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

[blyempowered]

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.

Potentially both.

[nessalynn77]

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

I don't think you can call it personal preference if God has called a person to do a work, and given them instructions on what to do.  If it does not violate his word, there is no way you or I can judge whether God truly led them in that way, because it's not our job to do.  I do believe there is a witness in the Spirit for those who have the Spirit of God, as to whether something is God or not, but ultimately, the decision on that lies with God himself.  I know from history and the New Testament, that people are quick to in mass judge something as not God, because they don't understand it or can't reconcile it in their own minds or experience.  That's what the pharisees did when the disciples began preaching Jesus Christ.  That's why we need to find it in the Word of God, and if God didn't address it in his word, leave folks alone. 

Also, I think you have to be careful of attaching "personal preference" with bias.  By that I mean, if I don't like it, then it's personal preference, but if it feels good or sounds good to me, then it's heaven-sent.

[LaylaMonroe]

Since I'm a church consultant, I rarely talk about stuff I haven't witnessed first-hand. Definitely not judging a church from a distance.

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?'

B. When I say "we" I mean the global church. What one church does whether they are the best extreme or the worst, doesn't matter. I'm referring to the global church.

If someone wants to defend their own church, that's absolutely fine with me. It's just irrelevant to my point (which relates to the global church).

C. Not really. I have a little experience in this area so I already know the answer. It was rhetorical.

IRT your last paragraph, everyone's assignment, burden, resources, role, task, heart is different. What concerns one may not concern others. What can YOU do? I don't know. Well, from our BC convos I do know what you can and HAVE done. What can others do? Idk. But because of MY role, MY assignment, MY equipment, personality, connections, resources, experience, function, ministry area - I know what I can do. 

[blyempowered]

I don't think you can call it personal preference if God has called a person to do a work, and given them instructions on what to do.  If it does not violate his word, there is no way you or I can judge whether God truly led them in that way, because it's not our job to do.  I do believe there is a witness in the Spirit for those who have the Spirit of God, as to whether something is God or not, but ultimately, the decision on that lies with God himself.  I know from history and the New Testament, that people are quick to in mass judge something as not God, because they don't understand it or can't reconcile it in their own minds or experience.  That's what the pharisees did when the disciples began preaching Jesus Christ.  That's why we need to find it in the Word of God, and if God didn't address it in his word, leave folks alone. 

Also, I think you have to be careful of attaching "personal preference" with bias.  By that I mean, if I don't like it, then it's personal preference, but if it feels good or sounds good to me, then it's heaven-sent.

Hmmm interesting points my friend!

[nessalynn77]

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

I don't think you can call it personal preference if God has called a person to do a work, and given them instructions on what to do.  If it does not violate his word, there is no way you or I can judge whether God truly led them in that way, because it's not our job to do.  I do believe there is a witness in the Spirit for those who have the Spirit of God, as to whether something is God or not, but ultimately, the decision on that lies with God himself.  I know from history and the New Testament, that people are quick to in mass judge something as not God, because they don't understand it or can't reconcile it in their own minds or experience.  That's what the pharisees did when the disciples began preaching Jesus Christ.  That's why we need to find it in the Word of God, and if God didn't address it in his word, leave folks alone. 

Also, I think you have to be careful of attaching "personal preference" with bias.  By that I mean, if I don't like it, then it's personal preference, but if it feels good or sounds good to me, then it's heaven-sent.

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.

That's a generalization that simply doesn't apply to all churches.

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

Ah, but no one accounts for the churches that are still focused on the Great Commission, financially and otherwise.  This argument is a shift from the focus of whether church practices are pagan.  This is a separate thread altogether, namely, do churches allocate funds, time, energy, etc. on the right things.  That can only be determined by assessing each individual body.  AND I would argue that even after that assessment is complete, what's on paper may not show the true heart of that pastor and church.  Say for instance they ended up in over their heads and now are trying to get free so that they can really focus on ministry as God has given them?  A lot of factors can cause this to happen to a church, and it's a way that the enemy tries to disable the true God-given mission by cutting off the funding through atrition, church splits, scandal, etc.

[MicrophoneCheck]

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

You know...this brings up a really good point.  Leaders do look at a packed house and say-- HEY I'M DOING IT RIGHT--but I wonder how many SOULS ARE SAVED in house!  I've often wondered that.  I understand what you are saying.  I think we put a lot of money into getting people in the house, but often fail in doing the work of Evangelism.  It's good that they are in the house to hear the word, but...

For example, I hear a lot of people advertising their services and stuff...spending a lot of money on marketing...but is it Evangelism?  Hummm...going to go think about this.

[nessalynn77]

OH sorry, I guess I backtracked and ended up requoting my first quote, lol.

[MicrophoneCheck]

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.

Who said it was a non-issue? 
You came quoting your facts and stats...
But where was it stated that it was a non-issue?
Nobody is fighting you lol.

[LaylaMonroe]

Nessa, it's not a generalization, it's a factual statistic based on actual research. You can probably google it. That stat was from like 2008, from research done by the Barna Group I think. But I'm sure its not much different in 2011.

@Mic, I didn't think anyone was "fighting" me. This is my fam. I know them well and they know me. I can tell when we're "fighting" and this isn't one of them.

[nessalynn77]

Since I'm a church consultant, I rarely talk about stuff I haven't witnessed first-hand. Definitely not judging a church from a distance.

B. When I say "we" I mean the global church. What one church does whether they are the best extreme or the worst, doesn't matter. I'm referring to the global church.

If someone wants to defend their own church, that's absolutely fine with me. It's just irrelevant to my point (which relates to the global church).

C. Not really. I have a little experience in this area so I already know the answer. It was rhetorical.

IRT your last paragraph, everyone's assignment, burden, resources, role, task, heart is different. What concerns one may not concern others. What can YOU do? I don't know. Well, from our BC convos I do know what you can and HAVE done. What can others do? Idk. But because of MY role, MY assignment, MY equipment, personality, connections, resources, experience, function, ministry area - I know what I can do. 

I think addressing the global church is difficult to do with certainty.  In that bag of "global" we have true, well-intentioned, complete sham, in the body of Christ, and not even close or trying to be.  I can't even speak for most of those groups with any kind of certainty.  I can't even speak for every church in my organization.  I wasn't called to the organization, I was called to an area of the vineyard, where I am to work.  Is everything right there?  Nope.  Has God given a clear mission and are we working toward it?  yep.  That's the perspective from which I am coming when I say that it's not helpful for someone to come from nowhere, not knowing who we are and what God is doing in us and say because we have a printed program we're suddenly somewhere outside of what God intended.   Not helpful, and simply not true.

[LaylaMonroe]

@Nessa, IRT your last sentence, who said that?? This is why the book itself shouldn't be discussed like this. The subject, sure, but the book? It's so miscommunicated.

Anyway, yeah, I don't think anyone said that Ness.

[MicrophoneCheck]

I don't think you can call it personal preference if God has called a person to do a work, and given them instructions on what to do.  If it does not violate his word, there is no way you or I can judge whether God truly led them in that way, because it's not our job to do.  I do believe there is a witness in the Spirit for those who have the Spirit of God, as to whether something is God or not, but ultimately, the decision on that lies with God himself.  I know from history and the New Testament, that people are quick to in mass judge something as not God, because they don't understand it or can't reconcile it in their own minds or experience.  That's what the pharisees did when the disciples began preaching Jesus Christ.  That's why we need to find it in the Word of God, and if God didn't address it in his word, leave folks alone. 

Also, I think you have to be careful of attaching "personal preference" with bias.  By that I mean, if I don't like it, then it's personal preference, but if it feels good or sounds good to me, then it's heaven-sent. That's a generalization that simply doesn't apply to all churches. Ah, but no one accounts for the churches that are still focused on the Great Commission, financially and otherwise.  This argument is a shift from the focus of whether church practices are pagan.  This is a separate thread altogether, namely, do churches allocate funds, time, energy, etc. on the right things.  That can only be determined by assessing each individual body.  AND I would argue that even after that assessment is complete, what's on paper may not show the true heart of that pastor and church.  Say for instance they ended up in over their heads and now are trying to get free so that they can really focus on ministry as God has given them?  A lot of factors can cause this to happen to a church, and it's a way that the enemy tries to disable the true God-given mission by cutting off the funding through atrition, church splits, scandal, etc.

This is really good!!!!

[LaylaMonroe]

Let me rephrase: I didn't say that.

[nessalynn77]

Nessa, it's not a generalization, it's a factual statistic based on actual research. You can probably google it. That stat was from like 2008, from research done by the Barna Group I think. But I'm sure its not much different in 2011.

I understand statistics, but you probably understand how statistics work.  I am almost sure that many of the small churches; storefronts; churches that convene in school auditoriums, etc., didn't really figure strongly into statistics.  First of all, many of them probably don't even have the numbers to supply to such a study, and second, even more of them probably wouldn't if they did.  Legally, churches are required to report certain things, but if you're small, your outreach and evangelism is not going to be easily documented especially if it's not by big-ticket methods.

I mean, evangelism is not an expensive undertaking by any means.  Where I come from, if the church can't get a van, the members each volunteer to pick some folks up... it's free to meet together and pray and then go out and invite people, at most you need a tract or flyer... and at the same time, you're also not spending huge amounts on building, instruments or anything else.  You're just trying to provide a modest place in the community for saints to gather and worship and receive learn more about Jesus (also evangelism), and keep it warm and lighted (an indirect component of the previous evangelism).

Whether the building or the fancy stuff plays a role in evangelism is also questionable.  I mean, no, people don't need to go all out on their church and break the budget.  But, if you should do the best you can for God's house.  David and Solomon are good examples of this.  If we want to live in a nice, clean, permanent place where we can retire to it and relax and be at peace, doesn't God's house deserve to also be a nice, clean, permanent place, where people can count on it to be there and available for them to come and worship, if at all possible?  If we're evangelizing and compelling people to come, to where are they going to come?  If we're feeding and helping needy people, where should our operations be based?  Is there a fixed place where people know that they can come and receive this help?  If it's not fixed or stable, does it impact our ability to really be established as a dependable, useful source of aid to those in need?  If all of our facilities are rundown and in dire need of renovation, does that also send a message about God's church?

I'm saying that sometimes churches abuse their finances and focus on the wrong things, but all churches do not fit into that category, they are trying to establish their modest, basic, physical facilities, as part of the ministry and mission they are called to carry out.

[nessalynn77]

typos abound.  My apologies, lol.

[MicrophoneCheck]

I understand statistics, but you probably understand how statistics work.  I am almost sure that many of the small churches; storefronts; churches that convene in school auditoriums, etc., didn't really figure strongly into statistics.  First of all, many of them probably don't even have the numbers to supply to such a study, and second, even more of them probably wouldn't if they did.  Legally, churches are required to report certain things, but if you're small, your outreach and evangelism is not going to be easily documented especially if it's not by big-ticket methods.

I mean, evangelism is not an expensive undertaking by any means.  Where I come from, if the church can't get a van, the members each volunteer to pick some folks up... it's free to meet together and pray and then go out and invite people, at most you need a tract or flyer... and at the same time, you're also not spending huge amounts on building, instruments or anything else.  You're just trying to provide a modest place in the community for saints to gather and worship and receive learn more about Jesus (also evangelism), and keep it warm and lighted (an indirect component of the previous evangelism).

Whether the building or the fancy stuff plays a role in evangelism is also questionable.  I mean, no, people don't need to go all out on their church and break the budget.  But, if you should do the best you can for God's house.  David and Solomon are good examples of this.  If we want to live in a nice, clean, permanent place where we can retire to it and relax and be at peace, doesn't God's house deserve to also be a nice, clean, permanent place, where people can count on it to be there and available for them to come and worship, if at all possible?  If we're evangelizing and compelling people to come, to where are they going to come?  If we're feeding and helping needy people, where should our operations be based?  Is there a fixed place where people know that they can come and receive this help?  If it's not fixed or stable, does it impact our ability to really be established as a dependable, useful source of aid to those in need?  If all of our facilities are rundown and in dire need of renovation, does that also send a message about God's church?

I'm saying that sometimes churches abuse their finances and focus on the wrong things, but all churches do not fit into that category, they are trying to establish their modest, basic, physical facilities, as part of the ministry and mission they are called to carry out.

Amen, you said what I tried to say earlier...only with more eloquence Madam President (thats why I voted for you)

[sjonathan02]

I understand statistics, but you probably understand how statistics work.  I am almost sure that many of the small churches; storefronts; churches that convene in school auditoriums, etc., didn't really figure strongly into statistics.  First of all, many of them probably don't even have the numbers to supply to such a study, and second, even more of them probably wouldn't if they did.  Legally, churches are required to report certain things, but if you're small, your outreach and evangelism is not going to be easily documented especially if it's not by big-ticket methods.

I mean, evangelism is not an expensive undertaking by any means.  Where I come from, if the church can't get a van, the members each volunteer to pick some folks up... it's free to meet together and pray and then go out and invite people, at most you need a tract or flyer... and at the same time, you're also not spending huge amounts on building, instruments or anything else.  You're just trying to provide a modest place in the community for saints to gather and worship and receive learn more about Jesus (also evangelism), and keep it warm and lighted (an indirect component of the previous evangelism).

Whether the building or the fancy stuff plays a role in evangelism is also questionable.  I mean, no, people don't need to go all out on their church and break the budget.  But, if you should do the best you can for God's house.  David and Solomon are good examples of this.  If we want to live in a nice, clean, permanent place where we can retire to it and relax and be at peace, doesn't God's house deserve to also be a nice, clean, permanent place, where people can count on it to be there and available for them to come and worship, if at all possible?  If we're evangelizing and compelling people to come, to where are they going to come?  If we're feeding and helping needy people, where should our operations be based?  Is there a fixed place where people know that they can come and receive this help?  If it's not fixed or stable, does it impact our ability to really be established as a dependable, useful source of aid to those in need?  If all of our facilities are rundown and in dire need of renovation, does that also send a message about God's church?

I'm saying that sometimes churches abuse their finances and focus on the wrong things, but all churches do not fit into that category, they are trying to establish their modest, basic, physical facilities, as part of the ministry and mission they are called to carry out.

Very good points especially about evangelism. I was thinking of this very thing as I was driving home from work.

[LaylaMonroe]

Who in the world said that ALL churches fit into that category?? Come on now, sis. You know me better than that, and you already know what I meant before you even finished reading since I aint sayin nothing I haven't said (and clarified) before. LOL!! You know I'm not talking about every single church that exists. That would be silly and ignorant. And I'm just a little smarter than that.

*tapping out*

[nessalynn77]

Who in the world said that ALL churches fit into that category?? Come on now, sis. You know me better than that, and you already know what I meant before you even finished reading since I aint sayin nothing I haven't said (and clarified) before. LOL!! You know I'm not talking about every single church that exists. That would be silly and ignorant. And I'm just a little smarter than that.

*tapping out*

  Ewkay... lol.

The point I'm making (which I'm inclined to make numerous times as well), is that there's no way we can talk about the global church, using statistics and make any accurate gauge of what's really going on.  Sure there are churches completely out of the will of God, and those who are not, but statistics don't accurately reflect anything either way, because of the way they are compiled. 

We know for a fact the world is heading toward the end, and the "great falling away" is upon us, but when we talk about "the church", I'm a part of "the church" (guess I should've capitalized because I literally mean THE Church).  I called it a generalization, because I don't accept that most bible teaching, Spirit led churches are at all what you described. 

I guess the generalization comes in because in the initial subject, we're talking about practices that generally all churches have as a part of their services, being rooted in paganism.  Since this general pool of churches is the subject from which we are drawing, this subtopic, also seems directed at those same churches, and everyone in that category.  Which why I said earlier, that's kinda not related to the discussion at hand.  I'm not inclined to discuss other churches that do stuff that I don't believe in anyway, but I don't want to be lumped in with them either.

[MicrophoneCheck]

  Ewkay... lol.

The point I'm making (which I'm inclined to make numerous times as well), is that there's no way we can talk about the global church, using statistics and make any accurate gauge of what's really going on.  Sure there are churches completely out of the will of God, and those who are not, but statistics don't accurately reflect anything either way, because of the way they are compiled. 

We know for a fact the world is heading toward the end, and the "great falling away" is upon us, but when we talk about "the church", I'm a part of "the church" (guess I should've capitalized because I literally mean THE Church).  I called it a generalization, because I don't accept that most bible teaching, Spirit led churches are at all what you described. 

I guess the generalization comes in because in the initial subject, we're talking about practices that generally all churches have as a part of their services, being rooted in paganism.  Since this general pool of churches is the subject from which we are drawing, this subtopic, also seems directed at those same churches, and everyone in that category.  Which why I said earlier, that's kinda not related to the discussion at hand.  I'm not inclined to discuss other churches that do stuff that I don't believe in anyway, but I don't want to be lumped in with them either.

When I read stats like the ones that have been quoted, I admit it causes me to be defensive.  I begin to look around at all the ministries I know of, and I definately take a look at my own.  Then I say, HEEEEEEEEY, I don't agree with that, because as you stated- I'm a part of the church and YES its my first nature to defend her. 

I HATE being lumped into the "the church is not doing anything" bunch!!!! When much of my life has been spent in sacrifice FOR the church, I don't take it lightly when those type of things are said about it.