One problem with preaching, apart from the content or the delivery, is the fact that it is given in a setting and in a service that ignores all of Paul's instructions in I Corinthians for what a church should be like. "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying . . . Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge."
Of course there is a need for preaching, but since when did the pastor become the star of the show? Just listening to the pastor is not what Paul describes in the only real description of a New Testament worship service that we have.
I agree with this, Joe. In my own worshiping context, which is the Episcopal church, the "star of the show" is the celebration of communion. And even in that part of the worship that is the liturgy of the Word, generally two Scripture readings are done by lay members, a psalm is recited or sung by the congregation or choir, and the congregation sings hymns.
There is a great deal to be said for liturgy, but I would like to see a service that followed all of Paul's directions literally, including those pertaining to women - but the women would have to be participating on that basis willingly, out of a conviction that it was right and pleasing to God, not as a forced imposition.
Specifically, I had in mind silence and head covering. I have read writings from different points of view (egalitarian and complementarian), and am familiar with the basic positions of the debate.
Here is a link to a group that advocates head covering as a matter of policy and the women themselves are in agreement with it and testify to its benefits. https://www.headcoveringmovement.com/ [" The Head Covering Movement is a community of Christians who are sparking a return to the biblical practice of head covering (1 Cor. 11:2-16)."]
I attended a Plymouth Brethren group's meetings a few times where head coverings and women's silence were practiced, but it seemed like an unhappy and spiritless situation, motivated more by legalism than by authentic spiritual motivation.
And, of course, this is not a matter essential to salvation . . .
Oh, fascinating. Obviously there are several Christian communities that have determined different church roles according to sex, and a few in which women wear head coverings. I don’t know of any where women are simply silent. But there are Catholic Churches where women cover their heads.
I am not making any effort to introduce my ideas, but you asked what I meant and I felt obligated to answer.
My starting point is that current ideas of role reversal and unisex are destructive, unbiblical and wrong, and that traditional distinctives should be reaffirmed. But again, that is not something I am campaigning for.
The church has forgotten what Purity means. We confuse purity with virginity or with mortification but all purity means is that a thing is entirely itself with nothing else mixed in. It could be pure gold or pure poison but it is what it is and nothing else. This is what the modern world is at war with, on a level as fundamental as its separate but connected war with Christianity.
You hit the nail on the head Matt talking about Other Good Things. The church is called to be One Thing, to do One Thing, and to love One Thing. This is, btw, one of the main themes of the Sermon on the Mount. The meaning of 'salt of the earth' has not generally been understood but it is connected intimately, in the text and I contend in the Lord's thought, with rejection by the world and persecution. From my series on the Sermon on the Mount:
'Salt was necessary for the offerings made in the temple, and whenever we find lists of the supplies that the temple needs we generally find salt in the list. So, when Christ mentions the ‘salt of the earth’, it is likely that He has in mind the idea of the Earth being an offering to God, an offering which is being hindered by the salt having become ‘useless’ or ‘foolish’ which our translators have rendered contextually as ‘loses its flavor’. One more comment on verse 13. The word rendered for us ‘but’ would probably be better rendered ‘unless’ or literally ‘if not’. Salt that has lost its flavor is, in this passage, good for nothing unless or until it is trampled on by men. The flavor that God is looking for in His church is boot heel. The salt is capable of making the sacrifice acceptable only after it has been stomped on, persecuted. I think that the connection with verse 11 is very important to understand this passage. And I think that we can easily connect in our imagination persecution and saltiness. Salt is also a very obvious comparison to the prophets, simply think how flavorless our world would be without Elijah and Ezekiel or Jeremiah’s salty tears.
But more specifically in the three cases I named and in the prophets and their heirs generally, the salt must be made salty by persecution, and the faith which sees this persecution as a blessing. '
One problem with preaching, apart from the content or the delivery, is the fact that it is given in a setting and in a service that ignores all of Paul's instructions in I Corinthians for what a church should be like. "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying . . . Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge."
Of course there is a need for preaching, but since when did the pastor become the star of the show? Just listening to the pastor is not what Paul describes in the only real description of a New Testament worship service that we have.
I agree with this, Joe. In my own worshiping context, which is the Episcopal church, the "star of the show" is the celebration of communion. And even in that part of the worship that is the liturgy of the Word, generally two Scripture readings are done by lay members, a psalm is recited or sung by the congregation or choir, and the congregation sings hymns.
There is a great deal to be said for liturgy, but I would like to see a service that followed all of Paul's directions literally, including those pertaining to women - but the women would have to be participating on that basis willingly, out of a conviction that it was right and pleasing to God, not as a forced imposition.
What do you have in mind when you say that?
Specifically, I had in mind silence and head covering. I have read writings from different points of view (egalitarian and complementarian), and am familiar with the basic positions of the debate.
Here is a link to a group that advocates head covering as a matter of policy and the women themselves are in agreement with it and testify to its benefits. https://www.headcoveringmovement.com/ [" The Head Covering Movement is a community of Christians who are sparking a return to the biblical practice of head covering (1 Cor. 11:2-16)."]
I attended a Plymouth Brethren group's meetings a few times where head coverings and women's silence were practiced, but it seemed like an unhappy and spiritless situation, motivated more by legalism than by authentic spiritual motivation.
And, of course, this is not a matter essential to salvation . . .
Oh, fascinating. Obviously there are several Christian communities that have determined different church roles according to sex, and a few in which women wear head coverings. I don’t know of any where women are simply silent. But there are Catholic Churches where women cover their heads.
I am not making any effort to introduce my ideas, but you asked what I meant and I felt obligated to answer.
My starting point is that current ideas of role reversal and unisex are destructive, unbiblical and wrong, and that traditional distinctives should be reaffirmed. But again, that is not something I am campaigning for.
The church has forgotten what Purity means. We confuse purity with virginity or with mortification but all purity means is that a thing is entirely itself with nothing else mixed in. It could be pure gold or pure poison but it is what it is and nothing else. This is what the modern world is at war with, on a level as fundamental as its separate but connected war with Christianity.
You hit the nail on the head Matt talking about Other Good Things. The church is called to be One Thing, to do One Thing, and to love One Thing. This is, btw, one of the main themes of the Sermon on the Mount. The meaning of 'salt of the earth' has not generally been understood but it is connected intimately, in the text and I contend in the Lord's thought, with rejection by the world and persecution. From my series on the Sermon on the Mount:
https://comfortwithtruth.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-pronouns-the-you
'Salt was necessary for the offerings made in the temple, and whenever we find lists of the supplies that the temple needs we generally find salt in the list. So, when Christ mentions the ‘salt of the earth’, it is likely that He has in mind the idea of the Earth being an offering to God, an offering which is being hindered by the salt having become ‘useless’ or ‘foolish’ which our translators have rendered contextually as ‘loses its flavor’. One more comment on verse 13. The word rendered for us ‘but’ would probably be better rendered ‘unless’ or literally ‘if not’. Salt that has lost its flavor is, in this passage, good for nothing unless or until it is trampled on by men. The flavor that God is looking for in His church is boot heel. The salt is capable of making the sacrifice acceptable only after it has been stomped on, persecuted. I think that the connection with verse 11 is very important to understand this passage. And I think that we can easily connect in our imagination persecution and saltiness. Salt is also a very obvious comparison to the prophets, simply think how flavorless our world would be without Elijah and Ezekiel or Jeremiah’s salty tears.
But more specifically in the three cases I named and in the prophets and their heirs generally, the salt must be made salty by persecution, and the faith which sees this persecution as a blessing. '
Jon, I'd never thought about the salt as persecution. That's helpful and fascinating, so thank you!