Quote:
Originally Posted by John
The problem for me is this: The pastor is in control, and there’s no room for the Spirit to speak freely through another during the meeting as described in 1st Corinthians 14. If something is revealed to another that sits by, no place is given for that person with fresh revelation to speak.
|
There was a lot in this post. And a lot that I somewhat agree with.
But, at some level, when I read the things that we (any of us, including the Assemblies of God where I was raised) think are positive admonitions of how to do things, I keep noting that my understanding of Paul's writings is that he almost never said anywhere that a meeting should follow a particular pattern. Instead, he put bounds on the things that he considered a problem. And in the case of the Corinthians, it took more than the five to six chapters (as we now break then down) that it took for any of the others. The church there was a mess. They were fighting over who was the best teachers. So, among other things, Paul knocked-down the status of the teachers and made them all servants. They were boasting in their love and tolerance by allowing an open sinner to be named among them, so he ordered that this one be cut off from fellowship until he repented. They were fighting over what were the best gifts and virtually all seeking to have the miraculous ones. Paul took the ranking away and said that all are needed and that, at some level, they needed to pay careful attention to those with what they might consider the lesser gifts.
Then he put a package on the whole thing (to that point) by stating that everything done needed to be out of love or it was nothing.
Then he moved to their meetings. From the nature of Paul's comments, it would seem that it was an open free-for-all. So he put bounds on it. He did not suggest that what he limited them to was "the way to meet." They had many speaking in tongues — limit it to two or three and then only if someone can interpret it for the rest. When he got to "prophesying," he said that there should be only two or three. I realize that there is some disagreement concerning whether the "all can prophesy" that follows closely means all of the two or three, or the whole assembly. But I have a hard time in the context of the whole of this book accepting that Paul was suggesting that if one of the two or three were speaking that if any random brother (or sister) suddenly cannot contain themselves and just pop-up to speak, that there was an intent that one of the designated two or three should consider their time up and sit down.
There was something wrong in where the Christianity of the 60s was. And no one knew what it was. So when something came along that had a more open and appealing texture, we presumed that the thing(s) that new way stood against must be it. We now read scripture with the intent to find evidence that we are, or were, right.
In an earlier post, you mentioned that UntoHim was presuming to say that there was a system of teaching and developing leaders revealed in scripture. But I think we miss that the whole of the gospels follows the very pattern used for generations in which a rabbi took on a small following of those who would learn from him and eventually also be rabbis. Jesus never spoke about it — positively or negatively. It is not specifically stated as what was going on. But it was not mystery to the Jews. It was commonplace.
And Jesus didn't tell everyone who came to him to follow along. He told many of them to stay and sin no more. And while what was eventually written down included much of what was said privately, that does not mean that it was/is intended for everyone in all circumstances. Jesus said some things to the crowds. And some to the growing group that followed him. And some to only a smaller group of maybe 70 or so. Then some only to the 12, and even after that only 3 or so heard everything.
We now often read scripture with a "there should be no leader" bias. But it was never stated that way. When Jesus said that those who would lead had to be a servant of all, he wasn't saying there would be no leaders, he was redefining the way that leadership was to act and behave. Rather than being rulers, they were to serve. Much like the shepherd metaphor so often used.
I cannot say that I do not find fault in any church. I find fault in all of them. But I could probably say the same about the best "there is no leader" home church that you can find. And if those are so great, why do so few of them continue for year after year? Could it be that the problem is not leaders, or followers, but people? We all come with our biases. With our opinions. And if we do not learn to discern between what matters and what does not, we will never be at peace with anyone else. There will be the church of the meat eaters that split off from the church of the vegetarian. Which will eventually split between those who want a "traditional" service and those who like the contemporary. Each of those to eventually split over some other nuance until they are eventually arguing over what exact words, if any, should be said for baptism or communion.
We are currently in a transition from one place to another. We can point to all the things about one that are superior to the other. And all the places where one is short and the other does it better. Our reason for the change mostly has to do with none of those. Overall, they are both excellent. But neither is perfect. But our son and daughter-in-law are at the new place. We attended a mass in San Antonio a week ago. Just happened by at the right time on Saturday evening. Very interesting. A strong word about works not saving you. That only the one-time sacrifice of Jesus could save and wash away sins. No, I will not be changing allegiance. Just saying that church is church, no matter how much you do or don't like the ways of a particular group.
And while never specifically stated, the NT is full of the teaching of leaders and the teaching of the people. To miss it is to prove that we are the laymen that we so despise. We do not know the context of the words. We think that we can read them in the context of the late 1900s and the early 2000s and it is entirely understood. We think that if it does not spell it out, it doesn't exist. But it does. The gospels are full of speaking on leadership. And on living the life. Both are present.
Don't miss it. Don't just parse the words. Read the story. You can't read Pride an Prejudice as if it were happening today. You have to understand the times. The times say as much as the words of the book. There is much on leadership in the NT. And they did not consider that it needed to be spelled out. But it seems as if for the few that are determined to "do it differently," maybe it needs to be spelled out. Why do we think that the majority of those who actually spend their lives studying scripture have it so wrong and only the few who do it as a hobby are right? We start to sound like those anti-vaccine wackos who note that autism set in near the time of a vaccination. Anecdotal evidence. But it has started a cottage industry of more wackos. And a school system with less protection from disease. There is a parallel.