The Method of the Early Church

While this is not a discussion on the legitimacy of certain missionary methods, I will simply argue that every missionary employs some type of method to communicate the gospel. Even learning a foreign language is a method of adaption to communicate to a people group in their native tongue.

Furthermore the moment a missionary/preacher/teacher/etc. proclaims a message, they are bringing a certain interpretation to the text. You argue against the Jesus film for faulty interpretation based upon your own interpretation. The circle is vicious but necessary. That is why consistency is so difficult for those who want to argue against methodologies of any sort. First, because communication of the gospel is impossible without some type of method (even a selected preaching preference is a method -- expository preaching is a method in itself). Second, because my view of what is appropriate and inappropriate is controlled by my own interpretation (which again is dictated by a certain methodological approach to understanding).

What you label as "exhibitionistic" is solely based upon your own opinion and interpretation (which is grounded in your own methodology). Methodologies are not considered a part of the fundamentals for a reason, viz., they are not absolute to the faith.

We have no way of knowing if these missionaries you have mentioned would or would not have utilized a method such as the Jesus film. What we do know is that they employed certain methods (even as basic as learning the native language) to communicate the message effectively.

In a similar fashion, many who are ministering in our Western culture are attempting to "speak the language" of our society by employing culturally relevant methods and means. This is a common, necessary, and biblical practice. You have the right to draw the lines where you chose on what you deem is appropriate or not. But you do not have the right to dogmatically draw it for others. If the essential message of the gospel itself is not being compromised, methods become a matter of choice and preference.

You have yet to answer previous questions regarding whether the NT church model is primarily descriptive or prescriptive and regarding the full definition of "method".

 

If I follow your logic, anything that is said while preaching that may lead the listener to capture a picture in his/her mind outside of the actual facts of the event makes the communicator a liar. Yet in reality, we all build word pictures in our minds even with the simple reading of the text. Recapturing the vivid details of a historical event is impossible (whether through word or cinema). Following such logic means that any method that calls for interpretation (whether it be preaching or film) should be avoided. Do you have a manger scene in your church or home? Does your church perform Christmas or Easter pageants? If so, stop them immediately. You might lead someone astray as to the actual facts, making you a liar.

This discussion is not primarily about the proper or improper use of cinematic methods. It is about methods in general. Your logic for excluding film (and/or drama I presume) from the "hallow" method category is based upon your own preference and not biblical evidence.

I have never suggested the film is inerrant. I have simply said it is a method that has been used to communicate the essentials of the gospel and God has used it to draw people to Himself and establish churches in parts of the world where otherwise the task would be virtually impossible.

You build your arguments upon a faulty premise, viz., that preaching is the only God-ordained method of communicating the gospel.

Until you provide scriptural evidence that preaching is the only method God has ordained for communicating His message, your arguments cannot stand.

Once again I return to a question that is foundational to this discussion yet which you have refused to answer: Is the NT model descriptive or prescriptive?

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
Until you provide scriptural evidence that preaching is the only method God has ordained for communicating His message, your arguments cannot stand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps I misunderstand what this is supposed to ask, but I offer 1 Cor. 1:18-21 & Romans 10:14-17 as proof. Those verses are sufficient unless you buy into some form of christianized astrology, as some on here do.

(sorry, my wife was logged on)

[ December 18, 2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]

 

Neither of these texts suggest that preaching (however one might define that term) is the exclusive means of presenting the gospel and that all other methods are illegitimate.

Without going into great detail regarding "kerrysso" and "euangelion", it is safe to say that neither term designates a singular method of proclamation that excludes all other forms of gospel presentation.

The contextual emphasis in both of these texts centers primarily upon the message and not the method. In other words Paul does not seem to be laying out a prescribed, "this is the only hallow method", argument for a certain type of preaching to the exclusion of all other methods.

Try again.

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All scripture is inspired by God,and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness,that the man of God may be complete,thoroughly equipped for every good work."

It goes on into Ch.4

"I charge you,therefore, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ,who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdomREACH THE WORD! Be ready in and out of season. Convince,rebuke,exhort,with all long suffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but according to their OWN desires,because they have itching ears,they will heap up for themselves teachers;and they will turn their ears from the Truth,and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things,endure afflictions,do the workl of an evangelist,fulfill your ministry."

These are pretty strong words from Paul and ones all leaders should adhere to and take very seriously. "The faithful preacher must proclaim the Word when it is popular and when it is not."John Mac's study bible. He goes on to say,about these verses..."The dictates of popular culture,tradition,reputation,acceptance,or esteem in the community or in the church must never alter the true preacher's commitment to proclaim God's word.

This is the mandate....

SBC,where are you coming from with these kind of things you say...you say you are committed to the word,but you state such things that I have to question where you really are on these very important issues facing the church today...

Your dear friend,

Molly

[ December 18, 2002, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

These verses are the same ones that also convince me that our former discussion on Rick W was useless because I do not see him holding to this philosophy of preaching the Word,he is giving his audience what they want,not what they need...itching ears....

But,that's another long lost thread....

 

I agree with Paul (and MacArthur) 100%

No one is suggesting preaching should be eliminated as the primary method of proclamation. Preaching is central.

What we are discussing is whether other methods can also be employed to aid in the sharing of the gospel and if so (which is a given), which methods are legitimate. I maintain that culturally relevant methods are usuable as long as the message is not altered or compromised. Others seem to argue that methods are illegitimate unless they are prescribed in the Bible (thus the unanswered description vs prescription question).

My question then becomes, which methods of preaching are hallow and which are not? And what methods may a preacher include within his message that are legitimate? Can we use illustrations, statistics, PowerPoint, extra-biblical stories, etc.? Again, consistency demands answers to these questions.

We will not even delve into the original use of the words translated "preach" in the NT and whether or not they are prescribing a singular method of proclamation. Study it for yourself.

Have no fear Molly. I can be as committed to the Word as you are without believing exactly as you believe on the non-essentials.

 

I would say giving them the gospel is giving them what they need

I am assuming you have listened to a great number of Warren's sermons in order to make this accusation. If not ...

 

I believe that preaching is the prescribed method taught in scripture. People make like movies to expound on scripture,they may like heart felt stories,they may like dramas,poetry and feel good sermons...but Paul mandates that you guys should preach the Word. So,I am for that.

 

What type of preaching? What should be included and what should be left out? Whose preference of method should be employed (expository, topical, textual, etc.)? Do you think Paul was prescribing a single method of preaching? If so, which one? Does the word "preach" in this verse mean preaching as we know it today?

Just a few questions that must be considered in light of your oversimplified blanket statements

 

1. That is the point in 1 Cor. 1:18-21. The Jews look for a sign (something seen, usually a miracle, but nonetheless, a visual stimulant). The Greeks look for (human) wisdom.

Paul fell for neither and stuck to his guns.

Btw, you are merely arguing from silence by saying that Paul did not exclude everything else. Paul did not say that you couldn't preach with a gun pointed at your audience either. I suppose that might be a good method for converts.

2. The 1 Cor. 1 passage is clear. The greek word translated "message preached (NKJV)" refers to both the method and substance. So, it is God's ordained METHOD of bringing the gospel to people that they might believe.

3. I can't believe you said this. This is so simple SBC. Both passages affirm exactly what you deny.

Consider the following:

CC is a carnal corinthian. Paul is Paul.

CC: Paul, the Jews seek a sign and the greeks seek wisdom, what do you have to say about meeting them where they are?

Paul: It pleased God by the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

CC: Paul, are you sure that is the best method? I mean, how is it people will believe in whom they have not heard?

Paul: Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the (spoken) word of God.

CC: Paul, you are an educated man. You have seen most of the known world. You know culture as well as anyone. If anyone is qualified to speak to the issue of reaching people, it is you. Given the modern times, how would you instruct young preachers to teach God's truth?

Btw, did you catch that performance of the Corinthian Drama Club about the death and resurrection of Christ?

Paul: Preach the word. Be ready in season and out of season.

Btw, no I didn't. Let me ask you something. Why do you think the gospel is entertainment? Preaching is worship, not a good time.

CC: Paul, what does it mean to be in season and out of season?

Also, don't you know that people want to hear things when they are comfortable and that won't rub them wrong?

Paul: There are only two times to preach, in season and out of season. You are either in or out. Either way, you need to preach the word.

I am fully aware of what people want. I am more interested in pleasing God that taking surveys.

4.

 

And you are arguing from silence that he forbade everything else.

There is a definite biblical precedence for culturally relevant communication. There is a definite pauline precedence for "becoming as the Jew in order to reach the Jew." There is a definite biblical precedence for employing cultural means to communicate the message (quotations of the pagan poets, Paul's references to the philosophical debates of his day, even parables themselves, etc.).

Actually "kyrugmatos" has to do primarily with the content of the apostolic message (which is another element of this discussion altogether). As a matter of fact this term must be understood in its primary contexual application which must consider what was happening at Corinth.

In other words, Paul is not saying "I am now providing the one and only acceptable method of gospel communication for all times." What he is primarily saying is that it is the content of his proclamation that saves sinners.

Take this passage in the broader context and it is obvious Paul is contrasting the sophia of the Corinthians with the folly of the gospel, i.e., that God has chosen to save sinners through a crucified Messiah (message). This text is not about a contrast of methods but a contrast of messages.

According to Aaron's self-imposed standards, you may be a liar (after all, you are creating an image that may or may not be factual)

Paul also didn't suggest giving an altar call or standing behind a pulpit. Have you employed either of those means lately?

Please do not misunderstand me here. I am not suggesting other methods of communication are equal to preaching. I believe preaching is primary. I just do not believe preaching is the only prescribed method of gospel communication.

Let me point out another interesting point. Many of those who defend preaching as the only prescribed method are the same ones that argue against seeker-sensitive services, etc. There is an innate contradiction here that should be obvious.

Yet to allow room for personal faith-sharing as the primary means of gospel communication distorts your interpretation of "preaching as the only prescribed method" in the above texts.

 

So you are suggesting that you can exegete a text and preach an entire sermon on a biblical passage without imposing an interpretation upon your hearer?

When you want to work within the parameters of hermeneutics, let me know.

Actually you have not stated clearly that you believe the NT model is prescriptive.

Interesting that you should embellish your thoughts to include electricity and motor cars. Some in your camp have been very quick to criticize certain churches for employing "technological devices" such as electrically-driven children's facilities and fire truck baptistries. I am glad to know that this discussion has led you to admit that these are not methods but simply technological devices.

Once again, you only want to include those "methods" that fit your own agenda. As I have pointed out in the very definition of the word "method", any means that is used to reach a desired end is a method. Those methods you want to categorize as "technological devices" are means employed to accomplish a goal (communicating the gospel effectively).

Back to the prescriptive vs descriptive issue. Just two initial questions from which we can build:

1) Does your church duplicate the Acts model of ministry (nothing more - nothing less)?

2) Do you believe the NT provides us an exhaustive description (that translates into a prescription) of the NT church?

 

You have got to be kidding. Is this what this discussion has been reduced to? Tell me, do you baptize infants? You can't say that it is wrong because the Scripture does not absolutely forbid it. Great logic.

 

Actually I do not baptize infants b/c there is a biblical precedence that indicates only believers were baptized.

However I do not believe there is a biblical precedence for water temperature, robe or plain clothes, baptistry or pool, etc. These are methodological matters where the text is silent and therefore culture and preferences become factors.

Before constructing your excessive straw man, answer this question: do you use any method that is not absolutely prescribed in Scripture?

 

Avoiding the post directed to you Aaron?