What I Dislike About Evangelical Services

[SQLservant]

The wording might make some difference, but Faith in Christ IS the main point of the Gospel. No two ways about that. So, while the Gospel is somewhat more complicated than that, this is the starting point, which is why I don't completely fault the style we're discussing.

That's true, but couldn't even usually mature preaching ending with the same sort of invitation every week cause some errors to crop up, whether or not it's well-intentioned? An example might be people asking to get "re-baptized," perhaps. As you said, I don't completely fault them either (it was in such a context where the Lord came to me), but might this approach be a little misguided?

 

[sunlover1]

I'm a big fan of preaching the Gospel as well. I'm just not too keen on sales pitches.

How is sharing Christ at a funeral, a "sales pitch"?

That assumes that the Gospel can be reduced to "religious conversion" in a pietist sense. The Tent-Meeting preachers get people to have emotional experiences and agree to religious ideologies, but there's a serious lack of spiritual maturity in that mindset.

"Get people to have emotional experiences"?
Finding out that Jesus Christ, God of all creation, forgives your sin,
buries it in the deepest ocean, loves you so much He DIED for you,
and wants to be your FRIEND (of all things) might cause one to
be just a WEE bit emotional.

Yes, people have tent meetings to 'trick" people into finding out
that God loves them.

 

[Albion]

That's true, but couldn't even usually mature preaching ending with the same sort of invitation every week cause some errors to crop up, whether or not it's well-intentioned? An example might be people asking to get "re-baptized," perhaps. As you said, I don't completely fault them either (it was in such a context where the Lord came to me), but might this approach be a little misguided?

I guess I'm just reluctant to get on board with all those who make fun of the tent preacher and altar calls, etc. If we take the worst examples possible, it would be possible to make anything done in the course of Christian life look phony or bad. Pastors are only out for money; Baptism just gets you wet; Catholic priests are all pedophiles; Baptists are all yokels who say JAY-zuz; and so on.

In this case, I know that some preachers (on the sawdust trail in particular, but that's not typical of what we're speaking of) are Elmer Gantrys. However, others are evangelists who have done such good work and brought so many to Christ that they put to shame the prissy theologians in the pulpits of a lot of other churches.

More to the point, there is a right way and a wrong way to do all of this. First, it's unfair to say that such preaching appeals only to the emotions. Some does but I have heard many other such sermons that were not at all that way. Second, a proper altar call following preaching to a general audience should include personal counseling. It is a mistake to have the profession of faith and a hearty sendoff...and nothing else. Yet that is the stereotype. There should be counseling that includes getting that person more aware of what is involved and also connects him with a local congregation.

BTW, it is also quite true that the churches at the opposite end of the spectrum are subject to the same criticisms. I know a number of Catholics, Orthodox, and Episcopalians who tell me, starry-eyed, how the twinkling lights, the incense, the beautiful cathedral, etc. "just made me feel the presence of God." If that isn't reliance upon one's emotions, nothing is. It just doesn't involve a sermon!

 

[sunlover1]

That's true, but couldn't even usually mature preaching ending with the same sort of invitation every week cause some errors to crop up, whether or not it's well-intentioned? An example might be people asking to get "re-baptized,"perhaps.

Is that a bad thing?
I have considered doing that and no invitation provoked me.
In fact, you rarely would hear that invitation thing in my church,
then again, we don't have many visitors.

As you said, I don't completely fault them either (it was in such a context where the Lord came to me), but might this approach be a little misguided?

Sounds like a good policy to me.
In fact, wouldn't we be remiss NOT to offer..
Isn't that the great commission?
Maybe we fall short and miss the mark
when we complain that people offer
Christ in services, be it funerals or
regular services..
In fact, this entire thread is based on
"what's your complaint"
No wonder I loathe it.

Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
15That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God,
without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation,
among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
16Holding forth the word of life..

 

[sunlover1]

I guess I'm just reluctant to get on board with all those who make fun of the tent preacher and altar calls, etc. If we take the worst examples possible, it would be possible to make anything done in the course of Christian life look phony or bad. Pastors are only out for money; Baptism just gets you wet; Catholic priests are all pedophiles; Baptists are all yokels who say JAY-zuz; and so on.

In this case, I know that some preachers (on the sawdust trail in particular, but that's not typical of what we're speaking of) are Elmer Gantrys. However, others are evangelists who have done such good work and brought so many to Christ that they put to shame the prissy theologians in the pulpits of a lot of other churches.

Well, you say it so eloquently,
Thank you, JAY-zuz!

 

[SQLservant]

I guess I'm just reluctant to get on board with all those who make fun of the tent preacher and altar calls, etc. If we take the worst examples possible, it would be possible to make anything done in the course of Christian life look phony or bad. Pastors are only out for money; Baptism just gets you wet; Catholic priests are all pedophiles; Baptists are all yokels who say JAY-zuz; and so on.

Thanks again for checking me there... as soon as I hit "submit" I wondered if I had just said that the potential for abuse takes away the rightful use, and it seems that I had!

More to the point, there is a right way and a wrong way to do all of this. First, it's unfair to say that such preaching appeals only to the emotions. Some does but I have heard many other such sermons that were not at all that way. Second, a proper altar call following preaching to a general audience should include personal counseling. It is a mistake to have the profession of faith and a hearty sendoff...and nothing else. Yet that is the stereotype. There should be counseling that includes getting that person more aware of what is involved and also connects him with a local congregation.

Amen.

BTW, it is also quite true that the churches at the opposite end of the spectrum are subject to the same criticisms. I know a number of Catholics, Orthodox, and Episcopalians who tell me, starry-eyed, how the twinkling lights, the incense, the beautiful cathedral, etc. "just made me feel the presence of God." If that isn't reliance upon one's emotions, nothing is. It just doesn't involve a sermon!

And that's my great stumbling block when I try to explain why I like liturgical worship the best... as much as I may prattle on about having the Bible proclaimed and saturating the words of the service, or loyalty to the early Church, or the nebulously-defined reverence, I always find myself coming back to "I feel," and I start to doubt whether I'm really just gratifying my own ego by trying to argue for my emotionally-favored worship expression. I believe it is more authentic and so forth, but I wonder how much that really matters. Maybe I'm just too childish to accept a different perspective than my own.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

And that's my great stumbling block when I try to explain why I like liturgical worship the best... as much as I may prattle on about having the Bible proclaimed and saturating the words of the service, or loyalty to the early Church, or the nebulously-defined reverence, I always find myself coming back to "I feel," and I start to doubt whether I'm really just gratifying my own ego by trying to argue for my emotionally-favored worship expression. I believe it is more authentic and so forth, but I wonder how much that really matters. Maybe I'm just too childish to accept a different perspective than my own.

yeah everyone has a different way of loving God with all their heart .

 

[GreekOrthodox]

And the order of the Orthodox church goes like????
Just curious.

For the main Liturgy, like our Western liturgical counter-parts, have two sections, Liturgy of the Word and then the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The Liturgy of the Word:
Opening call to worship
Litany (short one-two line prayers followed by Lord have mercy)
Hymns of the day/season (note, we dont have the western style of hymns that you find in western churches as they follow a different pattern)
Small Procession (the book of the Gospel is processed)
Epistle reading
Gospel reading
Homily (some churches put the homily at the end of the service instead)

The Liturgy of the Eucharist:
Great Procession (the communion elements are processed)
Litany #2
Confession of Faith (recitation of the Nicene creed, the East doesnt use the Apostles Creed or Athanasian due to historical reasons)
Pre-communion prayers and hymns
Consecration of the elements
Communion
Post-communion prayers and hymns
Dismissal

Please note that the Divine Liturgy is the main Sunday service but there are also other services such as Matins, Vespers, Compline as well as some other less common services outside of a monastic setting.

Brian

 

[FireDragon76]

And that's my great stumbling block when I try to explain why I like liturgical worship the best... as much as I may prattle on about having the Bible proclaimed and saturating the words of the service, .

Liturgical worship, and the theology assosciated with it, feels alot less emotionally manipulative to me. The extreme pietism of some low-church evangelicalism, on the other hand, is all about trying to make you feel something.... or else you are dismissed as not a real Christian. And the chasing after feelings is spiritually problematic in itself, especially if there is no spiritual direction to go with it.

 

[SQLservant]

yeah everyone has a different way of loving God with all their heart .

But where is the community in that idea, though? The Church is a body; a bride, even. How best ought the Church corporately express to her head and groom the worship he deserves, in your opinion?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

But where is the community in that idea, though? The Church is a body; a bride, even. How best ought the Church corporately express to her head and groom the worship he deserves, in your opinion?

that's where love and the heart of the father comes in . but many elder and prodigal sons duking it out as if there is no father .

 

[Albion]

And that's my great stumbling block when I try to explain why I like liturgical worship the best... as much as I may prattle on about having the Bible proclaimed and saturating the words of the service, or loyalty to the early Church, or the nebulously-defined reverence, I always find myself coming back to "I feel," and I start to doubt whether I'm really just gratifying my own ego by trying to argue for my emotionally-favored worship expression. I believe it is more authentic and so forth, but I wonder how much that really matters.

Believe me, I know.

 

[SQLservant]

that's where love and the heart of the father comes in . but many elder and prodigal sons duking it out as if there is no father .

That is, it doesn't matter, because the Father is pleased with whatever a group brings (no sarcasm, just me making sure I understand you right)? Surely there are limitations, though, aren't there?

 

[Gnarwhal]

And that's my great stumbling block when I try to explain why I like liturgical worship the best... as much as I may prattle on about having the Bible proclaimed and saturating the words of the service, or loyalty to the early Church, or the nebulously-defined reverence, I always find myself coming back to "I feel," and I start to doubt whether I'm really just gratifying my own ego by trying to argue for my emotionally-favored worship expression. I believe it is more authentic and so forth, but I wonder how much that really matters. Maybe I'm just too childish to accept a different perspective than my own.

For me, one thing I've done is evaluate how focused on Christ I actually am over the course of the service. In evangelical services, I'm distracted by the chaotic lighting and the trendy wardrobe the band--"worship team"--is wearing and all of the anarchy that takes place around me. Seriously, at any given moment I felt like there could be a half dozen separate things happening in all directions.

Contrast that with the liturgical services where my focus remains on Christ, the gospel actually is proclaimed and God really is being worshiped.

That's me though.

 

[Albion]

For me, one thing I've done is evaluate how focused on Christ I actually am over the course of the service. In evangelical services, I'm distracted by the chaotic lighting and the trendy wardrobe the band--"worship team"--is wearing and all of the anarchy that takes place around me. Seriously, at any given moment I felt like there could be a half dozen separate things happening in all directions.

Contrast that with the liturgical services where my focus remains on Christ, the gospel actually is proclaimed and God really is being worshiped.

That's me though.

No. I think a lot of us are like that.

Frankly, I find much to be inspired by in a contemporary, "evangelical" service. BUT I always am put off by some of the rest of it. In a liturgical service, unless the pastor has really fiddled with the liturgy, about the only thing that's likely to disappoint is the sermon.

 

[sunlover1]

That is, it doesn't matter, because the Father is pleased with whatever a group brings (no sarcasm, just me making sure I understand you right)? Surely there are limitations, though, aren't there?

What do you think?
We could have a keg and pig roast and call it good?
I think we SHOULD know in our spirit, if we're spirit led
and if we're not spirit led then we're none of His..

IMO

IN Spirit and IN Truth is how God put it.

 

[sunlover1]

But where is the community in that idea, though? The Church is a body; a bride, even. How best ought the Church corporately express to her head and groom the worship he deserves, in your opinion?

Do you make allowances for different cultures?
Or do you believe that we must all show honor to God
in the same way?

 

[SQLservant]

Do you make allowances for different cultures?
Or do you believe that we must all show honor to God
in the same way?

Different cultures will most certainly express things differently, but again, they are worshipping the same God who requires the same thing of his children, so one might expect at least some continuity between them, right? In substance if not in structure?

 

[sunlover1]

Different cultures will most certainly express things differently, but again, they are worshipping the same God who requires the same thing of his children, so one might expect at least some continuity between them, right? In substance if not in structure?

Which would be what?
What is it that our one God desires of us?

 

[SQLservant]

Which would be what?
What is it that our one God desires of us?

Sorry; it seems that I didn't choose my words very well.
While God desires a lot of us, as any father would, the one thing he requires is faith, for without it the rest is all noise. Yet, we cannot get that ourselves; God must give it to us. He can do so in any way he pleases, but the way he most surely does so is through his Word and his Sacraments, his means of grace. We say surely because he has promised this grace to us in his Word.

Is it not fitting, then, to bring these things, as well as the most worthy praise which is the response to this unbelievable gift of grace, to the forefront, whatever cultural adjustments that might require? It is here that God works his faith in us and strengthens and teaches us, that the rest of our lives may be holy as his indwelling Holy Spirit then works through us by our faith. That's the kind of continuity I meant.

Forgive me if that sounded condescending, as I fear it might have...