|
|
|||||||
| Oh Lord, Where Do We Go From Here? Current and former members (and anyone in between!)... tell us what is on your mind and in your heart. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
03-03-2012, 02:59 PM
|
#1 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 62
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
I am not sure if you mean that the "solid evidence" you claim exists were the lists of requirements in the Bible or if you are referring to some other evidence. Which is it? If the former, I don't think the lists support the idea of a leadership training system. If the latter, what is the evidence? By the way, in the case of Matthias, they did pull his name out of a hat, so to speak: They drew lots. Since this was the first apostle that was not selected by Jesus, it may be significant. I have experienced "a church without official, trained and educated leadership." It was a kind of utopia for me. |
|
|
|
|
03-03-2012, 07:20 PM
|
#2 | |||
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,828
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Brudder John,
Of course I meant requirements in the Bible! That was clearly implied in the part of my post that you conveniently left out… Quote:
You take issue with the use of my term “system”. Again, I readily admitted that it was Quote:
Your reference to Matthias is quite irrelevant to my little diatribe about early church history. As you mention, Matthias was not chosen (much less trained or mentored) by the Lord Jesus, and he is not so much as mentioned in the Gospels. In any event, he does not come into play when it comes to the first generation of leadership in the Church. If you have information to the contrary, then I will stand corrected. (wouldn’t be the first time) Anywho…. All I was really trying to do was address the concerns of ToGodAlone in his original post: Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|||
|
|
|
|
03-07-2012, 02:03 PM
|
#3 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 62
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
I did not find a clear implication in your post #11. That is why I asked for clarification. As to what I quoted from your post, to which you took exception, I could have quoted the entire thing and still have had the same questions. There was nothing “conveniently left out,” as if I did it on purpose to mask your true presentation. You also seem to be bothered by my quoting the word, “system,” from your post. (Unfortunately, your reply about this word was cut off after “was.”) You ask me to choose a different word for you to use in your argument, which I don’t yet fully understand. (If you need a word, please try a thesaurus.) Then, you state that you don’t want to get into a war of semantics and liken that to what went on in the Local Church. This is a non sequitur for me. (And, just so I can get it all off my chest, I never expected the moderator to label me “a seasoned English teacher,” since I have never written such a thing on this forum.) In your next paragraph, you would brush away my reference to Matthias, saying that it is irrelevant because he was not chosen, trained, or mentored by Jesus. I thought that you were writing about a system that had been established by the “original apostles” about those who were being selected after the Lord’s earthly ministry. To me, Matthias qualifies and is relevant, being the first one selected; but, maybe you have a different group in mind. You also write, “In any event, he does not come into play when it comes to the first generation of leadership in the Church.” I would say that he was in the first generation although not among the originals. Now, this finer point really may be a matter of semantics; but, if I am to understand your idea, then it would require clarification on your part. I would say, however, that you don’t need to bother with further definition on my account, since this is not what I was really interested in anyway. As I hope you can see, I’m confused by what you originally wrote (the parameters of your thesis), as well as your follow-on post. When I read from you, “There is solid evidence that the original apostles had originated a system (for lack of a better term) of choosing, training and mentoring young men for leadership in the churches,” I thought that you might know something from somewhere that would help me understand more about what you claimed in that sentence. (This is what I was mostly interested in.) It seems from your response that you do not. In your reply, I detected an adversarial response and felt attacked. I did not intend for my post to make you feel attacked (if you did). I was simply trying to find out what you knew, that is, your claimed “solid evidence.” (Maybe I should have put a smiley face after my Matthias comment.) Regardless, now that I know the two lists of qualifications to Timothy are your evidence, and I don’t consider the lists to be evidence of what you seem to be claiming, notwithstanding your retreat behind “system,” I am content to end my part in this discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-03-2012, 07:58 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,828
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Opps, I think I left out the most important part of your post (at least to you and me, not nessesarily to ToGodAlone)
Quote:
A thing is not necessarily true because badly uttered, nor false because spoken magnificently.First by Augustine, then by UntoHim.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-2012, 02:09 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 62
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
By your reply, it seems to me that you might have thought that I was referring to the Local Church, the so-called Lord’s Recovery. Whoa, if that's what you thought, I'm sorry that I gave you that impression. First, I do not count my experience in the Local Church as a kind of utopia. I might have had such a thought at some point, especially during my early career there, when I was a new, young Christian. I was referring to my experience after the Local Church. As to where did it get us (whether you are talking about before, during, or after the Local Church), that is “above my pay grade.” In other words, I do not know God’s design and where He wants to take each one of us as we journey with Him. I learned a lot in the “Lord’s Recovery,” both positive and negative, which my heavenly Father is using as He sees fit. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2012, 09:42 AM
|
#6 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
Concerning Matthias, who replaced Judas, didn't he accompany the disciples from the time John was baptizing in the Jordan? He was with them longer than Jesus was, so to speak, and hence received much of the same first hand instruction as the other eleven. To imply that Matthias was somehow randomly selected is not fair the Biblical record. To stretch my point, history tells us that Matthias was more effective and upright in the house of God, than Judas ever was, and the Lord prayed all night long before appointing him. I'm not saying that any of LSM's training programs were extracted directly from scripture, but to imply that there is no hint of leadership training in the New Testament is also an extreme view. The bottom line is that what is taught is no better than he who teaches it. John, you have simply confirmed in your post that mature and principled men make the best leaders, regardless of their "spiritual" pedigree. This was exactly Paul's message to Timothy and Titus in his epistles to them.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-2012, 02:04 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 62
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 This took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks. - (Act 19:8-10 NASB) As you can read in context, even though Paul used Tyrannus’s school, he was not presenting training materials for the Christian leaders of tomorrow. He was not reasoning with the disciples (or some select group of novitiates). He was reasoning and persuading those who would listen about the kingdom of God. When the environment in the synagogue became not conducive to his discussions, he moved to a school building and continued, preaching the word of the Lord and reaching all in Asia. It sounds like these were gatherings with the purpose to bring people to salvation to me. As to Acts 28, I have chosen the following verses to highlight, as they seem to be the ones most relevant: 23 When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening. ... 30 And he stayed two full years in his own rented quarters and was welcoming all who came to him, 31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered. - (Act 28:23, 30-31 NASB) A similar analysis applies to this passage. Paul was preaching the gospel (if you will) in the place where he lodged. He preached and taught to all who would come and listen, thus furthering the kingdom of God. He was not carrying on a leadership training institute with some chosen believers. These are the facts according to the record as I read it. If you want to believe that Paul was carrying on some type of formal training for leaders on the side, you are free to do so. It is not, however, even implied in these verses as I read them. You are right that Matthias had been with the apostles as they were with the Lord—that was the objective criterion that put him into the pool for selection in the first place. I was not trying to describe the whole situation or cover up the truth. It’s there in the Bible for all to read. I was just replying with UntoHim’s phraseology, since it dawned on me that the first selection of an apostle after Jesus’s earthly ministry was finally determined by lot. I accurately depicted the end of the transaction, which was the part that applied to the phraseology. Of course, that was not all that happened, as if everyone in the room was given a slip of paper or whatever—men, women, and children. Maybe I assumed that readers would have read the account before and realize the obvious connection to UntoHim’s statement, not try to take it to a place where it was not intended to go. I resist your implication that I implied that he was “randomly selected.” To say such implies that it was merely a matter of chance, when those involved had prayed that their drawing of lots would be guided by God. However, then, according to the Bible, they did draw lots, and Matthias was the selection. As to your last paragraph, I have not stated a detailed position on the matter. Further, I hope that you are not ascribing to me one of the extreme positions that you have identified. What I have done so far is this: To UntoHim, I asked questions and stated that I didn’t think the lists of requirements in the Bible supported the idea of a leadership training system. To you, I think I have shown that the verses you brought up do not support such a thing. I don’t intend to go further with this at this time; since I am working on other writing projects. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-2012, 05:15 PM
|
#8 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
Quote:
I frankly don't understand your statements, "I do not see that Paul had schools with the purpose of training leaders. He was not reasoning with the disciples." How do we distinguish between the disciples and those who "would listen to about the kingdom of God"? I'm quite sure Paul would measure his words according to the audience, but I believe that Paul labored to pass on everything he knew, and all that he was, and all that he himself was doing for the Lord. In a nutshell, Paul was struggling to reproduce himself in the disciples at the school of Tyrannus, proven by the fruit after two years. John, perhaps our discussion here is simply one of semantics. I am in no way justifying "the stuff" that goes on at the FTTA or the Catholic monasteries of my youth, but I am saying that Paul took many opportunities to train future leaders. Paul trained Timothy and Titus to train future leaders. He told Timothy to lay these things before the brothers, (I Tm 4) charge and teach these things, being a pattern to them, etc. II Tim 2.2 repeats this charge, "and the things which you have heard from me through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, who will be competent to teach others also."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
||
|
|
|
|
04-08-2012, 02:54 PM
|
#9 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 62
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
Reasonings with bullets I am surprised by your second bullet about Acts 19, since that was not the case according to the way I read the passage. Further, since you make no point as to how any of the bullets would advance your view, I’ll leave you to turn your observations into support for a specific position, along with support from the Bible, if you desire. For example, this from you doesn’t say much: “Paul had opportunity for two years to develop the disciples.” Your observation of “opportunity” makes your statement virtually useless as far as providing proof goes, since it is merely something pulled from your imagination. He also had opportunity not to develop the disciples. You also state that “there are cases where Paul took opportunity to train leaders,” but you do not direct me to the proof. So far, then, I have nothing to go on except verses 8, 9, and 10 previously quoted. These verses do not indicate that Paul was training leaders. The verses indicate that Paul was reasoning with all who would listen, not the disciples. In fact, it does not make much sense to me that he would be reasoning with the disciples, the ones who already believed. Paul was at the school trying to make disciples of non-believers. I do not mean to imply that the disciples were not learning something from Paul; but, we do not even know for sure if the other disciples were focused on Paul’s dialogue with the unbelievers or if, instead, they were focused more on helping the non-believers toward salvation, one-on-one, much as in a salvation meeting conducted in some Christian circles today. Recapitulation Please note the whole context and the progression: Paul was reasoning and persuading the Jews in the synagogue in verse 8 about the kingdom. In verse 9, hardened troublemakers spoke against the Way to the point that he couldn’t continue. He then took the disciples to a school and reasoned daily with the ones who came to the school. According to my reading, the context doesn’t change from reasoning and persuading unbelieving Jews in verse 8 to reasoning with just the disciples in verse 9. Instead, Paul simply moved from one location to another and resumed his reasoning and persuading of unbelievers. Verse 10, then, tells us the result of his work with the unbelievers: Both Jews and Greeks throughout Asia heard the word. Since he had to leave the synagogue, where he could only speak to Jews, by the way, he was able, by going to a neutral site, to also reach the Gentiles. You mention that this went on daily and not just once a week as in the synagogue, as if this proves something (but you do not state what). I actually take it as furthering my perspective that Paul reached all in Asia, both Jews and Gentiles, with the word of the Lord, rather than just the disciples, as you suggest. It makes sense to me that it would take two years on a daily basis to reach that number of people. It seems to me that you are reading into the account what you want to be there; and, as I wrote before, you are free to do so if you like. (By the way, I don’t think that many of the professional leaders in the “pastoral system” would even agree that these verses support some kind of a seminary or leadership training institute or whatever else you would want to call it. I checked a few commentaries and found none agreeing that they supported the training of disciples.) You are the one to first ask, rhetorically, I believe, if Paul didn’t have “schools.” I hope that I have shown to your satisfaction that he did not, at least as far as the biblical record goes. By this explanation, I hope that you can at least understand my perspective. You ask how we can distinguish between disciples and unbelievers in the quoted passage. Actually, I don’t have to distinguish between them to support my view; you seem to feel the need to do it to support yours. I maintain that, according to the verses, Paul was only reasoning with and persuading the unbelievers, not the disciples. It does not make sense to me that he needed to reason with and persuade those who already believed. “Reason” and “persuade” are not words that I normally associate with a training program; they do apply to evangelism, however. Semantics plus You mention that we may have a problem with semantics. I don’t think it’s limited to that. I think that we have a problem with the original topic. As you might recall, what I objected to was this statement from UntoHim, which I thought was rather bold: “There is solid evidence that the original apostles had originated a system (for lack of a better term) of choosing, training and mentoring young men for leadership in the churches.” I asked for his support and got next to nothing from him. You joined in with some verses; but, as I have now shown twice, they do not support the proposition. To actually fully argue this topic, I think that someone would need to define terms and spell out in detail what the boundaries for discussion are. I do not intend to do that, since it would require more time than I want to invest in the topic (roles in the church) that I don’t feel at this time would be worth the effort. Since my first post, it seems to me that you have been trying to nudge me toward coming out for an extreme position, which I am still resisting. I believe what the Bible states; I do not believe some of your inferences from Acts. I see leaders in the Bible, but I don’t see much of what I’m calling the “ship”—at least any formalized leadership training program. It seems to me that you would like for me to say that Paul never taught anyone or mentored anyone. That would be absurd; however, that doesn’t mean that there was some sort of a formal system set up by Jesus that the apostles followed in order to make leaders. That is going beyond what the Bible has to say, in my opinion. He is able I believe that the Lord is fully capable of making a leader of anyone He chooses, whenever He chooses; and, that person doesn’t have to go through any formal educational system. The Lord looks on the heart, as he did with David. David did not sign up for Leadership 101. He had to tend sheep and do what his father told him to do. God has His own training program, and it may involve a “lion” and a “bear” rather than Hebrew and Greek syntax. We are all being trained by our true Master. In fact, many of us, if not most of us, are leaders already. Do we not teach children? Do we not lead families? Do we not shepherd others? In fact, aren’t these some of the requirements Paul gives to Timothy for overseers and deacons? And, by the way, there is no requirement in 1st Timothy 3 for either of these to have undergone a special training or mentoring curriculum to function in those ways. It’s a family matter Even though I’ve given you more to work with in this post, it is still not incumbent upon me to prove a case. I am still disproving, in this post, what UntoHim first claimed, as well as, I hope, proving that your verses do not support his claim. I look at this topic more as believers bringing unbelievers to the Lord and helping them on their way in Christ as time goes along. We all should be doing this kind of work, and we don’t need special qualifications to do so. I look at this as us all being in a big family together. And, this is a segue into a response to your 2nd Timothy 2:2 verse: The context established in chapter 1, verse 2, and in chapter 2, verse 1, is that Paul was a “father” to Timothy. As I’ve stated, I never said that Paul, or anyone else, for that matter, never taught anyone. Does 2nd Timothy 2:2 tell us that Paul had some special training program established for special people? In my opinion, no. Obviously, he taught people who taught others; this would be normal, especially in a familial relationship. From 2:2, you quoted this: “and the things which you have heard from me through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, who will be competent to teach others also.” What Timothy “heard from Paul,” he didn’t even actually hear from Paul; instead, it came through many witnesses. Also, it wasn’t a special training for a few; it was for the many. Apparently, it wasn’t even special enough for Paul to tell Timothy directly; Paul simply referred Timothy to what he had heard from other witnesses who had heard Paul. I don’t think this verse goes to supporting what I have understood so far of your position. In my opinion, the Bible does not directly support the status quo as we see it around us. I’m not saying that it’s wrong to go to seminary or to sit under someone who has been there. I’m just saying that the Bible doesn’t directly support it. In the end, it’s really Jesus we should be listening to. Someone having some letters after his or her name isn’t going to safeguard us from error. There were a number of folks with those credentials in the Local Church, and look where it got them (and, indirectly, us). The safeguard from error is not a better teacher with better credentials from a better institution; the safeguard is the Bible, His speaking within, and His servants, our brothers and sisters, without. Semantics again Now, as to one of our differences in semantics, you use the word “train” freely. Personally, I have a problem with that word, because of the associations that I make with it that I don’t think represent what was going on back in Jesus’s day. I first think of training as being something you do with a dog. Then, I think of it as classes that I have attended at work in which I am showed PowerPoint slides ad infinitum that the trainer reads to us. Training is, for me, akin to someone saying something like, “Here’s the job, and here’s how you do it.” It’s similar to being given instructions for how to make a pie and shown exactly how to make one. This may not be how you think of training, but these are my “rough-draft, free associations.” You have stated that you don’t go along with the FTTA or the training administered in earlier Catholic monasteries. I might classify those as more extreme religious training. What about the regular Living Stream Ministry Trainings, where each of the attendees had to fork over $50 and agree to give up their free will to the whim of the trainer? To me, the whole idea of training goes in the wrong direction. In a previous response, you wrote about your thought that “life” was an important consideration in the Bible. Why not carry this thought for Life over to this topic? Paul had a son in the faith; his name was Timothy. Paul wrote to him and passed on things he had learned that he thought would be helpful to Timothy as Timothy followed the Spirit. This would be only normal in a family, I would hope. To me, it doesn’t need to get any more complicated than that. (By the way, I re-read both letters to Timothy while writing this, looking for any formalized system or process of education for leaders. I saw Paul giving advice to his son in Christ, Timothy; I did not see any support for ye ole clergy-laity [or pastoral, if you prefer] system.) Hopefully, I have given you enough information about my perspective to satisfy you. Since I don’t really have the interest at this time to pursue it further, and it is too time consuming for me, as well, I will just sign off with this verse, which comes to me now and may be apropos: As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. (1 John 2:27, NASB)
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2012, 06:37 AM
|
#10 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
I am concerned, however, that the flavor of your extreme views mimics that of LSM. Your anti-training platform allows you to judge just about every Christian congregation and denomination on earth, the so-called "status quo." Also your statement here is a little frightful: "I believe that the Lord is fully capable of making a leader of anyone He chooses, whenever He chooses; and, that person doesn’t have to go through any formal educational system. The Lord looks on the heart, as he did with David. David did not sign up for Leadership 101." While no doubt true that He is able, it is exactly the same justification LSM used to exalt their own leader. Yikes! As far as using the word "train" and its variants,I will try to strike it from my vocabulary in lieu of the more scriptural terms "teach" and "disciple," except when referring to LSM. I have personally heard some brothers say that they felt they were treated as "dogs." While I was educated much at the LSM bi-annual trainings, and did have many wonderful experiences with God's children, I do admit that much of what I was taught was wrong, and sowed many seeds of leaven in my heart, which need to be constantly uprooted. Simply stated, LSM now uses its many "trainings" to indoctrinate, manipulate, and abuse its members for self-serving gains. Hopefully, I have also given you enough information about my perspective to satisfy you. Leadership training programs are neither endorsed nor prohibited by scripture. I am neither for them or against them. They are only as good as those who teach and those who learn. They can never be "THE way," as only Jesus is, yet can be "A way" used by the Spirit for the body of Christ.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2012, 07:30 AM
|
#11 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
Didn't we have a long discussion, I think it was on the other forum, concerning the training that David went through in 1Sam? I would just point out here, as a father that has raised three kids to play the violin, that this involves an arduous training process. My youngest has been playing for 2 years (it should have been 2 1/2 but he broke his arm). He is now at the point where he is considered "very talented" by his peers. He tells me he likes to "be good at something" and so now it is not difficult to motivate him anymore. But the first two years were much, much harder. David was an accomplished musician, composer, and writer of songs. The idea that was done without training is utter nonsense. If he was this disciplined with his musical studies do you (referring to John, not Ohio) really think he was that cavalier about his life? Sure, before playing before the KIng I'll practice, but fighting a giant like Goliath I'll just leave it in the hands of God? John let me ask you a couple of simple question, according to the record in 1Sam David cut off Goliath's head and then held it throughout the battle and was still holding it when Saul talked with him. It seems awkward to hold the head of a giant in one hand while fighting with the other. Also, I had always assumed that he grabbed the hair, but "Goliath was a man of war from his youth" and our soldiers today have crew cuts specifically so that you cannot grab their hair. If I was going to shoot a movie and cast Goliath I would have chosen Arnold Schwarzneggar and his war movies all have crew cuts. One other problem I had with the story, David's three oldest brothers were fighting, David is the youngest in the family, so there were several older brothers that could have been sent instead of him. From the story it was clear that the brothers knew he wanted to join the fight, surely the father knew as well. Why send David? Finally, the Bible has nothing but glowing things to say concerning Jesse, the father of David. Most notable to me is 1Sam 16:1-3, where it is quite obvious in a country of millions of people God, Jesse and Samuel are all on a first name basis. Why does God and the Bible give such reverence to Jesse if it isn't for the fact that everyone of his sons has the appearance of the Lord's anointed to Samuel? 1. So assuming that Goliath had a crew cut how did David hold his head and fight at the same time? 2. Why did he do it? 3. Why did his father send him to the battle field? 4. If Jesse is not revered for the way in which he raised his sons then why is he revered? Let me add a personal testimony here A number of years ago I wanted to know how to raise my kids and so I looked to the Bible for a positive role model for a father. Ultimately I chose Jesse because like me he appeared to be a single father, not rich, and all of his children were positive examples. As a result I decided that I would teach my kids violin even though at the time of the decision it was a financial hardship. I also decided to have them learn Karate and I home schooled them for several years (even though both me and my wife had full time jobs). The two oldest are very good at violin, they were black belts in Karate, they were both Valedictorians at their respective high schools, and one of them got a full scholarship to the top ranked engineering school in the country. I also learned a very interesting fact, less than 1% of NYC high school students say they play an instrument, yet more than 25% of the valedictorians say they play an instrument. If it is difficult today to include violin in my kids instructions, imagine how hard it must have been for Jesse. So you can argue that David wasn't "trained" but I find that funny since I used Jesse's training as an outline to raise my kids. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2012, 12:16 PM
|
#12 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 95
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
I realize that there are many flaws with the application of the elder/pastoral/deacon/whatever else system, but I think that stems out of the human sinful nature moreso than the system itself. Fact of the matter is, some people when gifted with power abuse it. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-2012, 02:10 PM
|
#13 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 62
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
Here’s how it was: We didn’t have a set form of meeting; we didn’t have an assigned speaker; we didn’t have any particular things we had to do. It embodied some of what I remembered having been told by Witness Lee about full participation by all the members but was never allowed to fully experience in Lee’s Recovery. We, in our small gathering, didn’t even mind periods of silence, if that was what happened. When Jane and I hosted the meetings at our house, we often didn’t set up chairs. We usually began by eating and drinking (physical food and drink) and talking in small groups. At some point, we often gravitated to a room around whatever fellowship had materialized. We would continue meeting as a whole group, being free to leave it, as sometimes happened in order to attend to the needs of a member. We might or might not sing a song aloud; we might or might not pray aloud, etc. We did not lean on songs as crutches, as often happens. You know, now it’s the Lord’s Table meeting, so we sing songs until we’re hoarse. My experience in those “no-human-leader” meetings was great; we depended on the One Leader, and He proved Himself to us. I learned that we could trust Him to lead the meetings. After experiencing a few of these meetings, I asked someone what they did about leadership. The very fact that I had to ask the question should help you to understand that no one stood out in that way. He replied something to this effect: “We decided at the outset that we would not have any recognized leaders. We determined to let the Holy Spirit have His way in our meetings.” There you go; that’s it; end of story. A few Christians simply decided to fully recognize the authority of God during their meetings, which is quite scriptural but probably not often practiced; and, it was the best experience of my Christian life. I can’t help but think that God was well-pleased also. As to outside the meetings, I can only say that no one took to themselves or was appointed to any position of leadership. The church managed to get along with just us regular brothers and sisters, along with our Elder Brother. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-2012, 05:10 PM
|
#14 | ||
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,828
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
Quote:
I think what’s interesting, at least in an ironical sense, is that ToGodAlone has gotten some answers to his original question posed in his opening posts by our back and forth here, and that’s a good thing since it’s his thread, and if we’re going to highjack his thread we should at least answer his question in the process.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
||
|
|
|
|
04-08-2012, 02:49 PM
|
#15 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 62
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
QUOTE from UntoHim in post #22:
Ok, I see that I did not make myself clear. With the little time I have I’ll try to make amends. The “something from somewhere” is the record of the early church as presented to us in Acts and in the writings of the apostles, mostly Paul and Peter. All through their writings we see clear indications that they themselves were taught and mentored by the Lord Jesus himself. It seems to me that part of this teaching and mentoring was to establish them as leaders in the early church, as well as to pass these leadership qualities (teaching, shepherding, administering, etc) on to a new generation of disciples. As I noted in my original post, I think the purity of this “dynamic” got corrupted by man, but it does not change the fact that there was clearly an establishment and training of leadership in the early church. If you feel that there is some sort of discontinuation of this establishment of leadership (maybe as some believe that there was a discontinuation of apostleship, the gifts, etc?) then maybe we can just agree to disagree on this. UntoHim, In a nutshell, your rework of the thesis is better than your first submission; however, I still have problems with it. I’m not suggesting that you try to improve it, though; since I’m not that interested in pursuing the details of this topic, which would probably be very time-consuming. Just so you’ll know, two glaring problems I have with your latest are these:
Se-Man-tics I certainly don’t want to go overboard with a discussion of semantics, since you stated previously that you didn’t want to discuss it in relation to the word, “system.” Hopefully, it won’t be too tiresome if I present just a little bit from my thoughts about words you have used that I find problematic. I will not bother much with the meaning of “training,” since you have dropped it from your latest thesis. Suffice it to say that it does have negative connotations for some of us, especially for any of us who attended Witness Lee Living Stream Ministry trainings and were coerced into giving over control of our free wills to him. Please note that, at least in my opinion, the word is not used much in Bible translations (KJV, NASB, or NIV) and doesn’t appear to me to be used in the way in which you tried to apply it. Next, when I read the word, “mentoring,” I automatically think of the business world where I work and someone older helping someone younger move upward in the pecking order. (I know that this is not the exact meaning of the word.) I’ve also heard the word applied to clubs in which someone older helps someone younger with life choices. One way to reduce these kinds of problems is to stick with words used in generally-accepted English translations, such as those noted above. (I don’t personally rely on the NIV, since it is more liberal than the NASB, for example, but used it for the purpose of this response to be as fair as I could.) A quick search for “mentor,” “mentored,” and “mentoring” in these versions did not turn up any hits. In my opinion, it is much safer to use the language in versions like the ones mentioned to say something like, “Jesus taught the disciples.” We should be able to agree on this. We can also write that others taught, such as Paul and Peter; and, in addition, we can say that we all teach at one time or another. Also, by using “teach,” we can avoid the whole theological discussion that could ensue over whether or not Jesus mentored anyone. In other words, the connotations associated with a mentor may not be what we should associate with God. This “ship” has not sailed I also have a problem when you build a “ship.” The whole idea of leadership has been carried to an extreme in today’s Christianity, in my opinion. It is one thing when Christ gives a person with a particular gift to the church; it is quite another when Christians decide to initiate and implement a program of leadership training. The last “regular” church that Jane and I were in instituted a leadership training program to be carried out in all the home meetings gathered under its aegis. It was at that point that she and I headed for the exit. As far as the word “leadership” being used in Bible translations goes, here are the results: I did not get a hit in the KJV; and, there was one instance of it in the NASB, but only in the Old Testament. The NIV had one instance in the New Testament, and it was about our friend, Matthias. (I used a different version of an online NIV and did uncover another “ship.”) I am not saying by any of this that the idea of leadership is not to be found anywhere in the Bible; however, I have not seen yet any established program of leadership training, such as what you seem to have indicated and such as one might find in today’s milieu of schools and seminars. It seems that many want to assume that such a thing existed because that’s what we see in Christianity today. Maybe it is there in the Bible, and I just haven’t seen it; or, maybe some are just reading it in where it doesn’t exist. Bantering attack Finally, I already wrote that I felt attacked by you (so I don’t know why you hoped that I didn’t feel so), and it had nothing to do with me being out of practice as you suggest. Also, I do not consider my postings to be bantering as you think of yours; mine are more serious to me than that. As you can see by this response and my two “papers” that I used to start other threads, it takes me quite awhile to address an idea. At this point, I still don’t think that the thesis has been described in enough specificity, along with specific references from the Bible, for us to be able to discuss it intelligently. I still have not staked out a position, although you probably have a better idea where I’m coming from by reading my posts. In my opinion, many of us humans want to figure out what kinds of church leaders we should have and then prepare some kind of training regimen to create such church leaders. I don’t believe that such a thing can be supported by the scriptures—at least in the more formal sense that I have understood you to have presented. As I’ve tried to let you know, I am not really interested in fleshing out the details of all the roles for people in the Bible and how they were carried forward (and it may not even be possible to do so). It should go without saying that Jesus taught his disciples and they in turn taught others. How else would the gospel go forward if no one taught? Everyone can be a teacher in this way, however. The problem comes in, I think, when we try to talk about positions in the church. What constitutes an apostle or a teacher and what, exactly, do those kinds of folks do? This is a topic that is open for debate; but, again, I don’t really want to debate it. I’m not that interested in those kinds of details and think that they cause more problems than they might solve. Finally, let me leave you with one of my favorite verses regarding this topic: Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. (Matt 23:10, NASB)
|
|
|
|
|
04-08-2012, 03:03 PM
|
#16 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
If you accept the definition of "to disciple" as being similar to "to train", then the 4 gospels are a record of the Lord's training of His trainees and then they conclude with the charge Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: (American Standard 1901 version) |
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2012, 10:44 AM
|
#17 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 95
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
Just a few things that were on my mind as I was reading that: Quote:
Another thing that I noticed was that you mentioned an Elder Brother. What do you mean by this? Was he just on the old side or was this a title representing something? Am I missing the point entirely on this (I very well could be)? It was just interesting that you singled out this Elder Brother from the rest if everyone was supposed to be on the same level. One last note, I have said that having appointed teachers is definitely scriptural. All the apostles were teachers. I'm pretty sure they taught and raised up many other teachers to spread the Gospel. If nothing else, I think that having a leader/speaker appointed just provides more structure to meetings. Not that I feel that that is 100% necessary, but it just helps facilitate things better, especially among larger groups. Now in the case of a small home setting, like the one you mentioned, then I can see how not having one would still be fine. In this case, the meeting feels more like a weekly Bible study than a Sunday service (usually considered different things in my experience), but I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with that. On the whole though, it seems as though your attraction to this group kind of stems from your LRC experience and wanting something similar in style to what you had there. Small settings, meeting in homes, everyone able to participate, and so on. Again, there is nothing wrong with these things and I say again these are all things that would go on in a typical weekly Bible study in the churches that I attend. God reveals Himself to us in many ways and I'm not going to glorify one more than the other, but I think that at times, having a pastor speak, being someone that has gone through intensive study of the Bible, its history, its original text, and having this be his calling from God, is more beneficial than having everyone else, who does not have such training and thus at times will lack certain insight, speak to each other. But again, both have their place and both are encouraged, and perhaps that is why most churches that I see have both practices in place. |
||
|
|
|
|
03-09-2012, 05:59 AM
|
#18 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,632
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
"In the last of these days God has spoken to us through His Son..." (Heb 1:2). God is no longer speaking to us through some oracular mouthpiece, but rather today is speaking through His Son. Looking for intermediaries is a waste of time. The age of intermediaries is over. Interesting that the LRC, with all of its decrying of the papal system, created a pretty good facsimile of its own.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2012, 08:49 AM
|
#19 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
Once we elevate man, we duplicate all of man's errors.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2012, 04:40 PM
|
#20 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,632
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2012, 12:26 PM
|
#21 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,562
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
See point #4. The decree "respecting the feeling of the body", is not a papal system, but it does promote a hierarchy. This is why I find non-LSM Christianity so much more appealing. Where a brother or sister aren't relegated to non-factors. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 1 Corinthians 12:21 |
|
|
|
|
|
04-08-2012, 02:59 PM
|
#22 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 62
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
I’m goin to preach’n The preceding post to you related my experience only—my testimony. This post gives my opinion about the current meeting situation in many or most Christian churches. If you are ensconced in what I’ll call a “regular church” (which I am intentionally not defining), this post might not be for you (or many others). Now, I’ll go to preach’n and, hopefully, not bother too much those who are satisfied in regular church congregations. God has placed everyone in the body as it has pleased Him; and, it is, of course, not up to me to judge what the Master has done. In addition, God can move people around whenever and wherever He likes. I am simply reporting to you what I have seen and heard about Christian meetings and am comparing them to what I have seen and heard about the meetings in 1st Corinthians 14. I simply believe, as the Bible indicates, that the Spirit, not clergy, should be in control of church meetings. 1st Corinthians 14 I am confining this presentation to church meetings rather than completely address the pastoral system about which you asked initially. For most Christians, however, church meetings constitute the lion’s share of their church experience and the venue in which the pastor is most visibly in control. When I wrote that I had experienced a kind of utopia, it was the no-human-leader, free meetings as previously described that I was thinking about. As to outside these meetings, as I have written, no one was appointed to any position of leadership. And, again, I repeat: The church I experienced just consisted of regular brothers and sisters who wanted to let the Lord have His way in guiding and building His church without defaulting to a gifted brother to exercise control. I would assume that most people in regular churches, when asked, would say that the Holy Spirit is the leader in their church meetings. In other words, our pastor prayed about what topic to present; our choir sang to us about the prayed-over topic; our pastor delivered the prayed-over sermon to us; and so forth. 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. Everyone knows who’s really in control; they just couch it in terms to make it somewhat palatable, meanwhile, it seems to me, either ignoring or explaining away what the Bible has to say about meeting participation by all whom the Spirit inspires. Please note that I wrote “fully recognize the authority of God during their meetings” in my previous post. The word you should focus on is “fully.” When I write that most Christians would say that the Spirit is the leader, I don’t mean it to be taken in a bad way. Christian leaders across America exercise varying levels of control in their meetings. If questioned in detail about their practices, most churchgoers would probably have to admit that the Spirit isn’t given all the room in their meetings. What we did in our no-human-leader meetings was to back off as much as we could and give the Spirit the most room we could to operate among the members. Local Church—no! The same type of talk about the Spirit being in control, I presume you know, has been stated by Local Church leaders regarding their meetings. Even though participation by all was encouraged in the early days and was probably more successful in that regard than in many Christian meetings, it still fell short of what we can read about in the Bible. In other words, Witness Lee taught us about it but didn’t actually allow us to do it—fully. In those early days of the Local Church, room was made in certain meetings for speaking from the heart rather than from a “Life-study,” my favorite being the testimonies at the conclusion of the Lord’s Table meeting. Later, this was eradicated. Even so, it still wasn’t usually a giving of the whole meeting to the Lord for His purpose and seeing what He would provide. When we did this in our no-human-leader meetings, it was amazing to me how the Lord would speak a coherent, unified message to us from multiple members. It was really a body ministry. This points to what I consider to be one of the problems with post Living Stream Ministry Local Church meetings that I have heard about or experienced. They, in effect, wind the clock back to a time when the Local Church was in its infancy in the United States. You can go to one of those and be reasonably satisfied if you don’t mind the controls, which are lesser than the controls in the Living Stream Ministry Local Churches, but controls nonetheless. A few brothers sit up front as the ones to follow; members may start songs, often along whatever line is put forward by a leader; a pre-selected brother gives a sermon for about 45 minutes; and people are free afterward to give testimonies along the line of the message with whatever little time might remain. It’s a proven formula. (We used to call it “the flow,” but even that was usually set beforehand by the leaders.) It may sound good when compared to the meetings that many Christians attend; but, it is short of what Paul wrote about to the Corinthians when he related how to have a meeting. When Paul wrote about meetings, he was obviously writing about meetings in which the Spirit was given authority to speak through the members on an up-to-the-moment basis. It was real-time speaking, not something planned and packaged ahead of time. Think about it: Before Paul wrote, the meetings in Corinth were out of control as members were “speaking in tongues” on top of each other. What was his solution? He prescribed an “order of worship” and set up some leader trained in how to have a meeting to be in charge of the meeting so that it would be decent and in order, right? Wrong. He did not do what we see around us today. What he basically wrote to them was that they should love one another (1 Cor 13) and take turns, making room for everyone to have an opportunity to participate in speaking in accord with the Spirit. Today, in most churches, the meeting has been scripted so that others have no opportunity to speak—in effect, putting a leash on the Holy Spirit. With God, it is possible I remember reading on the forum awhile back from a poster who wrote that it was not possible to have such a free church meeting, so we shouldn’t even bother to talk about it. Well, God has a verse for the impossible things with man. I, for one, know that it is possible because I’ve experienced it. It has also been written on the forum something to the effect that fully open meetings don’t work or don’t work well (or something like that) with large gatherings. My question would be this: Has the person tried it? My follow-on encouragement might be this: If the Bible description of a meeting really doesn’t work well with your large gathering, maybe you should try meeting with a smaller group. This is just a suggestion, of course; I am not trying to override whatever the Lord has directed you to do in regard to assembling with other Christians. My point is that what’s in the Bible does work! Even in Living Stream Ministry conferences, in the early days, after all the pre-arranged things were completed, when testimony time came, they were given freely, even with hundreds or even thousands in attendance. Please note that I am not referring to these conference meetings as being led by the Spirit; I am just noting that during the testimony time, everyone was free to stand up and share something. There was no chaos or disorder; it worked just fine. By the way, testimonies at that time were not controlled and scripted like they are today; so, theoretically, anything could have been said. If you doubt that a free meeting can work, get together with some others who are willing and give the no-human-leader meeting a try. I believe that the Lord will honor His word; I know that He did with us in our homes. Remember, no one is a leader except the Spirit; we are all just brothers and sisters in the Lord on an equal plane in the meetings of the church. There are no songs that have to be sung—except for His. There are no prayers that have to be prayed—except for His. There are no verses that have to be read—except for His. There are no messages that have to be given—except for His. There is no sequencing to follow—except for His. And, all of this comes through all the members of the body. If all Christians did this, I believe that the church at large would experience a renaissance. Imagine it: Meetings all around in which all Christians were looking to the Lord for direction, listening for Him to speak, and speaking up for Him (or singing or praying or whatever). What else? Okay, that is my free-flowing reaction to your post. Now, let me go back and see what else I might need to address from your post. About the Elder Brother, that has been explained somewhat by aron. Sorry, I sometimes assume that we all were in the same Witness Lee conferences and trainings. Jesus is our Elder Brother, and He is the One Who is worthy. All of the talk about leadership sometimes makes me think of the apostles who were arguing about who would get to sit on his right and left in His kingdom. I think He made it plain that none of us has any rank or privileges. Beginning with your “One last note” paragraph and going through the end, I don’t think that I find much to agree with. I state this with one caveat. I have not fully investigated all of the biblical roles and who does what to whom when and how. It is a really large subject with many details. For example, I am not sure that I agree that “having appointed teachers is definitely scriptural.” This is just one of the details. I do know that elders were selected from among the brothers in a place and then acknowledged by Paul. I don’t recall reading that teachers were appointed. You state that it’s scriptural, so maybe you wouldn’t mind sharing chapter and verse. Of lesson plans You write that “having a leader/speaker appointed just provides more structure to meetings,” and I agree with this; but, that is exactly my point. The description of a regular church meeting in 1st Corinthians 14 has no such appointment or structure. You compare the free meeting I described with Bible studies with which you are familiar. The Bible study meeting, I think, is something that much of mainline Christianity has adopted because of the lack in the regular “Sunday service” you mention. The so-called Bible study was and is a step forward toward participation by all the members; but, it is usually quite scripted, at least the ones that I have attended. The mere fact that it is called a Bible study limits the type of participation that is expected. For example, if the Lord wanted to have you pray for the entire hour (or sing or whatever), would that happen? Probably not because, since it is called a Bible study, people come prepared and expecting to study the Bible. My wife described to me a Bible study she went to in which every time that the Lord began to inspire the group to elaborate along the course of study, the leader would yank them back to the lesson plan so that they could finish the prescribed course of study before time expired. This, in effect, quenched the Spirit and made people afraid to share anything that might be considered off the mark of the lesson plan. No guesses, please Your guess as to why I liked the free meetings I described was completely wrong. The Local Church meetings were never like the no-human-leader meetings I described, even in the early days all the way back to 1967. Now, if you want to get all the way back to Bonnie Brae, then someone else would have to step forward, since I wasn’t there; however, since Witness Lee was there, that pretty much erases the idea of no human leader being in the meetings, although I’m told that he exhibited much more of a semblance of humility in those earliest days. Every Local Church meeting I was ever in was structured, and they became more structured over time. We humans have a tendency to look for security in structure rather than in the Lord Himself. Structure makes it easier. It means that there’s at least one less thing for which we have to depend on the Lord. In the Local Church meetings, a certain level of participation was allowed; but, all of the regular meetings were very structured, from the Sunday morning meeting to the service group meetings. I hope that I have made myself plain to you. I thought that my previous was plain, but you wrote it off as being about the same as the Bible studies you go to. I hope that this extra writing has let you know that what we were doing was not your garden-variety Bible study. Now, I have never been to your Bible studies, so I don’t really know what you normally experience. If you really think that it’s like what I’ve written about, I would suggest that you try a test: Propose to the attendees that they come to the next one with no plans whatsoever and just look to the Lord to provide everything. If someone has been “anointed” or accepted as the leader of the study, tell everyone that you would like to try having no human leader at all, that you want to depend solely on the Holy Spirit. If it is held in the home of the leader, move it so as to eliminate the assumption that the head of the house is the meeting leader by default. Read the verses in 1st Corinthians 14 and say that you’d like to have the next meeting along those lines. Then, come back here and describe to me what happened. If you’re already doing that (but it doesn’t sound to me like you are), I’m encouraged to hear that there are those in the United States who believe that what is in the Bible will work well today, that they are practicing meeting similar to what is presented in 1st Corinthians 14, and that they depending on the Spirit rather than on a human leader. Say it ain’t so As to your last paragraph, what to say: You think that at times having a pastor speak is more beneficial than having everyone else speak to each other. First, let me try to very briefly cover the bases: There is nothing wrong with listening to a “pastor” speak. I periodically listen to a TV pastor and appreciate it. You have written your last paragraph in such a way as to try to allow for both pastor-led Sunday meetings and participatory Bible studies in the same church environment. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that you grasped what I meant about having a Spirit-controlled meeting. You also made it plain to me that you appreciate the speaking of a pastor more than the other members of the body because of the pastor’s education (as well as his calling). By the way, you have assumed in writing that way that other members lack a biblical education. This was definitely not the case in the Local Church back in the day. Several whom I know about were graduates of bible colleges, former pastors, and former missionaries. (By the way, I know a Christian who has no formal religious education who periodically meets with formally-trained pastors and teaches them things that they don’t know about the Bible.) The knowledge of the Bible and the ability to teach do not only reside in a church’s pastor. To think such is to be in danger, in my opinion. Putting your trust in a pastor is how we former Local Churchers got in such trouble in the first place. Yes, it is true that Witness Lee didn’t have a formal seminary education, but that doesn’t mean that we can just go and accept what some other “pastor” says carte blanche. We need to be those who check out everything in the Word of God for ourselves. In other words, for me, the title a person has is not so important, and neither is his education. That doesn’t mean that I think I know everything or would refuse to listen to someone simply because he’s a pastor who has been trained in a system. But, to me, a “pastor” is just another member of the body and has no special status as being above others or more knowledgeable than others or more able than others. Within the church body at large is all the help we need; and, yes, that includes the pastor, but he is not on a pedestal and he is not above being called to account for his teaching—and he should be called to account whenever he deviates from God’s word or assumes, based on his training, that the Bible supports what it doesn’t. Hasta ToGodAlone, I hope I covered everything you asked about sufficiently. This went longer than I anticipated. I hope it helps you and is not too much preach’n (since I don’t think I’m a pastor). As I wrote earlier, I am working on other projects and am not prepared to, nor do I know that I want to, dive fully into a protracted discussion of roles in the church or what constitutes a biblical meeting. I have done some writing on the topic of church, but not about roles, and only a little about meetings. I will try to finish revising it and post it sometime soon, which you may find interesting. To all others, you are, of course, free to address my posts; just realize that I may not respond, at least at this time. I just felt inspired to do some preach’n once I got started with my answer to ToGodAlone. Oftentimes, I delete much of this kind of thing before posting as I work my way back through what I wrote initially; in this case, especially since it was fostered by my experience and accords with the Bible, as opposed to theory underwritten by “the system,” I have left it in, since it may be helpful to some who still have church questions post Local Church. In the end, we should mainly just want to get back to our first love—Jesus. Please do not be offended by my writing. I am not saying that the Lord does not speak through your pastor; I am not saying that the Lord does not operate within the bounds of the church meetings you attend; etc. I am simply relating some of my thoughts about Christian meetings, the Bible, and what I considered to be a little bit of utopia, a utopia that is sometimes represented to be impossible or impractical, yet one that is supported by scripture. |
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2012, 05:29 AM
|
#23 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
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.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2012, 06:51 AM
|
#24 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
Child is perfectly fine until he gets some new and improved vacc-shot, and you call it "anecdotal evidence." You wouldn't talk that way if it happened to your child.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2012, 07:00 AM
|
#25 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
So, the thread is "how has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon"? Which has brought us to a lengthy discussion of Christianity as the "religious" Babylon depicted in Revelation 17, complete with what sounded like a visit to a Catholic church. Then this last sentence with the analogy to autism kind of ties in the material Babylon in Revelation 18. I understand your term "anti-vaccine wackos" to be extremely derogatory and in apposition to the Bible hobbyists verses the "scholars" who have spent their lives studying the Bible. I think autism is a great analogy and really brings out the issues very well, I think your conclusion is completely and hopelessly flawed. There is a very clear and proven statistical link towards the odds of getting autism that proves, (without any dispute that I am aware of, even from "anti vaccine wackos") that this is a genetic disease (or diseases). On the other hand, there has been an epidemic of autism since the end of WWII. Epidemics can only be explained by environmental factors and cannot be explained "genetically". Looking for an environmental explanation is completely warranted by the facts. Explaining this away as "better screening" is absurd. If you have ever seen an autistic child, the idea that people 20, 30 and 40 years ago didn't recognize a problem is totally absurd. When the so called "pros" try to pass off bogus explanations that is when the hobbyists need to look elsewhere. Discover magazine had an excellent story on the state of the research on Autism in April of 2007. In that article they highlighted what many of the "hobbyists" had done in ignoring the "pros" and focusing on diet. As it turns out it seems that at least some of the genetic traits of Autism are linked to the gut (hence the title "the answer may lie in the gut not the head"). It seems some children are less able to fend of the effect of chemicals and pesticides floating around in our environment, this weakness is genetic, but the chemicals are environmental. So, getting back to this thread, when the "pros" drop their responsibility and are afraid to lay the blame where it obviously was (yes the disease is genetic but it is also clearly environmental) then you open the door for those less qualified but perhaps more motivated to find an answer to hypothesize. Worrying about vaccinations is reasonable and any health risks associated with over hyping the danger of vaccinations should be laid at the feet of the "experts" who covered up the environmental factors saying with smug certainty that this is a genetic disease. Likewise, if I have learned anything from the LRC it is not to allow anyone to spoon feed me their understanding of the Bible. MOTA, Quarantine, Ground of Oneness, take your pick. Many pros are merely hired to put the "spin" on any issue. That is obviously what "The Fermentation of the present rebellion" was. Am I a wacko because I don't accept RK and KR's spin (two Phd Experts)? |
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2012, 07:07 AM
|
#26 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
The mindset that "we must arrive at the optimal way to have church" is a mis-aiming.
The LRC equated having the perfect "church life" with satisfying God. But the Bible never puts a perfect church life forth as a goal. The goals the Bible puts forth are loving one another, holiness, growth, service, testimony. ("The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith." 1 Tim 1:5.) The church is simply an environment for these things to be worked out. How that looks has some flexibility. Paul emphasizes two things related to this, (1) everyone has gifts which should be utilized by them and respected by others, and (2) everyone can "prophesy" for the Lord in some way (which is related to 1). The LRC placed an unhealthy emphasis on "all can prophesy." To the point they believed the Lord could not build his church without the kind of open meetings they employed. As if 15-second, rapid-fire testimonies were the key to everything God wanted. Not to be rude, but that kind of mindset is just Duh. The bottom line, however, is that the perfect church life is not the goal. Endlessly seeking it, or seeking to define it, as a goal in itself, is a waste of time. |
|
|
|
|
04-10-2012, 08:53 AM
|
#27 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 95
|
Re: How has the LRC affected your view of "Babylon?"
Quote:
2) God can move in different types of meetings. Each person is free to go to the type that best helps him/her to grow to know Christ more. I like mine with a bit of structure and leadership...great, God will use that. You like yours to be free flowing...great, God will use that too. One should not be held in higher regard than the other. If there was "one true way" to meet that God wanted us all to do, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't think God is partial to our methods of doing certain things so long as they are done. 3) 1 Cor 14 is not the be all end all of how meetings should be held. If so, then all women should be kept silent.  That's more or less a summary of what I had before...it's a shame it has been lost, but there it is nonetheless. I hope you don't find anything I said as attacking or offensive as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
