid conclusions-----there are problems on both sides of the fence and both sides have validity. Yes, there are "out of church Christians" who were easily offended by PERSONALITY, vision, methods of doing things, etc........and they got mad and left. Their leaving was not over the 'things of God', their leaving was for "SELF" and many times a rebellious heart, not wanting to submit.On the other hand, as Andrew now admits, Leadership many times has driven Godly Christians from Church. Many Shepherds have gone their own ways----many embracing or at least tolerating the sinful ways of the world and putting their stamp of approval on such things. Many are teaching a false gospel NOT leading to the repentance of sin, but allowing sinful man to stay sinful, yet still claim they are following Jesus. Oh, what a terrible and false image of Jesus many Shepherds are allowing the unsaved to see! Just my two cents. Blessings in Him, Cindy

Loveslave asks:Can the King James Version be properly and accurately converted into our english language without the Eliabethan style? I'm not sure what you are wanting here. The NKJV is an attempt to do just what you are asking, and others have tried in different ways. This thread is really not the place (I want to try to stick to the thread) for this topic but it has to do with translation philosophies (as well as the Greek family manuscripts which are the starting point of any new translation). The KJV was really Jacobean rather than Elisabethan and part of that grandeur which many enjoy in the KJV is really Jacobean. It is not part of the original 'style'. In fact the New Testament was written in what might be called 'Street Greek' or koinE meaning 'common'. For many centuries Bible students taught that some words which were not found in classical Greek were unique 'God word' which He had invented to communicate truth. About 150 years or so ago many of these words were found in ordinary commonplace manuscripts and it became very clear that Paul had not been using the academic language of classical Greek but what has been called market place Greek.I am not advocating The Message but at times the Message will capture a truth in the translation that I have found nowhere else. Words are ultimately defined by usage because language is a living thing and will not stay put. This is why some wonderful old Jacobean words have quite changed their meaning in modern usage.My own solution to this is to use a foundation text, in my case the KJV, and don't be afraid to see how other translators have handled it. Hope this helps. If not please start up another thread so that we can do justice to the original thread here.

I was re-reading this thread and wondered if what is really happening is that God is working on bringing the emphasis of the local churches back to body ministry. When I say body ministry I am referring to a change in the concept of what a church 'service' is supposed to be. For hundreds of years we have had one pulpit and many seats pointed towards that pulpit. This is indicative of our ecclesiastical theology. One man speaks and everyone else listens. I am not convinced that this is the New Testament model, and wonder if what is really needed is a return to a model that 'involves' everyone that comes into the meeting.How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. (I Corinthians 14:26)The first point I see that we need to addresse is the use of the term 'service'. In our parts it is common to describe what happens inside the church walls as "Sunday morning 'service'" or Sunday evening 'service'", "Youth 'service'" or "Midweek 'service'." Just what is a 'service' anyway? In the above passage we read the words 'come together' or as the writer to the Hebrews says: "Not 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" (Hebrews 10:25).In both of these passages I am hearing a different concept than what we know as a typical 'service'. Notice the passage in I Corinthians, "every one of you hath a psalm..." Does this mean that each person brings their own personal 'offering' to the Lord in the form of a psalm, song, or 'exhortation' for each gathering? Seems like it to me. Yet, this would be impossible in churches today because most of them are too large. Imagine a service where 200 songs were sung? Even todays 1 liners would be a tall order to pull off even if they were sung through just once (not to mention a 5 to 14 stanza hymn). This tells me that the concept of 'mega' churches militates against the early church model as it is too large to accomplish its purposes of mutual involvement or at least 'all attendees' participating. I believe this is one of the main reasons why folks don't spend more time in the word of God or seeking the Lord for that matter; because they simply feel like a spectator in the Body of Christ, because the only 'Body' involvement is in a church service watching everyone else. They are not in the routine of giving out from themselves as the Lord has given to them through their own relationship with God. To me, this inability to 'connect' and interact within the body is spiritually deadly. There are things that the Lord wants to share through folk that are never given an opportunity to 'minister', and to me its almost like we are isolating vital organs within the Body. It is like saying, "I have no need of thee" on a wholesale level. If we really believe that each member has its place in the Body then we need to ensure that those individuals are 'functioning'. How long could you live without kidney function or liver function?Can that happen in our modern definition of a 'service'? What is the common cop-out for folks not being involved like they should be? Many say that its enough just to contribute physical efforts in various ways (helps as it is often called). Will we assume that folks ministry in so-called 'helps' is all that the body needs from them? Are they not much more vital to the Body? Personally I don't buy that helping is enough as important as helping is, because everyone needs to be making 'spiritual' contributions to the body as well as waiting tables just as Stephen did. Too often I find people doing labor type things as if that were there spiritual contribution; maybe somehow it is, but I thing they also need to be seeking the Lord and sharing within the Body. It is like a refreshing of the lifeline into the Body to be used in that way (as we read in I Cor 14 and Hebrews 10) by the Holy Spirit. Any thoughts?

RobertW's This tells me that the concept of 'mega' churches militates against the early church model as it is too large to accomplish its purposes of mutual involvement or at least 'all attendees' participating. This is such an important point that I wanted to endorse it strongly. It easy to get into a 'we do it this way' lobbing contest but perhaps if we asked the questions what facilitates 'church' and what hinders 'church' it could be very profitable.I have kicked off a number of threads here at different times hoping we might touch on some of these things but they have usually gone astray or died through neglect. This is why I began the thread 'what is a church?'. The answer to that HAS to be more than 'meetings' but it must also include meetings.Robert mentions the impossibility of every 'one of you' of a mega church fulfilling Paul's expectation of events in the church at Corinth...“How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.” (1Cor. 14:26, NKJV) There is another verse which provokes me continually...“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.” (1Cor. 14:29-30, KJVS) I would like to suggest that this verse demands at least the possibility of 'eye contact' with every other member of the meeting. Try to imagine a scenario which would provide a context for this admonition. And yet Paul seems to have more than a 'part of the church' in mind when he says “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?” (1Cor. 14:23, KJVS)For all their deadly problems the letters to the 'church' at Corinth remains a haunting glimpse of 1st century 'church' life.

Hi Ron,For all their deadly problems the letters to the 'church' at Corinth remains a haunting glimpse of 1st century 'church' life.It seems to me that everyone was involved in their gatherings and at Corinth there was a tendency for everyone (maybe just some) to try to make their contribution to the service in such a way that it was getting out of control. In reaction to that or from the fear of that it seems that leaders in local churches today have gone to great lengths to keep a tight grip on the 'direction' of a meeting. I recall once being in church services in which people would sing songs to the congregation (we call this singing a 'special'). They would give a little exhortation before they sang as a kind of 'lead in' to the song itself. In time that practice was stopped, because the pastor felt that when they did that the service went off in 'this' direction or in 'that' direction and that he was more 'in tune' to lead in the direction God was going. It stopped a lot of rambling and sharp exhortations to the people, but it also SHUT DOWN the flow of the Holy Spirit (if I can say that loosely) and things have struggled to recover since, because they were stifled from sharing their heart with the body. THIS tells me that something has got to change in the whole philosophy of running modern meetings. What are we so worried about? That someone will say something we disagree with or will offend someone? Maybe they will say something and it be wrong or they missed what the Holy Spirit was really trying to do? Can we not operate in love so that when folks fall short we love them and guide them along? Maybe were worried about being embarassed? Maybe we are so preoccupied with 'decency' and 'order' until everything is scripted and structured until God can't move (or won't move). So what happens? We error on the side of caution week after week after week? And people spiritually dry up because they are not allowed to share what the Lord is doing in them and everyone in the local body suffers because of it.

Robert W's It seems to me that everyone was involved in their gatherings and at Corinth there was a tendency for everyone (maybe just some) to try to make their contribution to the service in such a way that it was getting out of control. In reaction to that or from the fear of that it seems that leaders in local churches today have gone to great lengths to keep a tight grip on the 'direction' of a meeting. I recall someone once saying that 1 Corinthians was written to bring abuse into right use. What is in stark contrast to much that is current there is no emphasis on 'the leader of the meeting'. There is no 'presiding elder' (in fact, no reference to elders at all in the Corinthian letters).In time that practice was stopped, because the pastor felt that when they did that the service went off in 'this' direction or in 'that' direction and that he was more 'in tune' to lead in the direction God was going.Perhaps the most difficult thing in the world is to believe that God can use someone else!

Hi Ron,Would it be safe to say that the 'leader' of the service could actually change from gathering to gathering as the Lord may decide to use 'someone else' and give them things to share or sort of use them in guiding the direction of the meeting? I am trying to come to terms with the role of 'elders' and the pastor for that matter in the local church. I think it would be advantageous to the thread to maybe shed light on it to sharpen and correct our understanding. Thanks,Robert

Here is a very good, very short article about Jesus being the Head of the Body. I particularly like the flash image at the top of the page. Although form is not my first concern it is a major problem. I fear our current western form of "church" (even where Truth is being preached)only leads to death. It is un-Scriptural and binds Jesus and the Holy Spirit.Jesus as Head

How would one change the type of meeting to the one we are alluding to? It would seem that you would just have to "start your own church" to do this. What is troubling is that if you were to ask a "leader" in a church why you do such and such, they probably wouldn't have a clue, let alone a chapter and verse.

Hi PreachParsley,What is troubling is that if you were to ask a "leader" in a church why you do such and such, they probably wouldn't have a clue, let alone a chapter and verse.I think what we have is a lot of tradition passed down from many centuries. It is the framework that has existed for a very long time. Unless one was forced outside the locel church to minister, it is this framework that near all the great ministers functioned within. Even then it was a 'speaker' and everyone facing and listening, etc. I don't want to mix all these things up, but I think it all just carried over from tradition and few relative to the whole know any different. I can say that prayer meetings I have been in have functioned very much like the NT model as I understand it. Everyone almost without exception was participating. To some it may have appeared to be a 'controlled explosion' of sorts, but for those there it was very organized and edifying as God was in control and not any one person.I think it also important to note that Finney has an excellent lecture on 'measures' for the promotion of religion here and audio here.

I think what we have is a lot of tradition passed down from many centuries. I agree. I must confess, when I think of "church" I think of a "service." If it wasn't a typical "service", in my mind it wasn't church, but a small group meeting or something. It's just been engrained in me to think this way. I know without a doubt that the church is a people, not a place. Really what we call "church" is (or should be) the church (the people) in a gathering together. I do see people lax when preparing for a "service." This seems to be because they are not the "speaker." And because they may not ever "speak" they feel no need to study to show themselves approved. What preacher can't confess that they pray and prepare more when they are the one preaching then when someone else is? How many honestly come to a meeting expecting God to speak through them other than the preacher? Not many.