I was wondering why many RM churches have one man who is the 'pastor' who preaches a sermon.

The 'commands of God' in I Corinthians 14 about how to have church meetings don't say anything about coming to church to hear one man preach a sermon. The members of the congregation took turns sharing with the congregation: psalms, teachings, tongues, interpretations, and revelations.

The verses that tell us to go to church, hebrews 10:24-25, tell us to go to church and' exhort one another' not to go and be exhorted by one man.

Paul told the Ephesian elders to 'pastor the flock of God.' Peter also told the elders to 'pastor the lfock of God.' The Greek verb form for 'pastor' is translated as 'feed' or 'tend' in the KJV. The word 'pastors' is translated as plain ol' 'shepherds' elsewhere in the Bible. Why do people read the idea of 'clergy' into the word 'pastors' in Ephesians 4:11? Why do some churches have a professional 'pastor' as separate and above the elders in many respects?

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000

Answers

Link....

I prophesy............that would be a waste of everyone's time!

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Link.....

To John's answer......DITTOS!!!!

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

Link...

Your responses on the Holy Spirit were so good and then you had to go and post this. Come on. What about the examples of all the sermons by the apostles in Acts (i.e., Paul preaching and almost killing a man by putting him to sleep)? In the assemblies we see in the NT, one thing is very clear that great liberty (within the confines of common sense) is given to each autonomous congregation.

Too bad your ecclesiology isn't as good as your pneumatology.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000

I've heard some of our elders speak. Believe me, we are THANKFUL for our pastor!

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000

I put a question mark on 'sermons unblical?' so as not to commit my self. In the proper context, a sermon is not unbiblical. Jesus preached the 'sermon on the mount.'

Generally, the Greek words translated as 'preach' in the Bible refer to evangelistic preaching. We think of 'preaching' as occuring in church, but back then, preaching was something done ot unbelievers, and meetings for believers were geared toward the edification of Christians.

If you really study that passage about Paul teaching all night, you'll see he wasn't preaching a traditional sermon. Traditional sermons are non-interactive. One of the Greek words there for teach (v. 6 or 7) refers to having a discussion. It is the Greek word we get 'dialogye' from. Teaching in the first century was not only a matter of lecturing- that was one technique. Other methods were more interactive.

Of course, from I Corinthians 14, we know that the believers did not go to church and hear only one leader talk. Members of the congregation would contribute teachings, psalms, tongues, interpretations, and revelations.

Unfortunately, not only does the way we divide responsibilities leave pastors overburdened, but it also makes believers weak and not develop.

Remember at the end of Herbews 5 , where the author writes that he felt that his readers should be teachers by that time- not just a small percentage of them, but the people he wrote the epistle to. But they were immature, on milk and not meat. Strong meat belongs to them who are full age, even to them who by reason of use have their senses excercised to discern both good and evil.

So many believers rarely give their spiritual senses or gifts for that matter, any exercise. If they are not faithful to use these gifts as scripture commands (I Peter 4, for examle) then do they expect to be given more? God gives more to those who are faithful. He that can be trusted with little can be trusted with much. If, in our meetings, one could stand and teach something really short, he might grow in his gift. As it is now, if someone wants to teach in a public setting, he usually ahs to take a whole Sunday school class or teach for 30 minutes in front of the church. That doesn't allow a lot of room for growth.

Of course, if a pastor teaches for years and years he will 'exercise' his ability to teach.

If an elder cannot teach at all, why is he an elder? He should be 'apt to teach.'

Of course, Paul was even considered 'rude in speech' perhaps because he didn't teach the type of sermons that seminary students are now taught to give- the three point sermon. back in Paul's day, the Greeks would give three point speeches with an intro and conclusion. This tradition of rhetoric was passed down from Aristotle. Paul's writings aren't even organized this way. But it was a pattern Greek philosophers and orators would have been familiar with.

We inherited the three point sermon from the Greeks, not from the Bible. Not that there is anything wrong with this way of organizing ideas. We just need to realize it should not be consdiered sacred tradition.

Sometimes an elder who is not as used to it as a professional may speak. He may have good things to say, and actually be teaching, but may be 'rude in speach.' Maybe if he were to teach more, he would get better.

The Bible doesn't tell us to go to church and hear a speech every week. It says that 'For ye may all prophesy, one by one' among other things. Where is the hymn sandwich, with the sermon in the middle, in the Bible? Where does the Bible say that church meetings should center around one person giving an uninterupted sermon? Why si this such a strong tradition?

Link

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2000

They can teach just fine ... they're just boring to listen to LOL

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000

Link,

I always found interesting the case made for sermons. They cite Paul and the apostles doing that. Well, each case they cite is always either clearly 1) a guest speaker-type situation or 2) the establishment of a church (a church birthing period). I welcome correction if I have missed a sermon that doesnt' fit in one of these two categories yet can be used as an example for us to follow today. And yet, I Cor 14 and Hebrews 10:24-25 would seem to indicate fuller participation by all members in a church which has reached some stage of maturity.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000

Actually, I am being unfair. Two of our elders are actually very good public speakers.

Currently we are seeking a new pastor and I did make the suggestion that, since we are having a severe budget crisis, if we TRULY wished to be follow the New Testament pattern, the elders and teachers should take up the task of delivering the Sunday message. Well, you can guess how far that idea went. *sigh* It's not easy being a visionary.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 2000

Why don't you present I Corinthians 14 and Hebrews 10:24-25 and suggest that you all take turns speaking in the meeting instead of having one sermon. Maybe you could go over a passage of scriputreevery week, read it out, and let others stand share what they have studied during the week, or stand and sing a solo, or prophesy, etc.

Going over a chapter a week might give a better Bible education than the selective scripture hopping some preachers do.

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

The biggest problem I have with that is, as someone in another thread pointed out, the average pew-sitter's knowledge of theology is pretty much zilch. The resultant flow of "this-is-what-I-think" heresy would be disastrous. We are in a Hebrews 5:12 situation in the church today.

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Danny,

So are you prophesying that it would be a waste of time, or are you saying that you prophesy in church, and if anyone else spoke it would be a waste of time? If it's the first, it might be best not to joke about such things.

John,

I know an expat here in jakarta from Texas. He went to a Bible church in Texas that had a meeting with an open format, something like a Plymouth Brethren meeting. The church he went to was really into Bible study. He said that he's found that a lot of people he has met that really know the Bible were from Brethren type backgrounds. If you think about it, the Plymouth Brethren, though a small group, have produced a lot of people who produced Bible resources- the Scofeild Bible, Vine's Dictionary, Ironside's Commentaries. The Brethren were one of the groups in history that got out of the one-man-show sermon tradition in their meetings. They saw something else in I Corinthians 14.

I don't know about your church, and if you would get a flood of 'this is what I think' heresies or not. Sometimes there are people with hidden gifts of knowledge out there in those pews.

I went to one Chinese church here, where the service was in Mandarine and Indonesian, but mostly in Indonesian. This was part of the Local Church movement that came out of China. There was no real MC for the meeting, thought an elder would occasionally lead at certain places. Everyone sat facing the communion table in the middle (in traditional protestant style trays.) They sang hymns together. Anyone could start them off on a hymn. They took turns offering up short prayers to which the others responded 'amen.' Then they read a chapter of scripture.

Different believers stood up and shared little sermonettes. They gave illustrations, exhortations, etc.

The people who spoke in this meeting all seemed to be pretty knowledgable. But they seemed used to studying the Bible and teaching. They had studied the passage the week before. Not everyone spoke, but a number of people did.

One man who starts house churches said that for the first year or two, the meetings aren't too good.

continued due to server problems:

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

We had testimony time growing up when I was a kid, and the idea of sitting through some testimonies for a long time talking about some boring details may not sound good to some people. Church leaders need to encourage the saints to be edifying, but on the other hand, edifying does not always meet up to our expectations of interest and entertainment. A good discussion of a Bible passage that teaches may more easily hold the attention of those learning in the congregation. Some people may give boring testimonies because they aren't good at testimonies. They might be better at teaching or exhortation, for example. Others just need more experience to develop in their gifts. And as we learn to let the Lord lead the meeting, people get edified.

Sometimes people will relate stories or testimonies from their own lives to teach something. They may tell parables. Teaching doesn't have to be done the same way.

Not all teaching in the first century was done sermon style. Some teaching involved question and answer and other forms of interaction. We see this when Jesus was teaching His apostles in a smaller group setting, especially. Paul, when he was teaching all night, had a discussion with the church. It is easy for a preacher to skim over topics in a passage if he doesn't know about them or doesn't want to step on any toes. But in an interactive format, some of these issues get dealt with.

In education, especially foreign language education, educators are coming to believe that traditional lecture and memorization methods aren't as effective as methods that encourage interaction and use of the language. The same is true of a lot of other kinds of teaching. Maybe the way we learn is one reason God ordained that church meetings should involve mutual edification.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

We see this when Jesus was teaching His apostles in a smaller group setting, especially. Paul, when he was teaching all night, had a discussion with the church.

So, Link, are you saying that both Jesus and Paul were holding meetings and giving a lesson and then saying, "Well, that's what I think, anyway. What about you guys? What do you think about it?"

Jesus did not ask questions just to get other people's opinions on spiritual matters. He asked questions with the specific intent of instructing the listeners. Although technically it could be called a dialogue, since more than one person spoke, still it was far from anything like "Here's what I think...how 'bout you?" More than one person spoke, but only one person was doing the teaching.

Likewise, Paul was not there to get everybody else's ideas. He was there to teach, to impart spiritual knowledge. his "discussions" were not the sharing of equal partners -- they were sometimes his method of getting matters out and teaching truth.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 2000

Link

For years the Christian Church has held,"home church" meetings. We call them home bible studies. In our meetings for bible study we also have ample opportunity to speak. We call these meetings, Sunday school or bible school.

I have found that when people become active in these they look forward, very much so, to hearing a man who has committed himself to studying the word. He has in turn learned from older men that have done so before him and is therefore able to teach and guide us.

At one time I believed that several small congregations could serve more effectively than one large one. I now consider that to be faulty logic. There is a place for both. There is strength and joy to be obtained by meeting with the church. I find that the larger congregations most often are doing a great work because of the different abilities and enthusisam. Therefore, the need for a meeting place.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

Sam

I don't believe Paul sat around trying to figure out the gospel by asking questions that night in Toras either. He was leaving the next day, and the Christians there may have had a lot of theological and practical questions to ask him, and he might have had a lot of thing she wanted to tell them before he left. My point in mentioning the discussion is just to show the lack of Biblical basis there is for the one-man uninterruptted sermon format. Interactive teaching is sometimes a lot more profitable. Educators know this. Ancient Greek and Hebrew educators taught by means of discussion as well.

Have you ever been to a church where the preacher just kept saying things that were unscriptural? I've visited churches like this. Paul wanted the churches he planted to prove all things. If your meeting format just allows for an uninterupted sermon, then the many in the congregation will swallow whatever has been taught. Preachers aren't infallible. Peter gave an answer to his actions in baptizing the Gentiles (thought Peter was right) and Paul challenged Peter on the issue of eating with Gentiles. Eating together was very important considering the early church gathered to eat the love feast together.

Your message seems to assume that a church meeting revolves only around explaining what the Bible means. Paul also mentioned prophecy occuring in the meetings. Prophecy could comfort, edify, comfort, and instruct. Hebrews 10:24-25 says to exhort one another. We see that Stephen and Paul, when they addressed Jews, would retell stories from the Old Tetament to make their points. Perhaps members of the early church would retell stories to drive home a lesson that was needed in their community. Maybe they would tell parables or relate experiences. The apostle Paul taught doctrine to the churches he planted, but that doesn't mean that he, being a believer as well, could benefit from exhortation in the church meeting. Doing the work he did, no doubt he benefited from encouragement from the saints.

So, what do you think we should do? Just ignore the 'commandments of the Lord' (as Paul called them) for church meetings- the practices that he Corinthains did not have the right to change- and continue with meetings based in tradition?

Faris,

The Jerusalem church met from house to house (they broke bread in home meetings) and met in the temple for larger gatherings. Some missionaries that plant churches according to a house church model set up 'celebration gatherings' which are larger meetings. This type of church planting has apparently had great success in Mongolia.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000