Acts The Church and Ministerial Training

Kaitiaki's picture

Basically this is just a "what do we learn about the Church from Acts?" thread. As we watch Paul and Barnabas and then Paul and Silas building the Church in Acts, what can we learn about their concept of the Church as a whole? Robert suggested my original plan was too cumbersome so asked me to create new threads.

Thread Moderator: Kaitiaki

There are two aspects to this thread: the training of the local congregation (for the work of ministry - as in Ephesians) and the theological training of ministers (or pastors).

Acts shows us local congregations that trained young men (and women) for every appropriate aspect of Church work. That included the work of ministry and missions. Discuss this statement. Do you think it is valid? What implications (if any) are there for the present system in almost every denomination of sending young men to a seminary to be trained? How does your Church seek to apply those implications in the way they train ministers and missionaries?


Discernment in a noncompetitive spirit

It is a matter of discernment. Every denomination and the Refourmation itself was motivated by people whose conscience "screamed" that something is wrong with the way thigns are, the status quo. Here is a portion of the House Church movement providing a self assessment of things it doesnt like about that movement, and emerging attitudes that diminish credibility. It makes one wonder whether the problems this movement focuses on are teh real problems, and whether the answers provided by this teaching are working ... where's the beef?

Where is the proof of superior results? According to one of the House Church movements own forums there are problems that detract from teh assertion that this is the only or even the best way to do church.

In ansewer to one question, I most certainly do not beleieve that people who are saved 50 years are necessarily qualified to pastor or even teach. Do you? Certainly James warns against many teachers but the assertion you make seems to imply all may teach. The implication appears to be that there is no real leadership except a mystical concept of Jesus leading eeach individual through the Holy Spirit, ie, each person does what is right in his/her own eyes ...

Speaking of the diversity of ministry, the house church movement has the same problem. HOw many houses are equiped to deal with the special needs individuals that larger churches can attract? HOw many house churches are prepared to dedicate a once a week service to meet people where they are: children, youth, the divorced, widows ...???

What got my attention the most was the statement, by a web dedicated to the house church movement, that decries the spirit of competition. By no means have I said IC is the only valid form for people to assemble, but it is no more or less scripturally mandated than house churches. Jesus ministered 1:1 and to thousands, and His church should be able to do both. Again, both/and not either/or.

In Christ,

Dan Fugett