How should the church service be structured

[Nancy]

What other gifts mentioned do you have? You can PM me if you want.

Nah no need to PM. I do believe at this time, with physical limitations will do what ever "needs" are. I can cook dinners for those who have lost loved ones, I like to encourage my Christian friends, I like to pray WITH someone. I do on my own but it does not seem fervent enough although, it is with all my heart. So, in the case of a "special" gift, I have none other than "helps" really. And of course, the offering. See how boring I am, lol.

 

[Jay Ross]

Nah no need to PM. I do believe at this time, with physical limitations will do what ever "needs" are. I can cook dinners for those who have lost loved ones, I like to encourage my Christian friends, I like to pray WITH someone. I do on my own but it does not seem fervent enough although, it is with all my heart. So, in the case of a "special" gift, I have none other than "helps" really. And of course, the offering. See how boring I am, lol.

Nancy, God appreciates the small unpretentious acts of kindness that His earthly Hosts perform.

I am sure that God pulls back from the pretentious acts of many, where they already have received their rewards from the reactions of the people around them.

Its the little things that matter in many people's lives that helps to draw them to Christ.

Shalom

 

[Philip James]

Its the little things that matter in many people's lives that helps to draw them to Christ.

St. Therese and Her Little Way - Reflections on St. Therese | Society of the Little Flower - US

 

[amadeus]

Sure do wish I had that gift.

'If wishes were horses beggars would ride"..

But see here...

"But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto you a more excellent way." I Cor 12:31

What are the 'better' gifts? For example:

"I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying." I Cor 14:5

 

[Nancy]

Nancy, God appreciates the small unpretentious acts of kindness that His earthly Hosts perform.

I am sure that God pulls back from the pretentious acts of many, where they already have received their rewards from the reactions of the people around them.

Its the little things that matter in many people's lives that helps to draw them to Christ.

Shalom

Thanks for saying, Jay! you are a kind man of God He has brought me to the place now, where special gifts, or "specific" gifts no longer make me wonder. God certainly knows what I do and do not do for His Kingdom, as He does all of us and, yea...our God of God's!...can use an empty clam shell or an old stuttering man to do great things.
The body! We need the comely as well as the un-comely parts to be a part of the cohesive that binds us together.
I no longer, ever, struggle with which particular "gift" I might or might not have. The Spiritual gifts, I believe, have been held back from me perhaps because I have not grown enough spiritually? Or because of my skepticism, or as I like to better put it...caution and discernment which has been really coming to me in increments throu the last couple year
speaking, skeptical (or, cautious) yet, total surrender has been key

'If wishes were horses beggars would ride"..

But see here...

"But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto you a more excellent way." I Cor 12:31

What are the 'better' gifts? For example:

"I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying." I Cor 14:5

Yes, I did think of that very verse. The only reason I would wish to receive the ability to "pray" in tongues as, my mind just races too much.

 

[marksman]

Not only the above, but churches have become irrelevant (sadly so) to the millennial and subsequent generations, these make up a whole bunch of people, considering also the older generation is passing away and no one is filling those spots. This could be an entirely new subject and is worthy of another thread to discuss the why.

I do believe part of the reason it has become such is the way Sunday mornings are structured, you go, you sit, no discussions, no asking questions, and why Sundays? We are the church, we really don't need a day do we, what about incorporating it all into the week? Idk

So right. I was talking to someone yesterday about his church and they do not have anyone under 55 years of age except two teenagers who are children of members.

And yes we need to discuss it. Watch out for a thread coming up.

 

[Truther]

Marksman and I have been looking into the value (or not) of the structure of the typical church service, in which a central leader delivers a sermon. I'm hesitant to dismiss the pastor, the sermon, and most of the churches in America and across the world. But I do take seriously the point marksman raised, that sermons are often weak. And I do think there could be important changes made in the structure of the service, to make ministry more efficient.

If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them. Or, if you have an experience that may contribute to understanding the good or bad in this, please speak up!

I've had a long and varied experience in church, but of course, I'm limited by my own upbringing and experience. My own experience with the traditional sermon has not been that good on many occasion. But I don't wish to place the blame on pastors, who have simply been raised up and taught by a system that placed too much weight on them as an individual. See Exodus 18:25.

As I said elsewhere, as the main paid minister in a church, the pastor is expected to do the business of the church as well as provide the ministry of the word. This kind of administration is more than what I see the Bible as specifying. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit gives a diversity of gifts as He wishes.

So let me know what you think?

The ultimate structure would be the Azusa street structure per early 1900's for the modern church.

That was as pure as it gets in modern times....



The Azusa Street Revival was a historic revival meeting that took place in Los Angeles, California.[1] It was led by William J. Seymour, an African American preacher. The start on the three-year revival began on April 9, 1906 and continued until roughly 1915. On the night of April 9, 1906, Seymour and seven men were waiting on God on Bonnie Brae Street, "when suddenly, as though hit by a bolt of lightning, they were knocked from their chairs to the floor" and the other seven men began to speak in tongues and shout out loud praising God. The news quickly spread; the city was stirred; crowds gathered; and a few days later Seymour himself received the Holy Spirit; services were moved outside to accommodate the crowds who came from all around; people fell down under the power of God as they approached; people were baptized in the Holy Spirit and the sick were healed and sinners received salvation.[2] To further accommodate the crowds, an old dilapidated, two-story frame building at 312 Azusa Street in the industrial section of the city was secured. This building, originally built for an African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, had more recently been used as a livery stable, storage building and tenement house. In this humble Azusa Street mission, a continuous three-year revival occurred and became known around the world. Stanley H. Frodsham, in his book, With Signs Following, quotes an eye-witness description of the scene: The revival was characterized by spiritual experiences accompanied with testimonies of physical healing miracles,[3] worship services, and speaking in tongues. The participants were criticized by some secular media and Christian theologians for behaviors considered to be outrageous and unorthodox, especially at the time. Today, the revival is considered by historians to be the primary catalyst for the spread of Pentecostalism in the 20th century.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The ultimate structure would be the Azusa street structure per early 1900's for the modern church.

That was as pure as it gets in modern times....



The Azusa Street Revival was a historic revival meeting that took place in Los Angeles, California.[1] It was led by William J. Seymour, an African American preacher. The start on the three-year revival began on April 9, 1906 and continued until roughly 1915. On the night of April 9, 1906, Seymour and seven men were waiting on God on Bonnie Brae Street, "when suddenly, as though hit by a bolt of lightning, they were knocked from their chairs to the floor" and the other seven men began to speak in tongues and shout out loud praising God. The news quickly spread; the city was stirred; crowds gathered; and a few days later Seymour himself received the Holy Spirit; services were moved outside to accommodate the crowds who came from all around; people fell down under the power of God as they approached; people were baptized in the Holy Spirit and the sick were healed and sinners received salvation.[2] To further accommodate the crowds, an old dilapidated, two-story frame building at 312 Azusa Street in the industrial section of the city was secured. This building, originally built for an African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, had more recently been used as a livery stable, storage building and tenement house. In this humble Azusa Street mission, a continuous three-year revival occurred and became known around the world. Stanley H. Frodsham, in his book, With Signs Following, quotes an eye-witness description of the scene: The revival was characterized by spiritual experiences accompanied with testimonies of physical healing miracles,[3] worship services, and speaking in tongues. The participants were criticized by some secular media and Christian theologians for behaviors considered to be outrageous and unorthodox, especially at the time. Today, the revival is considered by historians to be the primary catalyst for the spread of Pentecostalism in the 20th century.

Have you read Vinson Synon's book on the history of Pentecostalism? I understand he died only this year? I read two of his books, and would heartily recommend them.

As I recall, he told the story of Seymore, but the phenomena was hardly pure! It included many false displays more on the order of self-aggrandizement, or even the occult, at times. That couldn't be helped, it seems. The cat got out of the bag, and there were bound to be distractions, and people filled with themselves, wanting to be exhibitionistic.

But overall, I do believe it was an endtimes outpouring of the Spirit, leading a world-wide renewal of Christian Civilization. It is a 3rd major movement in Western history, along with Catholicism and Protestantism. I can't conceive of a solid work of God without the manifestation of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I think all major moves of God have had some of this, however. What I like about Pentecostalism is its emphasis on demonstrating spiritual gifts by all, and not just by the leadership. For me, the important thing is to extend outwards, towards developing new leadership, and cooperation among all, rather than just turning inwardly and exclusively, which is what I believe destroys moves of God.

 

[Truther]

Have you read Vinson Synon's book on the history of Pentecostalism? I understand he died only this year? I read two of his books, and would heartily recommend them.

As I recall, he told the story of Seymore, but the phenomena was hardly pure! It included many false displays more on the order of self-aggrandizement, or even the occult, at times. That couldn't be helped, it seems. The cat got out of the bag, and there were bound to be distractions, and people filled with themselves, wanting to be exhibitionistic.

But overall, I do believe it was an endtimes outpouring of the Spirit, leading a world-wide renewal of Christian Civilization. It is a 3rd major movement in Western history, along with Catholicism and Protestantism. I can't conceive of a solid work of God without the manifestation of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I think all major moves of God have had some of this, however. What I like about Pentecostalism is its emphasis on demonstrating spiritual gifts by all, and not just by the leadership. For me, the important thing is to extend outwards, towards developing new leadership, and cooperation among all, rather than just turning inwardly and exclusively, which is what I believe destroys moves of God.

Great post.

I was referring to the church structure, not Seymore etc.

Acts 2 is our go-to service to compare to, and Azusa just plopped itself down into the middle of mechanical religions.

God would want us to be baptized by the Holy Ghost similarly as they were, get rid of the hour long sermon that makes us yawn and immediately forget most of what was said, then pray through every single service in tongues as the spirit gives the utterance without blasting music and solo's etc.

There is a time for teaching, but everything is out of whack with the Holy Ghost leading services today.

Sooo many add-ons today.

 

[BreadOfLife]

How should the church service be structured ....
Stop playing Church....that should solve most issues!
But how can can this be done if truth takes the back seat to money and status.

The abandonment of the Eucharistic celebration in favor of a "Hymn 'n Gospel Sandwich" is at the root of the problem for Protestants.

Renowned Evangelical minister and author, Francis Chan has recently discovered this in his own walk - and it has been a rude awakening for him.
See this short snippet from his longer sermon on the Eucharist:

 

[Truther]

The abandonment of the Eucharistic celebration in favor of a "Hymn 'n Gospel Sandwich" is at the root of the problem for Protestants.

Renowned Evangelical minister and author, Francis Chan has recently discovered this in his own walk - and it has been a rude awakening for him.
See this short snippet from his longer sermon on the Eucharist:

Eucharist, shmucarist....

The original church celebrated the pascha feast with a full blown feast of their own, not some tasteless miracle wafer.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Eucharist, shmucarist....

The original church celebrated the pascha feast with a full blown feast of their own, not some tasteless miracle wafer.

Thank you for yet another ignorant non-response.

Anybody else have an intelligent retort?

 

[Truther]

LOL

 

[Truther]

1 Cor 11 shows the pascha feast that the saints celebrated, pre- holy wafer days.

 

[Enoch111]

And I do think there could be important changes made in the structure of the service, to make ministry more efficient.

Get back to the New Testament pattern. It is all there.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Get back to the New Testament pattern. It is all there.

True. Where have things gone astray? Where have we remained true? What should be changed?

 

[Enoch111]

True. Where have things gone astray? Where have we remained true? What should be changed?

The churches began to go astray even while the apostles were on earth, as noted in Revelation chapters 1-3. The idea of one bishop ruling over several churches was a man-made idea, followed by the idea of clergy vs laity, and then clergy above laity. This led to the idea that only one man could be the pastor/priest of a church (appointed by the bishop), rather than a presbytery of elders (appointed by the Holy Spirit). But God never intended one man to be the shepherd, as already established in Israel and its elders since the time of Moses. This is at the heart of many issues within modern churches.

Then sacerdotalism and sacramentalism entered the churches very early on. The Protestant Reformers did not totally reject all the Catholic notions either, and regarded baptism as a sacrament rather than an ordinance. Scholasticism was established in the Catholic Church, so Protestants established seminaries for training and educating clergy, which again was contrary to the New Testament pattern. Even non-Protestant evangelical churches followed along and seminaries sprouted all over the world.

By the 18th and 19th centuries the seminaries became hotbeds of unbelief and theological liberalism, starting in Germany and then spreading all over. Many false teachings arose from there and filtered into the mainline denominations, including the Social Gospel. Eventually the Fundamentalist Movement began in the early 20th century, but the Fundamentalists had to leave their churches rather than recapture them. However things did not remain as such, and Fundamentalism began to be eroded by Neo-Evangelicalism, which has now led to the Emergent Church Movement (essentially theological liberalism), the Seeker Sensitive Movement, the Charismatic Movement etc. The Charismatic Movement encouraged the idea that subjective experiences were more important than objective Bible truth.

One can add to this departure from Bible Christianity the introduction of corrupt modern bible versions (starting in 1881) which primarily impacted on the doctrine of Scripture, but affected many other doctrines. Then there was the rejection of traditional hymnals and traditional music, then the abandonment of the use of the Bible within church services. But there is more. Churches began to encourage casual and sloppy dress during worship, eating and drinking during services, loud and worldly music, watered down *Christian songs*, church services geared to entertainment rather than edification, etc. Now iPhones are permitted by some to allow people to be driven to distraction, instead of focusing on God and Christ.

The fact remains that after churches go off the rails, they adamantly refuse to repent and return to Gospel Truth and Bible Truth, as well as the New Testament pattern of worship (which is not liturgical but Spirit led). So now we have entered into the period known as the Great Apostasy, and things will only go from bad to worse.

However, this does not mean that earnest Christians cannot simply disregard all the nonsense and go back to the Bible as see how the apostolic churches were structured and how they worshiped. One can start with Acts chapter 2 which provides the basics.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Great post.

I was referring to the church structure, not Seymore etc.

Acts 2 is our go-to service to compare to, and Azusa just plopped itself down into the middle of mechanical religions.

God would want us to be baptized by the Holy Ghost similarly as they were, get rid of the hour long sermon that makes us yawn and immediately forget most of what was said, then pray through every single service in tongues as the spirit gives the utterance without blasting music and solo's etc.

There is a time for teaching, but everything is out of whack with the Holy Ghost leading services today.

Sooo many add-ons today.

Okay, I gotcha. Good point! Spontaneity is critical if we are to demonstrate an intimate and real relationship with God. As I often say, it isn't just the Scriptures that represent the word of God. It is God's speaking to our own hearts that represent God's message for us today.

And if we act on God speaking to our hearts, we will have a certain spontaneity--not just a mechanical liturgy. Although liturgies and memorization can be extremely helpful, this should never replace worship that is alive with interaction with God. Good worship leaders, for example, are able to turn on a dime when they sense God doing so.

Good preachers can deliver great sermons only if they hear the voice of God guiding them during their planned message. Of course, their "planned message" could also have been a "live" message from God for a particular Sunday.

The important thing is to keep the church structure free from the control of men so that God is free to speak "live" to us. We do plan, and we do organize, to be responsible. We do have responsible leadership and mature eldership in control, to avoid giving a service over to immaturity and to error.

But to have a single leader dominate, and not allow a multiplicity of gifts operate to bring balance is, I think, a grave mistake. All of the people here demonstrate the importance of hearing from a multiplicity of voices. Those messages would not be heard if a single leader controlled and silenced them all by insisting on dominating a service with only his own select songs and single sermon!

Thanks!

 

[Randy Kluth]

The churches began to go astray even while the apostles were on earth, as noted in Revelation chapters 1-3. The idea of one bishop ruling over several churches was a man-made idea, followed by the idea of clergy vs laity, and then clergy above laity. This led to the idea that only one man could be the pastor/priest of a church (appointed by the bishop), rather than a presbytery of elders (appointed by the Holy Spirit). But God never intended one man to be the shepherd, as already established in Israel and its elders since the time of Moses. This is at the heart of many issues within modern churches.

Then sacerdotalism and sacramentalism entered the churches very early on. The Protestant Reformers did not totally reject all the Catholic notions either, and regarded baptism as a sacrament rather than an ordinance. Scholasticism was established in the Catholic Church, so Protestants established seminaries for training and educating clergy, which again was contrary to the New Testament pattern. Even non-Protestant evangelical churches followed along and seminaries sprouted all over the world.

By the 18th and 19th centuries the seminaries became hotbeds of unbelief and theological liberalism, starting in Germany and then spreading all over. Many false teachings arose from there and filtered into the mainline denominations, including the Social Gospel. Eventually the Fundamentalist Movement began in the early 20th century, but the Fundamentalists had to leave their churches rather than recapture them. However things did not remain as such, and Fundamentalism began to be eroded by Neo-Evangelicalism, which has now led to the Emergent Church Movement (essentially theological liberalism), the Seeker Sensitive Movement, the Charismatic Movement etc. The Charismatic Movement encouraged the idea that subjective experiences were more important than objective Bible truth.

One can add to this departure from Bible Christianity the introduction of corrupt modern bible versions (starting in 1881) which primarily impacted on the doctrine of Scripture, but affected many other doctrines. Then there was the rejection of traditional hymnals and traditional music, then the abandonment of the use of the Bible within church services. But there is more. Churches began to encourage casual and sloppy dress during worship, eating and drinking during services, loud and worldly music, watered down *Christian songs*, church services geared to entertainment rather than edification, etc. Now iPhones are permitted by some to allow people to be driven to distraction, instead of focusing on God and Christ.

The fact remains that after churches go off the rails, they adamantly refuse to repent and return to Gospel Truth and Bible Truth, as well as the New Testament pattern of worship (which is not liturgical but Spirit led). So now we have entered into the period known as the Great Apostasy, and things will only go from bad to worse.

However, this does not mean that earnest Christians cannot simply disregard all the nonsense and go back to the Bible as see how the apostolic churches were structured and how they worshiped. One can start with Acts chapter 2 which provides the basics.

1st of all, thank you. There's a lot of material to address here--the more, the better! Though I agree with your broad brush strokes generally, I would have to qualify many of your criticisms.

I would have to say that the operation of a system of Grace assumes that the Church is never going to be perfect, as long as we live this side of the resurrection. So yes, we have to try to get back to the apostolic system, or to the biblical system. But expecting the ideal is not going to help us understand the progress of the Church in history, and hope for revival in the Church today. The Church has been progressing through all of the problems throughout the ages.

There has always been a separating process between the believing Church and the compromising Church. The fact there have been departures from true Christian practices does not disqualify the Church. Nor do imperfections within the true Church disqualify its value.

But yes, we need to look at some of these places where the Church started to get off track, and fuel a departure from the faith. I certainly wouldn't put the Charismatic Church together with the Liberal Churches! But yes, the Charismatic Church has this same tendency to compromise, leading to a departure from true Christianity.

We can get, I think, too critical, and too legalistic, when dealing with the progress of the Church in history. If we don't let people convert from where they've been, wearing their dress, liking their music, etc. they will think the jump to Christianity from paganism is impossible. We need to give them slack to allow a gradual change. In this I'm not adovcating for the allowance of actual sin. I'm just saying that we can become too harsh with Christians who are truly in the process of converting to Christianity.

Scholasticism is the same. Some need to approach the Gospel intellectually, and hope to arrive at a more spiritual place. Scholasticism is not wrong if it is able to make this jump. The fact some don't make this jump doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I agree with your sense of the problem with "sacerdotalism and sacramentalism." Luther did too. Protestantism pointed this out. But an overriding leadership is present in the doctrine of "apostleship." This was not, as you indicate, a church structure intended to be political, but rather, a prophetic call to start churches and to keep them lined up with fundamental doctrine.

Fundamentalism did properly point out the difference between true doctrine and corrupted Christian theology. As in everything, the truth must remain combined with spiritual experience if it is to remain vibrant. When the Spirit is lost, the doctrine becomes lifeless and meaningless. All this is a "process." Thanks for pointing out some important landmarks in the process in history!

 

[Truther]

Okay, I gotcha. Good point! Spontaneity is critical if we are to demonstrate an intimate and real relationship with God. As I often say, it isn't just the Scriptures that represent the word of God. It is God's speaking to our own hearts that represent God's message for us today.

And if we act on God speaking to our hearts, we will have a certain spontaneity--not just a mechanical liturgy. Although liturgies and memorization can be extremely helpful, this should never replace worship that is alive with interaction with God. Good worship leaders, for example, are able to turn on a dime when they sense God doing so.

Good preachers can deliver great sermons only if they hear the voice of God guiding them during their planned message. Of course, their "planned message" could also have been a "live" message from God for a particular Sunday.

The important thing is to keep the church structure free from the control of men so that God is free to speak "live" to us. We do plan, and we do organize, to be responsible. We do have responsible leadership and mature eldership in control, to avoid giving a service over to immaturity and to error.

But to have a single leader dominate, and not allow a multiplicity of gifts operate to bring balance is, I think, a grave mistake. All of the people here demonstrate the importance of hearing from a multiplicity of voices. Those messages would not be heard if a single leader controlled and silenced them all by insisting on dominating a service with only his own select songs and single sermon!

Thanks!

Welcome.

I heard the Seymore would feel led to have random persons speak 5 or 10 spots during prayer sessions, rather than a single person with a prepared sermon.

Multiple folks would be used to speak to the audience, but only those in prayer.

It must have been amazing to observe.