ne of the questions that often gets raised regarding simple church is how to handle teaching and prophecy that comes into an open, participatory meeting. The thinking seems to be that, with open participation, it is too possible for “wrong doctrine” or actual heresy to be spoken.
This is often managed in the institutional church with the leadership serving as a barrier to open participation. By that, I mean one of two things:
- Any open teaching that takes place is “by invitation only”, or by getting spoken words “pre-approved” by a pastor or elder in the church.
- Open teaching is simply not allowed for the most part, and the teaching is handled only by the leaders.
While the efforts and motives in these situations are usually quite noble, I think that it’s possible to consider the approach outlined in Scripture, and rely on it. Most of the time, in situations like this, my ideas are viewed by many as “idealistic”. Something that would be nice in theory, but “in the real world”, we have to make other accommodations. I find that this thinking, however (the contrast between idealism and real world practicality), belies our reliance on our own ability to control things and not on God’s revelation.
So, what does the Scripture say about open speaking in a church gathering, and how does that affect our thinking along these lines? I’d like to point out some things that I’ve mentioned before here on this blog, from 1 Corinthians 14. Specifically, I’d like to focus on verses 29-32 (NASB):
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;
Notice what is absent from this passage. There is no mention here of prophecies being “pre-screened” by anyone. The prophecies are spoken in the gathering, and others weigh the prophecy. This provides the very “check and balance” that is so often feared to be lacking in simple church. Those who believe that anyone speaking will quickly lead to heresy or false doctrine have neglected the very protection offered by Paul in this passage. Things that are spoken in a meeting are not merely left hanging out there. They are evaluated. They are judged. They are weighed.
Another very key point to be made in this passage is that the speaking is not restricted to the one who “has the floor.” In fact, quite the opposite. If one is speaking, and another gets a revelation, who is responsible for being quiet? The one who feels the need to interrupt? Or the one who is already speaking? I think the answer is rather obvious. “The first one must keep silent.”
How does this play out in our churches? I mentioned above two things that often end up taking place. There seems to be an “either/or” choice of how to handle this. Either we restrict sharing to those who are “pre-approved”, or we forbid open speaking completely, both of which completely avoid Paul’s instructions on allowing people to speak.
Even in churches that regularly offer a portion of their service for open sharing, it is only limited to a portion of time, and even then is rather tightly controlled. But these controls go beyond what Paul laid out in his letter to the Corinthians. And I don’t think they are necessary.
Paul instructs that things are to be spoken, and then weighed by others. This seems to clearly be in the context of a public gathering. By allowing things to be spoken, and then weighed, the entire body is edified, and the maturity of its members is facilitated. This should be the goal of any service (compare Ephesians 4). Each member gains insight into the “weighing” process, and the leaders are no longer functioning as the filter for what is said.
Recently, this came back to my thinking while watching a video of a portion of a church service from this past weekend in the UK. The guest speaker was Andrew Jones, with whom some of you may be familiar. He blogs under the title “Tall Skinny Kiwi“, because he really is a tall, slender man from New Zealand (although currently living in the UK)!
Andrew had blogged over the weekend about a group that he heard might try to interrupt the service at which he was preaching. As he had expected, some people showed up and interrupted the end of his sermon to deliver a prophecy. In that post, Andrew links to another blogger who videotaped the episode and posted that video. I would strongly encourage you to go watch that video so that you understand where I’m coming from on this.
Now, I must make it very clear here that I am not passing judgment on Andrew or the elders of the church where this took place. It is entirely possible that the above instructions from Paul do not apply to someone coming in from the outside. At best, the idea of walking into a service and interrupting it is questionable in its validity. However, I would like to take a look at how this situation might have been handled in a manner consistent with 1 Cor 14.
Andrew and others have defended their actions (basically prohibiting the two women from speaking in that service) based on the fact that they had told the women they could speak, provided the women met with the leadership and shared their prophecy ahead of time. My question, in light of Paul’s instructions, is whether the leaders of a church ever have that responsibility or authority given to them. I am not aware of any biblical reference to this concept of “pre-screening” prophecies.
Is it possible that these women really are in a cult, as Andrew concluded from his research? Yes, it’s possible. Does that give warrant for prohibiting them to speak? Perhaps. But, let’s continue on.
According to 1 Corinthians 14:30, what should Andrew’s response have been when he was interrupted? Paul says that he should have been silent. Instead, Andrew appealed to verse 32 in saying that the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets. However, it is important to note that, in context, this statement of Paul is related to the relationship after the prophecy has been shared. In this case, Andrew used it as a defense for restricting the prophecy in the first place.
“But wait a minute,” many will protest. “It also says that everything is to be done in order! God is a God of order!” Are Paul’s instructions not orderly? In the context of talking about order, he says that a speaker should allow himself to be interrupted! The “order” that Paul talks about seems to refer to how things are spoken and weighed, not the prevention of speaking in the first place.
Let me pose a couple of questions to my readership, especially those who function as professional ministers:
- How would you feel/react if someone interrupted your sermon to share a prophecy?
- How would you feel about a public time (as part of the service) of weighing what you have preached in your sermon?
If the answer to the first one has something to do with being annoyed or angered, or if the answer to the second one leans toward “Who are they to judge what I am preaching to them?” I think an appropriate follow-up question would be “why?” Are Paul’s instructions inadequate for our gatherings?
As a side note, I do realize that 1 Corinthians 14 says that women should be silent, but ironically these are not the verses that Andrew or the elders of that church appealed to in their defense. I don’t necessarily want to get into that subject right now because the reality is that there is no small amount of debating over what those statements about women mean (especially in light of 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul’s statement about men and women in Galatians 3:28). Not to mention the fact that there is even some discussion as to the existence of those statements in Paul’s original letter to the Corinthians! I think that the incident in the video would have happened even if there had been men speaking instead of women, given the responses of Andrew and others, given the defenses offered by Andrew.
According to 1 Corinthians 14, I think it is appropriate to say that the correct course of action in situations like this would be to let the interruption occur, let the prophecy be spoken, and then to have the prophecy weighed. Andrew referred to the tension and disorder that was present, and how many were troubled and distressed over what happened. I do not think that is completely the result of “cult members” disrupting the service. At least not from what I can see on the video. What I see is leadership of a church (along with a guest speaker) attempting to silence the women, forcefully trying to get them to sit down, etc. My opinion is that actions such as those created (or contributed to) a sense of disorder and chaos. (I have to say I was especially troubled by the footage of a man, identified by Andrew as a worship leader in that church, trying to shove the women down into their seats.)
Again, I’m not trying to pass judgment on anyone here. I think that the intentions of Andrews and the elders were good. And I’m certainly not trying to defend the actions of these two women at all! But I think it really highlights the need to give fair weight to the instructions we do have in Scripture before building up other layers of “protection”. As I mentioned in a comment on Andrew’s site, I felt like a process got short-circuited. A process that could have resulted in more edification and greater maturity was stifled because the leadership felt they had to handle the situation themselves.
I would be very interested in feedback from anyone on my thoughts here. Am I too idealistic? Are there other passages that bear on this situation that I’m ignoring? Is there another angle that I’m not seeing? I open it up for your comments.
Until next time,
steve 
Steve,
Since you brought up the subject of women speaking during the church gathering…
Seriously, I appreciate the content and tone of your post. The purpose and content of the church meeting is usually assumed by Christians. There needs to be more discussion in this area.
I do believe that you are being idealistic. For some reason, you have decided that Paul was serious and that we should follow what he says. Of course, there are those of us who believe that Scripture is inspired, and thus should be followed, but not 1 Cor 14. That would be too idealistic.
One more thing… it is also idealistic to assume that God could speak to and through other believers that are in the church gathering. Everyone knows that Scripture says that God only speaks through the preacher. I would give you the chapter and verse, but it slips my mind at the moment. Trust me…
ok… sarcastic moment is over. Thank you for this post.
- Alan
Alan, you crack me up!
Steve, as always I appreciate your spirit in your approach to these matters.
In all honesty, I would have to say that I believe this is a moot point, but that is just one cessationsist’s opinion!
Can’t wait until this weekend.
Gordon, a moot point? As in, prophecy no longer exists, so 1 Cor 14 has no bearing on church meetings today?
Our discussion this weekend could be quite interesting…
hehe
steve
Steve,
I personally think it is a mistake to make too much of statements made in the New Testament about church government or worship practice.
Both of these issues are loaded with all kinds of cultural assumptions that most people cannot recognize.
For instance, if you asked North American Christians which form of political government is more “Christian,” nearly all would say “democracy” and wonder why you would ever ask such an obvious question.
Paul gives specific directions to specific congregations. The question is how much of what he says should be taken as normative for all congregations. The principles certainly are. But I suspect that little else is.
I understand the desire to take Scripture seriously. But part of that is not making too much of passages that have limited scope.
Otherwise, we start doing foolish things like prohibiting musical instruments.
Rod
Steve,
A thought-provoking post…but you tend to do that. Its funny, I was doing some telephone marital counseling yesterday morning with a fellow and he grew up JW. He asked me a similar question; “In the JW church, everyone had an opportunity to speak.”
Please don’t take that as my comparing simple church to a cult, OK? Just a wierd similarity.
You do challenge many accepted social mores in this post, many that most folks, as Rod has already ably noted, won’t recognize. Getting folks to recognize them would be even more difficult. I think you are leaning a tad toward a utopian ideal. I don’t know how we, or at least I, could accomplish what you suggest. Not disagreeing; just don’t know how it would practically work out.
Blessings multiplied,
Tony
steve, your readers are a crack-up!
great to get some conversation going on this – i am sure we can all learn from it. we are still asking ourselves if we did the right thing. two points:
1. it was not an open participatory setting. They interrupted the end of my sermon and prayer. They were not invited to speak and were told to sit down.
sometimes this church DOES have open sharing rather than a message, and 1 Corinthians is a good guideline for that. But this was not one of those times
2. These people are cult members, not visiting pentecostals with a prophetic word. They came to rebuke us for meeting in various localities [they say there can only be a single locality for church], create a disturbance during the message, and draw new believers after themselves and their leader.
Jude and 2 John are therefore more appropriate than 1 Corinthians.
Andrew, thanks for taking the time to stop by and give your thoughts in response. I certainly don’t intend to draw this out into a long discussion, so I’m not going to debate your points.
I think your second point probably has the most validity, and while it doesn’t completely answer the questions I have, it helps.
I have to mull over your first point. The dichotomy between “open participatory” and “a message” seems a bit awkward to me, but you’re certainly not the first to present that possibility.
Thanks again for visiting! Blessings on you and your work in the larger body of Christ.
steve
Rod, I appreciate your input, as always. I think you’ve gone a bit further than I would in your caution about applying specific passages, but I can certainly give that some thought.
I think the example of prohibiting musical instruments is not necessarily applicable here, however. My understanding is that those who prohibit musical instruments do so with relation to the Regulative Principle of worship. By its very definition, the Regulative Principle majors in arguments from silence.
In my writing here, however, I’ve been trying to address what actually is written in Scripture. There is nothing even remotely resembling a statement by Paul that musical instruments should not be used. So I’m not sure you can compare the two (my use of 1 Cor 14 to illustrate open participatory meetings and the practice by some of forbidding of musical instruments based on the lack of mention of them in the NT)
I guess your reply kind of begs the questions, however:
1. What is your take on the verses I talked about above (including what aspects of it you think are cultural or Corinth-specific, and what could be applied today), and
2. How would you have handled this situation with which Andrew was confronted?
By the way, does anyone else see the irony in someone saying I’ve gone too far in trying to take the Scriptures seriously? It wasn’t that many months ago that commenters here were concerned that I wasn’t taking the Scripture seriously enough!!
Blessings, brother!
steve
Tony, you wrote: Please don’t take that as my comparing simple church to a cult, OK? Just a wierd similarity.
I’m not really sure what to say about that comment. I have to honestly say that it feels a bit like a cheap shot, but I also know that’s not your character in these conversations, so I’m trying to figure out what you really meant by mentioning this similarity, if not to plant the seeds of guilt by association.
Rod’s admonitions aside, I find it hard to understand how what I have written can be perceived as either cult-like or utopian. All I have really done is reiterate what Paul said.
You wrote: I don’t know how we, or at least I, could accomplish what you suggest. Not disagreeing; just don’t know how it would practically work out.
OK, fair enough. But let’s start by asking, what about this seems hard to accomplish? What specifically (besides our tradition) stands in the way? What do you see that’s impractical about it?
I hope we can have some continued dialogue about this, because I think it’s definitely worth talking about.
It reminds me of a sermon I preached years ago on the subject of holiness. God gave a straightforward command “Be holy as I am holy”. My question in that sermon was, “Would God give us a command that we could not fulfill?” (I’m not talking about fulfilling in our own strength, by the way, so let’s not get sidetracked on that topic. I’m just illustrating the problem with looking at Scripture and saying, “Hmmm, that seems too ideal.”)
Blessings on you, too, Tony! Thanks for stopping by.
steve
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. This is the type of question that every Charismatic or Pentacostal church (large or small) must eventually grapple with. It is a very difficult issue when the church is a large one.
I, too, have some difficulty with the “approved only speakers,” approach, but rather opt for an opportunity in the service for such. I see Paul’s statements regarding the church in 1 Corinthians 14 as meant primarily for the small, home-type (you call “simple”) churches, prayer groups, and Bible Studies. I do not see it as law governing all Christian worship. Most large churches, who by necessity govern who speaks in a large gathering, also have cell groups, or home studies — other venues where such open sharing is not only welcome, but expected. I think if we try to fit the “one size fits all” here, we bind the hands of leadership.
Also, our concept of sharing is decidedly American. We have the understanding that all have freedom of speech and all should therefore, have opportunity to speak — always. That was not the culture of Paul and the early church, so we must be careful about how freely we speak. The speaking of the prophetic should always have a place somewhere — but does it have to be everywhere? I do not think so.
Anyway, you asked for some opinions. Far be it from this woman not to have one.
Blessings,
Iris
Steve,
Despite my “crack up” at the beginning, this is certainly a thought-provoking discussion. I trust my attempt at humor did not offend anyone.
A couple of comments… first, I would never try to tell another group of believers how to “run” their meeting. That is between them and God.
Second, as Steve and others have pointed out, the fact that the women in question represented a “cult” directs my attention away from 1 Cor 14, since in that passage Paul is dealing with believers. This begs the question though, how do we know whether or not someone is a believer when they stand to speak? Perhaps the answer is in weighing what they say, instead of silencing them. Just a thought…
Third, I wonder why this meeting would not be considered “an open participatory” meeting – a la 1 Cor 14 – but the reason given for silencing them came from that exact passage. hmmm….
Well, just a few thoughts. Again, I am thoroughly enjoying the interaction and discussion.
Thanks again, Steve!
- Alan
Steve,
You misinterpreted that statement about JW’s. I apologize and humbly ask forgiveness. I was not clear. When the young man I was speaking to mentioned that they always had a time at every service for different ones to get up and speak, whether it be Bible lessons, testimony, sermonizing, or whatever, my thought was that “The JW’s do something else well.” It wasn’t an off-color remark about simple church concepts, but more of a horrible irony on my part. Again, I am sorry.
It seems odd that you are on the offensive here; I didn’t feel I was saying anything that deserved such a crititcal response. That I find equally distressing. I didn’t feel I came off condescending or even harsh. So, I apologize for communicating haphazardly.
Admittedley, I am intrigued by this post because I am genuinely considering your words. Why can’t I do as you suggest? I was honestly looking for direct application for a “professional minister.”
Steve, I would NEVER accuse you of leading a cult or even planting those seeds. I know you love the Lord and in my comment, no aspersions were cast.
Blessings.
Tony
Iris, thanks for your input. It’s interesting that you mention that 1 Cor 14 applies to smaller groups, but not to larger churches. I find that interesting because it was the very nature of the description of meetings in 1 Cor 14 that started me thinking smaller! I kept looking at our large gatherings and saying “How could we possibly have this kind of meeting in any setting other than a small group?” But that’s another post, another day…
Also, our concept of sharing is decidedly American. We have the understanding that all have freedom of speech and all should therefore, have opportunity to speak — always.
I hadn’t thought of it from this way. I actually feel like I don’t fit into the American culture a lot anymore, so it’s amusing to me that you would associate my thoughts with being “decidedly American”!
Thanks for your input. Always nice to see you here.
steve
Tony, thanks for the clarification. I appreciate that.
I should have separated my response to the JW comment from the remainder of my comment, because the rest was not meant to be “on the offensive” at all!
There was a change in focus in my comment that got lost in the print on the screen 
My questions in the latter part of the comment were to try to spark some further dialogue about what exactly you felt was utopian or impractical.
I certainly hold no ill will toward you, my brother! Please continue to share your thoughts. I appreciate the conversation very much.
steve
Alan, you wrote: first, I would never try to tell another group of believers how to “run” their meeting. That is between them and God.
This is a great thought. I try to apply this to my writing on this blog as much as possible, too. I hope I made it clear in the post that I was not trying to judge Andrew or anyone else on this topic, but rather to give my thoughts and reactions and discuss how else things like this could be handled. This is a very good reminder of that.
This begs the question though, how do we know whether or not someone is a believer when they stand to speak? Perhaps the answer is in weighing what they say, instead of silencing them.
Thank you for making this point! This is part of what I was trying to think through in this post. While some may find it idealistic, it seems to me that the main purpose that Paul would give instructions to weigh prophecies is to judge their validity. This leads me to assume that there must be at least the possibility of things being spoken that are not valid, thereby needing to be corrected when they are spoken.
Third, I wonder why this meeting would not be considered “an open participatory” meeting – a la 1 Cor 14 – but the reason given for silencing them came from that exact passage. hmmm….
Again, thank you for making a great point. I’m not sure I understand (as I mentioned in my response to Andrew earlier, and this goes to Iris’s comment above, too) the dichotomy between 1 Cor 14 meetings and any other church meeting. I don’t see a distinction in Paul’s writing about this. I’m open to other thoughts on it, but it seems like there is a tendency to read our traditions back in to the Scripture.
Anyway, thank you for your input (and even your jokes! You really confused another guy about your Mazda comment in the other thread!) and continued dialogue here.
All of you readers and commenters are a blessing to me!
Steve,
Yes, the “anti-instrument” people argue from silence. But that is only compounding the error. Their first error is thinking that the New Testament prescribes specific details about how to conduct a “church service” and about how to govern a congregation.
Of course, they are an extreme example. I chose them intentionally for that reason. There are several others who have similar difficulties without arguing from silence.
For example:
Women must cover their heads in worship.
Women cannot talk in worship.
Women cannot teach men.
Leaders in a congregation should be called “elders.”
An elder or a deacon cannot have a rebellious child.
I would argue that 1 Corinthians 14 is a specific response to problems in the Corinthian church. Paul’s comments certainly contain “timeless principles.” But it is a mistake, I think, to assume that everything he says in this context is intended to be applied to all churches in all places at all times.
This is a complex issue, and I have only sketched out a general stance.
Rod
Rod, in a lot of ways, I actually agree with you. However, it seems to me that, when a particular instruction is ignored, the burden of proof should be on the one who is choosing to identify that as “cultural”, etc.
For example, I do not believe that women must literally have a head covering on their head in worship. But I would expect to have to be able to defend that position if I were ever challenged on it. I don’t think I can just say, “Oh, that was cultural” without some evidence or reasoning to back that up. (And I will be the first to admit that I don’t have a super strong case for it, either!)
So, with regard to the instructions in 1 Cor 14 about open participation, I’m not denying that perhaps there is something cultural that needs to be brought into the discussion. Or even that perhaps it was specifically geared to the church in Corinth, and not meant to be carried out in other churches.
Those conclusions might be entirely accurate. However, I think that needs to be something that is demonstrated, not just assumed. And in the case of the instructions regarding order in the gathering, what is our basis for determining that it does not apply to churches today? Again, I’m very open to that conclusion! Just not seeing any evidence yet that it doesn’t mean what it says
By the way…
But it is a mistake, I think, to assume that everything he says in this context is intended to be applied to all churches in all places at all times.
I completely agree with this statement. I am not assuming it. I’m just saying I don’t see any evidence to the contrary. And part of that is that this is the only passage that talks in much detail at all about what Paul thought should be taking place.
Does that make sense?
Steve,
Believe it or not, I think the burden lies with the other position.
What is written in the letters of the New Testament is addressed to specific situations and sometimes specific people.
The first question we must answer in Bible interpretation is “What did the author intend the original readers to understand?”
Then we ask the second question, “What, if anything, does this have to do with me?”
I would argue that the default position for directions given in the letters is that they are one-time “commands” for specific situations. Then we can ask, “Is there evidence that this should be understood as normative for all Christians, churches, leaders?”
We can also ask what principles lie behind the command that we can apply to our own situation. But this is not always a simple process. We must have a degree of humility when claiming that a particular principle lies behind one of Paul’s commands.
I know that this position runs counter to the commonly-held view. But I think it results in a higher view of Scripture and more reliable interpretation.
(I don’t have strong views about the specific issues you raise here. I’m just looking at this from the larger perspective.)
Rod
Steve, I have been away from my computer all day and so have not had the opportunity to participate in this great discussion that has been taking place here.
To further elaborate on my tongue-in-cheek remark, yes, I do believe prophecy (at least in the I Corinthian context) has ceased. No, I do not believe that it renders the principles of chapter 14 obsolete.
As I have been mulling over this topic ever since you and I first began discussing these things, I have arrived at this point in my thinking: I do not believe that the Bible has given us a clear mandate in the methodology of “doing church”. While it is apparent that many (but not all) of the early churches were “small church”, I believe that was born of necessity rather than ordinance.
As time has gone by, population has grown, culture has evolved and the church has evolved with it (somewhat slowly and painfully at times, to be sure). What has resulted, particularly in Western culture is the institutional church. While there definitely some aspects of the IC that need some tweaking, I do not believe that its existence is anti-biblical. It may be extra-biblical but I do not think that it is wrong in and of itself.
By the same token, I do not believe that the small church concept is wrong either. In fact, there are some things that I am learning about it that I find admirable. But I do not believe that it is mandated by Scripture, either. It seems to be evidence that the church may be on some scale coming full circle in its methodology.
I know that this seems to be meandering away from your topic, but I said all of that to say this, I believe there is room in the church for both an open participatory meeting as well as for sermons preached by one man. I think a healthy church, regardless of its size should encourage and expect both. When a church becomes locked in on one method, sooner or later that method will develop into a malaise within that church, even if it is wildly successful at some point.
I have found this discussion challenging and enlightening. Keep on tackling the hard topics, it is so much more fun than picking tulips.
Steve,
“Would God give us a command that we could not fulfill?†Absolutely not.
I my situation, I pastor a church where it is expected that the preacher have a word to say on Sunday morning. I’m sure you have been there. Plus, to compound matters, I pastor a VERY traditional church. Did I say very? Yeah, I think I did.
So, in my context, what you suggest does look very utopian! If I suggested what you are saying to the congregation I serve, their initial reaction would be, “That is what we pay you for!”
Hilarious, I know, and not without its problems.
Plus, a previous pastor had an open sharing time every now and then years ago and it turned into a share-a-thon, everybody blabbering about their long departed loved ones. So they would take a dim view of a departure from their accepted norm.
This is where I found agreement with Rod where he said, “these issues are loaded with all kinds of cultural assumptions that most people cannot recognize.
Without years of unlearning everything they have learned (been trained?), it would be next to impossible for me to implement open speaking. I am certainly not minimizing God; just being realistic.
Anyway! Great post and good discussion. Hope I have not been too pessimistic in this comment!
Blessings,
Tony
Steve,
Love your thoughts here. I have not been a part of the dialogue, and so I will not try to jump into the middle of discussion already going. So this is my own blabbing.
I live in Salem, MA. I pastor a church called The Gathering. We were Foursquare until this year, when we got booted for our ministry to the Pagan community. Check out http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06304/734412-51.stm
I have a keen interest in a couple items you mention. I too felt that the process was somewhat short-circuited. Although I have to give some room for the fact that the church may not have been emotionally, or institutionally ready for the impact of a free exchange.
I too think that there is a place for open dialogue in the church life, and that this should not be relegated to a few minutes of the service. It is part of openness to have interaction-potential at all times. An open and sharing church is a self-healing, and self-correcting organism. The body, and not the one pastor, has the compliment of wisdom given by God. I have seen this in practice over many years of ministry.
We have had many a heretic speak up in our church in 21 years. The people have not been swayed by this, but have often gently corrected the individual, and some of these same heretics have rather come to join us, and slowly develop into sane followers of Christ.
My struggle with a quick shut down of these women is perhaps more evangelistic a concern. Could it be that we unknowingly jump to conclusions about the state of their souls, and the power of their influence? Meanwhile justifying their martyr syndrome, and intrenching them deeper in their brokenness?
Yet secondly I desire to see the church interact in the pedagogical dynamics of a dialogue with gentle correction. Can you imagine what might happen if the church ever learned to relate to this spiritually diverse society we live in?
By the way, I need to get down to Boone. I hear you have town not unlike my own.
Steve,
I think Tony Sisk hit the nail on the head:
“Without years of unlearning everything they have learned (been trained?), it would be next to impossible for me to implement open speaking. I am certainly not minimizing God; just being realistic.”
I’ve talked with many people who recognize that scripturally any believer should have opportunity to use their gifts (speaking or serving) to edify the church. However, they do not know how to implement this in their current context and with the current expectations of the church.
We started by discussing this with the church. Has everyone caught on? No, many still believe it is the “preacher’s” responsibility to speak to the church on behalf of God. However, there are some who are beginning to understand that God may desire to speak through them. So, some are beginning to take their responsibility seriously.
Have we had “heretical” speech during our meeting? I don’t think so… not yet. Have we had speech that was unnecessary? Yes. We have even had a few people who seem to love to hear themselves talk. Do we handle this by silencing all people except the “preacher”? No. We handle this by discipling those who misuse this opportunity. Is everyone happy with this? No.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss these things.
-Alan
Pingback: Theological Musings » When Tradition Meets Scripture