# While reading up on a reformed church in our area



## ReformedWretch (Nov 27, 2006)

I came upon this.

-------

Article IX. Interaction

1. Paragraph 8 of the Church Covenant states that members are to receive the public teaching on the Scriptures with discernment and that they should be permitted to interact with the men who teach them.

2. To this end, this church will practice a time of "interaction" when the hearers of the sermon or teaching have the opportunity to publicly question the teacher, evaluate the teaching as to its doctrinal soundness, give further insight and applications on the text, and enter into a general discussion on the text with the speaker.

3. The purpose of "interaction" is to assist the church in its understanding and application of Scripture; to evaluate the teaching regarding doctrinal soundness and proper exposition; to provide a time for the various gifts of the body to contribute to the upbuilding of the church; to exalt the Word of God as the sole authority; to promote unity through a common understanding of Scripture; and to support the biblical order for the family and challenge the husband to make his home a center of biblical learning.

4. The biblical basis for "interaction" is found in such passages as: Acts 20:7-12; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:29, 34-35; Colossians 3:16.

5. Since "interaction" is an integral part of the public teaching ministry of this church, and since it is not proper for a woman to teach or have authority over men in the public services of the church, therefore, women will not be permitted to speak during "interaction" (1 Timothy 2:11-14; 1 Corinthians 14:34-40).

6. Furthermore, since "interaction" is primarily a function for those who have covenanted together in this local church to discern, declare, and live a common confession, therefore, only members (both regular and associate) will be normally permitted to speak during "interaction." However, it seems wise to allow the teacher some discretion in this matter so that he may at times allow non-members to participate.

-----------------

I find this very interesting and appealing to me. Any thoughts on it? I've never seen anything like it in a Churches writings ever!


----------



## Theoretical (Nov 27, 2006)

Intriguing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2006)

Acts 20:7-12


> 7On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. 8There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. 9Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. 10Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "He's alive!" 11Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. 12The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted.


Maybe Paul didn't interact enough so the young man fell asleep during his sermon?

2 Tim 2:11-12


> 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.


Still noting about "interaction".

1 Cor 14:29-35


> 29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
> As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


Are they saying that Paul is calling Prophecy interaction?

Col 3:16


> 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.



Somewhat weak but doesn't rule it out.

I think that 3 of the 4 passages they use to support the process say nothing of the sort. The fourth one is debatable.

Honestly, I hadn't even heard of this until I was listening to John Robbins commend a Church he was teaching at in his Intro to Apologetics MP3's.

I don't think the goals of why they have a Q&A time are bad but I have reservations about whether this properly applies to worship given the RPW and any clear command to do this.

What denomination is the Church?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 27, 2006)

I assumed that they are saying that if women are told not to speak it's implied that men do?



> What denomination is the Church?



Immanuel Free Reformed Church is a group of Reformed Baptist believers


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2006)

houseparent said:


> I assumed that they are saying that if women are told not to speak it's implied that men do?


Implied perhaps but not explicit. I would use that as a passage (as others do) that a woman should be turning to her husband for instruction but not for the idea of interactive sermons.


> Immanuel Free Reformed Church is a group of Reformed Baptist believers


Reminds me of some of the things I've heard from certain Baptist brands.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 27, 2006)

So would you consider it to be wrong (sin) to have interactive sermons?



> Reminds me of some of the things I've heard from certain Baptist brands.



Meaning you've heard of other Baptists doing this, or something like this?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2006)

houseparent said:


> So would you consider it to be wrong (sin) to have interactive sermons?


I don't agree with it on the basis of the RPW unless someone can present a better case from Scripture. I think you can accomplish the same ends (men leading their household) outside of Worship in a good adult catechism class.



> Meaning you've heard of other Baptists doing this, or something like this?


Not that practice, per se, but Primitive Baptists don't believe in Elders at all and have a very egalitarian view of Church life.

As I said, I'm not completely against the goal (husbands held accountable to be teachers in the home) but the method is un-Biblical in my view.


----------



## Archlute (Nov 27, 2006)

Adam, 

I think that this can be a helpful practice; it clears up questions for the congregation, and it keeps the minister honest in the study! 

I have attended several reformed churches of various denominations who have engaged in something like this, and my own church does this after sermons as well. This is not done every week, but often enough to make it a practice. I have found it a very edifying time for all involved.

Every church that engaged in this held the discussion following the benediction, some from the pulpit and some not, but technically the RPW would not be in danger of being violated. Now if the discussion takes place as part of the worship service (a point on which the articles did not seem so very clear) then this could be seen as a disruptive element. I did, however, think that your inference regarding the men of 2 Tim. 2:11-12 was insightful. I get a kick how we presbyterians can sometimes seem to stretch the "good and necessary consequence" clause of WCF 1.6 to near ridiculous proportions at times, but then keep it wrapped up tight when it seems to conflict with our interpretation of the RPW. The 2 Timothy passage isn't positive proof, but it at least leaves the option open to a certain extent.

A far more persuasive passage is actually the Acts 20 account. The NIV translation that Rich cited makes it sound as if Paul was preaching when it states that Paul "spoke to them", as also does the NKJV. The KJV actually has "preached to them", but these translations are incorrect here. The ESV comes much closer when it states that Paul "talked with them". The verb in question is dialegomai, which never means "to preach". The closest it comes to that in its 13 occurances in the NT is in Hebrews 12:5, where the writer of that epistle states that the Words of God "addresses" them for their encouragement (I take that in an immediate, rather than preached sense). All of the other times that it occurs it means to discuss, debate, argue, convince, talk with, dialogue (note the underlying Greek base to our English term), etc. Throughout its ten occurances in the book of Acts we find it almost exclusively used of Paul's reasoning and debating in the synagogues with the Jews and Greeks. A most illuminating occurance appears in Acts 19:9, where we read of Paul withdrawing from the obstinate synagogues, and holding discussions in the school of Tyrannus. Here he is clearly having interaction regarding the kingdom of God with his disciples. So I think that these brothers do have a case from Acts 20. I didn't look up the other references (papers are coming due this friday morning, and all), but there may be similar things going on in the Greek that are not picked up by our English versions. I don't know if their minister is a Greek reader, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think that if done in a decent and thoughtful way, which they seem striving to do, that it would be a great blessing for the church. You should sit in on one of their services, and see how they actually conduct it (but don't ask any questions!).

Adam 

(Hey, whenever we respond to one anothers posts, our names create a structural inclusio, isn't that a great bit of seminary trivia?)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2006)

Archlute said:


> Adam,
> 
> I think that this can be a helpful practice; it clears up questions for the congregation, and it keeps the minister honest in the study!
> 
> ...



Very helpful. I agree with the practice if done _after_ the Benediction.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 27, 2006)

They are on sermon audio and the interaction occurs after the service has concluded. I plan to attend in a few weeks.

Oh and Adam, my name is Adam (duh), my wife's is Andrea,and our daughter's is Alisha. Our daughters husbands name.....ADAM! (lol)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2006)

houseparent said:


> They are on sermon audio and the interaction occurs after the service has concluded. I plan to attend in a few weeks.
> 
> Oh and Adam, my name is Adam (duh), my wife's is Andrea,and our daughter's is Alisha. Our daughters husbands name.....ADAM! (lol)



OH!

Never mind...

That's a good idea.

But they're stil Baptists!


----------



## BJClark (Nov 27, 2006)

Adam,

Personally, I believe it could work IF the husband is more or even as spiritually mature as his wife, or had deeper desire to learn and question things they are taught. But unfortunately, many men aren't, and don't have that desire.

I've heard many different preachers teach on how a wife is supposed to be submissive to her husband, but very very few sermons on the role of the husband within the home, as the one the wife is supposed to ask questions of concerning scripture and what they heard in church. 

However, because many men aren't hearing this (mostly because many of them DON'T Go to church on a regular bases), they tend to believe the lie, that because they aren't preachers/pastor/teachers they don't NEED to know or study Scripture on their own (that's the preachers/teacher job to know the Bible, because HE gets paid to know those things). And in turn are not equipt to teach or instruct their wives or kids at home on spiritual matters....except to tell the wives..

"The bible says YOUR Supposed to submit to me"...and the only other thing most of them know it..."God HATES Divorce" beyond those two things, they don't have a clue as to what the Bible teaches...

And unfortunately, in most cases within "so-called Christian" homes where abuses are prevelent...this is the back drop in which it is based. 

So I agree, maybe if they had something like this...where men could ask questions, it would change, but even then, I wonder...because I think alot of men would be afraid to ask, thinking they would 'look stupid' in front of everyone.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 27, 2006)

Here is a relevant thread addressing this specific issue

Questions and Answers as Part of the Lord's Day Sermon


----------



## JohnV (Nov 27, 2006)

Adam:

I was a member in a small congregation that did that. We sat in a circle after the service was ended, after we got our coffee, and discussed things from the sermon. It worked for a while, but not for very long. 

It may be a good idea in certain circumstances, but I have two basic objections to it. If the minister or some leader has a notion of using it to promote something other than the articles of the church's covenanted confession, then it will only break down into contention and division. 

It is one thing to discuss, but it is another to disagree openly with a minister of the Word, even if you have to. I think this idea means extra watchfulness on the part of the elders, that the minister's sermons are strictly Biblical, and that the discussions stick to that too. They could discuss things on which they may disagree, but no leader ought to favour one view more than another, whatever his own may be. It is so easy to slip up because open forum discussions are 'off the cuff' more than they are scripted, if they are scripted at all. Once a minister throws his weight behind one free view over against another, then there's trouble. His office ought not ever to be allowed for that, not even in informal meetings like after-the-service discussions. 

As members some things are left to our personal discretion, our own liberty of conscience, without binding anyone else. This is protected by our Confession of Faith. This is, then, a right given to each member as an individual member. Nowhere is it granted that this right is a superior right in an office-bearer. Just because a man may be a minister, that does not elevate his liberty of conscience above another's. Liberty of conscience is given to the believer, each believer, on some matters; it has nothing to do with the offices of the church. If the elders and the minister can keep these things in mind, and teach the congregation likewise, then such discussions can be helpful for a period of time. 

The other danger that I see is that these gatherings may become more compelling or interesting to some members than the service itself. Maybe they can't wait until the service is over to get to the more important (to them) "meeting of the minds." 

I also once belonged to a church which had an adult Bible study afterwards, while the children were in their catechism classes. The idea was to teach a compendium of the Reformed faith to the congregation, completely aside from the sermon of the regular service. There was a time given for interaction on the subject of the day. I think this is a better idea, although it can be subjected to the same pitfalls.

What sends shivers down my spine with the format you have suggested, or that is suggested by that church's program rather, is the fact that it is so easy to cast a pall over the Sunday worship by even one careless word against a minister of the Word who is to preach again that day. Nothing should be allowed to impugn him on that day. He could be wrong about something, and even be divisive, but he is still the minister and is called upon to preach again that day. Nothing may be said which identifies the preached word with the man's own character. It is Christ's Word that is preached. If the minister is erring then it is the elders' job to deal with it. When the elders don't do their job then you have a big problem in the church.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 27, 2006)

Excellent points John!


----------



## Tirian (Nov 27, 2006)

houseparent said:


> Excellent points John!



We do something similar to this, on the following Tuesday evening after the Lord's Day. The church members (& any who choose to come along) come together for a fellowship meeting and sing Psalms, have a time of prayer together, then reflect on the sermon from the Lord's Day evening.

We essentially ask two questions - What? and, So what? Ie, What was preached, and how will it make a difference in your life this week.

I find this to be an extremelely useful time where one can learn from others as, by the Holy Spirit working in the lives of the believers, you get a deeper understanding of what has been preached.

Now, for us that is seperated by two nights and days, rather than just the time it takes to make a cup of coffee. I think that gives time for your to mediate on God's word and come with a more matured response. 

My note of concern to add to John's is the fact that you may have visitors present. Your focus after the service should be to interact with any visitors and be hospitable. Furthermore, a process of questioning what the minister meant, and how it should be applied outside of the application given in the sermon might be a process that is very confronting for a visitor - so I would think caution in this regard would make it difficult to make a practise of doing this.

Regards,
Matt


----------



## larryjf (Dec 2, 2006)

I think it would be a good idea to have that kind of open discussion apart from the worship service. Perhaps meeting on another day to discuss the sermon. That way folks have more time to go over details and pray about what they may want to discuss.

I think it is inappropriate during a worship service.

Back in the day the Elders that would sit behind the Preacher would shake his hand after the sermon if they approved, and would not if they disapproved. Then the Elders could meet with the Preacher and discuss the sermon if there was a need for discussion. I think that would be appropriate.


----------

