Writing a letter to my pastor

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Kind of like the apostles in the temple day after day...

Ok. Now answer me this. How many oneness pastors would "allow" or "bless" this sort of thing being done by someone in their church?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Ok. Now answer me this. How many oneness pastors would "allow" or "bless" this sort of thing being done by someone in their church?

I was using the Temple as an example of a public place, an opportunity for public evangelism.

I would like to think most or all OP pastors would support the idea of a church member going out and preaching publicly...

...but I suspect they would shy away from posting the streetpreachers bail every week...

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The only person who needs to speak in the meeting is the one through whom God decides to speak. Now, either God never decides to speak though anyone unless he meets the pastor's criteria of church attendance, personal grooming and dress standards, tithing, licensing with the general HQ, etc etc etc... OR the meeting must be an open meeting in order to allow God to use whoever He chooses.

And yes, I understand the 'danger' inherent in an open meeting. Why, you might even get someone saying or claiming something that might not be 100 percent doctrinally, Biblically correct. I do not see how the current trend of closed, tightly controlled meetings has prevented that from happening, but....

In any event, it seems we have moved further and further from what it meant to be 'Pentecostal' and we are becoming more structured, controlled, and perhaps even stifled.

Where will it all end?

That's how it was written of Azusa Street meetings. There wasn't a single person who was in charge of anything. From what I understood of Bartleman's book, it was just a prayer meeting that grew into the revival. No praise teams. No pastors. Just people seeking God.

I wouldn't be against any of that.

Originally Posted by Esaias

And one more thing. I had a pastor (of a Oneness Pentecostal house church) mention to me during a message that 'you don't need a license to preach. You don't any approval from man to preach. If you are called of God to preach, there is a whole, wide world out there waiting to hear what you have to say.' (Paraphrased, of course).

The idea was if you are called to preach, you should have no problem with unscheduled, open air, public preaching. No license required.

My Pastor has said over and over you don't have to go to Bible School or get a piece of paper from a group of men to be a minister or preach. He doesn't just mean outside the church, he means in the pulpit as well.

He did mention having a group of elders from the body ordain ministers and send them out to start other works. But as far as becoming a licensed, dues-paying minister in an organization.....ain't nobody got time for that!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

That's how it was written of Azusa Street meetings. There wasn't a single person who was in charge of anything. From what I understood of Bartleman's book, it was just a prayer meeting that grew into the revival. No praise teams. No pastors. Just people seeking God.

I wouldn't be against any of that.

I've seen it in action, and it is much better than what I've seen the last 10-15 years or so. We're almost at the point where the term Pentecostal is gonna wind up the same as the term 'Methodist' - formerly meant hot burning revival, now means dead formalism.

Of course, I just ate an entire cheese pizza from Little Caesar's so I might be a tad bit on the pessimistic side.

My Pastor has said over and over you don't have to go to Bible School or get a piece of paper from a group of men to be a minister or preach. He doesn't just mean outside the church, he means in the pulpit as well.

He did mention having a group of elders from the body ordain ministers and send them out to start other works. But as far as becoming a licensed, dues-paying minister in an organization.....ain't nobody got time for that!

I certainly agree with the idea of elders sending trained people out to start new works. I think that is entirely biblical, as long as THIS is kept in mind - the original method for 'ordaining' preachers -

Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.


3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I certainly agree with the idea of elders sending trained people out to start new works. I think that is entirely biblical, as long as THIS is kept in mind - the original method for 'ordaining' preachers -

Act 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

Growing up in the UPC, it was all about "Local," "General," and "Ordination." The local church didn't have elders who participated in the ministry; it was a church board who did the business.

The Scripture above has been quoted as a reason to use elders for that purpose.