They reflected the cultural milieu then, too. Look, American Christianity is uniquely American and always has been. There is no bedrock there, so it changes with the culture. Just like divorce is now nbd, in ten or fifteen years homosexual marriage will be nbd. Women preachers were unheard of 100 years ago, now they're common.

Quote:

---

Have you been taking with Fr Meletios?

---

Yes! That's who it was. I felt so bad because we had to leave early and I didn't get a chance to talk with him. My daughter was at the point of tears. It was just such a change. We're going to try again, but I will go without them next time so I can have a better idea of how to prepare them. I'll let you know.

Quote:

---

The primary difference is that they didn't beat around the bush about the truth.

---

The "truth" that I grew up with was really their IFBC legalistic "truth" that looks nothing like Jesus Christ. There was too much anger and fear.

Not any ole image, obviously, because God commanded images to be used in the temple.

Idols are images of false gods. The story of the OT is Israel as a faithless wife, Israel as an adulteress, leaving God for others intentionally. Not Israel as the wife trying but doing it the wrong way.

It's certainly not a story of "well they used a bunch of gold to decorate the temple and that really made God mad".

Go read any of the prophets, they very clearly lay out the issues between God and Israel. I don't recall any prophet alleging that they decorated the temple with too much shiny stuff.

Marv C. World said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prior to 1950, most protestant churches were hellfire and brimstone oriented and not evangelical. Yes they wanted to convert, but they went about doing it in a significantly different manner than how evangelicals do it now.

---

Yes, they went about it by trying to scare people to Christ. I grew up in those churches, and still struggle w/ the scars.

---

The primary difference is that they didn't beat around the bush about the truth. Nowadays everyone hems and haws about what happens to people who reject God.

---

Pre Vatican 2 Catholic Church was the same. Now Catholicism and Protestantism are basically the same Church of Nice

k2aggie07 said:

---

Not any ole image, obviously, because God commanded images to be used in the temple.

Idols are images of false gods. The story of the OT is Israel as a faithless wife, Israel as an adulteress, leaving God for others intentionally. Not Israel as the wife trying but doing it the wrong way.

---

Good point. We should probably steer away from using images not commanded by God to be used in worship.

In accordance with 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, I've decorated my body in tattoos. My "stoning of Stephen" half-sleeve and the "Prodigal Son" covering my forearm, are my favorites. Also gives a great icebreaker to share the gospel.

Cool, where does the scripture give us a liturgical model to follow in the new covenant? What verses does your church use to justify the stuff in their building?

k2aggie07 said:

---

*cough*Orthodoxy*cough*

---

You've got me there.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Cool, where does the scripture give us a liturgical model to follow in the new covenant? What verses does your church use to justify the stuff in their building?

---

I think the one on page one by Chuck is good. As far as stuff in the building, it depends on the stuff.

No no, that's not what you said. That which has not been specifically commanded is not allowed.

Chuck didn't say a word about scripture. And I would say that my Orthodox building is specifically and uniquely made to facilitate right worship, down to every detail.

k2aggie07 said:

---

No no, that's not what you said. That which has not been specifically commanded is not allowed.

Chuck didn't say a word about scripture. And I would say that my Orthodox building is specifically and uniquely made to facilitate right worship, down to every detail.

---

The reading of Scripture would be commanded. Preaching, hearing, understanding, having faith, singing, sacraments. What is not commanded?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Does your church have an altar? A stage? A cross? NT doesn't say anything about hanging a cross on the wall. Or stained glass, if that's how your church rolls. Or a podium, or projectors with powerpoint slides. It doesn't say to have an organ or a band, either. If we're going to say "if God didn't command us to put it in, it should be avoided" maybe you better meet in an empty house, just to be on the safe side.

---

We don't have an altar (what are we sacrificing?). No stage, maybe a small podium. No cross, stained glass, projector, or band. Yes to a podium, but it's necessary to see the minister preach.

PacifistAg said:

---

Podium?! When did Jesus ever tell us to use a podium?!

---

It's consequential, not necessary to worship. We could all stand, but we have a lot of elderly.

Didn't know you need to see in order to hear.

PacifistAg said:

---

Didn't know you need to see in order to hear.

---

We have a deaf ministry too.

btw...I'm glad to see your family trying out new churches. I believe I predicted your conversion for this October, no?

Ordhound04 said:

---

Win At Life said:

---

I agree with you that places of worship should get back to the way they used to look.

They way the used to look in the first century was a synagogue that met on the Sabbath.

Go and do likewise.

---

Tell that Paul in Acts 20:7 and Justin Martyr....

---

What Paul is describing in Acts 20:7 is a Jewish tradition of honoring the closing out the Sabbath called Havdalah that Jews still do today. That was on what you would call Saturday evening as the Sabbath is ending. Go and do likewise again.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Better get rid of those chairs too, my friend. The NT doesn't prescribe chairs at all.

I'd also be glad to see where the bible ever commands us to have a spirit of strict minimalism?

---

It doesn't. That's why it's not necessary. Up to the local church to decide. We're not forced to look at what the Levites did to justify what we prescribe for our worship.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Better get rid of those chairs too, my friend. The NT doesn't prescribe chairs at all.

I'd also be glad to see where the bible ever commands us to have a spirit of strict minimalism?

---

All of these rules are 16th-17th C reactions to perceived RCC liturgical excesses. No need to look for any other foundation than that.

The logical conclusion is casually meeting Sunday morning (or whenever) over coffee to talk theology. I don't mean that in a pejorative way, I think that is clearly where that ideology leads.

I know this is your schtick but let's face it I got nothing better going on today.

So what, exactly, was your point again? I believe mine was, knowing God's character is consistent and He commanded that the place of worship be beautified in the Old Covenant, it is both good and acceptable for Christians to beautify their places of worship.

Your thought process seems to be:
-We shouldn't decorate because Hebrews 9
-We shouldn't decorate because idolatry
-We shouldn't decorate because avoid what God didn't command in the scriptures
-We shouldn't decorate because we should follow some arbitrary protestant rule that is not in the scriptures even though it contradicts the previous reason because reasons
-Local churches can do whatever they want anyway because further reasons also not found in scripture

We really do like to find things to argue about.

I will say that beauty is often in the eye of the beholder. I do a lot business trips in a certain place in Europe and my often-used hotel is right at the base of a huge cathedral. It's very cool and I love that it exists...but I can't really say that inspires me personally towards God. In fact, I get the opposite feeling. (look at what we built for God)

But, I know it inspires many people and so that's reason enough for me. I also acknowledge that I prefer the modern direction that leans more towards "utility" than "aesthetics".

k2aggie07 said:

---

I know this is your schtick but let's face it I got nothing better going on today.

So what, exactly, was your point again? I believe mine was, knowing God's character is consistent and He commanded that the place of worship be beautified in the Old Covenant, it is both good and acceptable for Christians to beautify their places of worship.

Your thought process seems to be:
1. We shouldn't decorate because Hebrews 9
2. We shouldn't decorate because idolatry
3. We shouldn't decorate because avoid what God didn't command in the scriptures
4. We shouldn't decorate because we should follow some arbitrary protestant rule that is not in the scriptures even though it contradicts the previous reason because reasons
5. Local churches can do whatever they want anyway because further reasons also not found in scripture

---

I'll number them to keep it more simple.

1. To counter your point that the old covenant prescription on worship does not inform the new covenant.
2. To counter the point that God wants us to use metals and statues to invent ways to worship him.
3. Not ever my point. He didn't command it, but you can decorate although it's not part of or necessary to worship.
4. Exactly.
5. Consequential things are up to the local congregations. Not matters of worship.

Gator03 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Better get rid of those chairs too, my friend. The NT doesn't prescribe chairs at all.

I'd also be glad to see where the bible ever commands us to have a spirit of strict minimalism?

---

All of these rules are 16th-17th C reactions to perceived RCC liturgical excesses. No need to look for any other foundation than that.

The logical conclusion is casually solemnly meeting Sunday morning (or whenever) over coffee to talk theology to hear the word, sing, pray, and partake in the sacraments.. I don't mean that in a pejorative way, I think that is clearly where that ideology leads.

---

How is it a logical conclusion that to remove excess means to remove how God wants us to worship him altogether? The logical conclusion of removing a golden calf is to make a silver one?

Hi Diehard. I like talking to you, because you don't troll and youre thoughtful.

I think framing it as utility vs aesthetics isn't a good way to look at it. For one, they're not naturally opposed. I mean, even outside of my faith this is an important philosophical truth for me. One thing I strongly believe is that things should be both functional and beautiful. I reject an art-craft distinction, so I think anything a human creates is a unique expression of that human... whether its a church or a sandwich. And that anyone who interacts with that thing has a measure of a kind of communion with the person who made it, which is a personal, intimate interaction. It is unavoidable.

I think a lot of people don't like this, and sometimes I think that's because it comes with a whole heap of responsibility for what we make.

It's difficult for me, then, to accept a dichotomy between utility and aesthetics. I might even go so far as to say that something that is ugly has lost a kind of utility.

As another odd thought, I think my church is extremely utilitarian. It has really only one purpose, and that is to serve as a liturgical space for my parish. It's a highly specialized tool for that end.

I also thing this idea that liturgical spaces are there to evoke an emotional response is perhaps a bit misguided. Like anything else in the Christian's life, the building, the decorations, the artwork, are witnesses to the faith. Lex orandi lex credendi is just as true as "the law of building or art is the law of belief". And this is true by inspection. An Orthodox church building is a strong witness to Orthodox theology. This is what an icon is, and the church space itself is an icon with other icons. I think the idea of a beautiful liturgical space is not to evoke an emotional response but a theological one, instead.

So maybe that's a fun discussion to have. What silent confessions do the building we use for worship scream at us?