2 church questions

Post by **_livingink** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:11 pm

1. Since the true church is a body of believers (1 Cor. 12:12-27), I understand the church to be relational vs. locational. I believe that may have been one of Steve's points on the Church Life series of recordings. To say that a Christian is going to church would be incorrect terminology since he is already in the body. Is that correct?

2. Depending upon how you view #1, would it be correct to say that the overseer (1 Tim. 3:1-7) is always the overseer regardless of his location or is that function restricted in any way to the formal gathering only?

thanks,

livingink

Post by **_TK** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:10 pm

"we need to get rid of the foul notion of 'GOING to church' when really it's a matter of BEING the church."

i heard that in a sermon once- not sure who said it. i agree with the statement.

therefore, it seems an overseer is an overseer regardless of his location. an overseer's function, namely to serve, would likely often be done outside of a formal gathering. of course it COULD take place in a formal gathering.

TK

Post by **__id_993** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:17 am

I think that we are all called to be Christians no matter where we are at any given time. When I bump into my Pastor at the store I still call him Pastor Stan cause that is his position. So I suppose that the overseer is the overseer no matter his location just like I'm a Christian no matter where I am. I also heard a similar sermon as T.K. and I believe that the guy said the question shouldn't be did you go to church Sunday? ... but were you the church?

Post by **_livingink** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:58 pm

Sorry I didn't reply earlier. My computer debugger found a critter and wouldn't let me access the forum.

I agree. In the past few days since I posted this I've had a couple people ask me where I go to church. I didn't quite know how to respond so I'll find your information useful. It will probably be an opportunity to teach when I'm asked again.

In the list of overseer characteristics, most of the items appear to be behavior a man may perform during everyday life. As regards teaching, however, to what extent do you think he meant the formal gathering and to what extent do you think he meant during everyday situations like I described in the 2nd paragraph?

livingink

Post by **_Michelle** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:45 am

Hi Livingink,

I hope you don't mind me barging in here to piggy-back on your questions:

I agree that the church is the body of believers wherever they are, however recently I read one man's opinion on this verse:

1 Corinthians 14:34 (New King James Version)
34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.

He posited that women should always be quiet in mixed company, when that group is made of Christians, since this would be the church. I don't mind being excluded from leadership, or being quiet in formal church meetings, but speaking freely in mixed company would be a hard habit to break!

So, if you figure out the overseers and teachers, would you mind figuring out women next? Meanwhile, I'll just listen -- unless I forget and speak up.

Post by **_TK** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:33 pm

Michelle-- Shhhhhh!

TK

Post by **_livingink** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:21 pm

Hi Michelle,

Hmm. Paul told me in Ephesians 5:25 to love my wife as Christ loved the church. I take that to mean I must be willing to die for her, which I am. But, now, did the wise Apostle tell me I could figure her out? Naw. Unless that's where he started talking about it being good to remain single. Sometimes I think I can hear God cackling when he looks at us. He says to me, "Well, punk, do you feel lucky?" when she gets me in front of a Bible study group and asks some question that would even make Steve squirm. That's the real reason Paul said for women to ask their husbands these questions at home first, in my humble opinion!

Your point about women speaking in any Christian group is well taken. I assume that gentleman would say that women could speak to non-believers but not to believers. Then I read things from very strict viewpoints that say that women shouldn't be evangelists either. So then, it seems a logical progression to eventually say that women can't speak to anyone, anytime, anywhere. I actually went to a little church where this issue aided in an eventual split. As I've studied Paul's words in 1 Tim. 2:12, turning it over and over in my mind for a year and a half now, I've come to the conclusion that, in that particular verse, he spoke only to the very narrow issue of teaching. Not preaching, evangelizing, prophesying or exhorting. But, a lot of writers sure say he included those there.

I'd really like to talk more right now about how wives should submit to their husbands but I've got to go get Dixie her Pepsi and ice cream sandwich.

Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

livingink

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:42 pm

1. Since the true church is a body of believers (1 Cor. 12:12-27), I understand the church to be relational vs. locational. I believe that may have been one of Steve's points on the Church Life series of recordings. To say that a Christian is going to church would be incorrect terminology since he is already in the body. Is that correct?

I prefer to say the church I'm a part of.

2. Depending upon how you view #1, would it be correct to say that the overseer (1 Tim. 3:1-7) is always the overseer regardless of his location or is that function restricted in any way to the formal gathering only?

I don't think overseer is a position. Although overseer is a pretty direct translation of episkopos, it seems that the word episkopos had less of an authoritarian emphasis to it than overseer does in our language. We equate overseer with supervisor, boss or master. Episkopos carried more of a caretaking emphasis, such as a mother watching over a child or a nurse watching over a patient or an adult watching over their elderly parent. A better translation, therefore, of episkopos into English might be caretaker or watcher-over. The idea is that mature believers are to watch over the church, using their gifts to equip, teach, build up, encourage, train, guide, set an example, etc.; all in a posture of serving, not controlling.

John Wimber (of the Vineyard) used to say of elders, "We don't publish a list of who the elders are. If you want to find the elders, just look for the ones who are elding." I think the same goes for episkopos: It's not necessarily the one who has a position or title. It's the ones who are functioning as caretakers.

Hey Michelle,

I don't mind being excluded from leadership, or being quiet in formal church meetings, but speaking freely in mixed company would be a hard habit to break!

I mind! The church has typically been made up of about 70% women. Marginalizing 70% of the body (who are oftentimes the more thoughtful and mature part of the body) is one of the greatest ripoffs perpetuated upon the church. The historical cause, in my humble opinion, is bad exegesis brought about by cultural bias and men's desire for control.

You are a functioning member of the body of Christ. Your gifts are needed to build up the church!

So, if you figure out the overseers and teachers, would you mind figuring out women next? Meanwhile, I'll just listen -- unless I forget and speak up.

I've done a fair amount of study on this topic. I think when I get some time I'll start a post on this...

Post by **_livingink** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:38 pm

Hello again Mort Coyle,

I was hoping you might see this thread and chime in. The more I study these topics, the more I agree with what you're saying. There really isn't any teaching that I can find that should lead someone to view eldership from the vantagepoint of power. Its always from the servant's view. I see no positions of part-time pastor. Its full-time shepherd regardless of location.

If you get time to start a thread, or if you want to discuss it here, I hope you might include some discussion on who really has authority in the church and what type of authority they have. For instance, I understand Jesus has authority as head of the church. The Apostles were then delegated some types of authority. They in turn authorized overseers of the congregations meeting in the various cities. And so on if you get my drift.

And if I understand your point to Michelle, to say that wives are under the authority of the husband is to say that wives are under the watchful caretaking eye of their husband as opposed to the eye of a slaveowner.

livingink

Post by **_Michelle** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:35 am

Hey Michelle,

Hey Mort Coyle,

Quote:
I don't mind being excluded from leadership, or being quiet in formal church meetings, but speaking freely in mixed company would be a hard habit to break!

I mind!

Thanks, I think. The truth is that I hate leading adults. I love working with children, but adults can make me crazy sometimes. I abhor having to tell adults what to do. I have a hard time understanding why they don't just do what they should, or what needs to be done without direction. I have to do it at work sometimes and it kills me. I also die a thousand deaths in front of a crowd. Once, in church, I was called on stage to receive an award for service, and I wanted the floor to open up and swallow me. And I didn't even have to say anything. There is no way...NO WAY... that I am called to be a leader, teacher, or preacher in a church.

The church has typically been made up of about 70% women. Marginalizing 70% of the body (who are oftentimes the more thoughtful and mature part of the body)...

Hmm...how did they get to be thoughtful and mature if they were marginalized? Perhaps using gifts that aren't normally thought of as leadership gifts can help one to grow just as well? It seems as if you are saying here that unless you are up front and center, you've been marginalized. I disagree. All parts of the body are necessary.

Also, does it seem to you that the 30% of the body that are males are all leaders? Or, do you think that only those men who are leaders are exercising their gifts?

...is one of the greatest ripoffs perpetuated upon the church. The historical cause, in my humble opinion, is bad exegesis brought about by cultural bias and men's desire for control.

Well, I'm sure many men have a desire for control. I guess telling half the human race to be quiet could give some illusion of control.

You are a functioning member of the body of Christ. Your gifts are needed to build up the church!

I know! It's just that my gifts tend to lead me away from the limelight and I'm really happy they do. Am I any less a part of the body because you might not notice my work so often? Does that diminish my work in any way?

Quote:
So, if you figure out the overseers and teachers, would you mind figuring out women next? Meanwhile, I'll just listen -- unless I forget and speak up.

I've done a fair amount of study on this topic. I think when I get some time I'll start a post on this...

Please don't forget! I really want to talk some more about this.

_________________
My blog: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com

I enjoy reading your blog. Keep up the good work.