Sermons

[DamianWarS]

Its pretty evident visually as soon as you walk in the sanctuary. The pulpit will be the center of attention instead of the alter.

Do we need to sacrifice something that there needs to be an alter at the center? I'm by no means in support of the preacher being the center of attention but just because you have biblical themed forms in the church doesn't make it biblical. I could put an empty tomb at the front of the church too and be equally convinced of its importance. Let's call a spade a spade here the church building in its entirety is missing from the bible so to argue about what it should look like has little value.

Regarding what happens during an ekklesia, should there be an emphasis on preaching or on other forms. Well the bible doesn't tell us and there are examples of the Lord's supper as bold points in teaching and examples of so long of sermons that people fall asleep and fall out the window. I agree the "church" is a little misdirected and needs refocus but I see it better to work with the things we agree with rather than putting down the things we don't agree with saying "you should be more like us" as the answer. "Us" and "them" mentality is not a characteristic of the church and unity is what we should be striving for.

 

[Tigger45]

Do we need to sacrifice something that there needs to be an alter at the center? I'm by no means in support of the preacher being the center of attention but just because you have biblical themed forms in the church doesn't make it biblical. I could put an empty tomb at the front of the church too and be equally convinced of its importance. Let's call a spade a spade here the church building in its entirety is missing from the bible so to argue about what it should look like has little value.

Regarding what happens during an ekklesia, should there be an emphasis on preaching or on other forms. Well the bible doesn't tell us and there are examples of the Lord's supper as bold points in teaching and examples of so long of sermons that people fall asleep and fall out the window. I agree the "church" is a little misdirected and needs refocus but I see it better to work with the things we agree with rather than putting down the things we don't agree with saying "you should be more like us" as the answer. "Us" and "them" mentality is not a characteristic of the church and unity is what we should be striving for.

Being Lutheran there is a huge emphasis on word & sacrament and whenever I've seen the alter removed the later is always waning.

 

[DamianWarS]

Being Lutheran there is a huge emphasis on word & sacrament and whenever I've seen the alter removed the later is always waning.

Most churches, like southern baptist, describe what is at the front of the church as an altar. You may not recognize it from your tradition but it is still there. An "altar" at the front of a church is a non-biblical form (meaning the bible does not tell us to have an altar at our gatherings) it is only a themed decoration passed down through tradition. Just because something is old, looks old or is biblical themed doesn't make it more spiritual. If you are saying with the absence of such a decoration the church wanes its focuses on the value of the Lord's Supper then you are saying we have become dependant upon traditional forms that are non-biblical.

I would agree with this. The church has become very dependent upon decoration and pomp, the "altar" is an example of this as well as a theatrical speaker at the center of attention. Modern churches vs traditional churches both use forms as a focal points and I believe to levels that are irresponsible, not an an aid for worship but a crutch.

If a pagan that had no knowledge of Christianity walked into a church they would think that "christians" worship a cross and based on language/decoration would think we do sacrifices at the front of the church and the guys in the black suit or robes is the most important guy and that the building is holy. None of these conclusions would be right. Pagan religions have 3 main points, they need a temple, holy man, and sacrifice. For Christians Christ is all of these things but to look on the outside we still uphold pagan values by emphasising the church building, the pastor/priest and by calling stuff in our churches things like "altars" and conducting very pomp ceremony around them. We cling to these forms like they are what is required for salvation and that in turn is received by non-believers.

Although I don't suggest we start burning down churches there does need to be a wide de-emphasizing of non-bilbical forms, pomp ceremony and decoration within all of our churches. The "altar" in this case is the same as the theatrical speaker. They are both emphasising non-biblical forms and lead the ignorant to misguided conclusions about what is required for salvation.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Most churches, like southern baptist, describe what is at the front of the church as an altar. You may not recognize it from your tradition but it is still there. An "altar" at the front of a church is a non-biblical form (meaning the bible does not tell us to have an altar at our gatherings) it is only a themed decoration passed down through tradition. Just because something is old, looks old or is biblical themed doesn't make it more spiritual. If you are saying with the absence of such a decoration the church wanes its focuses on the value of the Lord's Supper then you are saying we have become dependant upon traditional forms that are non-biblical.

I would agree with this. The church has become very dependent upon decoration and pomp, the "altar" is an example of this as well as a theatrical speaker at the center of attention. Modern churches vs traditional churches both use forms as a focal points and I believe to levels that are irresponsible, not an an aid for worship but a crutch.

If a pagan that had no knowledge of Christianity walked into a church they would think that "christians" worship a cross and based on language/decoration would think we do sacrifices at the front of the church and the guys in the black suit or robes is the most important guy and that the building is holy. None of these conclusions would be right. Pagan religions have 3 main points, they need a temple, holy man, and sacrifice. For Christians Christ is all of these things but to look on the outside we still uphold pagan values by emphasising the church building, the pastor/priest and by calling stuff in our churches things like "altars" and conducting very pomp ceremony around them. We cling to these forms like they are what is required for salvation and that in turn is received by non-believers.

Although I don't suggest we start burning down churches there does need to be a wide de-emphasizing of non-bilbical forms, pomp ceremony and decoration within all of our churches. The "altar" in this case is the same as the theatrical speaker. They are both emphasising non-biblical forms and lead the ignorant to misguided conclusions about what is required for salvation.

Define "Biblical form" vis a vis "non-biblical form", and define what the "misguided conclusions" are that you have referenced.

 

[DamianWarS]

Define "Biblical form" vis a vis "non-biblical form", and define what the "misguided conclusions" are that you have referenced.

The bible of course commands us to do things and stresses certain values. For example gathering together as a community of believers, being baptized or making disciples of all nations to name a few. A non-biblical value is something that the bible does not tell us to do and has probably been adopted by tradition over the centuries some even from pagan systems as the gospel can contextualize its message to different cultures. Just because traditions and forms have a spiritual name and look fancy and may even be themed after biblical symbols does not make them biblical.

For example if I put an ark at the front of the church and asked everyone to climb inside if they had a need to be prayed for would sound a little wacky. But the ark is a symbol of salvation so why is this so different than putting an altar at the front? Do we kill animals on this altar or what is its purpose? The bible doesn't tell us to do either and there is nothing wrong with both of them but when we become dependant upon these things there is a need to de-emphasize those non biblical values and emphasize the biblical ones.

Tell me where in the bible it says church buildings need an altar? For that matter tell me where in the bible it says gatherings of believers need a building dedicated to such? Our churches are layered with non-biblical forms that because they seem spiritual are validated and usually fiercely defended. Yet if it is not a value in the bible than it is man made.

We can be dependant upon these things and they draw the wrong conclusions because many will not know the difference between what is biblical and what is not and will associated salvation with what they see be it ceremony, object, or person it may be hiding in. And this is the people inside the church. The people outside the church will have very wrong ideas about salvation and may be altogether turned if to the gospel or come for the wrong reasons.

 

[DamianWarS]

Double post

 

[Shane R]

Most churches, like southern baptist, describe what is at the front of the church as an altar. You may not recognize it from your tradition but it is still there. An "altar" at the front of a church is a non-biblical form (meaning the bible does not tell us to have an altar at our gatherings) it is only a themed decoration passed down through tradition. Just because something is old, looks old or is biblical themed doesn't make it more spiritual. If you are saying with the absence of such a decoration the church wanes its focuses on the value of the Lord's Supper then you are saying we have become dependant upon traditional forms that are non-biblical.

I would agree with this. The church has become very dependent upon decoration and pomp, the "altar" is an example of this as well as a theatrical speaker at the center of attention. Modern churches vs traditional churches both use forms as a focal points and I believe to levels that are irresponsible, not an an aid for worship but a crutch.

If a pagan that had no knowledge of Christianity walked into a church they would think that "christians" worship a cross and based on language/decoration would think we do sacrifices at the front of the church and the guys in the black suit or robes is the most important guy and that the building is holy. None of these conclusions would be right. Pagan religions have 3 main points, they need a temple, holy man, and sacrifice. For Christians Christ is all of these things but to look on the outside we still uphold pagan values by emphasising the church building, the pastor/priest and by calling stuff in our churches things like "altars" and conducting very pomp ceremony around them. We cling to these forms like they are what is required for salvation and that in turn is received by non-believers.

Although I don't suggest we start burning down churches there does need to be a wide de-emphasizing of non-bilbical forms, pomp ceremony and decoration within all of our churches. The "altar" in this case is the same as the theatrical speaker. They are both emphasising non-biblical forms and lead the ignorant to misguided conclusions about what is required for salvation.

What if pagan worship was borrowing principles from the true worship of the pre-Mosaic patriarchs?

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

The bible of course commands us to do things and stresses certain values. For example gathering together as a community of believers, being baptized or making disciples of all nations to name a few. A non-biblical value is something that the bible does not tell us to do and has probably been adopted by tradition over the centuries some even from pagan systems as the gospel can contextualize its message to different cultures. Just because traditions and forms have a spiritual name and look fancy and may even be themed after biblical symbols does not make them biblical.

For example if I put an ark at the front of the church and asked everyone to climb inside if they had a need to be prayed for would sound a little wacky. But the ark is a symbol of salvation so why is this so different than putting an altar at the front? Do we kill animals on this altar or what is its purpose? The bible doesn't tell us to do either and there is nothing wrong with both of them but when we become dependant upon these things there is a need to de-emphasize those non biblical values and emphasize the biblical ones.

Tell me where in the bible it says church buildings need an altar? For that matter tell me where in the bible it says gatherings of believers need a building dedicated to such? Our churches are layered with non-biblical forms that because they seem spiritual are validated and usually fiercely defended. Yet if it is not a value in the bible than it is man made.

We can be dependant upon these things and they draw the wrong conclusions because many will not know the difference between what is biblical and what is not and will associated salvation with what they see be it ceremony, object, or person it may be hiding in. And this is the people inside the church. The people outside the church will have very wrong ideas about salvation and may be altogether turned if to the gospel or come for the wrong reasons.

What do you associate salvation to/with/by/ how?

 

[DamianWarS]

What if pagan worship was borrowing principles from the true worship of the pre-Mosaic patriarchs?

Pagans have 3 main points on how they connect to God. You need a temple, you need a sacrifice and you need a holy man. Christianity still uses similar forms in their worship and if a pagan would look at it today they see us using a temple, they see a holy man with special clothing and titles and lots of focus, and they see elaborate ceremony and objects inside our temples for a sacrifice. Yet the needs of the Holy Place/temple to visit God, or priest/holy man to intercede to God for us or a sacrifice to appease God is all answered through Jesus Christ. So the question needs to be ask why do we continue to perpetuate pagan values when Christ has released us from these forms? They themselves are meaningless and non-essential to salvation so if we are going to use them let it be for reasons to glorify God and proclaim his message faithfully.

I'm not so convinced that these things are the best tools either for example churches with million dollar budgets with the mass bulk of that self-serving, because it's expensive to run a church. Or ceremonies complete with highly decorated items with special people and dress involved, all very spiritualized but does it properly carry the message of Christ? Is it biblical and are these the values that Jesus desires for us to focus on?

The Lord's Supper is an important part of Christian living but what parts of it are important and what parts of it are superimposed over something essentially pretty simple? We need to be good stewards of the message of Christ and be careful we represent it to communicate what salvation means through Jesus not to communicate pomp and ceremony.

 

[DamianWarS]

What do you associate salvation to/with/by/ how?

I am a follower of Christ and I look to him for salvation. Many things however can be used to associate salvation with for example a cross. Association can be a good thing to have as that's just how humans are wired. We can talk about abstract things forever but in the end it is the concrete that is more meaningful. But there is a balance to how we use these things and never at the expense of the gospel. We need to hang on to the non-essentials loosely and ready to drop them if they cannot be responsible to the message of Christ. The issue many churches have is they hang on to them with a firm grip and deliberate or not the message that is communicated is they are essential parts of christian living.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Pagans have 3 main points on how they connect to God. You need a temple, you need a sacrifice and you need a holy man. Christianity still uses similar forms in their worship and if a pagan would look at it today they see us using a temple, they see a holy man with special clothing and titles and lots of focus, and they see elaborate ceremony and objects inside our temples for a sacrifice. Yet the needs of the Holy Place/temple to visit God, or priest/holy man to intercede to God for us or a sacrifice to appease God is all answered through Jesus Christ. So the question needs to be ask why do we continue to perpetuate pagan values when Christ has released us from these forms? They themselves are meaningless and non-essential to salvation so if we are going to use them let it be for reasons to glorify God and proclaim his message faithfully.

I'm not so convinced that these things are the best tools either for example churches with million dollar budgets with the mass bulk of that self-serving, because it's expensive to run a church. Or ceremonies complete with highly decorated items with special people and dress involved, all very spiritualized but does it properly carry the message of Christ? Is it biblical and are these the values that Jesus desires for us to focus on?

The Lord's Supper is an important part of Christian living but what parts of it are important and what parts of it are superimposed over something essentially pretty simple? We need to be good stewards of the message of Christ and be careful we represent it to communicate what salvation means through Jesus not to communicate pomp and ceremony.

Your understanding of paganism seems to be quite simplistic. If, by paganism, you mean all non-Christian religions, then your assertions are quite erroneous as many non-Christian religions do not require a temple or holy man. If you are referring to contemporary Neopaganism, you are looking at a variety of beliefs, all of which claim to be true Paganism. Again, these beliefs do not require temples for their worship.

 

[Albion]

Saying that an altar at the front and center of a church is without any Biblical basis suggests to me that there's some misunderstanding about the sacrament. From the very first days of the church, the celebration of the Lord's Supper has been prominent...and something has had to be employed as the Holy Table representing the one used at the Last Supper and on which the bread and wine almost unavoidably must be placed.

The question is about the relative importance of the table/altar vis-à-vis that of the pulpit. While the Catholic pattern is generally to have the altar be more prominent than the pulpit, the Protestant pattern usually is to have the pulpit be more prominent than the altar, for obvious reasons. Even if it is not in the center, it often is raised so that it becomes more imposing.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Saying that an altar at the front and center of a church is without any Biblical basis suggests to me that there's some misunderstanding about the sacrament. From the very first days of the church, the celebration of the Lord's Supper has been prominent...and something has had to be employed as the Holy Table representing the one used at the Last Supper and on which the bread and wine almost unavoidably must be placed.

The question is about the relative importance of the table/altar vis-à-vis that of the pulpit. While the Catholic pattern is generally to have the altar be more prominent than the pulpit, the Protestant pattern usually is to have the pulpit be more prominent than the altar, for obvious reasons. Even if it is not in the center, it often is raised so that it becomes more imposing.

An interesting development in this regard has come in the Catholic Church following Vatican II. Previously the altar in Catholic churches was at the very east end of the church so that the priest would be facing east, toward Jerusalem (at least in western Europe) when he said the mass. The pulpit was frequently elevated above the heads of the congregation with a sounding board above it so that the congregation could hear and understand the sermon. After Vatican II the altar has been moved to nearer the center of the congregation, usually at or near the center of the crossing of the church, if it has a cruciform plan. This way the congregation is less of a non-participator audience and more of a worshipping body. I think this is one of the rare positive developments that I have observed in the RCC.

 

[Albion]

After Vatican II the altar has been moved to nearer the center of the congregation, usually at or near the center of the crossing of the church, if it has a cruciform plan. This way the congregation is less of a non-participator audience and more of a worshipping body. I think this is one of the rare positive developments that I have observed in the RCC.

The RCC adopted the long-established Protestant themes, in other words. It is often remarked that the motivation for the reforms of Vatican II was to keep up with Protestant gains.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The RCC adopted the long-established Protestant themes, in other words. It is often remarked that the motivation for the reforms of Vatican II was to keep up with Protestant gains.

I agree entirely. Syncretism is the watchword in the RCC, whether it be with non-Christian pagan religions or with Protestants.

 

[DamianWarS]

Your understanding of paganism seems to be quite simplistic. If, by paganism, you mean all non-Christian religions, then your assertions are quite erroneous as many non-Christian religions do not require a temple or holy man. If you are referring to contemporary Neopaganism, you are looking at a variety of beliefs, all of which claim to be true Paganism. Again, these beliefs do not require temples for their worship.

no doubt I've used some liberties by generalizing the term pagan but regardless of the semantics the point still remains.

 

[bbbbbbb]

no doubt I've used some liberties by generalizing the term pagan but regardless of the semantics the point still remains.

The point being that because some non-Christian religions have certain practices which parallel those of some Christian denominations, it is therefore a fait accompli that the Christian denominations adopted these practices from those of the particular non-Christian religions. I think not.

 

[DamianWarS]

The point being that because some non-Christian religions have certain practices which parallel those of some Christian denominations, it is therefore a fait accompli that the Christian denominations adopted these practices from those of the particular non-Christian religions. I think not.

Regardless how these values have been introduced we still need to reconcile why these things are so highly valued yet absent from the bible. A poster suggested the presence and greater emphasis of an "altar" was better then the central focus of the preacher because the sacrament was more valued.

The word "sacrament" is missing from the bible and administering this sacrament by means of a decorated altar is also missing from the bible. What is also missing from the bible is the preacher in the centre of the church building (because the church building is missing in the bible) but a preacher as the focal point is a little easier to defend biblically than Holy jargon and spiritual objects as the focus.

Are these things wrong? No not individually but they are extra-biblical values and so if we are going to use them lets make sure we use them responsibly to the end of showing God's glory to others.

Sacrament literally means "a Holy mystery" and in etymology has no particular connection to the Lord's supper. It is based on Latin and to the regular joe is holy jargon stripped of all meaning and relevance. Most don't fully know what it is (perhaps that's why it's a mystery) So why is it called "sacrament" and what net gain do we accomplish by using this terminology? It's confusing and above many people's understanding and it is not a biblical value to use spiritualized words like these so again why do we continue?

The Altar is same thing. It is confusing and looks like it is an object of power and its name is odd. I understand it's significance but what is the net gain to using an altar when it is not a biblical value? Are we just traditionalist and must keep using the practices of a 1000 years ago to communicate the gospel effectively? If so than we have missed the point. if tradition is perceived as required elements of the gospel then we have not held its message responsibly and are a disservice to it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Regardless how these values have been introduced we still need to reconcile why these things are so highly valued yet absent from the bible. A poster suggested the presence and greater emphasis of an "altar" was better then the central focus of the preacher because the sacrament was more valued.

The word "sacrament" is missing from the bible and administering this sacrament by means of a decorated altar is also missing from the bible. What is also missing from the bible is the preacher in the centre of the church building (because the church building is missing in the bible) but a preacher as the focal point is a little easier to defend biblically than Holy jargon and spiritual objects as the focus.

Are these things wrong? No not individually but they are extra-biblical values and so if we are going to use them lets make sure we use them responsibly to the end of showing God's glory to others.

Sacrament literally means "a Holy mystery" and in etymology has no particular connection to the Lord's supper. It is based on Latin and to the regular joe is holy jargon stripped of all meaning and relevance. Most don't fully know what it is (perhaps that's why it's a mystery) So why is it called "sacrament" and what net gain do we accomplish by using this terminology? It's confusing and above many people's understanding and it is not a biblical value to use spiritualized words like these so again why do we continue?

The Altar is same thing. It is confusing and looks like it is an object of power and its name is odd. I understand it's significance but what is the net gain to using an altar when it is not a biblical value? Are we just traditionalist and must keep using the practices of a 1000 years ago to communicate the gospel effectively? If so than we have missed the point. if tradition is perceived as required elements of the gospel then we have not held its message responsibly and are a disservice to it.

Umbrellas and motorized vehicles are also missing from the Bible, not to mention radio, television, movies, the internet, computers, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, email, the postal service, etc., etc., etc. Serious Christians have questioned the usage of some or all of these things by Christians and have determined that their use constitutes blatant sin against a holy God.

 

[DamianWarS]

Umbrellas and motorized vehicles are also missing from the Bible, not to mention radio, television, movies, the internet, computers, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, email, the postal service, etc., etc., etc. Serious Christians have questioned the usage of some or all of these things by Christians and have determined that their use constitutes blatant sin against a holy God.

Umbrellas and motorized vehicles are not adopted forms of the church so are irrelevant to this discussion. We don't see them featured as we participate in worship to God and they have little to no emphasis in christian living. These "things" are not values of the church and If they are they are deemphasized and no one inside or outside the church are confused of their role.

I have never heard of a holy umbrella but I have heard of a holy table. The value of the latter within the church and the like are the values I'm addressing.