Posting Sermons Online

[Praxis+Theodicy]

To my previous 'Amen !' - However, we would probably disagree that all of these instructions within a local church are still applicable today. They were in Paul's day. Where I disagree would be about women remaining silent.

I'm probably more in agreement with you than not, but I certainly don't think it's right to be able to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are "no longer relevant". I think the many times Paul addresses women speaking in the church need to be understood and harmonized after we understand the original context they were speaking into. That said, if we find our church context (i.e. the way we do church meetings) to be different today than it was in 1st-century Corinth, the solution is not to sweep away those portions of the Bible as "no longer relevant". The solution is to humbly seek to make changes to our church context to match the Biblical pattern. This is the main reason I am interested in seeing preaching and tounges in the public square and teaching and prophesying done within the church body. Posting sermons online is in keeping with "preaching" following the biblical model of being for unbelievers, rather than for believers.
If there is something that is very "personal" or "sensitive" for the local body, it ought to be prophesied in a members' meeting, and allowed for discussion, feedback, and input from the whole body. Not delivered during a "service" which is primarily for preaching to the unbelieving public.

[mike]

But church is about community and living life together. And yes, that includes both secular and sacred. That's why it's perfectly fine in my opinion to get together with other believers and talk about topics like our jobs and families and vacations as well as spiritual topics. The church is a real community of people, not a bunch of viewers in front of a screen or a guy at the podium.

The problem is it takes potentially years for a NMB to actually find that community. It might seem like community at first but after the excitement of new fades, what is left?

I am an MB who is new (2 years) to the MB congregation I'm in, and I don't think I will ever quite fit into the community. Probably my children will better than I, if we stay there long term. I spent 18-20 years in a congregation with NMB households, and while there were cultural aspects where they were never quite the same as others, they blended into community life and played their part just like everyone else.

There are cultural aspects to people and communities that just can't be deleted or ignored. I think if we all understand that, and embrace some of those things about ourselves and others, we'll be better off, and we can go on to the things that are more important.

[Sudsy]

Agree so in case my previous paragraph was overlooked -

Back to the pros and cons. I love the ability to select teachers online over TV and radio. That is a pro for me. However, it doesn't provide fellowship with other believers. The Internet with these forums though does even if it is not face to face. Currently, these forums is my fellowship and compared to the fellowship I was having attending a local church, it provides more conversation on spiritual things. Sometimes trying to discuss spiritual things with church going folk at church doesn't go over well. The fellowship is mostly focused on much of the same things the world takes interest in - the job, politics, raising a family, vacations, etc.

I saw it, and that response is useful for this discussion I think.

For those wanting good content to listen to, sermons posted online are definitely a help. And that would be one of the reasons for churches to post at least some content online. However, I think that church is about far more than just going in to listen to a sermon and then going back home. If that's all it is about, then yes, we may as well just stay home and listen or watch sermons instead.

But church is about community and living life together. And yes, that includes both secular and sacred. That's why it's perfectly fine in my opinion to get together with other believers and talk about topics like our jobs and families and vacations as well as spiritual topics. The church is a real community of people, not a bunch of viewers in front of a screen or a guy at the podium.

In my experiences, in 5 different Christian fellowships, there was quite a range of interaction between believers that were part of the local church. I attended a Baptist church for a couple years and the conversations with other believers was heavy on the secular and light on the sacred. Not much fellowshipping during the week. It was almost like turning off a switch once the sermon was over and conversation went almost entirely secular.

The other extreme, that I really enjoyed, was another Baptist church that got revived and there was so much excitement about what God was doing as many were being saved and needing feeding that the secular had little conversation or interest. Home bible studies sprang up and after the study period the conversations were often about soul winning experiences we were having and who had just became a new Christian. The church grew from a 'frozen few' to a packed out, on fire, many. We had close community relationship throughout the week to try to keep up with what God was doing.

My Salvation Army experience was more on the spiritual side also and community was focused around doing good deeds and reaching the lost. Not much interest in secular stuff. Very little conversation outside of mission work and they didn't let you sit around but kept us involved.

I don't think there is anything wrong with many secular conversations but, to me, it reflects just where the primary interests lie in the life of a believer. When Christians are really keen on their spiritual life and seeing others come to know the Lord, secular interests just seem to fall off. There is just too much going on spiritually to be quiet about. I was raised in a family where a high percentage of our Christian community interest was on spiritual things. Yes, we had secular conversations and activities but this was not what primarily interested us. We had more of a 'pilgrim passing through' and a 'this world is not my home' attitude. I miss those days.

I agree the church is a community of people, a community that is keen on reaching the lost and growing in the Lord. Not a group of professing Christians sitting around and arguing doctrine and constantly forming new communities from existing believers trying to have everyone believing exactly the same. These communities are like the Laodicean church. They have lost their first love for Christ and for the unsaved.

[Heirbyadoption]

I certainly don't think it's right to be able to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are "no longer relevant". I think the many times Paul addresses women speaking in the church need to be understood and harmonized after we understand the original context they were speaking into. That said, if we find our church context (i.e. the way we do church meetings) to be different today than it was in 1st-century Corinth, the solution is not to sweep away those portions of the Bible as "no longer relevant". The solution is to humbly seek to make changes to our church context to match the Biblical pattern.

Not a group of professing Christians sitting around and arguing doctrine and constantly forming new communities from existing believers trying to have everyone believing exactly the same.

Sudsy, am I correctly understanding your quote (the lower one) to be how you actually understand what Praxis-Theodicy said (in the upper quote)? Or is that just a roundabout way of expressing your disagreement with P-T's implication (and indeed, the general view of most conservative/Plain Anabaptists) that your view of women speaking in church (or similar issues) is inconsistent with a relevant & accurate application of the Scriptures that address that issue?

[Sudsy]

I certainly don't think it's right to be able to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are "no longer relevant". I think the many times Paul addresses women speaking in the church need to be understood and harmonized after we understand the original context they were speaking into. That said, if we find our church context (i.e. the way we do church meetings) to be different today than it was in 1st-century Corinth, the solution is not to sweep away those portions of the Bible as "no longer relevant". The solution is to humbly seek to make changes to our church context to match the Biblical pattern.

Not a group of professing Christians sitting around and arguing doctrine and constantly forming new communities from existing believers trying to have everyone believing exactly the same.

Sudsy, am I correctly understanding your quote (the lower one) to be how you actually understand what Praxis-Theodicy said (in the upper quote)? Or is that just a roundabout way of expressing your disagreement with P-T's implication (and indeed, the general view of most conservative/Plain Anabaptists) that your view of women speaking in church (or similar issues) is inconsistent with a relevant & accurate application of the Scriptures that address that issue?

I wasn't responding to P-T's comment above. However, I do not believe everything written in the NT is applicable today in the same way it was then. For examples, some follow the practise of foot washing when participating in the Lord's Supper. Others do not. Some baptise in water by immersion. Others do not. Some support the practise of speaking in unknown tongues with interpretation in the exact way Paul says. Others do not. Some approve of women preaching. Others do not. And we could go on about what really is the Biblical pattern that is required of all believers or if there is one. If one is going to find a church that practises Christianity exactly as the early NT church did, then good luck. I have not found one even though I was part of a church that changed it's name from 'Bible Baptist' to 'The New Testament Church In The Twentieth Century'. Others made fun of that because although we were active in door-to-door evangelism and other NT practises, other practises we were not involved in.

My comment that you provided above was related to my belief that some churches are so internally focused in trying to get the saints all believing the same way that they have little to no active concern over the salvation of the lost. I see churches such as the Pentecostals and Salvation Army, who give women leadership roles, as those who are making an impact on reaching the lost and who believe we are in the last days when God is pouring out His Spirit on all flesh, both men and women, as written in Acts 2:17,18. Those that are using what Paul wrote to the Corinthians at that time and place as their guide for today, imo, are ignoring what Peter preached. Some believe these are the last days we are in today, others, I guess, do not.

Well, got off topic but if you wish to get into this further, perhaps another thread regarding how we determine today what is still literally applicable today as it was when the NT was first written.