In a spiritual world of quick fixes and vague emotion, is it crazy to believe there is still a place for insights based on simple, basic, theological understanding. I believe it is worth exploring.
Pages
▼
Monday, October 5, 2015
A Touch of Humor - Tradition
What part should tradition play in what Christians do? How do we decide what, if any, traditions to incorporate?
Nothing more traditional than religious services. They all seem to be alike. Sing some songs, say some prayers, partake of a sacrament or two, and hear a message. It would be great if someone figured out a way to do it differently.
I would have to add v. 42 which I see as part of the passage but this is the list I get:
teaching (one can argue what type) fellowship and the breaking bread (I see this as a reference to the Lord's Supper, but it can also be seen as a communal meal, I would be in favor of both.) prayer working of miracles (I have no problem with this, certainly prayer for the sick and those in need seems in order.) Giving to those in need (Whether this includes a universal requirement of full communal living has been argued. But it certainly requires giving to those in need. We take an offering but most of it does not go to the poor.) Meeting daily and breaking bread in the temple and house to house (again there is a reference either to the Lord's supper or a communal meal, taking food together would suggest a communal meal is included. Daily seems a bit much in our culture but that could be us. There is also the question of meeting in houses versus meeting in churches or both.)
Praising God (Whether this is singing, shouting, dancing or all of the above may be discussed. I would go for all of the above.)
God adding to their number (Again the exact method may be discussed.)
Seems a mixture of the traditional and unconventional. Though one can ask questions such as did they meet in houses simply because they did not have church buildings or is this a requirement. What items do you think we should be adopting today?
I think most of those traditions can certainly be better accomplished if the Roman traditions were shed. Certainly more funds would be available for the poor if building and middleman salaries were not needed.
The other problem with the Roman tradition is the separation of clergy and laity. Definitely a Roman construct. We are all ministers and priests before God. We simply have differing gifts and callings. There is no separation between the sacred and the secular. Both are good as long as they are done unto the Lord.
How about the idea of altars, literal or figurative, in church buildings? How about the idea that communion can be celebrated without a table - really, how does standing in line waiting for the communion elements in any way resemble the last supper? And while we are at it, lets talk the about massive numbers of pew sitters listening to singers and speakers and somehow thinking they are worshiping?
On a positive note (sort of), why not gather weekly in homes and occasionally (monthly or quarterly) gather in larger community settings. It would be hard to see this working as no one would be compensated for seminary tuitions and large numbers of people would not have jobs "administering" churches.
How about you Mike? Anything that you would change?
Altars tend to used for different purposes in different churches. I am not against them if they serve some meaningful purpose, but I am not really attached to them. There are many ways to serve communion and I have done it different ways. I sort of lean toward passing out the elements to people who remain seated. If there are lines there should be enough lines that people do not have to wait long. I do not think they need to be handed out by a pastor. I do think there needs to be instruction, though I think having more than person doing it is a good idea. Also discussion and asking questions would not be amiss. I do think worship, singing or otherwise should involve participation and not simply be passive.
I am very much in favor of home fellowships though I would normally think in terms of running them with the main serve rather than instead of it. I am not sure what to make of the idea of cancelling the main serve for home fellowships most of the time. Apart from the effect on seminary graduates and administrators, it would make your meetings harder for new people to find. Also there is the question of where to hold the joint services (having a building that is left empty between times seems counterproductive). But it is a new idea, I will have to think about it.
Beyond that more concern for the poor sounds like a good idea. And the idea of a communal meal with the Lords Supper is something to consider.
The altar either represents the OT blood sacrifice or the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Therefore I think that it does not belong in our worship services.
I am in favor of small groups because it is where I find the most communal life. It is a wonderful expression of the 'where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name' idea. A place where we can partake of communion by eating together and sharing our hearts.
But reading your comments it seems like you are in favor of the status quo and just feel that we need to try harder and do better on Sunday mornings.
I would be interested to know what you mean by an altar (outside the strict OT context). It is a word that has been used in many different ways and I am not even sure we are talking about the same thing. But has I said it is not sure I am particularly attached to in any form.
I am not in any way opposed to home meetings (or having communion at them for that matter). I think they are very valuable. I just do not see them instead of larger meetings, but along with them.
You claim I am in favor of the status quo even though I have agreed with much of what you have said. Is the abolishing or limiting larger meetings the chief issue? Why?
Mainly physical altars. I am thinking that you may not be familiar with the presence of such things in the more liturgical churches like Roman Catholic and Episcopal.
Sorry that I misread your comments. My thinking was that you were advocating for keeping Sunday morning services with small groups as something extra - which would be the status quo as most churches operate that way. My point was to make small home based groups the main expression of the church and large meetings in building as something extra. Glad you feel that would be a good idea.
While I have heard of them, I am not sure I have ever been in a church that used the type of altars you mention. I think more in terms of altar-calls where people come forward to make a commitment or to be prayed for.
I would probably go for a balance. I see great worth in both types of expression of the body and would be very reluctant to give up either. I find it interesting that after the church I, until recently, had been part of, had to close its doors that some of the small groups (including mine) continued to meet.
Nothing more traditional than religious services. They all seem to be alike. Sing some songs, say some prayers, partake of a sacrament or two, and hear a message. It would be great if someone figured out a way to do it differently.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any suggestions of what you would like to put in or leave out?
DeleteHow about getting rid of our Holy Roman format and go with Acts 2:43-47?
ReplyDeleteI would have to add v. 42 which I see as part of the passage but this is the list I get:
Deleteteaching (one can argue what type)
fellowship and the breaking bread (I see this as a reference to the Lord's Supper, but it can also be seen as a communal meal, I would be in favor of both.)
prayer
working of miracles (I have no problem with this, certainly prayer for the sick and those in need seems in order.)
Giving to those in need (Whether this includes a universal requirement of full communal living has been argued. But it certainly requires giving to those in need. We take an offering but most of it does not go to the poor.)
Meeting daily and breaking bread in the temple and house to house (again there is a reference either to the Lord's supper or a communal meal, taking food together would suggest a communal meal is included. Daily seems a bit much in our culture but that could be us. There is also the question of meeting in houses versus meeting in churches or both.)
Praising God (Whether this is singing, shouting, dancing or all of the above may be discussed. I would go for all of the above.)
God adding to their number (Again the exact method may be discussed.)
Seems a mixture of the traditional and unconventional. Though one can ask questions such as did they meet in houses simply because they did not have church buildings or is this a requirement. What items do you think we should be adopting today?
I think most of those traditions can certainly be better accomplished if the Roman traditions were shed. Certainly more funds would be available for the poor if building and middleman salaries were not needed.
DeleteThe other problem with the Roman tradition is the separation of clergy and laity. Definitely a Roman construct. We are all ministers and priests before God. We simply have differing gifts and callings. There is no separation between the sacred and the secular. Both are good as long as they are done unto the Lord.
DeleteWhat parts of our current Holy Roman format do you think should be discarded or at least drastically modified?
ReplyDeleteHow about the idea of altars, literal or figurative, in church buildings? How about the idea that communion can be celebrated without a table - really, how does standing in line waiting for the communion elements in any way resemble the last supper? And while we are at it, lets talk the about massive numbers of pew sitters listening to singers and speakers and somehow thinking they are worshiping?
DeleteOn a positive note (sort of), why not gather weekly in homes and occasionally (monthly or quarterly) gather in larger community settings. It would be hard to see this working as no one would be compensated for seminary tuitions and large numbers of people would not have jobs "administering" churches.
How about you Mike? Anything that you would change?
Altars tend to used for different purposes in different churches. I am not against them if they serve some meaningful purpose, but I am not really attached to them. There are many ways to serve communion and I have done it different ways. I sort of lean toward passing out the elements to people who remain seated. If there are lines there should be enough lines that people do not have to wait long. I do not think they need to be handed out by a pastor. I do think there needs to be instruction, though I think having more than person doing it is a good idea. Also discussion and asking questions would not be amiss. I do think worship, singing or otherwise should involve participation and not simply be passive.
DeleteI am very much in favor of home fellowships though I would normally think in terms of running them with the main serve rather than instead of it. I am not sure what to make of the idea of cancelling the main serve for home fellowships most of the time. Apart from the effect on seminary graduates and administrators, it would make your meetings harder for new people to find. Also there is the question of where to hold the joint services (having a building that is left empty between times seems counterproductive). But it is a new idea, I will have to think about it.
Beyond that more concern for the poor sounds like a good idea. And the idea of a communal meal with the Lords Supper is something to consider.
The altar either represents the OT blood sacrifice or the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Therefore I think that it does not belong in our worship services.
DeleteI am in favor of small groups because it is where I find the most communal life. It is a wonderful expression of the 'where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name' idea. A place where we can partake of communion by eating together and sharing our hearts.
But reading your comments it seems like you are in favor of the status quo and just feel that we need to try harder and do better on Sunday mornings.
I would be interested to know what you mean by an altar (outside the strict OT context). It is a word that has been used in many different ways and I am not even sure we are talking about the same thing. But has I said it is not sure I am particularly attached to in any form.
DeleteI am not in any way opposed to home meetings (or having communion at them for that matter). I think they are very valuable. I just do not see them instead of larger meetings, but along with them.
You claim I am in favor of the status quo even though I have agreed with much of what you have said. Is the abolishing or limiting larger meetings the chief issue? Why?
Mainly physical altars. I am thinking that you may not be familiar with the presence of such things in the more liturgical churches like Roman Catholic and Episcopal.
DeleteSorry that I misread your comments. My thinking was that you were advocating for keeping Sunday morning services with small groups as something extra - which would be the status quo as most churches operate that way. My point was to make small home based groups the main expression of the church and large meetings in building as something extra. Glad you feel that would be a good idea.
While I have heard of them, I am not sure I have ever been in a church that used the type of altars you mention. I think more in terms of altar-calls where people come forward to make a commitment or to be prayed for.
DeleteI would probably go for a balance. I see great worth in both types of expression of the body and would be very reluctant to give up either. I find it interesting that after the church I, until recently, had been part of, had to close its doors that some of the small groups (including mine) continued to meet.