While inductive and deductive reasoning as logical concepts are easy to explain (knowledge you have largely assumed), it might be good to give some clear examples of how they usually work in a typical bible study setting. What are the premises? Are they statements from scripture? Can doctrine be a starting point?

I couldn’t agree more about your call for unadorned preaching. I heard a recent interview with David Jackman who put it this way: “are you teaching your framework, or are you teaching the text?” Sadly it is too often the former. I believe that the Holy Spirit can speak directly and releveantly to many believers as the text is directly presented, however when preaching a framework, the risk is that most people have heard the framework before or that it is not relevant to their current spiritual needs. You can hear the interview here http://media.libsyn.com/media/matthiasmedia/briefinglounge001.mp3 .

Happy New Year!

This specific instance aside, however, what I see is a more and more marked deviation from foundational preaching and biblical education, with the casting aside of the ‘full council of God’ in presenting the Gospel, all in the name of inclusive growth.

I see this as significant error.

Your are correct that there is a core, essential doctrine & belief that is required for a living, functioning, Christ-headed church. The Word is absolutely necessary, and if any kind of growth is to occur will be (increasingly) present.

That said, believers are too quick to put their pet preferences into the necessary catagory. A missions group I am aware of made the observation that the apostles’ requirement for saving belief was the fact of the finished work of Jesus to reconcile with God. They take this to mean (for example) that a saving belief does not of necessity start with accepting a trinitarian view of the Godhead - that is the job for the Church to teach as the new born comes along in the faith. They do expect that the Spirit will make Trinity clear in due time, of course - the key is that the new believer call only on the name of Jesus to become right with God. I was a little surprised when I first read that; they do have a record serving in very hostile places which leaves me unwilling to write the observation off.

The problem with things like catechism is that it is too often a reflection of the current polical climate, both in and outside the church. For an example, consider infant baptism. Jesus did command baptism, and went into the Jordan first. The church then decided that sooner was better than later. Many centuries on, Luther wasn’t as keen on infant baptism as are modern Luthereans (among others). He also didn’t think that it was worth splitting the church over it. Coming from a decided Protestant background, I think that the infant baptism is a none starter, a large error. Yet I don’t see why someone whose earthly father raised him in this tradition is of necessity outside of the kingdom. (I’m not suggesting you do, by the way - I’m trying to say that the number of basic beliefs that cannot be traded away is probably smaller than I think and or like, because God is a whole lot bigger than me.)

As a body we need to be willing and able to take other parts of the body as they are now, and build into their growth as they build into ours. I think this was the point of the message; I’m not sure how to add the “keep all the important bits” without distracting from what was supposed to be the key point of the message. (Then again, my skills at communication are easily demostrated to be lacking…)

A pastor in Victoria (while I was doing my Master’s, and so didn’t “need” to take notes because it was all so easily remembered ) observed that in every church there is a sprinkling of emphasis among the members. He had 4 “legs,” if you will: some who were very concerned about correct doctrine, some who were very concerned with showing the faith through good works, plus two others that I should have written down… The point was that the church needs all of these traits. Those who focus on reaching out are often prone to sluff over the core doctrine; those who focus on core doctrine are often prone to making life unbearable for anyway who sees things differently. The body only grows when all in it do their bit to help the others in the body do what God made them to do correctly. Sort of a team thing.

I really hope this rambling makes some sense…

For the moment I have restrained myself from grabbing my soap box and expanding on each point in your list because they are each so pertinent. Suffice to say that it is a sad situation, and one which causes many who love the Lord great quiet distress, judging from comments make to me. Even more, the church seems to believe that the cure to dropping support (on many fronts) is even more of the same. It is a mindset and a vicious circle.

It is often so frustrating, but the Lord was gracious enough this evening to have me read an article that reminded the reader of the Lord’s advice that we store up our treasure in Heaven and not on earth. This has very wide application and comes to mind when I read your list of the worldly performance critieria and approaches that seem to surround us.

I pray that we may encourage one another to cleave only unto Him and Him crucified.

If the church were boasting like Paul it would be upside down to its current state at large. As it is; we have mass marketing, professionalism, performance driven, super structures, consumerism, and fame-vying. There’s a whole lot of boasting going on, but little talk of the cross or suffering. Is it any wonder that the church is losing members in droves, has leadership with rampant moral failures, and yet still trying to champion worldly success. We’ve all but emptied the church of its true power — Christ and Him crucified!

As stated in the initial post, my personal background would definitely have me on the full-time staff side of the fence, but I have seen just as positive things happen in the alternate model as well. The real question, then, is whether there are generalizations possible or whether it is strictly situational.

A lot of issues around the professional option seem to center on what the local mandate explicitly is and how it is carried out. In that case I think that the issue of transparent and obvious accountability becomes paramount. That has never been well addressed in most church frameworks, likely at least partially due to the historical patriarchal nature of the hierarchy that you mention.

Lastly is the issue you raise about service provided to non-church people. Although I did not mention this, it is definitely a contentious issue for some congregants, particularly in light of the limited pastoral time and resources that can be expected from employed staff. An interesting side issue.

First, we live in a time of specialization. While I could repair my car, I don’t, because there are those who can find & repair problems faster & cheaper than can I. Given this culture, it is not a shock that our churchs tend to aligh to that model.

Second, Biblical leadership styles tend not to translate well to 21st century North America - we no longer treat patriarchs as being the final authority for everything, and we don’t expect or even really want that in our church leadership. For what it is worthy, much of the participatory nature of our democratic political systems (such as it is) goes back to training “lay” people used to receive by going church and see how things were done there.

Third, we tend to expect our pastors / priests to do more than “just” preach - they are often the lead councilors / mediators for the flock, plus anyone walking in off the street. This is more than most people are really keen on either doing on the side or having it done as a side line.

Forth, and perhaps the weakest point here, my personal experiance has been that when the churchs I’ve been a part of lacked vocational staff persons beyond the office admin (a very vital function!), things tended to decay and sometimes completely fall apart. Re-introduce someone whose job description includes thinking & guiding those decaying things, and suddenly stuff works / happens again.

But then again, I have barely attended Brethern assemblies, much less tried to see how they work.

As I said in the posts, I don’t think that either model is superior overall. I would have been incredulous in the past at the suggestion that a non-professional situation could work as well as the mainline one. However, from what I have seen, it frequently can and does.

I also agree about having a position that acts as central ministry focus. Correctly implemented, that has many benefits. However, for that to have legitimacy transparent accountability is very important.

I don’t know the objective answer to that question, but I know I personally like having someone there to do that job full time. I like having someone there who’s job it is to study the Word. I couldn’t imagine doing a full time job, then doing the required studying.

I think comparisons to the early church should be done with caution. It’s generally a good thing to ask ourselves “What did the early church believe about this or that?” is good. But asking “What did the early church practice” is an entirely different question. What makes the first question a good one is also what makes the second question almost irrelevant.

The people who ran the early church were there. Many of them were direct disciples of Jesus. Many of those things that couldn’t have been written down because they’d fill every book on earth were witnessed by those people.

They also didn’t have to look through a cultural lens, or try to interpret writings from a 2000 year old dead language. Most of the New Testament writings were in Greek because it was the common language in the Mediterranean world, but Jesus and his disciples would have spoken Aramaic.

Back in the day churches were house churches and led by lay persons. To that I say “So what?” I’m not sure how you’d define a lay person from a non-lay person. They didn’t have Christian seminaries back then. Furthermore, today they do everything they can to keep God out of schools. In that culture, the scriptures were the basis for most education. Science, literature, etc. was done through a scriptural lens. Jews started out being a lot more familiar with scripture than modern day Christians. However, today we have the luxury of seminaries.

(In fact, if you want to look at how they did church in those days, the Catholic church’s hierarchical structure is closer to the original church model than our is, or even Bretheren’s structure.)

Nowadays, in Canada, we’re so far removed from that culture. The languages are completely different. The nuances are different. That was a culture with a large shame component. In 21st century western civilization we ask “Shame? What’s that mean? Oh, that’s like when Sean Connery tries to say the word ‘Same,’ right?”

So today, we need someone who can study these sorts of things so they can have a better chance of proper interpretation of scripture. Having a full time pastor or elder allows for someone to do this, and more. Frankly, I feel much much much better about learning about the word from someone who, not only has the credentials, but the time to look at passages in the original Greek, and to read other books to get an understanding of what others are saying about certain issues, etc. than I feel about someone who does those things in his spare time.

Living with a full time pastor for a couple of years I can see how busy they are. Frankly, I’d hate to imagine him working a full time job and trying to, even just do a sermon only half as often.

But some places do it. I have not regularly attended one of these churches, so I can’t really accurately judge.