What is deserving of our worship?

2,772 Views | 46 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Zobel
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I attended a talk by a theology professor from Notre Dame where he discussed his new book called "Bored Again Catholic". He said something that got my attention. In the context of people (mainly teens and young adults) complaining about liturgical worship being boring or not inspirational enough, he said "If we rely on affections alone as the test for what is deserving of our worship, we have not yet met God and in reality we are worshipping ourselves."

I thought and think this is perhaps one of the most thought-provoking things I have heard in a long time. It speaks to much more than whether the Roman liturgy is or is not boring. It's easily applied to things like cell phones, porn, and social media.

I thought maybe the quote would be a good impetus for some enlightened discussion.

Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
XUSCR said:

I attended a talk by a theology professor from Notre Dame where he discussed his new book called "Bored Again Catholic". He said something that got my attention. In the context of people (mainly teens and young adults) complaining about liturgical worship being boring or not inspirational enough, he said "If we rely on affections alone as the test for what is deserving of our worship, we have not yet met God and in reality we are worshipping ourselves."

I thought and think this is perhaps one of the most thought-provoking things I have heard in a long time. It speaks to much more than whether the Roman liturgy is or is not boring. It's easily applied to things like cell phones, porn, and social media.

I thought maybe the quote would be a good impetus for some enlightened discussion.




I disagree that we must worship in the defined way that someone else has forced upon us. Worship is edifying for both the worshiper and the Almighty. I struggle with believing that a loving Christ truly cares how we worship Him.

Both of my children show their affection in different ways. One is bubbly and likes to vocalize her love and climb all over me. The other just wants to sit quietly and do something together.

Both of my children love me, and I love that they show it in different ways. Neither one of them is more important because they are both manifestations of their affection.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
True. I think a lot of the reality of what's happening in the liturgy has been lost. The sacrifice of ourselves, with Christ, and union to Him through participation in His death. You just don't hear much in those terms.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:

True. I think a lot of the reality of what's happening in the liturgy has been lost. The sacrifice of ourselves, with Christ, and union to Him through participation in His death. You just don't hear much in those terms.
I agree.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ol_Ag_02 said:

XUSCR said:

I attended a talk by a theology professor from Notre Dame where he discussed his new book called "Bored Again Catholic". He said something that got my attention. In the context of people (mainly teens and young adults) complaining about liturgical worship being boring or not inspirational enough, he said "If we rely on affections alone as the test for what is deserving of our worship, we have not yet met God and in reality we are worshipping ourselves."

I thought and think this is perhaps one of the most thought-provoking things I have heard in a long time. It speaks to much more than whether the Roman liturgy is or is not boring. It's easily applied to things like cell phones, porn, and social media.

I thought maybe the quote would be a good impetus for some enlightened discussion.




I disagree that we must worship in the defined way that someone else has forced upon us. Worship is edifying for both the worshiper and the Almighty. I struggle with believing that a loving Christ truly cares how we worship Him.

Both of my children show their affection in different ways. One is bubbly and likes to vocalize her love and climb all over me. The other just wants to sit quietly and do something together.

Both of my children love me, and I love that they show it in different ways. Neither one of them is more important because they are both manifestations of their affection.
It's not clear to me what precisely are disagreeing with, but perhaps an additional thought on the speaker's meaning in that quote. I don't think he is saying that affection derived from worship is a bad thing. I think he's saying that if we judge what is worthy of our worship by how it makes us feel then we are missing the point. Worship of the creator by the creature is rightly ordered when it is given simply because of that relationship, not because the creature feels good by doing it. Worshipping God may certainly bring about wonderful affections and praise God for that, but the worthiness or "rightness" of that worship and our decision to engage in it should not be determined by our "liking" the resulting affection.

St. Augustine said it well:

Quote:

You must praise him with the whole of yourselves. Not only must your tongue and your voice praise God, but your conscience must praise him too, and your life and your deeds. What I mean is this: now, while we are gathered in church, we praise God, but when each of you goes off home it looks as though you cease to praise him. But let each one of you not cease to live a good life, and then he or she will be praising God all the time. You only stop praising God when you swerve from just conduct and what pleases him. If you never turn aside from what is right your tongue is silent, but your life is shouting, and God's ears are attuned to your heart. Just as our ears are sensitive to our voices, so are God's ears sensitive to our thoughts.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think the Augustine quote sums it up best. Worship is not just what we do at church. It's how we respond to God in everything we do.



Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We don't have to wait for St Augustine to get a definition of worship. St Paul tells us what our worship is in Romans 12:1 --
Quote:

Therefore I exhort you, brothers, through the compassion of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy to God, well-pleasing, which is your "rational worship".
Christians offer themselves as living sacrifices to God, and in this offering they participate in the once for all (Heb 7:27, 10:12) sacrifice of Christ. They are the body of Christ and they "supply what is lacking" in Christ's suffering (Col 1:24). His body is sacrificed, so they as His body are sacrificed, through our lives.

The tail end of St Paul's quote is "logiken latreia." Latreia is worship or service, and logikos is and adjective from logos, reason. This is the worship which is proper to rational beings, the worship of humans, what we do and who we are. And the only worship that is proper to humans is the sacrifice of self, not dumb beasts or meaningless created things (cf Heb 10:4, Amos 5:22, Psalm 40:6, 1 Samuel 15:22, Proverbs 15:8, Proverbs 21:3, Hosea 6:6, Psalm 50:17 - over and over again!). Ourselves, as shown through how we live out our lives. What else can a rational being offer that is truly worship? "What shall I render to the LORD for all he has done for me?" (Psalm 116:12)

There is nothing "new" in the Christian liturgy. It follows the commandment and the pattern we see over and over again in the OT. Repent, be obedient, and receive forgiveness. First, "Bring your confessions and return to the LORD. Say to Him: "Take away all our iniquity and receive us graciously, that we may present the fruit of our lips." (Hosea 14:2). And as we come to Him we "are being built up as a spiritual house into a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5). Then you can offer sacrifice - "a sacrifice of praise" (Hebrews 13:15).

This is very different than the modern praise and worship service most people associate with Church. As if God wants our songs and not us...

Edit to add - and of course, if you don't understand this it is utterly boring. Especially compared to a fun, upbeat praise and worship service where you're singing, and riding an emotional high, and having fun with familiar, fun, upbeat music. But the reason its boring is because a person who doesn't understand this is observing, not participating. In reality, the people are the ones worshiping. We aren't there to observe but to be an integral, active, fundamental part of the service. We are the priests worshiping God and praying for the salvation of the whole world. We are sacrificing and eating from the table as priests.

This is why, I think, the ancient practice of excusing everyone except those who are going to receive communion after the liturgy of the word makes perfect sense. If you're not going to commune, you're not worshiping - you're observing. And it's not a spectator service. So even catechumen are excused, and only the faithful remain. I really think there is value in that, but I don't really know how you'd accomplish it these days.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
if I can summarize, it sounds like there's an issue with having the mindset that we are clarifying HIS worthiness of us...whereas it should be the other way around.

I've always thought songs that sing of "his worthiness" as being strange because of this.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why? They're at least rooted in the Psalms -- "Great is the LORD, and exceedingly praiseworthy!" We confess in the liturgy that it is "meet and right" - truly good for us to worship Him, because He is God and is the only thing suitable for us to worship, the only thing rational beings should worship. And, this implies that there is an appropriate way to worship Him.

I love, love, love the late Fr Thomas Hopko's explanation of the offering -
Quote:

The Holy Oblation is Christ, the Son of God who has become the Son of Man in order to offer himself to his Father for the life of the world. In his own person Jesus is the perfect peace offering, which alone brings God's reconciling mercy...In addition to being the perfect peace offering, Jesus is also the only adequate sacrifice of praise that men can offer to God. There is nothing comparable in men to the graciousness of God. There is nothing with which men can worthily thank and praise the Creator. This is so even if men would not be sinners. Thus God himself provides men with their own most perfect sacrifice of praise. The Son of God becomes genuinely human so that human persons could have one of their own nature sufficiently adequate to the holiness and graciousness of God. Again this is Christ, the sacrifice of praise.
Even our own lives are not adequate without being joined to His sacrifice. This is communion, we offer with Him the "worship in spirit and truth". I am struggling to convey this I think... I don't know. It's tough, but you have to turn the whole thing on its head. You have to say, these songs, these prayers, they are meaningless and inadequate relative to God. There is only one thing that can possibly suffice. This is the way worship has to be performed - in complete and abject humility toward God, in the right orientation of our complete inability to even worship properly without Him.
cecil77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I struggle with believing that a loving Christ truly cares how we worship Him.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cecil77 said:

Quote:

I struggle with believing that a loving Christ truly cares how we worship Him.



This is easily true. Of course He does. He says it Himself - -the time is coming and has come when true worshippers will worship in spirit and truth and the Father seeks such as these to worship Him.

If there is true worshippers, there are false worshippers. If there are such as these, there are such as those. This isn't a bludgeon to hit people with - "you're doing it wrong" - but it should be a goal and a guard.

Nothing in the OT strikes me as a God who is indifferent to how His people serve and worship Him - both their external activities and the intent behind them are important to Him. The ecumenical bent feels good, but I think it is a comfortable untruth.
cecil77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We disagree. I can in no way "compete" with your knowledge and study. However, the Wesleyan quadrilateral has always resonated with me: Scripture, Tradition, Experience, Reason.

My belief (and it's just that, a belief informed by my experience and reason) is that the legalistic bent of parsing scripture plus all of the liturgical writings and rules since then are not what God intended.

But again, the beauty is that there's beauty and value for humans to believe differently from each other.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

But again, the beauty is that there's beauty and value for humans to believe differently from each other.
Says you. Why do you think you're right?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cecil77 said:

We disagree. I can in no way "compete" with your knowledge and study. However, the Wesleyan quadrilateral has always resonated with me: Scripture, Tradition, Experience, Reason.

My belief (and it's just that, a belief informed by my experience and reason) is that the legalistic bent of parsing scripture plus all of the liturgical writings and rules since then are not what God intended.

But again, the beauty is that there's beauty and value for humans to believe differently from each other.
I'm fine with beliefs, but good discussion is about openly rationalizing our beliefs, right?

I think most people will agree with you wholeheartedly that a legalistic or Pharisaical mindset is bad and wrong. We can point back to whitewashed tombs, and even to the same verse above and say that's not spirit and truth.

But! And this is a big one! That doesn't mean there isn't a right and wrong involved. Or that we shouldn't "test all things and hold fast to what is good" (1 Thess 5:21) or even more strongly "abhor what is evil; cling to what is good" (Romans 12:9).

So then, I don't think it's fair to say "Jesus doesn't care". He does care. If there's something we can certainly say He cares strongly about, its that He absolutely does not like a legalistic approach to worship. And, similarly, I don't think it's fair to conclude that it doesn't matter. It does. It's extremely important.

The interesting thing here is that by your non-rule rule, you're condemning the rule-followers implicitly. Kinda like if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. There's a value judgment there.

I think it'd be more productive to say x or y or z are not God-pleasing, than to say He doesn't care.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cecil77 said:


But again, the beauty is that there's beauty and value for humans to believe differently from each other.


I think this is where I have to disagree. There's nothing beautiful about fractures and factions in the body of Christ.

Like you, I am not able to match k2's deep understanding of Christian liturgy, but I agree with him. I think there is a way to worship that is pleasing to God and I think the Scriptures show that.

It strikes me that the first 1500 years or so of the history of the Christian church shows a general agreement on the proper form of worship, even among the east and west after the end of the first millennium the liturgical nature of worship, especially the Eucharist was and remains the source and summit of our life.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I think there is a way to worship that is pleasing to God and I think the Scriptures show that.


Scriptures say to worship in Spirit and in Truth. I think you can do that with liturgy and I think you can do that with praise and worship. Because worship is much more than whatever words you recite on Sunday morning. I'm not saying we shouldn't care what we say on Sunday morning. I just disagree with the mindset that one way is right and the other is wrong. (Speaking in very general terms and making the assumption it's not some ridiculous seeker sensitive rockshow service)
cecil77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's deeply personal. And when I believe that "God doesn't care how I worship Him" - that implies that I am, indeed, worshipping Him. The main point is that God doesn't care what you think about how I worship him. That being said, it doesn't mean that I should totally ignore what you ("you" being the church and people) think, I need to pay attention to the "tradition" and "experience" aspects in the decisions I make about worship. But ultimately, my relationship with God is between us.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

It strikes me that the first 1500 years or so of the history of the Christian church shows a general agreement on the proper form of worship, even among the east and west after the end of the first millennium the liturgical nature of worship, especially the Eucharist was and remains the source and summit of our life.

You are just looking at it backwards knowing there's a different today and looking at history through that lens. it just was the definition of Christianity until something happened.

I don't think yall are in such a disagreement. It sounds like K2 is protecting against "anything can be called worship" and cecil is not really going that direction.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Scriptures say to worship in Spirit and in Truth. I think you can do that with liturgy and I think you can do that with praise and worship. Because worship is much more than whatever words you recite on Sunday morning. I'm not saying we shouldn't care what we say on Sunday morning. I just disagree with the mindset that one way is right and the other is wrong. (Speaking in very general terms and making the assumption it's not some ridiculous seeker sensitive rockshow service)
I think there's a huge amount of ambiguity in terms here. We have truly done damage to the meaning of the word worship. There are two ways to worship in a scriptural sense. One is to bow down, to show worship, etc. The other is to serve. Need to be careful about how we describe them. One is a prerequisite to the other, clearly, quite clearly. You can't do the praise and bringing offering, bowing down kind in a god-pleasing way unless you've done the serve kind, the living-it-out kind. All those verses were about that.

To this end, there is no true worship in the scriptures without sacrifice. It never happens, it is always sacrificial in nature. Worship is sacrifice. So if you say, I'm going to sing to God and worship Him and that's it...that's not worship, not properly. That's some modern idea that we've applied to the word, but it's not what the word means.

And even then, I think we can say yeah that service isn't God pleasing...by content, by means testing against scripture. At the end of the day it becomes an appeal to authority, and that's ok - but I still think we have enough to judge for ourselves on (nevermind the Spirit).

Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
XUSCR said:

cecil77 said:


But again, the beauty is that there's beauty and value for humans to believe differently from each other.


I think this is where I have to disagree. There's nothing beautiful about fractures and factions in the body of Christ.

Like you, I am not able to match k2's deep understanding of Christian liturgy, but I agree with him. I think there is a way to worship that is pleasing to God and I think the Scriptures show that.

It strikes me that the first 1500 years or so of the history of the Christian church shows a general agreement on the proper form of worship, even among the east and west after the end of the first millennium the liturgical nature of worship, especially the Eucharist was and remains the source and summit of our life.


Just because we worship in different buildings and in different ways why must that be fractured? Again, is my children's love fractured because it is different? Of course not, and I love them unconditionally, because they are my children. Just as Christ loves his children.

I don't find God and Christ in Mass, i find rules, and rituals, and unthinking recessitation (you will think that's ludicrous, which is perfectly normal and fine). The beauty is that we are both Christians and try to live the best life that Christ has given us (that is how we honor Him).

Care less whether other people are Christianing correctly. Care more about spreading the Good News.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Quote:

Just because we worship in different buildings and in different ways why must that be fractured? Again, is my children's love fractured because it is different? Of course not, and I love them unconditionally, because they are my children. Just as Christ loves his children.

Well, for starters because the scriptures say that we should be unified. Christ Jesus prays for this unity to the same degree as He is one with the Father, and even goes as far as to say this level of unity is the identifying hallmark of Christianity so that the world will believe that He is from the Father (John 17:21).

St Paul says, when you come together as a church there are divisions among you, and that this is good to show who is approved (by God). But that's for a church that is physically coming together at least in one place. Here the divisions are so bad that you don't even do that.

St Paul says there is "one body, one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father" in one place (Eph 4:5). In another, he says THE cup, THE loaf, and says that because there is one loaf, we are one body, because we partake of that loaf. We no longer have this in Christianity.

We don't have one body. because we don't partake of one loaf. You don't believe what I do about the Eucharist. We likely don't share a common understanding or belief or practice in baptism. We don't have one faith. You may not believe what I do about God and salvation, and we likely don't share a common creed (creed comes from the Latin word for "I believe"). So how can you say we are unified? We aren't unified in a general sense, and we're not unified in a particular sense, either. We certainly don't meet any of the scriptural standards to "come together as a church" - even physically!

Your children both live in your house, they both eat at your dining table with you. This not an apt analogy, this is nothing like what has happened in Christianity.

God loves all men, He makes the sun to shine on the righteous and unrighteous alike. We can't escape His love by our actions, even by sin, so His love isn't a means test for His approval or that our actions are pleasing to Him.

Quote:

I don't find God and Christ in Mass, i find rules, and rituals, and unthinking recessitation (you will think that's ludicrous, which is perfectly normal and fine). The beauty is that we are both Christians and try to live the best life that Christ has given us (that is how we honor Him).

Care less whether other people are Christianing correctly. Care more about spreading the Good News.
I think it is extremely important for Christians to care about whether other Christians are acting in god-pleasing ways. We are told by St Paul in our capacity as Christians to judge other believers, to correct them, and if they reject, to separate from them. Why? Because our unity to each other is the witness to our unity with God. Unity can only come through Christ. Divisions come from men.

The very first description we have of the Church in the NT is a very interesting verse, because it says the Church continued in three specific things - THE teaching of the apostles; THE communion, the breaking of bread; and THE prayers. Not in some teaching, various communions, and whatever prayers suited them.

We can't "spread the good news" effectively as Christendom if our entire message is garbled by ignorance, infighting, and petty disputes.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cecil77 said:

It's deeply personal. And when I believe that "God doesn't care how I worship Him" - that implies that I am, indeed, worshipping Him. The main point is that God doesn't care what you think about how I worship him. That being said, it doesn't mean that I should totally ignore what you ("you" being the church and people) think, I need to pay attention to the "tradition" and "experience" aspects in the decisions I make about worship. But ultimately, my relationship with God is between us.
Blue star and I agree. I like all kinds of worship service but actually get the most out of a weekly men's bible group. Also enjoy a weekly early morning praise music service at the hospital chapel and of course Sundays at Brazos Fellowship. The older I get I try to worship and commune with God all the time as it brings me joy. I do think weekly meetings with other believers is important, not just for worship, but also for fellowship and a sense of accountability.

And I love reading K2's posts and his description of the Orthodox services. I just think all of us can worship God in different ways and make Him smile.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
cecil77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In my (very humble) opinion, much of that is of the very legalistic sense you mentioned earlier.

The divisions are human formed and human perceived. Much of what you state as divisive difference I do not regard in the same way. My faith and belief leave much room for others to believe differently. Indeed, if we include fine shades of difference there are precisely as many sets of belief as there are humans that believe. That doesn't mean that there aren't a few (very few in my mind) rock bottom beliefs that all will have in common. But beyond that (for me) it's just "potato or potahto" - and (also my belief) God doesn't care very much about the signs people put on his buildings are the words they read in them.

I realize that your belief is very different, and I respect that.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

It strikes me that the first 1500 years or so of the history of the Christian church shows a general agreement on the proper form of worship, even among the east and west after the end of the first millennium the liturgical nature of worship, especially the Eucharist was and remains the source and summit of our life.

You are just looking at it backwards knowing there's a different today and looking at history through that lens. it just was the definition of Christianity until something happened.

I don't think yall are in such a disagreement. It sounds like K2 is protecting against "anything can be called worship" and cecil is not really going that direction.


I suppose one could say that looking "backward" at how Christians were in general agreement for 1,500 years is just a way of knowing things are different today. Or one could look at it and say that the overwhelming majority of Christians around the world still worship in a liturgical way and have done so for 2,000 years.
cecil77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Substitute "Sunday School group" for "mens' bible group" and I'm right there with you.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You and I think a lot alike Cecil. I love Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. Just the simple Gospel. Maybe because I am simple minded, who knows?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Blah, I am not a fan of Sunday school. I don't need two sermons in one morning.
Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:



Quote:

Just because we worship in different buildings and in different ways why must that be fractured? Again, is my children's love fractured because it is different? Of course not, and I love them unconditionally, because they are my children. Just as Christ loves his children.

Well, for starters because the scriptures say that we should be unified. Christ Jesus prays for this unity to the same degree as He is one with the Father, and even goes as far as to say this level of unity is the identifying hallmark of Christianity so that the world will believe that He is from the Father (John 17:21).

St Paul says, when you come together as a church there are divisions among you, and that this is good to show who is approved (by God). But that's for a church that is physically coming together at least in one place. Here the divisions are so bad that you don't even do that.

St Paul says there is "one body, one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father" in one place (Eph 4:5). In another, he says THE cup, THE loaf, and says that because there is one loaf, we are one body, because we partake of that loaf. We no longer have this in Christianity.

We don't have one body. because we don't partake of one loaf. You don't believe what I do about the Eucharist. We likely don't share a common understanding or belief or practice in baptism. We don't have one faith. You may not believe what I do about God and salvation, and we likely don't share a common creed (creed comes from the Latin word for "I believe"). So how can you say we are unified? We aren't unified in a general sense, and we're not unified in a particular sense, either. We certainly don't meet any of the scriptural standards to "come together as a church" - even physically!

Your children both live in your house, they both eat at your dining table with you. This not an apt analogy, this is nothing like what has happened in Christianity.

God loves all men, He makes the sun to shine on the righteous and unrighteous alike. We can't escape His love by our actions, even by sin, so His love isn't a means test for His approval or that our actions are pleasing to Him.

Quote:

I don't find God and Christ in Mass, i find rules, and rituals, and unthinking recessitation (you will think that's ludicrous, which is perfectly normal and fine). The beauty is that we are both Christians and try to live the best life that Christ has given us (that is how we honor Him).

Care less whether other people are Christianing correctly. Care more about spreading the Good News.
I think it is extremely important for Christians to care about whether other Christians are acting in god-pleasing ways. We are told by St Paul in our capacity as Christians to judge other believers, to correct them, and if they reject, to separate from them. Why? Because our unity to each other is the witness to our unity with God. Unity can only come through Christ. Divisions come from men.

The very first description we have of the Church in the NT is a very interesting verse, because it says the Church continued in three specific things - THE teaching of the apostles; THE communion, the breaking of bread; and THE prayers. Not in some teaching, various communions, and whatever prayers suited them.

We can't "spread the good news" effectively as Christendom if our entire message is garbled by ignorance, infighting, and petty disputes.


You're a very knowledgeable about the history of the Church and I love reading your posts.

But I will disagree that we are in different "houses" despite what a man in Rome or Constantinople says.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

Blah, I am not a fan of Sunday school. I don't need two sermons in one morning.
Agree. Our men's group meets every Friday morning at a McDonald's in CS. Been meeting for 26 years and has about twenty people. 6:30-7 is shooting the bull, 7-7:30 we read a book of the Bible with much discussion. And when we finish a book, we start another one. Really enjoy it.

And we have Methodists, Catholics, non denom, Baptist's, etc. It is fascinating.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
cecil77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Our class (mostly couples) is a discussion group. No sermon's, and the teacher doesn't talk much more than anyone else. I've attend this type of class all of my adult life. Learned so much from those around me.
Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cecil77 said:

Our class (mostly couples) is a discussion group. No sermon's, and the teacher doesn't talk much more than anyone else. I've attend this type of class all of my adult life. Learned so much from those around me.


I would argue that meeting with fellow believers in an informal setting around food is pretty spot on to how it was done by the early Christians.

Matthew 18:20
For where two or three gather together as my followers, I am there among them

Sorry meant to reference Dermdocs post.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wasn't trying to diminish your Sunday school groups. I prefer that format myself. I have a group during the week that does this which is partly the reason I don't do Sunday school.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How do you know what house you're in? Do the members of the houses have a say? At what point is it no longer the same faith? Everyone has a line... who decides? You?

I don't answer to Rome or Constantinople, for what it's worth.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Haha - whats legalistic about it? I am not even sure I set a criterion anywhere. Same means same, one means one. One can't be two.

The unfair part is the ecumenical types get to act as if they're all inclusive when they like, but feel free to draw their own lines as to what is and isn't salvific. I suspect you don't think Mormonism is a valid expression of Christianity. Or perhaps the westboro Baptist types bother you. Somewhere you say, yeah, that's no longer the same faith as me. And then what's the difference between me and you? How come my line is legalistic and yours isn't?
cecil77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fair point. Perhaps "less legalistic" would be more apt.

To me the term "legalistic" is imprecise, but connotes "too many rules" as opposed to "no rules". And sure "too many" is subject to interpretation.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.