Teaching on Calling on the Name of the Lord

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Paul taught that 2-3 should speak (1 Cor 14:29), and the practical reasons for such an arrangement are self-evident. It a large meeting it's just not feasible to allow everyone to speak given time constraints...

The prophesying in the meetings may not be ideal but consider, the denominational system shuts the people's mouths and our system does not. In the denominational system there is no room for anyone to prophesy or teach spiritual things, only the qualified person can do that. The church member of the denominations are restricted to speaking about personal testimonies, or non-spiritual church activities such as fund raising events and social events. In many cases during a 1 hour service there is not even any room for someone to speak about a personal testimony.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The prophesying in the meetings may not be ideal but consider, the denominational system shuts the people's mouths and our system does not. In the denominational system there is no room for anyone to prophesy or teach spiritual things, only the qualified person can do that. The church member of the denominations are restricted to speaking about personal testimonies, or non-spiritual church activities such as fund raising events and social events. In many cases during a 1 hour service there is not even any room for someone to speak about a personal testimony.

These are two different extremes. Notice that I'm not claiming that one is better than the other. But I do point to the shortcomings of the LC practice, as you also do for what is practiced in the denominations. If nothing else, the practice of having one person speak is just a matter of practicality for large gatherings. You can't have 200+ people in a room and let it be a free for all without risking getting a lot of people frustrated. Sure it satisfies those who wish the opportunity to speak, but what about the rest? One thing that really bugged me about LC meetings was the constant flipping back and forth between different subjects as different people stood up to share. There are valid reasons why most churches don't embrace this kind of model. Is the LC wrong to want to allow everyone to speak? I don't think so. It just doesn't work the way they think in real life.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

These are two different extremes. Notice that I'm not claiming that one is better than the other. But I do point to the shortcomings of the LC practice, as you also do for what is practiced in the denominations. If nothing else, the practice of having one person speak is just a matter of practicality for large gatherings. You can't have 200+ people in a room and let it be a free for all without risking getting a lot of people frustrated. Sure it satisfies those who wish the opportunity to speak, but what about the rest? One thing that really bugged me about LC meetings was the constant flipping back and forth between different subjects as different people stood up to share. There are valid reasons why most churches don't embrace this kind of model. Is the LC wrong to want to allow everyone to speak? I don't think so. It just doesn't work the way they think in real life.

There was a time when the Spirit of God was so alive in th LC meetings, at least the 3 LC's I was apart of. It was our practice to give testimonies after the message was given, and those times were so invigorating, refreshing, and enlightening. Perhaps not every testimony, but there is no way to compare the current so-called "prophecying" practice of repeating Lee's messages to that time.

I can't tell you how many times I heard an opening line starting with, "BruLeesaid," or another in Ohio, "Ti'said" for "Titus said." That's what happens when you ask the congregation to study their messages and repeat them. That must have sounded so weird to guests. Fortunately, or really unfortunately, we never had many guests. Actually we used to have many guests until we were instructed by outsiders what our meetings must look like.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

These are two different extremes. Notice that I'm not claiming that one is better than the other. But I do point to the shortcomings of the LC practice, as you also do for what is practiced in the denominations. If nothing else, the practice of having one person speak is just a matter of practicality for large gatherings. You can't have 200+ people in a room and let it be a free for all without risking getting a lot of people frustrated. Sure it satisfies those who wish the opportunity to speak, but what about the rest? One thing that really bugged me about LC meetings was the constant flipping back and forth between different subjects as different people stood up to share. There are valid reasons why most churches don't embrace this kind of model. Is the LC wrong to want to allow everyone to speak? I don't think so. It just doesn't work the way they think in real life.

Can't? The LC regularly have more than 200+ prophesying every Sunday.
Different subjects? Everyone speaks about the same topic - we have the weekly morning revival.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Can't? The LC regularly have more than 200+ prophesying every Sunday.
Different subjects? Everyone speaks about the same topic - we have the weekly morning revival.

200+ people speaking in a meeting would mean a meager 36 seconds apiece if the meeting were to finish in 2 hours (assuming that's all the meeting consisted of).

The HWFMR doesn't necessarily stick to the same topic, and even then, the same topic doesn't necessarily mean that those speaking will stay on topic. But all that is beside the point. I was questioning as to whether letting that many people speak in a meeting just might have the unintended side effect of wearing down the audience. I am one of those people with a short attention span, and some LC meetings were an absolute drag.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

200+ people speaking in a meeting would mean a meager 36 seconds apiece if the meeting were to finish in 2 hours (assuming that's all the meeting consisted of).

The HWFMR doesn't necessarily stick to the same topic, and even then, the same topic doesn't necessarily mean that those speaking will stay on topic. But all that is beside the point. I was questioning as to whether letting that many people speak in a meeting just might have the unintended side effect of wearing down the audience. I am one of those people with a short attention span, and some LC meetings were an absolute drag.

In a large group, we can set time limits, sometimes 1 minute, or, we can give everyone a chance to speak by splitting into smaller groups. Even 30 seconds, is plenty of time to say a few words. Sometimes the best words are the shortest. Not everyone has to speak in meeting, as many as possible is good, but for those who don't get the opportunity they get a chance next time.

By audience, I think you mean congregation. When you go to church you are not going to a stage show or the movies to be entertained, you are going to participate. Anyway, no one is forcing you to stay, if you are bored you can always leave early or go outside for a moment.