Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Awww man one of my favorite topics... and I'm too busy to reply!!!!

    Mark,
    
    Let me add one further question to the list, which will help define
    PERCEPTIONS of the First Century Church if not the Church itself.  From
    a dispensational perspective there are divergencies of opinion as to
    when the Church began.  The most common opinion (I don't want to use
    orthodox because it's a flash point for some) is that the Church began
    at Pentecost.  Dividing the world up dogmatically, this is true among 
    the majority of Calvinists, Arminians, Covenant Theologians, Catholic 
    (I believe), and Dispensationalists.  But there is a subcategory of 
    Dispensationalists which we might call Ultradispensationalists, who 
    believe that the Church did not begin until either Acts 9, at the 
    conversion of Paul, Acts 13:46 with the statement, "We are turning to 
    the Gentiles," or Acts 28:28.
    
    One can make declarative statements such as, "This was the norm for the
    1st Century Church," but if you don't agree on the beginning point then
    the statement is moot.
    
    Kent
    
    

Thanks, Kent.  It helps to define the ground rules.  I certainly hope
that the people who have used the first century church to support some
of their notions come and reason these things out.

When we understand some of our own folklore (hope that's not too much
of a flashpoint term), we may be better able to understand the truth
about the church and its purpose, mission, and even its expressions.

Mark

I am disappointed at the lack of proponents.  Perhaps they think 
that this is baiting.  I hope not.  I hope that propronents of
anything held as truth and necessary would be willing to participate
in an examination of said truth.  I simply want to separate myth
from tradition and from truth.  Holding a tradition doesn't make it 
wrong (as long as it is contained within the parameters of the truth).
Even mythology (and by this term I mean folklore or "traditional
stories") can be good as long as its roots are established in the
truth.  But separate they are, and sometimes we confuse the placement
of these items so that traditions *in* the truth are elevated to truth
itself and the only truth that can exist, where the parameters of Truth
may indeed hold more than one tradition happily.

Anyone care to discuss the actual first century church and how it applies
to the twentieth century church and beyond?

Mark

    You know if I knew enough about them I'd get involved ;-)

    ditto
    
    I don't know anything about them.  But am willing to learn.
    
    Pam

Well, then.  It seems a refresher reading of Acts is in store for a few
of *us* (and I mean *us*; that's what Bible study is about; Bereans and all).

:-)

    Mark,
    
    I don't know but there may be a concern that this type of discussion
    will inevitably lead to another discussion of Roman Catholic dogma. 
    Especially since any discussion on the the evolution of church polity
    and practice must go from the Apostles to the ancient writings of
    Clement, Ignatius, The Didache and others I can't remember right now to
    the apologetic writings of Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Melito, Aristedes
    and a bunch more I can't remember.  We must also consider, even if
    we/you don't hold the councils to be authoritative, the decrees of the
    early councils in how they shaped polity and practice.  We can't discuss 
    the changes in polity and practice over several hundred years (or even 
    thousands) without understanding where they originated which may not be
    recorded in Acts or the Epistles.
    
    Just my two cents for the record.
    
    Kent
    

    I was referring more to information in historical accounts outside of
    Acts.

    The letters, sermons and councils are the historical accounts of the
    church outside of Acts.  The historical context of the Roman empire is
    another matter.
    
    Kent
    

This note sprang from note 697.49 and ensuing comments in the affirmative.

    P.S. I have considered this topic for years, discussing it with many
    other mature believers, and I haven't quite decided where the lines are
    to be drawn. One thing I've decided, though, is that in the first-
    century church the assembly of people that occurred on Sunday was an
    assembly of *believers*. The model was not one of making that assembly
    comfortable for unbelievers. The belivers gathered for worship,
    teaching/learning, spiritual recharge, and then they would *go out* and
    spread the word to the lost. I think it's an indictment on the modern
    church: it's because we're not being responsible in *going out* to
    witness to the lost world that we instead are now trying to bring the
    lost world into what had originally been a "believer-friendly"
    assembly.

Barry (.49), Andrew (.51), Paul (.55), Mike (.58) ...others?

>    assembly of *believers*. The model was not one of making that assembly
>    comfortable for unbelievers. The belivers gathered for worship,
>    teaching/learning, spiritual recharge, and then they would *go out* and
>    spread the word to the lost. I think it's an indictment on the modern
    
    Amen!

My third time of extracting, to read, catch up and respond.
It's time that tends to get swamped out with me. :-(

								Andrew

      Hi,
    
        I don't know this for a fact, but I have heard that the one
        place in Revelation where there is the most agreement from
        many different schools of interpretation is the seven churches
        and part of what is much agreed upon is the belief that there
        is a historicist application to the 7 churches.  That is, the
        seven churches span sequentially the Christian dispensation.
    
        Ephesus, relative to us, I believe was on fire.  They don't contain
        nearly the chastening that Laodicaea does.  But, she did depart
        from the Lord a bit.  She lost her first love.
    
        Laodicaea, however, is a different matter.  She's a basket case.
        Thinking she is rich when she is naked, blind, wretched.  We are
        the most apalling church there ever was.
    
    							Tony

    
    I don't believe we can say that we're supposed to be exactly like the
    First Century Church.  They had a different set of circumstances to
    deal with than we do.  The thing that is common to both the FCC and
    today's church is that we have a common bond in Jesus Christ and that
    we need to make disciples and preach the gospel.
    So for all of you that believe we should be like the FCC, I assume
    you've had the same experiences.  I assume you've had tongues of fire
    rest on you. That a sound like a violent wind has come down from heaven
    and filled your house of worship.  That you've spoke in other languages
    that are foreign to you because someone else who knew that language
    needed to hear the gospel.  You've had vision and prophecies.  That you
    stand/maybe sit for hours in in church being taught and fellowshipping
    and watching the miracles your Pastor performs.  That in addition to
    breaking bread and praying that you also have sold your possessions and
    given them to those who have needs.  You meet at church every day.  You
    have everything in common with your fellow worshippers.  And you enjoy
    the favor of all God's people.  Yes??  
    
    My guess is no.  My guess is that some have decided to pick and choose
    what is similar to the FCC based on what traditions they have been 
    brought up with.
    
    Jill

>    So for all of you that believe we should be like the FCC, I assume
>    you've had the same experiences.  I assume you've had tongues of fire
>    rest on you. That a sound like a violent wind has come down from heaven
>    and filled your house of worship.  That you've spoke in other languages
<    that are foreign to you because someone else who knew that language
>    needed to hear the gospel.  You've had vision and prophecies.  That you
>    stand/maybe sit for hours in in church being taught and fellowshipping
>    and watching the miracles your Pastor performs.  That in addition to
>    breaking bread and praying that you also have sold your possessions and
>    given them to those who have needs.  You meet at church every day.  You
>    have everything in common with your fellow worshippers.  And you enjoy
>    the favor of all God's people.  Yes??  

Sounds like Calvary Chapel to me (having never been there and meaning
nothing more than a good poke at my friend Mike).

MM :-)

    Mark, our pastor doesn't perform miracles and we don't meet everyday ;-)
    
    However, the jr. high leader and his kids gave an interesting testimony
    the other night about the "rushing mighty wind" during a prayer session
    at their jr. high retreat.

Horseshoes and hand grenades.  ;-)

    
    Thanks for the jokes.  I needed them today.  I'm sure that and a couple
    of Ibuprofen will do the trick.  ;^)
    
    Actually my point is that the description in Acts 2 looks different 
    from the comments made about the FCC.  It's like people decided to 
    pick and choose teaching, fellowshipping, communion, and prayer (I
    seemed to have missed where those pews and crosses hanging up are
    mentioned BTW - was that in Acts 29?) and okay we can support 
    missions and leave out the parts that just forget about the 
    inconvenient parts.  But it says much more about those first 
    christians and their sacrifice.  I doubt that any of us have sold off 
    our possessions for another christian whose in need let alone that 
    most christians actively involved in a church even give a tithe 
    (don't make me pull the stats on this), let alone sacrificially.
    
    I won't go into the more charismatic elements lest I start an absolute
    war in here.  Also since there is probably another string where this
    has been debated ad nauseam and I don't think that was the intent of 
    this note.
    
    Jill

(I'm not pointing a finger at you, Mike.)

I find it curious that some churches have claimed that "we follow
the model of the first century church" to support their expression
of "church" and (by implication) denigrate the expression of churches
whose expression is different.  We know this string comes from the
note regarding Willow Creek's different expression of "church" than
what we've become used to.  No protestant group can go back further 
than Luther (Anabaptists, I suppose, whatever they are considered to be).
And Catholicism as an organization does not go back to Peter, the claim
that can be justified by any current protestant church.

These people don't have altars and that makes them superior in knowledge
of spiritual things over those who do have altars.  Altar calls, crosses
(empty or occupied), icons, censers, pulpit in the center vs. on the side,
(even having a pulpit), pews or chairs, instruments or no instruments, 
Saturday or Sunday or even Wednesday!, church building or theater or
elementary school...  which of these expressions do we elevate and
give cause for us to consider ourselves (a) superior to other expressions
and (b) *LIKE* the first century church?  Being like the first century
church doesn't even make one spiritually superior to others who are
considered politely to be spiritually ignorant (at best) or heretics
(at worst).

Wave your hands, wave one hand, don't wave, clap or say amen.  One is 
looney, the other dead, depending on which church you attend.  

Expressions and fundamentals, folks.  Get the fundamentals in place 
and know that these are the issues to live and die by, and then bless
those others who express things differently than you.

Mark

    Mark,
    
    Since you posted my PS and specifically mentioned my name, I suppose
    it's only polite for me to stick my head in here. (That PS sure has
    gotten a lot of attention! Maybe I should dispense with main text and
    do everything as PS's :-)
    
    I don't know what you're looking for. We can all read Acts and see how
    the FCC functioned. We can read the Great Commission and understand
    that *we've* been told to *go* - not have *them* *come*. That being
    said I anticipate (at least) two objections.
    
    1. Argument from silence. Obviously, the FCC wasn't told to prevent
       unbelievers from coming in. Nor do I suggest that we dissuade
       unbelievers from coming in. Should we try to model what was
       the initial pattern? If so, then the initial pattern (best as
       I can determine) was that the regular gathering together of
       the Church was for the Church - there was no emphasis on
       making it cozy for the lost. 1 Cor 14:23 even implies that
       an assembly attended by unbelievers would be the exception
       instead of the rule.
    
    2. Building doctrine from narrative. Of course, the birth of the
       Church is a singular event. You can't build a doctrine based
       upon the narration of some historical event. I don't believe
       I'm doing that, though. I'm going past Pentecost and seeing
       how the FCC functioned. I'd be glad for someone to show me
       that the early disciples were told to make their worship
       services "seeker friendly". I don't think it's there. Instead,
       what's there is the assembly of believers, who in turn *go out*
       as salt and light to permeate the world.
    
    	BD�
    
    P.S. (Since it got so much attention before, I'll make this important
    point here ;-) I am *glad* to have unbelievers come to the worship
    service! I *do* invite lost folks to come with me! I *don't* discourage
    anyone from attending - whether they're saved or lost! My main point is
    that we are primarily responsible for taking the Gospel *out* into the
    world, and not trying to make our services primarily geared to the lost
    in hopes of getting them to come *in* for the Gospel.
    
    I see a correlation between the impotence of the modern (Western)
    church and the emphasis on its being "seeker sensitive". I think it's
    because so many of us have come to believe that we don't have to live
    our Christianity for the world to see - instead we need only invite
    them to church and let the pastor/teacher/music/whatever provide the
    witness to them.

I personally know people who have given away their cars, dishes, clothing, 
furniture, and large sums of money to families in need, and lent space in 
their homes, or have actually lent whole houses out at either no rent or 
nominal rent.

Leslie

>    for taking the Gospel *out* into the
>    world, and not trying to make our services primarily geared to the lost
>    in hopes of getting them to come *in* for the Gospel.

"Taking the gospel *out* into the world" is jargon that needs to be explored.
What do you mean by it?  How is this done?  Does the church have a role in
doing this?  What is the church's role in taking the gospel *out*?

P.S. (Go ye *into* all the world...)

>    I see a correlation between the impotence of the modern (Western)
>    church and the emphasis on its being "seeker sensitive". I think it's
>    because so many of us have come to believe that we don't have to live
>    our Christianity for the world to see - instead we need only invite
>    them to church and let the pastor/teacher/music/whatever provide the
>    witness to them.

I see this as a misunderstanding of the properly functioning <quote>
seeker-sensitive <unquote> church.  As had been explained about Willow
Creek as one example, a believer friendly meeting is organized by the
church to minister to those who are looking for the things you long
for in a church.  But again, what is the church's role in going out
into the world and isn't it okay for a church to provide "services"
that are "seeker friendly" as part of their entire focus?

I do not see a properly functioning church body as relying on the 
(whatever) to provide the witness.

Mark

    
    .22  Leslie and Mark, I know of some exceptions too, but do you see
    	 that as the standard?  As the norm?  If the norm for American 
    	 churches is that the majority don't even give a tithe, I'm sure 
    	 they are not giving up other stuff in general.
    
    .21  Hi Barry, I think Mark is right about defining "taking the gospel
    out into the world" mean.  Didn't it simply mean beyond Jerusalem or
    perhaps beyond the Jews?  I see no indication of it being outside the 4
    walls of a church.  I saw that Jesus said "preach the gospel" he didn't
    say in what setting.  I see a pattern of some FCC christians staying in
    their local communities and others being sent beyond Jerusalem.  The
    Bible details quite a bit about those who went out because they were
    spreading the Word all over the world, but I don't see much as to what
    the daily life of the local church body was like or how they ministered
    to the lost.  Were they just cocooning in the temple courts ignoring
    outsiders and only feeding themselves?  Were they just waiting for
    others to bring the lost in and they would then do the discipling?  I
    don't see your pattern.  Can you give some scripture to support this
    assumption?
    
    God bless!
    Jill
    
    P.S.  I completely disagree with your correlation between seeker-
    	  sensitive and people not having to live out their faith.  
    	  Seeker-sensitive has to do with relational ministry.  It's 
          about people around you seeing a difference and being interested 
    	  enough to come and find out more.  Sometimes it's easier for 
    	  them to come to get a basis for asking questions because 
    	  sometimes they feel uncomfortable engaging christians in 
          conversation because they usually only have their misconceptions
          about chrisitianity.  Other times people will ask questions.
          It really depends on the individual.  FWIW I have seen more 
          evidence of people living out their faith in my 
          "seeker-sensitive" church than I ever saw at my old traditional 
          church.  I'm sure it varies so I don't think it's fair to say
          well I've seen this happen, therefore this is how it is 
          everywhere else too.
    

    Not too far into this discussion before I can comment.
    
    I, like Mark, have been thinking about this subject since I did a study
    of the entire book of Acts [which I had to teach to children]
    approximately 2 years ago.
    
    I've been caught in the same dilemma of FCC circumstances, cultures,
    etc., were entirely different than life today... or was it really?  I
    believe as we see more and more evidence of the return of Christ there
    will become a need to return to the communal church.  There will be a
    time when the only place safe for us will be in this type of setting. 
    I see it in a sense of "Christian Reservation" along the same lines as
    Indian Reservations.
    
    This type of thinking has been a part of me since encountering the
    resistence towards Christianity in general in this noting public.  In
    here people let their guards down and reveal much of their true
    feelings because they are not standing face to face to you/us.  And let
    me tell you the hostility and blame is pointed in our direction for
    every possible anomaly in our history and present day.  As a matter of
    fact, one noter even said the Christian were responsible for the
    GREATEST bloodbath in history, while dismissing that abortion is
    blood letting.
    
    I see gifts of the spirit being ever more needed and the tongues of
    fire for the faithful will be poured out before the Lord comes.
    
    I have more thoughts... but this will be it for now.
    
    With love,
    Nancy
    
    P.S.
    ACTS is one of my favorite books in the Bible... Peter preached with
    power after he betrayed Christ.  Paul became the light unto the
    gentiles.  The vision of Peter, the first deacon... and Stephen
    stoned, the Ascension, the power of the Holy Spirit poured upon us,
    Paul's heart towards the Jews to the point of disobedience, Philip
    being transported... and so so much more.
    
    My insides just get all excited thinking about it.  Whew Amen!

Hi Nancy,

For years I have felt with increasing conviction that the approaching 
return of the LORD, and the accompanying accereration in spiritual 
intensity, both good and evil - the wheat and the tares growing together - 
will mean that the pressure of the world will make us see more clearly what 
it means to be a Christian, and will have the effect of making us better 
Christians.  That one result of this is a community church, or communal 
church is 'merely' an answer to Jesus' prayer of John 17:21-23!

� I believe as we see more and more evidence of the return of Christ there
� will become a need to return to the communal church.  

I think the 'need' is always there.  It's just that our vision and values 
are confused by the standards of the upside-down world that we live in.  As 
the distinction between the world and the Christian becomes more 
pronounced in the last days - as the enemy seeks to establish his 
kingdom, and weed out all that has God's righteousness - the veil is 
withdrawn from our eyes, and the empty attractions fade, as they are seen 
in their true light.  The communal church will be the result of the LORD 
within us being expressed in a desire and true love for each other.  The 
'meeting together' of Hebrews 10:25 becomes the home of the heart, because 
that's where the LORD is so freely expressed amongst us.

� There will be a time when the only place safe for us will be in this type
� of setting. 
As we draw closer to the LORD - both in terms of the time of His coming, 
and in terms of our spiritual likeness, we see 'safe' and 'unsafe' as 
meaning different things.  He takes care of our physical.  We have no 
concern there.  That includes financial, etc, because we are in a place of 
worldly exclusion (eg Revelation 13:17).  The only 'unsafe' is personally 
being out of fellowship with the LORD.  The only 'safe' is following His 
will and His way.  The fact that the world becomes very inimical is still 
under His limiting control, and in old terms, this is a risk we just have 
to take in witnessing etc.  If I lose my life, it is not a 
'disaster', or 'unsafe'; it just means that I have completed His purpose 
for me.  After all, at a basic level, that is what happened to our LORD 
Jesus.  He was righteous and expressed righteousness, until the world's 
hatred ejected Him.

My problem with the early church lies between Matthew 28:16-20 / Mark 
16:14-15..., and Acts 8:1

Matthew 28:16-20 etc are the records of the 'great commission', where the
'eleven disciples' explicitly are told to :
  "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation."
They are also told to wait only for the Holy Spirit, who we read of 
coming in Acts 2.

However, by Acts 8, they are still huddled together in Jerusalem.  It is
God's time to move His witnesses on.  To get them to go, He needs to bring
persecution (Acts 8:1), and what do you know; we're told that even THEN the 
apostles (who got the heaviest message to go into all the world), are the
very ones who stay put!  God wants them to network all over the world, but
they insist on relying on a core node...  So it's other than the original
apostles who actually get the blessing of spreading the news, in the widest
sense, at least as far as is specifically recorded in Acts.  Philip, in
Acts 8, is used in revival in Samaria.  When he needs the 'key' of
apostolic blessing, Peter and John come down briefly, only to return,  
while it is Philip who is used to go 'way down past Jerusalem to meet the 
Ethiopian Eunuch.  Paul goes out on the missionary journeys, while the 
council at Jerusalem gets even more an admin centre...

We need to see and hear what the LORD is doing with His church today, as 
His coming approaches.

Not to denigrate the early church, but not to elevate it unduly either.  
They were people, and I see even there, the beginning of the lapse into 
a worldly comfort zone that has neutralised a lot of the effectiveness of 
the church today.

								Andrew
							    the hairy tick

A couple of comments:

Bouncing off of Andrew, first, then working into Nancy's comment about
Reservation community... in a round about way, of course:

The Great Commission to go sees a pattern of going into an unchurched area
and establishing a church.  Wherever any church is, including the church
in Jerusalem where the council sat, there has to be a base of people who
stick around and don't "go" anywhere.  This is part of the balance someone
else brought up between evangelism and discipleship.  One goes and one
grows.  (;-))  Both are integral aspects of the church life.

Recognizing that to have a church in an area, you need a nursery (bringing
up babes in Christ) staffed by capable care givers (mature Christians).
Having a strictly evangelical focus (to go) leaves out (or diminshes
greatly) the role of the area local church.  (Segue into Reservation
Community.)

Just as half-effective is a church that closes itself in.  America had
a point in its history called "Isolationism" where it didn't care what
was going on in the world. It wanted to fend for itself.  Many countries
wished they remained so, but WWI and WWII dragged (and I mean many people
were dragged into this still not wanting to "fight in a *foreign* war")
America out of isolationism.  (Some people say that we've gone to meddling 
and they may have a point there, but it is besides MY point.)

When America shed Isolationism and opened itself to trade and other exchanges 
with other countries, America prospered and so did those countries who
participated in exchange.  (I know there is a whole lot of other things
about trade, but please bear with my point.)  By sharing and trading 
resources, much more could be accomplished and much more was gained
in the process.

This relates to churches who attempt to cloister themselves (and I am not
saying that Nancy is proposing this, by the way).  I said this in another 
note where Jesus says, "On this Rock will I build MY church and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it."  We often think of hell coming
to the doors of our fortress the church, instead of thinking of our
CHURCH STORMING THE GATES OF HELL; and its *gates* will not prevail;
it will not keep the church out!!!  

The church MUST GO and the church MUST also minister in its community.
Go where?  Into the world where the gospel isn't and put it there.
Stay where?  In the community, because there are those in the community
where the gospel isn't and we need to put it there.

More in next note.

Mark

In heaven, I imagine a "Christian" Community (or heavenly community)
as a model for what we'd like to see here on earth.  With it, you'd
see the same types of things you'd expect from a 1C church, that of
sharing things without any thought.  Now that I have a sewing pattern,
I place this see-through paper on the landscape and map out how the 
fabric of today's (corrupt) society can best emulate the model.

First, let's look at the incidentals.  A good place to see this is in 
book of Nehemiah.  Yep!  Nehemiah set out to rebuild the wall around
Jerusalem.  As you read the account, check out the groups of people
who volunteered their efforts to rebuild the wall (which included
perfumers and goldsmiths); I think there were 55 groups each different.

So the "ministers" of the project (or rebuilding the wall) came from 
the whole community.  They had a purpose and everyone was united to that
purpose.  

So we have cobblers, tailors, brick layers, computer programmers,
electrical engineers, and so on all in our community.  These people
come together to celebrate their unity in Christ in an organization called
a church.  They also go to their shops and places of work and live 
individual lives for Christ.  In daily life, they encounter problems
within this body of believers and rise to the occasion to minister.
In daily life, they encounter problems outside the body and are called
to minister, like Ananias to a blind Saul, or Peter to a bunch of "unclean"
Romans.  Sometimes, people who respond to these individual ministers
would never respond to a celebration of unity of the body of the church.
Sometimes, *through* the minstering of these individuals, people to
respond and come to the celebrations.

Back in Nehemiah's day, what business did perfumers have doing masonry?
Yet they did it.  They didn't stop being perfume makers, by the way.
I'm rambling so I suppose what I'm trying to say is that a church community
made up of many different people in a community is placed in a community
among the unwashed and lost.  Their responsibility for individual contact 
is not diminished by a seeker-sensitive service; it is INCREASED!  In a 
cloister, we can ask God to "bless me and my wife, my son John and his wife,
us four, no more, Amen."  In a seeker-sensitive church, the responsibility
to minister one-on-one in discipleship is greater than other churches.
Why?  Because the church has made it easy for people to come.

In another model, we bring them in sporadically.  In Acts, 3000 were won in 
a day!!!  They didn't have all the discipleship courses in place that day.
And more were added DAILY.

If we want to emulate the 1C church, then what do we do about having
3000 new converts in one day as the result of one man's preaching?
Now that I've said this, I think we OUGHT to emulate the first century
church!

Mark

    Another feather in the pudding of "church" today.
    
    Church today has taken on a social gathering in many of our
    non-denominational settings.
    
    What churches should be doing:
    
    1. Instruction - Bible Studies
    2. Reproof - Preaching from the Shephard
    3. Correction - Preaching from the Shephard
    4. Evangelism - Soul Winning, Outreach
    5. Helps - Feeding the poor, caring for widows
    6. Fellowship - Social
    
    What are most churches doing:
    
    1. Fellowship - Social
    2. Instruction - Bible Studies
    
    
    3. Instruction - Bible Studies
    
    
    

    As I've mentioned in other notes...
    
    I believe the structure of church today has actually damaged many
    families.
    
    The husband or wife gets involved and supports ministries that require
    much of their "off" time.  If there are no children, this is not an
    issue most of the time.  But when you have children, then one parent
    becomes primarily responsible for them.  
    
    Soon, the mate who is caring for the children feels neglected, but
    guilty because to complain about the amount of time the spouse is away
    is unspiritual.  After all they're doing this for God.
    
    Church should imo [and I know Mark doesn't agree] never pre-empt
    familial responsibilities.  If one is called into a "ministry", one
    should check with their mate to see if he/she is too called into that
    ministry.  If not, then prayer together and an openness to change for
    either direction should be implemented.
    
    See a Pastor isn't just called into the ministry, but his wife as well. 
    For if she is not, then her lifelong role of sacrifice [of her mate to
    the flock, much as a doctor to his patients] is miserable for both.
    
    Nancy

    re: last
    
    Good points Nancy.  I know for myself (and Steve) that if we had
    children, we could not/would not be doing what we are doing.  Steve is 
    involved in Royal Rangers (boy scout type program).  They meet every 
    Tuesday night and occasionally have functions on the weekends.  I am 
    involved in music, which fortuntately, practice happens on Tuesdays.  
    However, as we continue to grow in this area, more of our time is spent
    practicing, especially if we have a function we are performing at.  We
    both work full-time, and somehow, between errands and such, we end up 
    being out of the house 3 - 4 nights a week (and I'm getting tired of
    it!)  Factor a child into this and, - NO WAY!  One or both of us would
    have our 'extra-ciricular activities' severely curtailed.  As you say,
    it's one (usually the wife, in my observations) who does the
    sacrificing and the other stays involved in their pursuits, putting a
    strain on the marriage.  If I had a child, I wouldn't *want* to be out
    every night of the week - neither would I want my husband gone 50% > of
    the time.  I find "being involved" (in whatever activity of choice,
    church-related or not) demands constant review: what effect is my
    absence having on my husband? home? my mental/physical health?
    
    I think part of this common problem among the church-going comes down
    to "10% of the people do 90% of the work".  Those that care, bear more
    than their share of responsibility.
    
    I lean more toward your view of this issue, Nancy.  Because of past 
    (hurtful) experiences, I would put my family needs/responsibilities 
    before the church.
    
    Karen

    
    Actually Nancy it even happens when you don't have kids. I find that in
    churches the "reliable" people are called on to do everything while
    nobody else is challenged to service.  I'm tired.  Because I'm single
    with no kids people think I have all this time.  Well load it up with
    ministry and discipleship and I've got next to no time.  I constantly
    get asked to serve in new ways even though I still have all my other
    commitments in the church.  I see the same people do the work and the
    same people sitting in the pews like an over-bloated sponge.
    
    My brother and I taught childrens church for the entire summer simply
    because nobody else would.  Nobody really talked to us or ministered to
    us in any way during that time.  We both felt terribly neglected.
    
    I believe that the church should shut things down when they don't get
    workers coming forward.  I think you just announce that we will no
    longer be having a 2nd grade Sunday School class because you don't have
    a teacher. It's amazing when you do that.  People God have been
    prodding realize He's been prodding them for a reason; to fill a
    specific need.  Churches aren't always willing to take the hard line
    when it comes to service in the church.  As far as I'm concerned the
    only pew-warmers should be non- christians, children, and new
    christians who need to be discipled.  I don't believe you'd have
    workers who burned out if everybody was using their gifts as God
    intended.  We are all called to ministry.
    
    Karen it shouldn't have to be because of past hurts, I believe that's
    the correct order for your priorities:  God, family, church.  How 
    can anyone be an effective servant in the church if everybody sees 
    that his family is barely staying together?  
    
    Jill

 amen, Jill...

-.1

(Ah you won't miss me with Jill around!  ;-) )

You're talking my language, Jael.

      Hi,
    
        Just a $0.02 on the proclaiming of the gospel...
    
        Something just occured to me a couple of weeks ago.
    
        And that is partial context of one of the well known verses that 
        refers to spreading the gospel.
    
        Matthew 24:13
        And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world
        as a witness to all the nations and then the end shall come.
    
        The context of the entire chapter includes some hefty persecution.
        Also, check out the verse just preceding verse 13...
    
        Matthew 24:12
        But he who endures to the end shall be saved.
    
        And THIS GOSPEL of the kingdom will be preached.  (The gospel 
        that enables one to endure to the end.)
    
        The endtime imagery I have seen in places like Isaiah, Ezekiel,
        Hebrews, etc. depicts some hefty trial.
    
        Are we preaching that gospel which enables one to endure *to the
        end*?  (By end, I mean the cataclysmic scenes just prior to the
        2nd coming.  The mark of the beast and all that.)
    
        Are we preaching THAT gospel?
    
        If we're just like Israel was when Christ came, our answer is 
        sure to be, "Of course we are."
    
        If we're to receive the chastening of the Lord, we'll have a 
        different answer.
    
        We need        	eyesalve   	 raiment	    gold...
    
        We need to	discern		 righteousness	    by faith.
    
    
        That's what Laodicaea needs to do.  Its not so much getting it out
        to that last remote tribe in the Amazon river forest. 
    
        Its a matter of drinking in the true, full gospel.  And when we do,
        nothing will be able to stop us from spreading it like fire.
    
        The whole problem is understanding the gospel.
    
        The MESSAGE of the cross is the power of God.  Where power is
        lacking in the church, the message must be obscured.
        
    							Tony
    

    We don't need to preach that gospel since we won't be here.
    
    have fun,
    Mike

      Well Mike, even if one believes that we don't 'need' to preach
      that gospel, wouldn't it better honor and glorify God if we did
      preach that gospel?  Wouldn't it be better to preach the message
      of the cross that is the power of God?
    
    							Tony

    Good comments!  And here I thought I was alone in this thought process.
    :-) :-)
    
    Any comments on .31?

Re: .38  (Mike)

>    We don't need to preach that gospel since we won't be here.

...which brings us back to topic 644.  In particular, 644.245 and 644.246...

    
    Hi Nancy, (RE: .31)
    
    I agree that sometimes churches can spend on too much time on the
    social aspect of the church.  But I must add that I've found that often
    times it's through fellowshipping with someone that you are more atuned
    to when they are in need of prayer even without them having to say
    something. I'd compare it to the fine tuning that a blind person's ears
    attain. I guess it's like hearing with spiritual ears or a kind of
    spiritual intuition.  Not that getting to know the person can
    substitute for the moving of the Holy Spirit.  I'm talking about the
    two combined bringing a greater effectiveness in praying for your
    fellow brothers and sisters.
    
    Jill

I think there's some basic misconception in a lot of the strictly on-topic 
notes on our correlation between the early church, and what we should be 
seeing today.

This is that the church pattern to follow is in Acts.  I don't see that at
all.  Acts is an example of what happened.  The disciples, and even the
apostles there are liable to mistakes, as instanced in Galatians 2:11. I
see the worship pattern laid down in the epistles - specifically, in 1
Corinthians 14.  Putting that together with the attitudes and behaviour
patterns (eg in 1 Corinthians 12...), you get all that's necessary. 

We have to make the correct distinctions concerning inspiration.  The Bible
is inspired as an historical record, but {obviously}  that does not mean
that what people are recorded as doing was always righteous.   However, we
even need to apply that to Christians.  In Acts (and not only Acts 5!). The
inspired teaching is given in Jesus' words, and in the specific instruction
of the epistles. 

If you want to move on to church government etc, there's the pastoral
epistles, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, principally. 

We're not meant to be rigid in structure or form, but each assembly
worships according to scripture (primarily), and then (beyond that),
according to the local leading / preference.

Now Acts *is* exciting, as the church responds to the dynamic new moving of
the Holy Spirit.  What happens is not necessarily 'ideal', because it's
done through fallen men, but we *can* see God working.  And just as He can
use the imperfect disciples of that day, so He can use imperfect us, where
we are yielded up to Him. 

								Andrew

I wrote this yesterday, in a gap when I could get limited access, and 
counldn't get top the conference, so now I'm entering it, finding that the 
discussion has moved into another direction.  I'll try to catch up woith 
you all there too!

    Hi
    
    I haven't had a chance to read through all the contributions in this
    topic so if I repeat someone else or seemingly ignore someone else
    please don't take it personally :>)
    
    I have discovered recently that there are less fundamental rules and
    regulations than a lot of people think. What the 1CC had was an ability
    to adapt to what the Holy Spirit was telling them for that time. They
    were willing to listen to His guidance and respond, often in quite a
    risky way. I believe that so long as the fundementals are solid (ie the
    Trinity, salvation by faith alone, etc.) then the church needs to be
    listening very carefully to what the Holy Spirit is saying to the
    churches (a phrase used by Jesus to every church in Revelation). Each
    church (indeed each believer) is unique and God treats each of us in a
    unique way so it would be wrong for one believer to say "This is the
    correct way to live a christian life" - it may be right for him, but
    it's not necessarily right for anyone else.
    
    I firmly believe that if we are to attempt to follow the example of the
    1CC then we should be ready to listen and respond to the Holy Spirit,
    accept that other churches may have a different view from us, and
    totally and utterly sell out for Jesus because rthat is most certainly
    the secret of their success in establishing the worldwide church.
    
    I may have missed a few bits, sorry about that but I'm a bit busy
    
    Bless you all
    Ben

    Tony, we only need to preach the gospel of salvation through Jesus
    Christ.  There is no other gospel.

Different topic.

This is about the First Century Church.

    Ben,
    
    While I agree that the "Spirit" should do the leading, God has given us
    some commands and directives as CHRISTIANS.  In turn, I believe that
    what has happened [myself guilty as well] is that we interpret that to
    mean the church body or even the Pastors are responsible for these
    things, but us flocks are just to follow!
    
    I'm finding as I rid myself of traditionalism [not as a whole but
    concept by concept], that in reality all those things which primarily
    have been thought of as being for the Pastor and church staff or
    primarily for *me*!  Exciting, huh???  Amen! Halelujah!
    
    Nancy

>    all those things which primarily
>    have been thought of as being for the Pastor and church staff or
>    primarily for *me*!  Exciting, huh???  Amen! Halelujah!


Yes!  We are all ministers  and some of us are even pastor (shepherd) types
without the calling of the clergy.  Good stuff.

Mark

    re: .34 - Jill
    
    Yes, I agree that the correct order is 1. God, 2. Family, 3. Church. 
    However, in my experience, many people confuse their personal,
    day-to-day walk with God with their church work or church attendence. 
    Because of this, family life suffers.  It is through this (hurtful) 
    experience of confusion or misunderstanding of roles/priorities that 
    I have come to understand and support the correct order.
    
    Karen 

    .49
    
    Amen Karen!!!! You mind if I copy this note over to 699?

�    .49
    
�    Amen Karen!!!! You mind if I copy this note over to 699?

Or move it+?  Have the discussions got intertwined somewhat?

								...Andrew

    .52
    
    Andrew, there is no way to not intertwince these two notes.  They are
    most certainly connected...:-)
    
    Nancy

�    Andrew, there is no way to not intertwince these two notes.  They are
�    most certainly connected...:-)
    
;-)

...but the point of 702 was asking something rather specific, which seems 
to be getting lost, as 699 is discussed here instead (or as well)?

							Andrew

    no, I don't mind....move as you see fit - or not! :-)
    
    Karen

I copied part or all of it ans responded.  Let's just continue with
the First Century Church here.  Thanks.

Mark

    The FCC celebrated Passover!

Hi Everyone,

Last Sunday, I took notes as I was inspired with the message!!

Here are seven Faces/Characteristics to being a healthy Community of 
believers:

A CHURCH SHOULD BE: 		A CONFESSIONAL COMMUNITY = A place to be 	
				forgiven. It's okay to be real(a sinner -
				we all are) 

				A COMPASSIONATE COMMUNITY = A place to be
				loved. You feel the passion in your gut.

				A CONFRONTIVE COMMUNITY = A place to be changed.
				To be challenged by words of truth. To be 
				taught to obey Christ.

				A CULTIVATING COMMUNITY = A place to grow.
				Don't lock each other in past behaviors.
				Celebrate growth.

				A CHARISMATIC COMMUNITY = A place to be 	
				empowered. Open to the life of the spirit.

				A CONTAGIOUS COMMUNITY = A place on fire through
				service to/for others. 

				A CHRIST CENTERED COMMUNITY = A place to reflect
				Jesus' light. A place of devotion. Our work is
				to help people enter into their rest with Jesus.
				This should be our passion not a work for Jesus.

Regards,

Steve 

    STeve,
    
    What kind of community is this one?
    
    What kind do you want it to be?
    
    Comforting, confronting, challenging, etc?
    
                                  Patricia

>    What kind of community is this one?

Not a church, but a gathering of Christians and non-Christians.

>    What kind do you want it to be?

Respectful for the Truth of the Bible.

MM

Hi Patricia,

This was taken a visiting pastor at the new Faith Fellowship church 
in Uxbridge Massachusetts. 

I have just recently been attending this church and so far I have seen the
following characteristics of the communities I had listed:

It is a place where people are invited to go for prayer - asking the Lord for
forgiveness. 

I sense geniune compassion as I enter the building. The Lord is working through
his people with love. I haven't gone a Sunday with multiple hugs and a feeling
of acceptance. 

I know that there is definitely a pastor who preaches change or challenges the
congregation to be more Christ-like. I attended an evening sermon where 
men's sexually was an opnely discussed topic. The pastor was extremely
vulnerable about this topic and it moved us all to hear it preached. 

The above sermon(s) would cause/help us to mature and grow. 

I have experienced or have felt the presence of the holy spirit in this place.
It's neat.

Since this is a new church, I am not aware of missions/service to others. I
believe it will come through God's love that I have seen. 

They definitely are putting Jesus as the reason to gather and passion is present.


I know that there is not one perfect church or body, but I believe that this
body is striving for the above. The have been blessed with a new building
in Uxbridge. They have a committed pastor and strong group of elders.
Their hearts appear to be geniune and the Lord is present.

Last night I went to a men's study and there were men from 17 churches 
present. The pastor asked which church was the best one?? He said they all are. 
You are where God wants you to be - that is the best church for you. 

Steve 
 

Hi Mark,

I believe that there were Non-Christians there since when an invitation was
given people raised their hands. 

I agree with you when you said respectful of the truth of the bible. 
If we don't believe in it, what do we believe in? Our own truth is flawed. 

Steve 

>I believe that there were Non-Christians there since when an invitation was
>given people raised their hands. 

Steve, 

  As well there should be.  There are several classes of non-christians,
  though: those who are seeking the Truth, those who are promoting an
  "alternative" truth, and those who are seeking to destroy the Truth.

  What is the Truth?  Jesus is the Truth.  He is the Word Incarnate.
  John 1:1 and 2 Timothy 3:16,17 (and others) are inextricably linked.
  Jesus is the fulfillment of the written word and is not the abolisher of
  it.

Mark

    I think thaat maybe it's too difficult to describe the first century
    church simply because each church was unique, it had it's own identity
    based on the culture of the location and the revelation each had from
    scruipture and the Holy Spirit. 
    
    If you look at Jesus' messages to the 7 churches in Revelation you will
    see that each church was different. The same can be said for the way
    Paul wrote to the different churches - they all had different problems,
    good points, revelations that were centered around the Truth - Jesus.
    
    I think that todays churches should accept that we are all different.
    Our backgrounds, traditions, revelations, interpretations are all
    different and to try and claim that one particular church has got it
    right would be very wrong. I would suggest that any church that
    preaches Jesus Christ as Lord and the only way of salvation has got
    it's foundations correct - what is built on that foundation is down to
    all the different variants I mentioned above.
                                           
    As I heard someone say recently"Let's accept that we are all gloriously
    different and let's rejoice in that"