Eliminating the Sunday Morning Sermon

bbbbbbb · #21 31st May 2011, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Episaw

Your first remark is a broad generalisation that will not stand up to scrutiny.

I would like to know how a person is activated if they don't remember most of what has been said?

And the truth is most people are not activated evidenced by the fact that in research carried out in most churches, 20% do all the work and the other 80% are spectators.

Mind you, a lot of ministers are very happy for the congregation to be the cheer squad for his show.

From the cradle to the grave the vast majority of church members have it drilled into them that the reason they pay the preacher's salary and tithe to the church is because it is the preacher's job to do the preaching and their job to do the listening and giving.

Episaw · #22 3rd June 2011, 03:42 AM

From the cradle to the grave the vast majority of church members have it drilled into them that the reason they pay the preacher's salary and tithe to the church is because it is the preacher's job to do the preaching and their job to do the listening and giving.

Never a truer word spoken in jest.

I have spoken to churches I have been involved in about the priesthood of all believers and you would think I was talking in tongues.

paul1149 · #23 4th July 2011, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Episaw

As far as I can see, there is only one sermon for the saints and that was Paul in the upper room, when he spoke way past midnight.

And even there, the word for dialog is used:

Original: διαλέγομαι
- Transliteration: Dialegomai
- Phonetic: dee-al-eg'-om-ahee
- Definition:
1. to think different things with one's self, mingle thought with thought
a. to ponder, revolve in mind
2. to converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss

This sermon-ditching thing is good. It is a step toward relational church, where everyone is active and free to engage. Where the Spirit is given control of the meeting. Where masks are dropped, and the real foot washing takes place. IOW, it's a step toward returning to the NT church model.

God speed.

MCab · #24 4th September 2011, 01:38 PM

Sounds like a great start and a lot of churches should follow. I bet you'll see more of the following effects:

1) Pastor is no longer seen as the guru with answers to everyone's problems.
2) Passivity will be discouraged, and the effect will go beyond Sunday: people will actually take responsibility for their own faith.
3) People will know what they believe a whole lot better.
4) Real fellowship: sorry, people gathered together to watch the same thing are not speaking to each other and making friends.

Keep us posted on how it works!

Mike Ward · #25 8th December 2011, 08:40 AM

Phleboto, do you know why your church is considering this?

ModestGirlsRock · #26 26th January 2012, 01:33 PM

Considering 1st century Christians met in houses and not collectively unless it was needed, I see no problem with reorganizing the worship service. The whole point of gathering on the first day of the week wasn't for hearing a sermon anyway. It was and is still about the communion. You could take away everything and just keep the communion, and you would still be in the right. As for research materials of why I think this way beyond what I have studied in the Bible, one book that is good to read is, "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up?" It has a chapter on the creation of the pulpit minister and how it wasn't originally a part of the Christian Church. It has great references to research materials too.

Episaw · #27 12th February 2012, 12:21 AM

You have pointed out very relevantly MDR that a lot of what we do in the church is not based on NT life or teaching. Frank Viola shows this in his book "Pagan Christianity."

Anther point that is not known because it has been taken over by religion and ritual, according to books that I have read about church history and the social life of the Middle East, the term "breaking of bread"is use to invite someone to have a meal with you. The original Greek indicates this as well.

You might meet someone in the street and say. "If you are free tonight come and break bread with me?" In other words, come for a meal.

This is confirmed in Act 2:42 "And they were continuing steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and in fellowship and in the breaking of the loaves, and in prayers."

In verse 46 it goes on to say "And continuing with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they shared food with gladness and simplicity of heart"

The custom was that the meal did not begin until the head of the house broke apart a loaf and gave everyone a piece thus the term "breaking of bread."

The eucharist or mass as the catholics call it was invented by the RC church to give more power to the local priest and increase the divide between clergy and laity. They said it was mystical (transubstantiation) so only a priest could officiate the elements.

SeekingWanderer · #28 20th August 2012, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Episaw

You have pointed out very relevantly MDR that a lot of what we do in the church is not based on NT life or teaching. Frank Viola shows this in his book "Pagan Christianity."

Anther point that is not known because it has been taken over by religion and ritual, according to books that I have read about church history and the social life of the Middle East, the term "breaking of bread"is use to invite someone to have a meal with you. The original Greek indicates this as well.

You might meet someone in the street and say. "If you are free tonight come and break bread with me?" In other words, come for a meal.

This is confirmed in Act 2:42 "And they were continuing steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and in fellowship and in the breaking of the loaves, and in prayers."

In verse 46 it goes on to say "And continuing with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they shared food with gladness and simplicity of heart"

The custom was that the meal did not begin until the head of the house broke apart a loaf and gave everyone a piece thus the term "breaking of bread."

The eucharist or mass as the catholics call it was invented by the RC church to give more power to the local priest and increase the divide between clergy and laity. They said it was mystical (transubstantiation) so only a priest could officiate the elements.

I could not agree more with you. I basically grew up in the Baptist church, and then left and later on was part of the Church of Christ (COC). I honestly didn't really learn anything until I left "organized religion" in search of true Biblical worship, and it was then that I realized that "organized religion" really is an oxymoron. The way religion is organized to day is NOTHING like it was in the NT. NOTHING! The only organized part of religion in the Bible was the fact that they agreed to meet at certain random places and at certain random times to discuss salvation and Jesus. There was no "every Sunday at 11AM". There was no "every Wednesday night at 7PM". Nowhere in the Bible. I did a post on another forum I called "Divide into One", wherein I suggested leaving "organized religion", AKA denominations, which do nothing more than separate us from other people who are seeking after the true Jesus of the Bible, and in it I explained what I understand from the Bible about worship. Organized religion today is the child of the Roman Catholic Church, with its pews, music, and rituals. And I have nothing good to say about the RCC.

hypshark · #29 20th September 2012, 12:36 PM

I sub-in (musician) at a church which does something similar, only the small groups meet during a brief "Sunday school" right before the sermon...Each small group studies the topic and scripture of the message prior to the service, and then as a summary conclusion meets during a worship service time (studied up) to hear the message.