Comments on: For The Rev: Faith & Finances http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/ musings from those on the journey Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:26:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: oygle http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144339 oygle Sat, 05 Aug 2006 07:21:29 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144339 <blockquote> I have said to my pastor that one of the things I appreciate is that he has no more authority to speak into my life than any other brother in Christ, ie I will listen to what he says and consider it, but in no way do I feel bound by it.</blockquote> You are indeed blessed, to have such a good relationship with your Pastor; many will not take to being 'challenged'.

I have said to my pastor that one of the things I appreciate is that he has no more authority to speak into my life than any other brother in Christ, ie I will listen to what he says and consider it, but in no way do I feel bound by it.

You are indeed blessed, to have such a good relationship with your Pastor; many will not take to being ‘challenged’.

]]> By: blestpickle http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144338 blestpickle Sat, 05 Aug 2006 06:59:44 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144338 Thanks Bec, that's exactly what I meant. I don't think IC is the ideal way of doing church, but I do think that as long as the church is made up of sinful human beings, the moment you are fellowshipping with more than a few, well-trusted comrades-in-arms you need to have boundaries in place to protect people. What i actually want to see is the opposite of covering, it's having a recognition that ordinary members of the church are mature adults perfectly capable of making their own decisions and running their own lives, and most of them aren't making any more mistakes in life than the average pastor. I have said to my pastor that one of the things I appreciate is that he has no more authority to speak into my life than any other brother in Christ, ie I will listen to what he says and consider it, but in no way do I feel bound by it. This is the sort of thing I mean by safety -- not safety from responsibility but safety from holy sharks, who circle in the water looking for wounds to hone in on and feed off. Thanks Bec, that’s exactly what I meant. I don’t think IC is the ideal way of doing church, but I do think that as long as the church is made up of sinful human beings, the moment you are fellowshipping with more than a few, well-trusted comrades-in-arms you need to have boundaries in place to protect people. What i actually want to see is the opposite of covering, it’s having a recognition that ordinary members of the church are mature adults perfectly capable of making their own decisions and running their own lives, and most of them aren’t making any more mistakes in life than the average pastor. I have said to my pastor that one of the things I appreciate is that he has no more authority to speak into my life than any other brother in Christ, ie I will listen to what he says and consider it, but in no way do I feel bound by it. This is the sort of thing I mean by safety — not safety from responsibility but safety from holy sharks, who circle in the water looking for wounds to hone in on and feed off.

]]> By: oygle http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144337 oygle Sat, 05 Aug 2006 06:29:00 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144337 <a href="http://ptmin.org/covering_sample.htm" rel="nofollow">An insight</a> into the book. An insight into the book.

]]> By: bec http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144335 bec Sat, 05 Aug 2006 06:18:09 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144335 Ogyle, covering is a very different thing to what blestpickle is talking about. In fact, her appreciation for the institutional church comes from values that are the complete antithesis of covering - she talks about appreciating the accountability of the institutional church. I too appreciate that accountability. I appreciate the fact that a church that is a formally registered entity has certain financial reporting obligations. I appreciate the fact that it is accountable to a wider institutional structure for its teachings. The Trinity Church in Melbourne is a prime example of the strengths of the institutional church that blestpickle is talking about. Ogyle, covering is a very different thing to what blestpickle is talking about. In fact, her appreciation for the institutional church comes from values that are the complete antithesis of covering - she talks about appreciating the accountability of the institutional church.

I too appreciate that accountability. I appreciate the fact that a church that is a formally registered entity has certain financial reporting obligations. I appreciate the fact that it is accountable to a wider institutional structure for its teachings. The Trinity Church in Melbourne is a prime example of the strengths of the institutional church that blestpickle is talking about.

]]> By: oygle http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144330 oygle Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:43:58 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144330 <blockquote>I’m sure you didn’t mean to refer to your IC acquaintances as “dear fiends” in the last para, but could this be a Freudian attempt to demonise the system?</blockquote> Oops, ... no, they are definitely <b>friends</b> (I have some cognitive problems, well, that's my excuse anyway). I didn't notice that, thanks for picking it up. :) In post #113, I couldn't help noticing the words "protection", "accountability", "power structure", "authority". This issues are of a big concern to people 'pondering' HC, because they feel "safe" under the "covering" of an IC. However covering teaching is spurious and has absolutely no Biblical foundation to it at all, it is used to control people. The book <a href="http://ptmin.org/covering.htm" rel="nofollow">Who is your Covering?</a> has been mentioned by a number of people on Signposts; it is very good.

I’m sure you didn’t mean to refer to your IC acquaintances as “dear fiends” in the last para, but could this be a Freudian attempt to demonise the system?

Oops, … no, they are definitely friends (I have some cognitive problems, well, that’s my excuse anyway).

I didn’t notice that, thanks for picking it up. :)

In post #113, I couldn’t help noticing the words “protection”, “accountability”, “power structure”, “authority”. This issues are of a big concern to people ‘pondering’ HC, because they feel “safe” under the “covering” of an IC. However covering teaching is spurious and has absolutely no Biblical foundation to it at all, it is used to control people. The book Who is your Covering? has been mentioned by a number of people on Signposts; it is very good.

]]> By: blestpickle http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144328 blestpickle Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:17:19 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144328 Dear Oygle, I'm sure you didn't mean to refer to your IC acquaintances as "dear fiends" in the last para, but could this be a Freudian attempt to demonise the system? (sorry, couldn't help noticing) Dear Oygle, I’m sure you didn’t mean to refer to your IC acquaintances as “dear fiends” in the last para, but could this be a Freudian attempt to demonise the system?
(sorry, couldn’t help noticing)

]]> By: blestpickle http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144327 blestpickle Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:13:36 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144327 I have to agree. Having been badly burned (7-8 years ago) by a dysfunctional HC, and now involved in the local suburban Anglican church, my personal experience is that some of the bureacratic red tape that seems to get in the way of doing the real God-stuff in a denominational church. and is so frustrating, is also, at times our protection. Hcs can suffer from exactly the same problem as megachurches (how's that for irony?), namely lack of accountability. And, at least in my experience (which I certainly don't want to universalise) it can be all the more dangerous because the power structure is unspoken until you find that you have violated their secret rules ... Then they use the claims of friendship and "love" to justify all kinds of boundary violations. One of the reasons i feel "safe" for now in a denominational setting is that the boundaries are much clearer cut. I may not always agree with the pastor in the way he runs the services etc, but at least I know where his authority ends (and yes, I have actually discussed this with him! I needed to). I don't think ICs are the ideal solution; my own experience and anecdotal evidence from others, suggests that a lot of HCs don't manage to live up to the idealisation. I haven't found the answer, though I often ponder the question I have to agree. Having been badly burned (7-8 years ago) by a dysfunctional HC, and now involved in the local suburban Anglican church, my personal experience is that some of the bureacratic red tape that seems to get in the way of doing the real God-stuff in a denominational church. and is so frustrating, is also, at times our protection. Hcs can suffer from exactly the same problem as megachurches (how’s that for irony?), namely lack of accountability. And, at least in my experience (which I certainly don’t want to universalise) it can be all the more dangerous because the power structure is unspoken until you find that you have violated their secret rules … Then they use the claims of friendship and “love” to justify all kinds of boundary violations. One of the reasons i feel “safe” for now in a denominational setting is that the boundaries are much clearer cut. I may not always agree with the pastor in the way he runs the services etc, but at least I know where his authority ends (and yes, I have actually discussed this with him! I needed to). I don’t think ICs are the ideal solution; my own experience and anecdotal evidence from others, suggests that a lot of HCs don’t manage to live up to the idealisation. I haven’t found the answer, though I often ponder the question

]]> By: oygle http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144326 oygle Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:03:50 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144326 <blockquote> #110 dan Says: August 5th, 2006 at 1:34 pm I don’t think that the simple fact of engagement with a denomination or institutional heirarchy necessarily means that the church engages in spectator Christianity</blockquote> Definitely, I would not like to state that all IC's engage in spectator Christianity. However, let us look at one aspect of spectator Christianity, where the clergy/laity distinction is made, in special reference to the sermon, which is a clear trademark of <i>most</i> IC's. Is the sermon/preaching different today, from what was practised in the early church ?  Yes, it is <b>very</b> different, mostly originating from <a href="http://ptmin.org/pagan.htm" rel="nofollow">pagan </a> roots. 1. In the OT, active participation and interruptions by the audience were common. Ref: David C. Norrington, "To preach or not to preach ?" - p. 3 2. The Lord Jesus did not preach a regular sermon to the same audience, but the messages He brought forth were informal and spontaneous. Ref: David C. Norrington, "To preach or not to preach ?" - p. 5-7 3. The 'Sermon on the Mount' was given that name in the post-apostolic period. Augustine was the first to give Matt. 5-7 this name in his book "The Lords Sermon on the Mount" in AD 395. 4. Apostolic preaching recorded in Acts was sporadic. Ref: David C. Norrington, "To preach or not to preach ?" - p. 7-12 5. Apostolic preaching recorded in Acts was extemporaneous and without rhetorical structure. Acts 2:14-35; Acts 7:1-52; Acts 17:22-34 6. Apostolic preaching recorded in Acts was most often dialogical (meaning it included feedback and interruptions from the audience) rather than monological (a one-way discourse). Ref: Jeremy Thomson "Preaching as Dialogue: Is the Sermon a Sacred Cow ?" - pp 3-8 Acts 17:2,17; Acts 18:4,19; Acts 19:8,9; Acts 20:7,9; Acts 24:25 7. The NT letters show that the ministry of God's Word came from the entire church in their regular gatherings. 1 Cor 14:26, 31; Rom 12:4ff.; Eph: 4:11ff.; Heb 10:25. 8. This "every-member" functioning was also "conversational". 1 Cor 14:29 9. .. and marked by interruptions. 1 Cor 14:30 10. Equally so, the exhortations of the local elders were nominally impromptu. Ref: Alan Kreider, "Worship and Evangelism in Pre-Christendom" - p. 37 11. Unfortunately, the 'sermon' became a standard practice among believers by the fourth century. Ref: Edwin Hatch, "The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian Church" - p. 109 Active participation and interruptions, ... try doing that today !! The sermon is only one aspect of 'spectator Christianity'. <blockquote>So I would take from your comments that you do indeed think that HC model is better than IC. Would this be fair? </blockquote> I believe that the manner in which the Body of Christ functioned in the early church is <b>best</b>. I also believe there is no perfect IC, nor is there a perfect HC. I have a very strong desire to "do church" like the HC, because I believe that is how the Lord wants His Body to "function", for the simple truth that, this is what Body Life was all about, in the New Testament. I do not alienate myself from friends in the IC, in fact keeping up fellowship with those dear fiends in the Lord is important to me, not to 'presuade' them at all, we just have fellowship. I believe the Lord will call some people out of the IC into a HC, and for others, they will stay, I understand that, and respect that.

#110 dan Says:
August 5th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I don’t think that the simple fact of engagement with a
denomination or institutional heirarchy necessarily means that the
church engages in spectator Christianity

Definitely, I would not like to state that all IC’s engage in spectator
Christianity. However, let us look at one aspect of spectator
Christianity, where the clergy/laity distinction is made, in special
reference to the sermon, which is a clear trademark of most
IC’s. Is the sermon/preaching different today, from what was practised
in the early church ?  Yes, it is very different, mostly
originating from pagan roots.

1. In the OT, active participation and interruptions by the audience
were common.
Ref: David C. Norrington, “To preach or not to preach ?” - p. 3

2. The Lord Jesus did not preach a regular sermon to the same audience,
but the messages He brought forth were informal and spontaneous.
Ref: David C. Norrington, “To preach or not to preach ?” - p. 5-7

3. The ‘Sermon on the Mount’ was given that name in the post-apostolic
period. Augustine was the first to give Matt. 5-7 this name in his book
“The Lords Sermon on the Mount” in AD 395.

4. Apostolic preaching recorded in Acts was sporadic.
Ref: David C. Norrington, “To preach or not to preach ?” - p. 7-12

5. Apostolic preaching recorded in Acts was extemporaneous and without
rhetorical structure.
Acts 2:14-35; Acts 7:1-52; Acts 17:22-34

6. Apostolic preaching recorded in Acts was most often dialogical (meaning it included feedback and interruptions from the audience) rather than monological (a one-way discourse).
Ref: Jeremy Thomson “Preaching as Dialogue: Is the Sermon a Sacred Cow ?” - pp 3-8
Acts 17:2,17; Acts 18:4,19; Acts 19:8,9; Acts 20:7,9; Acts 24:25

7. The NT letters show that the ministry of God’s Word came from the
entire church in their regular gatherings.
1 Cor 14:26, 31; Rom 12:4ff.; Eph: 4:11ff.; Heb 10:25.

8. This “every-member” functioning was also “conversational”.
1 Cor 14:29

9. .. and marked by interruptions.
1 Cor 14:30

10. Equally so, the exhortations of the local elders were nominally impromptu.
Ref: Alan Kreider, “Worship and Evangelism in Pre-Christendom” - p. 37

11. Unfortunately, the ’sermon’ became a standard practice among believers by the fourth century.
Ref: Edwin Hatch, “The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the
Christian Church” - p. 109

Active participation and interruptions, … try doing that today !! The sermon is only one aspect of ’spectator Christianity’.

So I would take from your comments that you do indeed
think that HC model is better than IC. Would this be fair?

I believe that the manner in which the Body of Christ functioned in the
early church is best. I also believe there is no perfect IC, nor is
there a perfect HC. I have a very strong desire to “do church” like the HC, because I believe that is how the Lord wants His Body to “function”, for the simple truth that, this is what Body Life was all about, in the New Testament.

I do not alienate myself from friends in the IC, in fact keeping up fellowship with those dear fiends in the Lord is important to me, not to ‘presuade’ them at all, we just have fellowship. I believe the Lord will call some people out of the IC into a HC, and for others, they will stay, I understand that, and respect that.

]]> By: bec http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144325 bec Sat, 05 Aug 2006 03:53:35 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144325 Dan, I would define IC as traditional denominational churches, but I don't believe it necessarily follows that an IC is less missional, more hierarchical and less participatory than a HC. I think that is *usually* the case, but it doesn't necessarily follow. I know of churches which are institutional in the sense that they're a part of a denomination, say Anglican or Baptist, but they're very participatory and not particularly hierarchical. Equally, I am sure there are HCs which are led by extremely strong, even controlling leaders, and while their hierarchies might not be as formal as those in ICs, they nevertheless have a very strong hierarchy. Similarly, I certainly know of HCs where financial abuse has been a massive problem, and I know of ICs where it never seems to have been, due, ironically, to the fact that there's a bureaucracy in place to produce financial accounts and records. :) Dan, I would define IC as traditional denominational churches, but I don’t believe it necessarily follows that an IC is less missional, more hierarchical and less participatory than a HC. I think that is *usually* the case, but it doesn’t necessarily follow. I know of churches which are institutional in the sense that they’re a part of a denomination, say Anglican or Baptist, but they’re very participatory and not particularly hierarchical. Equally, I am sure there are HCs which are led by extremely strong, even controlling leaders, and while their hierarchies might not be as formal as those in ICs, they nevertheless have a very strong hierarchy.

Similarly, I certainly know of HCs where financial abuse has been a massive problem, and I know of ICs where it never seems to have been, due, ironically, to the fact that there’s a bureaucracy in place to produce financial accounts and records. :)

]]> By: dan http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144323 dan Sat, 05 Aug 2006 03:34:15 +0000 http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/07/29/for-the-rev-faith-finances/#comment-144323 Interesting thoughts ogyle, but I am not sure that I agree with all of your definitions. For example, I don't think that the simple fact of engagement with a denomination or institutional heirarchy necessarily means that the church engages in spectator Christianity, or that it is not on about creating new wineskins. I think that this is often true, but not always. You say that there neither HC or IC is "better", but go on to critique in quite strong terms the IC model (as you have earlier). So I would take from your comments that you do indeed think that HC model is better than IC. Would this be fair? Interesting thoughts ogyle, but I am not sure that I agree with all of your definitions. For example, I don’t think that the simple fact of engagement with a denomination or institutional heirarchy necessarily means that the church engages in spectator Christianity, or that it is not on about creating new wineskins. I think that this is often true, but not always.

You say that there neither HC or IC is “better”, but go on to critique in quite strong terms the IC model (as you have earlier). So I would take from your comments that you do indeed think that HC model is better than IC. Would this be fair?

]]>