you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it.

[Uphill Battle]

Ok. This will likely come across as offensive to some people, but that is not my intent. I simply need to get something off my chest, and discuss it. I sincerely hope that nobody is offended, and if they are, understand that I am not doing this to condemn or poke, but to express a very legitimate and deep feeling that I feel I have to share.

I have been reading a book called Blue like Jazz, by Donald Miller. I doubt it's circulated among Catholics and EO much. But that aside, it is a brilliant piece of writing.

something in the book struck a cord with me, regarding the religious observances of Christians, and their place in our lives. And the more and more and more I read it, the more I realized one of the primary reasons I simply cannot accept the claims of some of the churches out there, why I could not see myself being what they are, or doing what they do.

and it boils down to liturgical service.

I feel that there is a disconnect between what was, and is. The claim is, hey, this is how Christians always worshipped. They did the divine liturgy, or this mass, or that form. (This is not intended to single out any one church. Each of the liturgical style churches has their own, and belive it to be the right way, and the way it's always been done.)

but looking in the bible, it is a very different picture. We are to imitate Christ, are we not? What do we see there? How they gather? How he taught? It wasn't the same thing, week in, week, out. It wasn't formulaic. It wasn't prescribed. It was esoteric, it was impactful it was INFORMAL. Men and women sitting in the grass while the Master blessed them with heavenly truth. The broken being healed by his hands. Eating together, reclining together, discussing. Inviting sinners to join in on all but the Bread and wine.

IF the claim is true, that the early church worshipped in exactly the same style as they always have, a dramatic, complete, and sudden shift in they way things had been done, must have happened shortly after the ascension. I can't see any other way. To go from footwashings and sharing a meal, or simply praying together in someones home, to candle lighting, censor swinging, Icon carrying methods doesn't happen overnight.

I do not believe that that is how it was done in the early church. I cannot see it. The only think I can conclude is that it developed over time, until a method of religious ritual was settled on, and that it stuck, and that is what continues to this day (with, of course, subtle changes from time to time, but that is a separate issue.)

there, I've unburdened.... now I expect I'll be shouted down for it, but I felt I had to say it.

ciao.

 

[christianmomof3]

I agree. I don't think that the early church was formal.
It was informal and living.
We also should be living Christ, not going thorough a scripted regimen and believing that is what the Lord's will for us is.
But, we are not merely to imitate Christ, we are to express Christ. Christ lives in us who are regenerated - born again with His life. He lives in us and we are not to ask ourselves what we think Jesus might do and then decide what we think He might do and try to act that way.
We are to ask Him - Hey - Jesus - what should I do here? I can't do it Lord - please do it for me and through me. Thank you Lord that you are so merciful!

or something like that.

Then, when we put our self and our own opinions, desires and preferences on the cross, we can let Christ work and express Himself through us.

 

[narnia59]

It would seem to me that you're confusing worship with fellowship. Jesus and his apostles were faithful, practicing Jews. Their lives were rich in traditional, liturgical style worship because they were faithful to their tradition. The Last Supper was a celebration of the Jewish passover seder meal. I'd be willing to bet it was 'by the book'.

What Jesus was clear on was the ritual was nothing without the right heart.

 

[SaintDonn]

I agree. I don't think that the early church was formal.
It was informal and living.
We also should be living Christ, not going thorough a scripted regimen and believing that is what the Lord's will for us is.
But, we are not merely to imitate Christ, we are to express Christ. Christ lives in us who are regenerated - born again with His life. He lives in us and we are not to ask ourselves what we think Jesus might do and then decide what we think He might do and try to act that way.
We are to ask Him - Hey - Jesus - what should I do here? I can't do it Lord - please do it for me and through me. Thank you Lord that you are so merciful!

or something like that.

Then, when we put our self and our own opinions, desires and preferences on the cross, we can let Christ work and express Himself through us.

Amen

 

[tz620q]

The claim is, hey, this is how Christians always worshipped. They did the divine liturgy, or this mass, or that form.
but looking in the bible, it is a very different picture. We are to imitate Christ, are we not? What do we see there? How they gather? How he taught? It wasn't the same thing, week in, week, out. It wasn't formulaic. It wasn't prescribed. It was esoteric, it was impactful it was INFORMAL. Men and women sitting in the grass while the Master blessed them with heavenly truth. The broken being healed by his hands. Eating together, reclining together, discussing. Inviting sinners to join in on all but the Bread and wine.

IF the claim is true, that the early church worshipped in exactly the same style as they always have, a dramatic, complete, and sudden shift in they way things had been done, must have happened shortly after the ascension. I can't see any other way. To go from footwashings and sharing a meal, or simply praying together in someones home, to candle lighting, censor swinging, Icon carrying methods doesn't happen overnight.

I do not believe that that is how it was done in the early church. I cannot see it. The only think I can conclude is that it developed over time, until a method of religious ritual was settled on, and that it stuck, and that is what continues to this day (with, of course, subtle changes from time to time, but that is a separate issue.)
ciao.

Hmmm. To start, when we say that something has always been done a certain way, it cannot be taken to mean that throughout eternity the same thing has happened in the same way. So everything must have a starting point. This would lead me to jump to the question of when did a certain style of Christian worship start.

I don't think we can say that we are meant to imitate Christ in all things. Obviously there are many things that Christ did, both through miracles and revealing truths, that men cannot do. So the early Christians found it important to collect and preserve that which Christ had taught them. We live in a document-based society and naturally think of information and preservation of information as written and document-based. This was not true of the early Christians. They lived in an oral and visual world and sought to preserve things through oral teaching and visual media. It is almost cliche to point out that in a largely illiterate world this was the most effective means. I am not implying that the writing of the New Testament was not important, only that for the masses, it would have been useless to hand them writings they could not read.

So forms of worship developed that focused on orally transmitting to the early Christians key aspects of Christ's teachings and visually transmitting key aspects of his life, death, and resurrection. The apostles were no longer at the wedding feast, but they did have the Holy Spirit to guide them into the truth and though you might not believe in sacramental worship, they had Christ present in the services through the sacraments.
So did the forms of worship change over the first century of so of Christianity? Sure. Christianity was growing from a sect of Judaism, to an independent and sometimes persecuted and often underground movement, to a tolerated religion with visible buildings and hierarchy. The number of Christians increased dramatically. Looking at the Gospels we see Jesus changing methods of teaching to fit the conditions he found. First, he taught as a Jewish rabbi within the synagogues, then within friend's houses, and finally in large outdoor crowds. Even within the three years he did this, we see great growth and changes to fit the circumstances. So I do not have any problem that the apostles did not progress from where Christ left them, teaching basically to large groups outside of metropolitan areas and instead they reentered cities and reentered the synagogues to preach to the Jewish masses. Why did this style eventually get codified? After the last apostle died, there were no eyewitnesses so to speak and so the forms of worship became more important as means of preserving intact the "deposit of faith". One good testimonial to this is the Didache, which was written around the time of the death of the last apostle and outlines a form of worship that was close to the current liturgical forms and certainly different from Christ's methods. So if there was development in form, it happened rapidly and without any documented protest from the early church leaders.

 

[sunlover1]

Where do I get my refund?

 

[sunlover1]

Looking at the Gospels we see Jesus changing methods of teaching to fit the conditions he found.

Amen.

 

[sunlover1]

Their lives were rich in traditional, liturgical style worship because they were faithful to their tradition.

On this occasion, ya gotta wonder what made
Jesus wander into their synagogue
and mess up their purdy service.
It almost seems like He was trying to
teach them something, doent it?

9 And when he was departed thence,
he went into their synagogue:

10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered.
And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days?
that they might accuse him.
11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you,
that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day,
will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12 How much then is a man better than a sheep?
Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. 1
3 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand.
And he stretched it forth;
and it was restored whole, like as the other.

14 Then the Pharisees went out,
and helda a council against him,
how they might destroy him.​

http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=7022569#_ftn2a held...: or, took counsel

http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=7022569#_ftnref2

 

[lionroar0]

The early church also worshiped in catacombs with the martyrs and in caves.

Peace

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

Depends on how you use the liturgical service. If it gets to a point where it becomes stiff, and legalistic then yeah you should consider ditching it for awhile. However, not every liturgical church is stiff, and "dead" just as not every "informal" free church is alive.
It all comes down to love of God and Neighbor. Chances are, if a church loves God, and those around them, no matter what their worship style, they will be alive, and fruitful

 

[Theophorus]

Ok. This will likely come across as offensive to some people, but that is not my intent. I simply need to get something off my chest, and discuss it. I sincerely hope that nobody is offended, and if they are, understand that I am not doing this to condemn or poke, but to express a very legitimate and deep feeling that I feel I have to share.

I have been reading a book called Blue like Jazz, by Donald Miller. I doubt it's circulated among Catholics and EO much. But that aside, it is a brilliant piece of writing.

something in the book struck a cord with me, regarding the religious observances of Christians, and their place in our lives. And the more and more and more I read it, the more I realized one of the primary reasons I simply cannot accept the claims of some of the churches out there, why I could not see myself being what they are, or doing what they do.

and it boils down to liturgical service.

I feel that there is a disconnect between what was, and is. The claim is, hey, this is how Christians always worshipped. They did the divine liturgy, or this mass, or that form. (This is not intended to single out any one church. Each of the liturgical style churches has their own, and belive it to be the right way, and the way it's always been done.)

but looking in the bible, it is a very different picture. We are to imitate Christ, are we not? What do we see there? How they gather? How he taught? It wasn't the same thing, week in, week, out. It wasn't formulaic. It wasn't prescribed. It was esoteric, it was impactful it was INFORMAL. Men and women sitting in the grass while the Master blessed them with heavenly truth. The broken being healed by his hands. Eating together, reclining together, discussing. Inviting sinners to join in on all but the Bread and wine.

IF the claim is true, that the early church worshipped in exactly the same style as they always have, a dramatic, complete, and sudden shift in they way things had been done, must have happened shortly after the ascension. I can't see any other way. To go from footwashings and sharing a meal, or simply praying together in someones home, to candle lighting, censor swinging, Icon carrying methods doesn't happen overnight.

I do not believe that that is how it was done in the early church. I cannot see it. The only think I can conclude is that it developed over time, until a method of religious ritual was settled on, and that it stuck, and that is what continues to this day (with, of course, subtle changes from time to time, but that is a separate issue.)

there, I've unburdened.... now I expect I'll be shouted down for it, but I felt I had to say it.

ciao.

I just finished a book also. I doubt it is circulated much around non denom and protestant circles. It's called The Medieval Manichee.

And I don't really mean to offend anyone as that is not my intent, but it really resounded with me and my experiences. It clarified several things in my mind, but it eventually came to this.

Most modern worship is not worship, but fellowship and propaganda.

I saw how worship evolved from the synagogue, and the pattern of worship was kept even from the tabernacle. It was mystical, reverent, and deeply spiritual, but now has become an excersise in debate and logic, individualistic, and even gnostic in certain aspects.


I'm sure you and others disagree, but I just felt the need to answer this OP.

 

[Theophorus]

On this occasion, ya gotta wonder what made
Jesus wander into their synagogue
and mess up their purdy service.
It almost seems like He was trying to
teach them something, doent it?

Jesus only wandered into synagogues. I see. Then he started the first praise band I guess shortly there after...

 

[sunlover1]

Jesus only wandered into synagogues. I see. Then he started the first praise band I guess shortly there after...

Too funny.
I was going to change that
word after proofing, but didnt
think it was needful.

I thought the post was
very good though, it was
a "God" post.
(Scripture ya know)

 

[MrPolo]

I feel that there is a disconnect between what was, and is. The claim is, hey, this is how Christians always worshipped. They did the divine liturgy, or this mass, or that form.
but looking in the bible, it is a very different picture.

I am not quite following. You are saying that even though Catholics and the EO's can document the Liturgy in early Christianity, it cannot have been the earliest form of worship? You will appeal to an unseen form of worship that "must have been"?

And I don't know what you mean about the Bible telling a different picture. Scripture is very Liturgical.

 

[E.C.]

The early church also worshiped in catacombs with the martyrs and in caves.

Peace

Let us not forget the relics in the altars and the iconography found all over.

Most modern worship is not worship, but fellowship and propaganda.

That's a good point. Ever notice how the more informal and more lecture-like one's worship is the more zealous they are against those not in their own camps?
Certainly something worth pondering.

I saw how worship evolved from the synagogue, and the pattern of worship was kept even from the tabernacle. It was mystical, reverent, and deeply spiritual, but now has become an excersise in debate and logic, individualistic, and even gnostic in certain aspects.

That is one thing that astounds me about Judaizing Protestants. They'll make a pamphlet that depicts Christ in all the rabbi getup (I've seen a lot of those) yet will not keep anything like an altar, a real priesthood or clergical setup, a fast, or tradition.



With regards to different kinds of worship, the few times I've been to a Protestant church I never felt God's presence. Except the Lutheran. Felt a little. The Roman Catholic mass that I went to for years was enough to keep me going.
Yet the Orthodox Divine Liturgy was something that always caught my interest because I knew that there was some thing about how "they" worshiped that just seemed right. Sure, when I was younger it seemed boring and repetitive, but now that I know that it truly was God's presence that caught me, I appreciate it and look forward to going to church.

And for what this is worth, it and fifty cents will get you a shot glass worth of coffee.



Curse-ed reputation nazis...

 

[lionroar0]

IF the claim is true, that the early church worshipped in exactly the same style as they always have, a dramatic, complete, and sudden shift in they way things had been done, must have happened shortly after the ascension. I can't see any other way. To go from footwashings and sharing a meal, or simply praying together in someones home, to candle lighting, censor swinging, Icon carrying methods doesn't happen overnight.

I do not believe that that is how it was done in the early church. I cannot see it. The only think I can conclude is that it developed over time, until a method of religious ritual was settled on, and that it stuck, and that is what continues to this day (with, of course, subtle changes from time to time, but that is a separate issue.)

These are good points. They did develop overtime.

Worship wasn't always at the home though or in a park. That's a biased look at early christian worship.

The early christians also had the Apostles. They also worshiped in caves and in catacombs with the martyrs. If we're going to look at early christian worship then we have to look at all of it. Not just the parts that one group likes over the other.

Peace

 

[intricatic]

I thought I was going to hate this thread?

Ironically, I can't stand Donald Miller, but still.

 

[lionroar0]

...and even gnostic in certain aspects.

From my observations here in CF. I'd say that is true of the newer churches.

Peace

 

[intricatic]

With regards to different kinds of worship, the few times I've been to a Protestant church I never felt God's presence. Except the Lutheran. Felt a little. The Roman Catholic mass that I went to for years was enough to keep me going.
Yet the Orthodox Divine Liturgy was something that always caught my interest because I knew that there was some thing about how "they" worshiped that just seemed right. Sure, when I was younger it seemed boring and repetitive, but now that I know that it truly was God's presence that caught me, I appreciate it and look forward to going to church.

The last time I walked into a Catholic Church, the only thing I felt was a brick hitting my head. It sure hurt.

I don't put much stock in feeling things - I feel good things at concerts, at musical recitals when a really inspiring violinist steps up on stage, or when someone plays a really wicked solo on an acoustic 12 string guitar. I don't attribute that feeling to the Holy Spirit any more than I would attribute the Holy Spirit to the feelings I get from being in an inspiring hallway adorned by beautiful artwork. It's meant to create that sensory experience, but it may very well be completely hollow.

 

[E.C.]

From my observations here in CF. I'd say that is true of the newer churches.

Peace

Well, of course it would be.

They have no tradition since if something lasts longer than two weeks it is obviously only the work of the devil or the Roman Church (same thing to them I suppose) and thus must be destroyed.

Let's not forget that what little history that they choose to remember is only for the sake of proving others wrong and justifying their own heresy.