One of the ongoing tensions among Protestants, particularly nonliturgical protestants, is to balance the need to witness to those outside of taith and to build up those who are of faith. Some churches turn into mini theological colleges where the building up of the fellowship takes priority and the evangelical task is left aside. Others become seeker friendly — but never teach on spiritual discipline, or development, or at any depth.
Paul was dealing here with a bunch of people who act remarkably like modern Pentecostals. They were moving from order to disroder. They were not allowing people to understand what was going on. And… like Pentecostals… they were at risk of being seen as mad.
20Brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking; rather, be infants in evil, but in thinking be adults. 21In the law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people; yet even then they will not listen to me,” says the Lord. 22Tongues, then, are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24But if all prophesy, an unbeliever or outsider who enters is reproved by all and called to account by all. 25After the secrets of the unbeliever’s heart are disclosed, that person will bow down before God and worship him, declaring, “God is really among you.”
26What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. 28But if there is no one to interpret, let them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God. 29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent. 31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged. 32And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, 33for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.
Now, I have no problem with liturgy. Liturgy forces us to read through the bible because the texts are set: in fact I blog using a liturgical system. I also have no problem with free worship. I have attended high church Anglicans and Presbyterian churches. I have also attended a Brethern church, where the tradition is to have no schedule.
One of the things to watch for is a sense of disorder. We can be decived that we have a word, or a thought… when we are expressing instead our own desires and wants. The spirit sent from God is not one of disorder on against the Law. Instead it is of peace, and good order. Which leads to a test” if we have no order in our services we are probably in error.
In addition, we are told to test the spirits. The leadership of the church needs to guard who speaks carefully. Locally, for instance, we do not dumb down our services. We assume a certain level of education — and then parents have to spend time discussing with tehir children what this means. Others will act differently — but there needs to be a sense of order.
Here the reformed practice of sticking quite closely to the text, and not speculating overmuch can help. I find that my liberal friends tend to project their :right on” thouoghts into areas where scripture is silent. At the same time, I have seen Pentecostals allow “prophecy” that is in in accordance with scripture.
We need to test everything. And we need to remind ourselves that God expects us to do this, in worship and in life.
Balance indeed needs to be struck, avoiding both antinomianism and legalism, in worship and preaching…
And not just in doctrine, but manner of worship / preaching, avoiding both anarchy and inflexible rigidity…
One has to stick closely to the text. And this is where we can easily gloss things. Consider for a second usury or divorce. The reformers could have stuck to the RC rules — they are logical, and lead to less difficulty. But they could not justify them from scripture.
And, knowing that allowing some liberty could lead to a casuistic extension of reasons (for usury, or divorce) they followed the plain meaning of the verses and did not gloss them.
Exactly.
The female rationalisation hamster is especially prone to this for example:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/from-cornerstone-to-stepping-stone-the-mainstream-christian-view-of-marriage/
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/the-women-at-christianforums-are-outraged/
I must be true to my self cos the holy spirit said so
/sarcasm
See also his latest:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/christians-washing-their-hands-of-sexual-morality/
Thanks and since I visit dalrock daily I never miss any of his posts.
Ah, okay; for a while, though, as you well know, he was away; good to see him posting again.