Have you ever found yourself having to scramble to organize a meeting at the last minute? Wouldn't it be nice that if and when this daunting situation arose, you were well prepared with all necessary information ready at your fingertips? These seven survival strategies help you plan for the inevitable, because you know as well as I, it's going to happen 'someaday

I may not be a big stickler for formality in meetings, but I do believe that meetings need to provide a purpose and serve as an effective tool in meeting that purpose. Unfortunately, I'm finding that purposeful, well-run meetings are quickly becoming the exception to the rule in organizations today. Allow me to unfairly generalize (again) for a moment here. I see leaders (untrained in facilitation skills) leading (not facilitating) their meetings and never asking for feedback on their meetings. I also see meeting participants looking like zombies during the meetings yet suddenly finding the energy to complain about the meetings after the meetings. The worst part is, I'm seeing very little being done to change any of this.

Participatory church meetings are indeed scriptural. For example, Paul asked the Corinthians, "What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church "(1Co 14:26).

Had Scripture used the words "only one" instead of "everyone," which would be more descriptive of most modern church services? It is clear from the text that those original church meetings were much different from what often goes on today. There was interaction, spontaneity and participation. In a sense there really wasn't an audience because all the brothers were potential cast members (depending on the gifting and leading of the Spirit).

The generally spontaneous and participatory nature of early church meetings is also evident in the regulations concerning those who spoke in tongues: "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two - or at the most three, should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God "Were these speakers in unknown tongues scheduled in advance to speak? Not likely, given the supernatural nature of the gift. That the meetings were participatory is evident from the fact that up to three people could speak in tongues and that there was the need for an interpreter to be presen

The generally spontaneous and participatory nature of early church meetings is also evident in the regulations concerning those who spoke in tongues: "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two - or at the most three, should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God "(1Co 14: 27-28).
Were these speakers in unknown tongues scheduled in advance to speak? Not likely, given the supernatural nature of the gift. That the meetings were participatory is evident from the fact that up to three people could speak in tongues and that there was the need for an interpreter to be presen