[onefaith2]

I skimmed through the article. Amazing he said that 'preaching' was not apostolic like pentecostals represent it. Preaching surely in Pentecostal, baptist, methodists, other protestant churches is in fact the climax of the service. While in Catholic churches and Orthodox the climax of a meeting is typically the Eucharist. Jesus taught the followers to teach them whatsoever I have commanded you. He did not say it could not be done in a pulpit or in a house. It seems the article espouses one view of teaching and exposition because that was the typical manner of the early church. The culture was meeting in houses. There were not great cathedrals where Paul could preach however no doubt Paul did use stages when he got the opportunity. The great arenas for instance would allow for such a group.

I mean how would gifts such as prophecy, tongues, discernings of spirits, etc operate if not in meetings? While definitely the early church was not "one" main person speaking, Paul taught that the would rather speak in a tongue knowing to believers versus one that they could not understand and edify. It think its a stretch to say preaching is totally upside down. I know how God has used me in preaching and I certainly wouldn't say it was not Him, for I know better!

I think there are practical and nonpractical traditions of churches today that are certainly not what the early church practiced. That does not make that practice wrong IF in fact it accomplishes the mission that is the apostolic mandate. That is the question and the deal breaker for me.

I will continue to love preaching as it continue to challenge me to go deepr in Christian service.