Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
Well first of all Pel, I never offered that it has to be a hush or whatever. In fact I argued against it having to be that way.
Second there is NO biblical model or command for the following regarding interpretation
At our church if a person has a message they are to submit it to the board of elders and only after 1) they agree to be held accountable by the elders, 2) the elders confirm that there is no departure from scripture in the message and 3) the elders feel that it is helpful to the body will they agree to release the message.
If you think there is I would be glad to check it out. But I stand by my first post regarding this
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
BTW here is the biblical model
1Co 14:27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret.
1Co 14:28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.
1Co 14:29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.
1Co 14:30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent.
1Co 14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged,
1Co 14:32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.
|
You yourself provided the Scriptural passage substantiating just what I said about DG's church's practice being "Biblical." Though, as I mentioned as well, leaving the matter entirely in the hands of a board of elders is a bit too "authoritarian" for me... but then again, maybe there's more to their practice and maybe they've been burned in the past by wanna-be-prophets.
Our usual method of doing this particular thing is rife with opportunities for abuse and manipulation. What's wrong with giving it a day or two - or even a week for
"and let the others weigh what is said"? If it's God, it's an eternal message. Personally though, I would prefer good instruction on this matter so that a measure of spontaneity would still be present, without the abuse and embarrassing moments.
I especially like the way DG's elders ask if the "prophet" or "interpreter" is willing to be held accountable for what they say. Just try and do that during one of our typical jam sessions. Can you imagine?
Instead of a "hush" or something, we'd have someone ask through the microphone: "Before you give this message... are you willing to be held accountable for what you are about to say?"
Most of the stuff that is said is so ambiguous and almost always geared toward an encouraging word that it's not really a problem. It's just those times when manipulative people have tried to game the system that I have a problem with...
... or the times when some sister, stoned out of her gourd on her prescription meds, shrilly gives a "message" in "tongues" that sounds more garbled and indistinct than the Pythia Priestess at Delphi and the "pastor" or worship leader just lets the whole thing run on.
How about this: Have you ever been in an Apostolic Pentecostal service where the "tongues and interpretations" (and the "prophecies") seemed to be more attributable to drug use, poor Bible instruction or a lack of real leadership than having anything to do with the Holy Ghost?
I have been in hundreds of churches across North America and Latin America and I can say "yes" to scores if not hundreds of such incidents. It's prevalent and widespread. DG's people are at least addressing this problem. We have yet to acknowledge that there is even a problem at all - and as a result, we have turned literally MILLIONS of souls out of our churches.
Hybrid Mode
