Here's what I am seeing. In this chapter, Paul is trying to teach the church about their immaturity and lack of order. They are enjoying the gifts of God, but Paul sees that they are giving a bad name to the Gospel by acting immature. They have spiritual gifts. The one considered "the coolest" was speaking in tongues. It was the most dynamic and probably the most intriguing to witness. Everyone wanted it and if they had it, they were flaunting it.

Paul was frustrated. He questions them on when they will grow up and quit acting like children. He questions why they choose to speak in tongues all the time. Paul sees that tongues are noticed by unbelievers and they are criticizing it. He assumes that an unbeliever would walk into this church and be freaked out by the chaos and unexplainable events. He challenges them to be wise and look to prophesy and teaching as the witness to the world. Prophesy will be accepted and seen as wisdom. 10,000 words in Tongues will be misunderstood, but even 5 words of instruction will cause even the unbeliever to fall on his face and declare that God is real.

[Reply]

I'd like to hear other thoughts as well.

Jeff, go read(or maybe you already have) the "Message" version of this passage and see what you think.

[Reply]

I did a word study on the original Hebrew for "sign" today. One of the definitions says, "something that is noticed or perceived". I think that works into this thought.

[Reply]

This verse is one of the passages that led me to abandon leading worship at a medium-sized church and start working with a house church. Paul is *clearly* referring to an open format, as the NT always refers to when describing church gatherings

No argument as to what the church was in the NT, but just curious about your "abandonment" and what lead you to believe that this was the correct thing to do.

[Reply]

My decision to leave my church about a year and a half ago was a long ordeal, with God leading me to ask very difficult questions about the way churches (including mine at the time) typically operate. It culminated with house church. I've written a lot about it on my blog, look at the links under "Critical Posts" on the top right, particularly "House Church Recap." (I'll warn you, it's a lot of stuff.) Right now I'm reading through Frank Viola's "Rethinking the Wineskin" and it's really consolidating a lot of what I've been going through, in paying more attention to what the NT actually has to say about what the church is supposed to look like.

My definition of a "closed" format is that there are a limited number of people controlling the flow and format of a presentation. In any typical church, the entire gathering is controlled by the worship leader and the pastor. The worship leader sings songs and the pastor preaches. Those in attendance only "participate" by following what others are doing.

My definition of an "open" format is that the Spirit is in control. There is little to no agenda. The bulk of the gathering is open discussion, letting the God work through all of the people to take the meeting where He wants it to go. But in a nutshell, an "open" format is the way Paul describes it. Spontaneous, yet orderly.

In a closed format, we are teaching people to be passive spectators in their walk of following Christ. It breeds spiritual immaturity. In an open format, we are teaching people to be active participants in what God is doing, allowing them to speak and contribute as the Spirit leads them. It opens up room for spiritual maturity. It breaks down the walls between clergy and laity (something Christ said he *hates*). It trains them to follow the Spirit's leading while out in the world.

I do still enjoy presentational formats from time to time. I went to Catalyst again (sixth year in a row) and I loved it. I also love having the opportunity to lead worship now and then. But these should be the exceptions, not the rule. Our regular gatherings should look more like what is described in the NT. Our organizations should look less like the contemporary corporation. And our budgets should be full of helping those in need rather than building lavish buildings for what is largely our own entertainment once a week.

[Reply]

Are they inward focused or outward focused. Are they led by God’s Spirit or are they led by comfort. This is a standard that must be met on a large or small scale. And neither is more or less likely to deal with this.

The discussion of open vs. closed is different from a discussion of small vs. large. I have read about large gatherings that used an open format. I think we're a long way from seeing that happen in America, but I believe that is where God wants us to go. Frequent small open meetings, regular large open meetings.

And the thing to understand, that is crucial, is that open formats help people grow in following the Spirit, because they do so in context of the gathering, where others can help them discern what is truly from the Spirit and what is not. Closed formats may "teach" some things, but they involve no opportunity to practice.

While we should emphasize what the church is apart from the gathering, our primary gathering should be about all of us using our gifts for the edification of the body, not about being an attender of a "service." I'm not making this stuff up, or strategizing when I say this. It's simply Biblical.

Please hear me, You have a valuable ministry that you are a part of, but please don’t allow it to become a belief that it is the “right” way or a way to prove that someone else’s way of doing something is wrong. I am not accusing you of this, I am asking you to not go there.

Thanks for your encouragement, and I honestly feel like I'm nowhere near where God wants me yet, but that I'm much closer than I was two years ago. The only degree to which I feel I'm going the "right" way now is the degree to which I'm looking towards scripture for my direction on this.

To me, it's no longer about being right or wrong. It's about being obedient to the description of the church provided in the NT. God told Israel exactly how to build the temple in the OT – not one detail was left undescribed. I believe that the NT is essentially God telling us how to build His church. I believe that the Protestant Reformation was only the beginning. We reformed the theology but the structure and format was left largely untouched.

The current "revolution" will see a remergence of a breed of Christianity that does not consider itself a "religion" with ordained priests and sacred sanctuaries, but will seek to be known simply as being "followers of the way," not just claiming Christ as the nominal head of the church (working through the church staff as intermediaries) but actually making that a practical reality. In order to do that, though, the trappings of the synagogue/temple model of religion have to be removed from the church.

I'm not going to come down on anyone personally, though, because we're all a product of our upbringing and some of these changes are simply going to be generational. But over the past year or so I've learned that I have the heart of a prophet (I think many worship leaders do), and prophets don't have much patience. I try to balance my new understanding of my own personality with my new understanding of the completeness of scripture.

[Reply]

I had written a rather lengthy reply last night, but something happened and when I hit "submit" it didn't get posted. Argh! Maybe because I included links?

I posted two blog articles today. This discussion spurred a lot of thinking on my part, and I wanted to capture it. I'll quote the pertinent responses to your questions, but check the blog posts "Open Formats Revisited" and "House Church Revisited" for my full thoughts.

About size:

"While that is a worthy discussion, and open formats are far easier in small gatherings, I have read about large-sized open format gatherings. I think they're quite feasible, though culturally I think we're a long way from seeing that kind of thing happen in America.

The issue isn't size. The issue is who is in control. Is Christ a nominal head of the church, leading individuals to speak or contribute through the Spirit? Or are men in charge of the church, setting an agenda, approving what is to be said, and limiting contributions to two or three people?"

About right vs. wrong:

"I totally appreciate the Spirit in which this is said. The reality is, though, that I'm simply looking at scripture and describing what I see there. You can't find what happens in modern churches today described in scripture. It doesn't exist. So it's not about right vs. wrong, it's about biblical vs. unbiblical. I can give example after example from the New Testament supporting open formats. Nowhere will you see an example from the New Testament supporting a closed format."

My post "House Church Revisited" shared my story about a popular blogging pastor telling me that I'm wrong. I think your concern about me getting in a "I'm right" mindset is valid – but it is quite amazing how easily those in the modern church will dismiss house churches outright without truly considering the Biblical example.

[Reply]

Derek, I will be happy as I have time to read though your thoughts. I think you are on to something that the church in general has not done well.

When I challenge you, I challenge all of us. I am not picking you out. i am picking out a train of thought and checking it. This blogging Pastor was out of line to tell you "you're wrong", unless of course it was in response to his perception of you having the right/biblical answer.

I am with Jeff on this. There is a definite meeting in the middle, but I am sue I will learn more when I read your thoughts.

I do have to point out one thing though. If the "open" church is THE Biblical model, why did Paul write 1 Timothy 3. the Bible has a lot of instruction for "leaders" of churches.

And by the way, Jesus only had an open model with His disciples(His small group). When He spoke, it was to crowds and often very large crowds(Sunday morning?). And when the disciples spoke after His death, it was the same. Both are necessary. There is a need to reach masses corporately and there is a responsibility to grow individually.

I feel like sometimes, Christians have seen something done poorly or inadequately and instead of fixing it, they "abandon" it. I am not saying you have done this because I believe that scripture has led you to your convictions. I am just challenging us as Christians to not discount the value of all styles and types of ministries.

[Reply]