Order of Worship.....is it time to let it go?

[MicrophoneCheck]

Might these scriptures be in reference to the Church?

Ephesians 2 :

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Yes...still leaves a lot of details out concerning HOW we are to build on the foundation. 

[blyempowered]

Yes...still leaves a lot of details out concerning HOW we are to build on the foundation. 

Which is why some argue that "personal preference without violation of scripture" becomes the main theme.

[MicrophoneCheck]

Which is why some argue that "personal preference without violation of scripture" becomes the main theme.

I agree with that. 

[jdholliday]

Wow, that's good.  I never thought about it that way (Peter's sermon in Acts). I'm not MC, but I want to pause and point out that whether they had these things or not, it doesn't make them wrong or less effective.  I believe the bible focused on what was important and as long as we are not contrary to what we've been instructed in the Word of God, I believe we can use methods that help us minister effectively for the people that we have been called to.  Paul adjusted his sermons, and approach in the scripture, but kept it holy at all times.  That, to me, is part of becoming all things to all men... *shrug*

IMO, this is another instance of the church majoring in the minors.  If God calls you to establish a church, he may give you instructions that differ from other churches.  It doesn't make other churches or you wrong, it just makes them different.  You might reach souls in your church that others may not appeal to and vice versa.  Someone please point out the sin and give scripture reference... otherwise, I fail to see the point.

WISDOM

[LaylaMonroe]

As long as churches are spending 70% or more of their incoming tithes and offering on buildings and salaries, I really don't care about the order of service. I do agree that some of this is majoring in minor things but at the same time, I wonder if we even know what the major things are. We write everything off as minor unless it's a pastor doing something immoral or illegal, or a musician or artist being gay.

If we are spending any inordinate amount of money on anything other than evangelism and outreach, that, to me, is major and cannot be ignored. But it usually is.

[MicrophoneCheck]

As long as churches are spending 70% or more of their incoming tithes and offering on buildings and salaries, I really don't care about the order of service. I do agree that some of this is majoring in minor things but at the same time, I wonder if we even know what the major things are. We write everything off as minor unless it's a pastor doing something immoral or illegal, or a musician or artist being gay.

If we are spending any inordinate amount of money on anything other than evangelism and outreach, that, to me, is major and cannot be ignored. But it usually is.

Evangelism is always major, but I see spending a little differently.  If you are spending on things that will directly or indirectly build the ministry-- to me it still points to evangelism.  Examples would be:

Fixing the Van--people need rides
Maintenance to the sanctuary-- people are visual
Presenting your ministry with excellence-- again people are visual

[Hasmonean1]

Could it be that one man's major is another man's minor?

[MicrophoneCheck]

Could it be that one man's major is another man's minor?

Yup!  Denominations- different views and doctrines to accomplish the same goals (maybe in different order of priority but the same goals).

[phbrown]

Could it be that one man's major is another man's minor?

hmm .... #profound LOL

[LaylaMonroe]

Churches (on average) spend 70% on buildings and salaries. Not vans, media, or excellence and other stuff. Buildings and salaries.

I'm not referring to vans (especially not the ones that are actually filled with people needing to get to church).

Some of us want vans (big projector screens, 200 acre campuses, $300 million buildings, bus fleets, and whatever else) because it adds to status and the appearance of success - not so we can do ministry. If it truly aids in ministry, I'm all for it. But we have gone too far with it and I dare anyone to argue that we haven't. I'm ready for that one - even from the BB.

Instead of us always defending the church and its materialistic practices, why not pause and think. What in the heck do we need to have that costs 70% (in the case of most small, new churches, that is actually 90-95%) of our total intake? Are we just going to pretend that most churches DO spend a significant sum of their money on outreach and serving the people or will we use the usual "well MY church doesn't do that, so..."? 70% of intake on buildings and salaries? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

[MicrophoneCheck]

Churches (on average) spend 70% on buildings and salaries. Not vans, media, or excellence and other stuff. Buildings and salaries.

I'm not referring to vans (especially not the ones that are actually filled with people needing to get to church).

Some of us want vans (big projector screens, 200 acre campuses, $300 million buildings, bus fleets, and whatever else) because it adds to status and the appearance of success - not so we can do ministry. If it truly aids in ministry, I'm all for it. But we have gone too far with it and I dare anyone to argue that we haven't. I'm ready for that one - even from the BB.

Instead of us always defending the church and its materialistic practices, why not pause and think. What in the heck do we need to have that costs 70% (in the case of most small, new churches, that is actually 90-95%) of our total intake? Are we just going to pretend that most churches DO spend a significant sum of their money on outreach and serving the people or will we use the usual "well MY church doesn't do that, so..."? 70% of intake on buildings and salaries? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Sigh.  You WERE ready.  I can only speak for what I know...and what I know is that many still have SOULS as a number one priority.  I think we get waaaaaaaaay distracted by those who are not doing right.  IMO of course.

[blyempowered]

Sigh.  You WERE ready.  I can only speak for what I know...and what I know is that many still have SOULS as a number one priority. I think we get waaaaaaaaay distracted by those who are not doing right.  IMO of course.

I beg to differ a little bit. I think many churches are more concerned about packing the house than saving souls UNLESS they equate saving souls to filling the house.

IMO

[phbrown]

Churches (on average) spend 70% on buildings and salaries. Not vans, media, or excellence and other stuff. Buildings and salaries.

I'm not referring to vans (especially not the ones that are actually filled with people needing to get to church).

Some of us want vans (big projector screens, 200 acre campuses, $300 million buildings, bus fleets, and whatever else) because it adds to status and the appearance of success - not so we can do ministry. If it truly aids in ministry, I'm all for it. But we have gone too far with it and I dare anyone to argue that we haven't. I'm ready for that one - even from the BB.

Instead of us always defending the church and its materialistic practices, why not pause and think. What in the heck do we need to have that costs 70% (in the case of most small, new churches, that is actually 90-95%) of our total intake? Are we just going to pretend that most churches DO spend a significant sum of their money on outreach and serving the people or will we use the usual "well MY church doesn't do that, so..."? 70% of intake on buildings and salaries? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

You sound like the tea party of the church ROFL!!! Not that there is anything wrong with that it is your opinion and I respect your opinion.

[sjonathan02]

Could it be that one man's major is another man's minor?

Very, VERY good!

[sjonathan02]

Churches (on average) spend 70% on buildings and salaries. Not vans, media, or excellence and other stuff. Buildings and salaries.

I'm not referring to vans (especially not the ones that are actually filled with people needing to get to church).

Some of us want vans (big projector screens, 200 acre campuses, $300 million buildings, bus fleets, and whatever else) because it adds to status and the appearance of success - not so we can do ministry. If it truly aids in ministry, I'm all for it. But we have gone too far with it and I dare anyone to argue that we haven't. I'm ready for that one - even from the BB.

Instead of us always defending the church and its materialistic practices, why not pause and think. What in the heck do we need to have that costs 70% (in the case of most small, new churches, that is actually 90-95%) of our total intake? Are we just going to pretend that most churches DO spend a significant sum of their money on outreach and serving the people or will we use the usual "well MY church doesn't do that, so..."? 70% of intake on buildings and salaries? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

a. Who's doing that in this thread?

b. You can't say 'we' and not expect folks to defend what occurs in his or her particular church that may fall outside of the 70%.

c. And, you'd have to ask those that are spending the 70% whether or not it defeats the purpose.




Our discussing it does what? Our knowing about it does what? Can we really expect any of use to go to a world-renowned pastor and say, 'Hey, why ya'll spending all that money for a building?'

[LaylaMonroe]

Some of us are assigned to care/be concerned/distracted by the ones that are doing it wrong. Furthermore, I would also venture to take a wild, admittedly unsubstantiated guess that there are about as many churches who aren't concerned about souls first as those who are. If that's true, I consider this a worthwhile and valid concern.

In fact, I'll add: I think it's ok to disagree, but I find it almost ____________ (don't know the word) to imply that it's a non-issue. Disagree if you do, but don't minimize what concerns others especially if it concerns folks' spirits.

[jdholliday]

a. Who's doing that in this thread?

b. You can't say 'we' and not expect folks to defend what occurs in his or her particular church that may fall outside of the 70%.

c. And, you'd have to ask those that are spending the 70% whether or not it defeats the purpose.




Our discussing it does what? Our knowing about it does what? Can we really expect any of use to go to a world-renowned pastor and say, 'Hey, why ya'll spending all that money for a building?'

Where I think we get off track is judging the effectiveness of anyones particular ministries from the outside via tv/web broadcast etc. These churches maybe actually doing evangelism outreach etc but because we don't attend there we don't see the product at work.

[JustBritt]

*Reads a few pages*


***Confused***


*Walks back out*

[phbrown]

Where I think we get off track is judging the effectiveness of anyones particular ministries from the outside via tv/web broadcast etc. These churches maybe actually doing evangelism outreach etc but because we don't attend there we don't see the product at work.

*slow head nod in agreement*

[nessalynn77]

I sometimes wonder about the NT being the pattern for the church of the last days. The church then was in its infancy. And, its easy to see that the NT church had more than its share of problems... it resembled, in many ways, well, the church of today. I don't know if God is pleased with us aspiring to be the "church of yesterday". But, maybe He wants us to be "the Church of tomorrow", like what Paul envisioned in Eph. 5:27.

The NT church was the foundation, but it was just a start of something great, not a final and complete structure.  IMO (maybe) still thinking about that one.

This is good, sorry y'all I'm still catching up...

Also, the question I have, which maybe addressed in the next two or three pages as I'm still reading, is the issue that today's church practices are believed to have been taken directly from pagan practices, OR is the issue that today's church practices are not taken directly from scripture? 

Those are two very different arguments.  One is hugely erroneous because the bible doesn't give direct instructions for a lot of things we've been discussing.