Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Literal flesh and blood?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="thecolorsblend" data-source="post: 70625531" data-attributes="member: 333839"><p>Interestingly, this was an objection I had to evangelical worship on Sunday mornings back in my Southern Baptist days. Ostensibly we were all there to worship God. Now, I can't carry a tune to save my life so I'm not the guy who gets deeply into that kind of music.</p><p></p><p>And that, I suspect, is why I viewed evangelical worship with such a jaundiced eye. On more than one occasion, I saw the singers or one of the guitarists or something take a bow after an "improvised" (eg, carefully rehearsed well in advanced) guitar solo. It all seemed so synthetic. "Heads bowed, eyes closed, let's pray to God"... which really wasn't anything to do with piety. They simply wanted to do some stage production in a way that wasn't distracting like put the pastor's podium in place or set up someone's acoustic guitar or some such.</p><p></p><p>After attending Anglican services for several months and then visiting a Southern Baptist congregation again (long story, not worth telling), I was floored by just how contrived it all was. I kept my mouth shut but I knew in that moment that whatever my theology might be (and back then I was struggling through it as best I could), my preference was for liturgy and that will probably never change. There's a refreshing lack of stage management inherent to liturgical worship to which I have become accustomed and I will not give that up.</p><p></p><p>In short, the artifice and performance you mention to me is far more readily apparent in the Southern Baptist world which I abandoned.</p><p></p><p>New perspectives on ancient practices aren't inherently bad. But a good number of Protestants and evangelicals seem to want to reinvent the wheel just for the sake of doing it.</p><p></p><p>If one accepts the idea that doctrine matters to God, the notion of there being a right way and a wrong way of doing something becomes easy to believe. At least such was the case for me.</p><p></p><p>I think you are missing some significant historical perspective there. Eating with someone was understood to be an act of solidarity with them back in ancient times. You implicitly accept someone by virtue of the fact that you choose to eat with them. So Communion was a pretty revolutionary thing in its time in that the conventional divisions which separated people from each other back then were to be wiped away by the act of receiving Communion with one another. It speaks of the unity the Church is expected to have where, no matter our differences, we come to the same Lord's Table as equals.</p><p></p><p>When I receive the Eucharist, it is the culmination of the entire Mass. Prior to that moment, I gave the same responses in unison with the other faithful at Mass, I prayed the same Our Father with them, I recited the same Nicene Creed they did and now I receive the same Body and the same Blood that they're receiving.</p><p></p><p>The Mass stresses the unity we are supposed to have with one another. Even if class divisions, ideological preferences, one's sex, race and other issues might otherwise separate us, we are all equal and united here.</p><p></p><p>With respect, I find it irksome to see these values and philosophies so lightly dismissed as so much rote artifice when the participant can't help but identify with the larger group of which he is a member.</p><p></p><p>Again with respect, Catholics do their fair share (and then some) with these social justice issues about which you keep banging away. As a group, we have nothing for which to apologise.</p><p></p><p>[Staff edit].</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="thecolorsblend, post: 70625531, member: 333839"] Interestingly, this was an objection I had to evangelical worship on Sunday mornings back in my Southern Baptist days. Ostensibly we were all there to worship God. Now, I can't carry a tune to save my life so I'm not the guy who gets deeply into that kind of music. And that, I suspect, is why I viewed evangelical worship with such a jaundiced eye. On more than one occasion, I saw the singers or one of the guitarists or something take a bow after an "improvised" (eg, carefully rehearsed well in advanced) guitar solo. It all seemed so synthetic. "Heads bowed, eyes closed, let's pray to God"... which really wasn't anything to do with piety. They simply wanted to do some stage production in a way that wasn't distracting like put the pastor's podium in place or set up someone's acoustic guitar or some such. After attending Anglican services for several months and then visiting a Southern Baptist congregation again (long story, not worth telling), I was floored by just how contrived it all was. I kept my mouth shut but I knew in that moment that whatever my theology might be (and back then I was struggling through it as best I could), my preference was for liturgy and that will probably never change. There's a refreshing lack of stage management inherent to liturgical worship to which I have become accustomed and I will not give that up. In short, the artifice and performance you mention to me is far more readily apparent in the Southern Baptist world which I abandoned. New perspectives on ancient practices aren't inherently bad. But a good number of Protestants and evangelicals seem to want to reinvent the wheel just for the sake of doing it. If one accepts the idea that doctrine matters to God, the notion of there being a right way and a wrong way of doing something becomes easy to believe. At least such was the case for me. I think you are missing some significant historical perspective there. Eating with someone was understood to be an act of solidarity with them back in ancient times. You implicitly accept someone by virtue of the fact that you choose to eat with them. So Communion was a pretty revolutionary thing in its time in that the conventional divisions which separated people from each other back then were to be wiped away by the act of receiving Communion with one another. It speaks of the unity the Church is expected to have where, no matter our differences, we come to the same Lord's Table as equals. When I receive the Eucharist, it is the culmination of the entire Mass. Prior to that moment, I gave the same responses in unison with the other faithful at Mass, I prayed the same Our Father with them, I recited the same Nicene Creed they did and now I receive the same Body and the same Blood that they're receiving. The Mass stresses the unity we are supposed to have with one another. Even if class divisions, ideological preferences, one's sex, race and other issues might otherwise separate us, we are all equal and united here. With respect, I find it irksome to see these values and philosophies so lightly dismissed as so much rote artifice when the participant can't help but identify with the larger group of which he is a member. Again with respect, Catholics do their fair share (and then some) with these social justice issues about which you keep banging away. As a group, we have nothing for which to apologise. [Staff edit]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Literal flesh and blood?
Top
Bottom