Should you preach ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
Should you listen to preaching ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
Should you worship in song ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
Should you give financially ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
Should you pray ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
Should you encourage your fellow believers ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
Should you count the offering ignorantly, half-heartedly, “going through the motions” or with the wrong motives?
The answer is no. You shouldn’t. Churches can be emotionally dead, people can attend church each Sunday and live in ignorance of the Gospel or at least be distracted from it while they attend, people can give from wrong motivations, we can preach hypocritically, etc. We shouldn’t though. The greatness and holiness of the God we worship and the grace and love poured out into our lives in Christ call for our genuine focused worship every day (not least every Sunday).
So how should we safeguard our corporate worship gatherings against such practices and attitudes?
Solution: only gather as a church once every 3 months. Let’s be honest- attending church each week is ritualistic. People get more concerned about catching up with Sallie Joe in the foyer and going to eat afterwards than focusing on Christ. It just becomes another thing we “do” if we attend each week, like the PTA or softball practice. Why not wait for 3 months before meeting again? It will keep church attendance (including giving, singing, preaching, praying, etc.) from becoming just another weekly ritual. It will make that one day out of every 90 or so all the more special because we will appreciate it more having gone so long without it. It is less hassle for everyone (imagining only needing volunteers for 4 days a year!) and cheaper. It can also be well-planned, efficient, and orderly with that kind of preparation time.
Ok, I’m being facetious there. That would be ridiculous. For one, merely meeting once every three months wouldn’t solve the problems of spiritual apathy, hypocrisy, or mindless “routine” that we should avoid in our gatherings. In fact, it may increase it judging from those we know who only attend at Christmas/Easter currently. Also, as followers of Jesus, we are commanded to gather, encourage one another, to “Let the message of Christ dwell among us”-aka Gospel remembrance, pray, worship through song and giving, meet regularly, etc. Attempting to avoid these sins by infrequently meeting would cause us to ignore so many other things we see commanded and find Christians doing in the New Testament.
So then, why do we find that above solution adequate regarding the frequency of the Lord’s Supper?
Discuss.
And bonus credit to whoever can identify the source of the quote below without Google.
“Shame on the Christian church that she put it off to once a month and mar the first day of the week by depriving it of its glory in the meeting together for fellowship and breaking of bread and showing forth the death of Christ till he comes. They who once know the sweetness of each Lord’s day celebrating his supper, will not be content, I am sure, to put it off to less frequent seasons. Beloved, when the Holy Ghost is with us, ordinances are wells to the Christian, wells of rich comfort and of near communion.”
Chris Roberts (63)
Dave Miller (61)
Bob Hadley (48)
Debbie Kaufman (45)
dr. james willingham (44)
Les (30)
cb scott (29)
Rick Patrick (27)
Bill Mac (26)
Christiane (26)
My guess is CHS.
Is it because we have tried so hard to distance ourselves from Catholicism that we have the Lords Supper so infrequently?
“The greatness and holiness of the God we worship and the grace and love poured out into our lives in Christ call for our genuine focused worship every day”
Josh, I could not agree with you more.
The ancient Christian call to prayer:
‘lift up your hearts to the Lord’
Worship woes? Spend some quiet time contemplating the powerful ‘trisagion’, a very ancient prayer shared by many Christian people over the millenia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHi-1taeqeo&feature=related
The words, sung to Christ, are very simple:
“”Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy on us.”
The ‘effect’ on the ones singing and listening is, however
. . . well, listen for yourself.
The old Baptist answer to your question is:
For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. -1 Corinthians 11:26
We are not told how often, but “as often.” Therefore it seems most Baptist churches observe the Lord’s Supper about once a quarter, or once a month.
David R. Brumbelow
Monthly I think is healthier. With the traditional (post-Zwingli?) quarterly move, the 4 times a year (and 2 of those are usually holiday-like Christmas or Good Friday), maybe snuck away on Sunday evening the other 2 times, often mean that a regular member of the church who attends every Sunday morning worship (but may be out of town on holidays) could go without taking the Lord’s Supper for quite a while. Often has to mean something more than never, right?
But it is not “snuck away on Sunday evening.” It is more biblical when the Lord’s Supper is observed on Sunday evening.
After all, it is called the Lord’s Supper, not lunch
. Jesus observed the Lord’s Supper with His disciples in the evening (Matthew 26:20).
David R. Brumbelow
I guess one’s interpretation of “supper” would depend on which region of the country one is in! Although since we’re talking about supper, I do think we might do well (on occasion) to incorporate the Lord’s Supper into our fellowship meals as it seems the early church did. It’s a supper, not a snack, right?
but we digress perhaps from the frequency issue.
David,
Can it really be called a supper if it is not a meal but a tiny piece of bread and a tiny glass of wine that’s not really wine?
Mark,
You said, “a tiny glass of wine that’s not really wine?”
I’m still looking for the Bible verse that says they used “wine” in the Lord’s Supper. Do you know where it is?
As many know, wine was used in Scripture and in ancient times to refer to both fermented and unfermented wine. But it is interesting that Scripture never even uses that word in connection with the Lord’s Supper. Instead it uses “cup” and “fruit of the vine.”
And what better fruit of the vine than fresh new drug-free wine or grape juice to represent the precious blood of our Savior poured out for the sins of humanity?
David R. Brumbelow
Mark has a good point.
As Many of you know the followers of Luther about went to war with the followers of Calvin on the matter with Luther’s folks hanging a plaque in Wittenberg:
Gottes Wort and ZLuthers Schrift/ Ist Das Blast Und Calvini Gift
And you and Cecil Sherman.
We’ve just recently gone from once a quarter to first Sunday of the month. Some of our people requested it. It doesn’t matter to me about frquency.
What I do care about is if it’s sort of an add on to the service. There is no preparation of the congregation for it. It ought not to be something we do because it’s the first sunday of the month. It is of such importance that we must not treat it like it’s a necessary evil like announcements. I know we don’t go that far in our minds but maybe in our heart of hearts.
If one is genuinely preaching the gospel each week, then a natural connection and preparation for the Supper exists, I would think.
Good point, but it depends on what you mean by “preaching the Gospel”. This Sunday is a sunday between series, so it’s more of a stand alone dealing with a biblical view of labor comparing what Solomon said in Ecclesiates about work and how Daniel viewed his job. Is there a natural connection to get to the Lord’s Supper? I am struggling with it. Is it the Word of God? Absolutely. Is it the Gospel… not according to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
I guess I am also thinking that if I preach 5 minutes too long, do I speed thru the Lord’s Supper because sunday morning Bible study will have already been scheduled to begin if I give both the message and the Lord’s Supper a proper hearing? Those are the kind of things I am thinking of.
Even though you are dealing with a general Biblical topic like labor, will at any point you mention how the death/Resurrection of Christ on our behalf relates to the topic and the listeners? that would be the connection. after all, all the Scriptures point towards Jesus, even if they don’t all mention him.
regarding the scheduling, it seems to be a question of priorities…if we can adjust our preaching and worship schedules to insure the offering can get taken each week…you get the idea from the main post.
I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a good argument for not observing the Lord’s Supper every week. But, I’m also not sure I’ve heard a good argument for celebrating it every week.
I suspect the quarterly model (or even less frequent) stems from anti-Catholicism. We went to monthly and I think it is much better.
When our little Prayer Team was meeting, at FBC Pelham, we shared communion every Sunday morning. I have to say it was, unfailingly, one of the spiritual highlights of the week.
We met Sunday mornings at 7 a.m. for an hour; we also met Thursday evenings and occasionally shared communion then, too.
Oh .. as to sharing it every week .. when you’re doing that, all pretenses and status and pride are obliterated, as we’re Spiritually standing before the King of Kings, and when you’re around Him, there’s no such thing. It really was level, there. And what a terrific way to prepare to worship Him in the regular weekly worship services.
The best argument I’ve heard for celebrating weekly was that most scholars think the early church observed weekly. But I doubt we want to look too closely at the early church because I suspect they also only met once a week, and we can’t have that.
actually, the picture in Acts is of daily meetings in houses as well as large group worship in the temple courts.
We have the traditional quarterly observance of the Lord’s Supper on Sunday morning. We also observe it on Christmas Sunday morning, at our Good Friday service and at our Thanksgiving meal. We also add in 4 or 5 Sunday Evening observances. So, we have a nearly monthly observance of the Lord’s Supper.
1) I’m not sure that is enough, but it is a vast improvement over the quarterly observance.
2) I have a feeling that every time a small group of NT believers got together, someone busted out a bottle of welches and a loaf of pita bread and they broke bread together. I think it was probably more often than weekly.
3) David B is right above that no frequency is mandated in scripture.
4) I prefer the Sunday Evening observance of the LS, because of time. We have 2 morning services so time is always rushed (somehow the preacher never stops on time – he’s a jerk). But on Sunday night, we can take our time and reflect and worship without time pressures.
After our more leisurely Sunday PM observances, I’ve had so many people tell me it was the best LS observance they have been through.
5) The LS should never be a tack-on at the end of a service. When you do the LS, focus on it from start to finish.
That’s the extent of my wisdom – such as it is.
if the early church possibly celebrated the Supper “whenever they had the chance” so to speak, how does that work with point #5? I assume they discussed other Biblical topics in their gatherings.
Josh, I think that there is some reference to the ‘thanksgiving’ (Eucharist) in the Didache.
Also, there is much reference to it in the Patristic Fathers’ writings.
My understanding is that, from time immemorial, there were two parts to each gathering:
the service of the Word
and the service of the Eucharist (thanksgiving).
The ‘catechumens’ were permitted to attend the FIRST part only until they completed their instruction, and after their baptism at Easter, they were then admitted to both the first and the second parts of the service.
That is my understanding. It may be incomplete.
Christiane,
uber-blogger Justin Taylor posted the following post regarding early Christian worship practices earlier this week (after the writing of this post, I might add):
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/08/29/what-was-a-church-service-like-in-the-second-century/
Christiane, we are talking more about New Testament practice than we are early Catholic practice.
I once heard a pastor argue that it should only be done once a year because it flows from the passover supper and they only celebrated passover once a year…
I know if it’s something that’s just kinda rushed or tacked on at the end (though has anyone ever actually seen any deacons rush through folding that white sheet! I mean, the ritual, it takes time, man!
)…then it doesn’t matter if we do it once a week, once a month, or once a quarter the fullness of the meaning ain’t gonna be there.
In thinking about “how often” I don’t know what we should prescribe…but I’d say we have to consider what Paul told that ragtag goofball corinthian bunch in 1 Cor 11:17-22. He says: I don’t commend you b/c when you come together it is for the worse; for first when you come together as a church there’s divisions among you…then when you come together it’s not the Lord’s Supper you eat b/c some of you are gorging yourselves on bread while others are getting drunk on the wine (I mean…the grape juice…I mean, wait, how are they getting drunk? Oh, that’s another issue, never mind), while others are coming and going hungry.
A couple of things: 1) this certainly mitigates against the chiclets and shots of welches most baptist churches I’ve been in use if Paul’s derriding them for some going hungry… and 2) Paul is chastising them for their behavior whenever “they come together as a church.”
Granted in Acts you had people meeting house to house each day, and possibly some Lord’s Supper going on there… but here Paul basically assuming the Supper is taking place (or should be properly taking place) whenever they meet and consider it a church-meeting.
Again, we don’t find a command to do it that often, but just kinda reading the text it seems that’s what they did at Corinth and Paul assumed/was okay w/ the frequency.
For me,
I think that we do a horrible job of truly presenting the magnitude of just what it is that we’re doing when we take the Lord’s Supper. So, in my opinion, it becomes just something else that we do every so often just like Baby Dedication, honoring graduates, or recognizing senior adults. There’s no weight, no significance, no gravitas to just what is going on when a Christian takes the Lord’s Supper.
Of course, I also think that we do a horrible job of teaching the significance of baptism, but that’s for a different thread…
I think Bill has a point,seriously.
To be one with Christ and all the saints that ever Lived in timeless Communion, is a Very High and Holy, Sacred Act.
Anything scurrilous or cheap that distracts from it borders on Blashphemy.
Please let me apologize. I am about to agree with Stephen Fox. It is not often he actually gives an opinion, but I like his devotion to the sacred table.
I like the idea of staying connected to the saints gone by.
Please forgive me, I’ll try not to agree with him again. I do have a reputation to think about
Hi DAVID MILLER,
You wrote: “Christiane, we are talking more about New Testament practice than we are early Catholic practice.”
Here is something from St. Luke, Chapter 24 that is rather wonderful.
15 ” While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them,
16 but their eyes were kept from recognizing Him. ”
and later, is written this:
” 30 ” . . . . He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them.
31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him;
I love this chapter, where is also recorded, this:
“Then He opened their minds to understand the scriptures.”
David, is the ‘Didache’ thought to represent ‘early Catholic practice’ by Southern Baptists? If so, I had not known that.
Hi DAVID,
I also am a little bit confused as to which Patristic Fathers are considered teachers of ‘early Catholic practice’ by Southern Baptists.
My previous understanding was that the Ante-Nicene Fathers were not regarded as ‘catholic’ with a large ‘C’. But it is confusing, because many of the Fathers, some of whom became martyrs to the faith (lion-food), were speaking from the earliest days of the Church according to the understanding that unity and universality (katholikos) were basic marks of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
In mainstream Protestantism, the word ‘catholic’ is understood to mean ‘universal’.
I hope you understand my confusion. I don’t mean any disrespect, David.
Evensong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4CapSBM8UA&feature=related
I have a question that addresses “Weekly Worship Woes” but doesn’t address the Lord’s Supper.
How many churches or pastors here still do the same order of service like my home church has done for at least the last forty years?
I suggested to my current pastor, worship leader, and some other staff members at lunch one day that they might want to consider rearranging portions of the worship service at times.
Example: If the pastor is doing a sermon on worship, why not have the sermon delivered towards the beginning of a service followed by an extended worship time?
I know that there are other ways that you could rearrange the service for whatever end, but this is the easiest, most concise example I could come up with on the fly.
My church’s schedule (apparantly pre 1940-Today)
Prelude (played on a $350K pipe organ because the pastor chose not to alienate a money family over renovating a sixty year old building…sorry, I still hate this decision)
(If any, baptisms will start here)
Opening Hymn
Welcome
Song
Prayer (Special events like baby dedication, etc. go here too)
Greeting
Song
Song
(sometimes, someone will want to make special announcements and they go here for some stupid reason)
Song
Song – Offertory
Sermon
Song – Alter Call
Dismissal
Postlude
I’m sorry, Bill. Don’t you know that the Baptist order of worship was delivered by an angel to John the Baptist? To question it is to commit heresy!!!
Bill,
I have preached first and followed with an extended period of worship through praise. In my experience the sermon did not have the same force and place of priority that I feel it should have.
I’m only giving my opinion with a limited trial, so perhaps it could eventually work, and work well. For me, the short-term deficit does not justify any potential long term benefit, so I’ve given up on the idea.
What I try to do is use the “basic baptist liturgy,” but change up the way each element is presented to keep the order of worship exciting and engaging.
One thing I avoid like the plague is “announcements given vocally.” We get the word out in other ways — media, bulletin, etc.
SSBN,
I’m of the school of thought which is basically, “Sacred Cows make good hamburgers.”
I am one of those people that believe that changing methods does not in any way change the message.
Two of my favorite pastors to watch as far as trying new and different ways to present a message are Ed Young, Jr. and Rob Bell. Now, it’s not an issue of doctrinal stances because I know that there are people here who disagree with both of these men and that’s fine. My point is that they try ways to present messages that speak to the person in the congregation and leave them talking about the message when the service is over.
One of Ed Young, Jr’s ways of presenting a message is that absolutely every element of a worship service: song selection, stage arrangement, scenery, media, bulletins, even that week’s small group (they use home groups) lessons point to the central point of that week’s sermon. Now, they also work about six months in advance and I know that there are people here who disagree with that practice as well. That’s fine too.
One of the pastors that I used to work for was as absolute nightmare in trying to convince him to preach while not wearing a suit. It took literally 18 months to wear him down to preach without a tie, another 6 to take off the jacket, and two years to preach in a polo shirt. Now, six years and two churches later, I watched an online video and he’s preaching in business casual and looks like that was his style all along. Now, I’m not making an argument on dress codes or whatnot, but the church he was pastoring at the time we were trying to make changes had changed during the interim before he was called. No big deal. As far as I’m concerned, if you preach the Word, preach effectively, and effectively use the tools provided by God for the pastor to use, then you can wear just about whatever you want while preaching (even I have limits here). This was a case of the pastor expressing that he wanted to change but really didn’t know how to do it. Conversely, it took me three years to convince him to preach with a countryman mic because he loved to walk, but had never preached with a lapel. We put him in a lapel for about two years before we spent the cash on a highend countryman for him to use.
Convincing the musicians to use their Avioms and headsets was a battle that was still ongoing when I left that church.
For me, I find it sad that many are trying to make arguments that we’re innovators and cutting edge yet I would argue that we’re only lying to ourselves.
If you have dedicated media people, sit down with them and openly ask them for their criticisms, their input and ideas and I guarantee you that the answers will shock you.
By the way, I’m so glad that you avoid vocal announcements. For me, they take away from the whole experience.
The time of observances of communion has something to do with the history of it in America. Churches, due to a lack of ministers and the fact that ministers often traveled to the churches and even served a number of churches as pastor, celebrated communion like the held worship services, namely, at stated intervals, depending on when the pastor would be present. It very likely is true that the time for observing communion had something to do with a reaction to the Catholic practice of what Protestants regarded as the idolatry of the mass. I remember one Lollard in England who took his bit of communion bread home and fed it to the rats out of contempt for what he felt was truly idolatrous. Communion regularly observed according to biblical guidelines should be a blessing to the assembly of saints. As to the elements, simply consider the elements of the passover meal, especially, the unleavened bread and the wine. I do not know of a single exception to the afore mentioned elements in Baptist Church History until after the Temperance movement turned into the Total Abstinence movement. (There might be exceptions, but I doubt it. Of course, I have not checked ever source. However, knowing how Baptists think, work, act, etc., I dare say no exceptions are likely to be found.).
Hi Dr. Willingham,
Do you know whether or not the Baptist minister reads the Gospel words when he blesses the ‘elements’? I am wondering what is said, or read, during this preparation time.
Christiane,
Speaking as a Baptist minister, I would not use the term “bless the elements.” This at the very least implies sacramentalism and I don’t know of any of my Baptist minister friends that would accept that idea.
Most use the simple expression of the gospel which says that the Lord, “gave thanks,” meaning thanksgiving for what the elements symbolize.
In fact, I would venture to say there are as many expressions of the Lord Supper in a baptist church as there are baptist churches. For example, in my church, I usually have one of the deacons give thanks for each of the elements before they serve them to the congregation (which we do one at a time).
Thank you for responding, Dr. Willingham.
My understanding was always that the ‘blessing and breaking of the bread’ was a form of thanksgiving also,
as in this reference of another time Our Lord gave thanks:
“Mark 6:41 – “Taking the five loaves and the two fish, He looked up to heaven,
and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to His disciples to set before the people;
and he divided the two fish among them all.”"
At our own dinner tables, we call the ‘blessing’, ‘giving thanks’:
‘Bless us O Lord and these Thy gifts, which we have received through Thy Bounty’.
And the tradition Judaic prayer: ‘Blessed be God Who brings forth bread from the Earth.’
So there are many different ways to speak in response to God’s gifts. Your description of ‘Thanksgiving’ in meaningful to what Baptists believe and practice, I think. It is respectful of Our Lord.
About the Lord’s Supper:
I have always disliked tacking it on to a regular worship service, especially a Sunday morning with a lot of visitors — which thank God we have been blessed with lately.
I know the value the Supper can have as a witness to the Person and Work of Christ, but I am uncomfortable in with having to “exclude” those who are visiting but have not been saved.
I prefer a service that is all directed toward the sharing of the Lord’s Supper — music, sermon, etc. I usually do this during the Sunday Evening service once a month. Because I’m in So. Cal. we do this outside on our beautiful patio. It is always a very special moment.
In regard to meeting together once a week being “ritualistic,” I think the whole premise is backwards.
Frankly, I’m surprised that a person presenting a blog on an SBC site would imply something so far from the Scripture.
The Scriptures speak in several places about coming together weekly. It speaks about giving weekly, on the first day of the week, which is Sunday.
I’m completely confused by the whole premise that something is empty because it is done regularly. I guess this is why marriages fail so often, the hugs and kisses become too “regular” and husbands stop because we don’t want to be ritualistic. Yes, that is sarcastic.
Also, how does simply changing the schedule from “weekly” to quarterly solve the problem of ritualism? Answer: it doesn’t.
What we have in this particular blog, in my humble opinion, is the old discarding the young human with the used cleansing element.
SSBN,
In researching the gospel accounts on the timing of events during Passion Week, I discovered that the Greek never says that anything happened on a weekly basis for the church. The phrase is “first of Sabbaths” and means the first day after the regular Sabbath after Passover. It is called “first of Sabbaths” because it the day of the wave offering and begins the 7-week countdown to Pentecost. Please see http://www.fether.net/2010/04/04/crucifixion-chronology-revisited/ for more detail.
Paula, you might want to touch up a little on your Greek when you refer to the plural of sabbath. It also is used of the regular worship during the Apostolic period.
Like all words in all languages, they have a range of meaning the specifric meaning of which is determined by the context. Also, you might want to review some of the Patristic Latin to determine what the original practice of the early church was.
While your looking at that you might want to check out the Ten Commandments. Regular weekly time set aside for God is commanded by God.
There is absolutely NO WAY to support a quarterly worship as fulfilling the law of the sabbath. Paul specifically addresses whether or not that day needs to be Saturday (Friday to Sundown Saturday) or Sunday. He does not imply that “no” weekday is also acceptable.
I’m not really connecting with why you believe that the teaching of God concerning worship is limited to the Passion Week accounts in the gospels. The Scriptures must be consistent and so one part must always be consistent with all other parts. There is no Biblical support for a “half true, or mostly true, or true in some parts” theology.
If the only way a person can keep from “being ritualistic” in their worship of God is to extend the time between gathering with the family of God, then in my opinion, the person has more of a problem than scheduling.
SSBN,
What are you going on about? Why the condescension?
Show me ANY NT scripture that says what “regular worship” is.
Show me ANY NT scripture that puts us back under the 10 C’s.
Show me ANY place where I said anything about “quarterly worship” or that we are somehow bound to the Jewish Sabbath.
Please read what I wrote and you will see that “the first day of the week” is inaccurate and presumes too much, at least as much as anything I ever said.
You have read far too much into my statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMOAzoOP08
” Why not wait for 3 months before meeting again? It will keep church attendance (including giving, singing, preaching, praying, etc.) from becoming just another weekly ritual.”
Basically, if you abandon Christian ‘tradition’ as a guideline,
you can make a case for your idea, in this way:
Using Scripture as the sole authority for practice, I think that there are some people who might be able to interpret Scripture in a way to justify departing from the traditions of the Church, yes.
As interpretations ‘vary’ among many, the times for worship will also vary, as each claims the ‘authority of Holy Scripture’ for their reason.
One particular example for a departure from tradition is demonstrated by the Seventh-Day Adventists, who do not recognize Church tradition as part of the authority for Christian people, and who have chosen Saturday, as their worship day, and have justified it from their interpretation of Scripture alone.
Christiane,
Your argument is addressing a different aspect than the “quarterly worship” proposal. SDA still observe the weekly worship established by God.
By the way, just to extend the argument, the New Testament talks about “meeting daily,” and Paul talks about “praying (worshipping?) always. So, scheduling is only a part of the issue. My point is that “scheduling and ritualism” are not necessarily directly related.
QUOTE I am one of those people that believe that changing methods does not in any way change the message. END QUOTE
You might want rethink your opinion. I had an entire seminary class (actually a semester) in which we examined the relationship between the medium and the message. Your opinion is one that was brought up early.
To illustrate the problem with such an opinion the professor said, “I’m going to assume all of you are Bible preachers so the message with be a Bible message. Change the medium this week by preaching naked and see if it changes how people view the message.”
I take the opposite opinion: the medium is part of the message. That’s why I believe it took three synoptics to present the full life of Christ. Each person (medium) expressed the message differently as the Holy Spirit moved upon them. I obviously do not subscribe to a rigid dictation theory of inspiration.
Another example of how the medium and message interact is in music. A musician can play the same song on a trumpet and a clarinet. It will be the same notes, but it will not be the same music.
No offense in my next statement, but this also takes a valid argument to the extreme in order to make a counterpoint. I would never suggest preaching naked, but I would suggest deviating from the 3 points and a closing that people hear each and every week. I would deviate from opening with a little light-hearted anecdote designed to break ice rather than introduce a topic.
I would have told the instructor that this was a weak counter argument because absurdity will counter any argument.
QUOTE One of the pastors that I used to work for was as absolute nightmare in trying to convince him to preach while not wearing a suit. END QUOTE
Exactly, the medium (a suit) in your opinion effected the message.
In your analysis of Young and Bell, I think you make a good point. While I believe the medium always interacts with the message, it does not have to do so in such a way as to significantly alter the message — these are two different aspects.
If I understand you correctly, this is what you were implying in the “suit analogy.” For example, while rapping gospel music might change the message for me to a degree I don’t recognize it sufficiently to respond appropriately, that same medium might not alter the message in the same way to someone much younger than I.
So, I guess I would say I both agree and disagree with your statement the medium does not change the message, when your viewpoint is revised and extended.
I guess I’m trying to argue more to the point about “old dogs, new tricks” because it has been my experience that people are often hesitant to try new things, especially in a worship service, because we’re too accustomed to how we do things to almost the point of ritualism, though I would be hesitant to use that word.
By the way, I hope you’re having a good Labor Day weekend, SSBN.
QUOTE If you have dedicated media people, sit down with them and openly ask them for their criticisms, their input and ideas and I guarantee you that the answers will shock you. END QUOTE
I definitely follow you on this point. My 20 years old son is a very good critic because he is media savvy and he also loves his Dad. So, when he makes a suggestion like, “Dad, turn down your bass,” then I listen.
In the heat of discussion, we make mistakes. I make my share of them, and in the case of Acts 13;48, I reversed the verb voices fo believed and ordaned, episteusan believed is 1st Aor. ind. act voice where as tetagmenoi perf. passive participle. The perfect passive participle in this case means to set in order, to arrange. Dr. W.O Carver speaks of the immediate conversion of “as many as were odained to eternal life.” He then proceeds to declare: “God had some ready here for eternal life, not that all the elect in Antioch believed at this time so that no other believers were ever won there. By Jewish influence amd other means some “were drawn up in order (it is a military term) ready to march over at the call of the gospel ito the region of redemption.” (The Acts of The Apostles, p.146).
Lu ba bi should have checked her (if lu ba bi is a she) Greek a little closer. I never referred to zoe but to the verbs ordained and believed. The ordained ordered, set, placed, fits very nicely with the idea of being foreodained or ordained or destined to eternal life….Phillips renders the term by the word destined (I got out my four parallel translations). Lu ba bi needs to be a little more thorough in her/his research. I would not limit the introduction of predestination to Jerome’s effort to influence Augustine…not without checking a number of other sources. In the Intepreter’ Bible Commentary on Acts the Exegete, G.H.C. MacGregor, who states, regarding ordained: “The word might mean little more than “disposed,” with reference merely to human choice. But it is much more likely that God’s predestination is in view; and it seems indeed that this actual phrase is not uncommon in that connection in rabbinical literature (H.L. Strack & Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Mdrash (Munich: C>H> Beck, 1924),II, 726).” (Interpeter’s Bible, vol.9, p.183). Knowing how this dial up and the length causes me to lose so much, I will post thi and then seek to add more in another posting.
Dr. Willingham,
Re. tetagmenoi: you forget to acknowlede that is can be taken as perfect passive participle and middle. To do so is to read tulip into it.
There are 3 issues here: 1) passive or middle; 2) context; and 3) meaning.
Against Dr. Carver’s quote, the case for middle has been strongly presented by authorities in Greek such as BAGD p. 991; Liddell-Scott, Lexicon p. 1759-60; and Delling, TDNT, VIII:28-29. G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, T & T Clark, Edinburgh; s.v. Tassw: he acknowledges as pre arrangement in military usage, but Abbott-Smith classifies it as middle also.
Your quotation of Carver does not stand a chance against most scholarly deeper studies of tetagmenoi as middle voice. Again you are reading TULIP into this text.
Context: you must deny vs 46 or ignore it to affirm predestination. It says “. . . “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.” You see the reflexive pronoun? They did it to themselves. Their rejection was not predestined in v46. This is the prelude and factors in v48. It is not only the middle voice, it is also the CONTEXT that you ignored to state your tulip here.
Your case is very weak here Dr. Willingham. It is in your mind but not in context and the text here.
R. J. Knowling, author of The Acts of the Apostles notes in The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, Vol. II, shows the possibility of a middle sense:
“. . . there is no countenance here for the absolutum decretum
of the Calvinists, since ver. 46 had already shown that the Jews had acted through their own choice. The words are really
nothing more than a corollary of St. Paul’s anangkaion [necessary; urgent, pressing; v.46]: the Jews as a nation had been ordained to eternal life—they had rejected this election—but
those who believed amongst the Gentiles were equally ordained
by God to eternal life, and it was in accordance with His
divine appointment that the Apostles had turned to them. Some
take the word as if middle, not passive: ‘as many as had set
themselves unto eternal life,’ and in support of this Rendall refers
to 1 Cor. xvi. 15, they appointed themselves] (see also Blass, in loco). The rendering here given by Rendall may be adopted without pressing the military metaphor in the verb, as has sometimes been done. . . .”
You case is at best very weak here–strong in TULIP but weak in grammar and syntax.
Happy Sunday. We will continue sometime next week.
It is too bad that some will not do the immense amount of research necessary to get outside their prejudices…Even Sovereign Grace believers can and do make egregious errors. I made one inadvertently, switching voices on the two verbs which actually weakened my case that I seek to make in these discussions, namely, that the most extreme statements on God’s Sovereignty and Predestination and even Reprobation are the most intensely evangelistic and invitational truths that can be imagined. They are the paradoxes that both one writer much earlier said was just a mental problem (interestingly enough agreeing without knowing it with the strong calvinistic philosopher of Butler University, the late Dr. Gordon Clark) and the calvinist just mentioned (his words were something to the effect of a moment of mental confusion between the ears). My answer is simply to call attention to the mounting evidence of paradoxical interventions used now by many professional counselors. Now back to Acts 13:48, Dr. John Gill, the first Baptist theologian of note (honored with a D.D. from the Univ. of Glasgow), took strong issue with the idea that the words speak not of preordination and much less of divine preordination, pointing out that in addition to the Vulgate Latin there was Arias Montanus. He then proceeds to cite, identify, and correct the idea of tetagmenos as some had thought it was used by the Jews.(cf. The Cause of God and Truth, pp.89-92), It should be noted that Gill even goes to the Philosophers, Epictetus and Porphyry, showing that they looked upon the term for ordained as meaning fixed, appoined, even having the force of the fatal decree, ordaining things. Having taught one course in Philosophy in College (one of my undergraduate minors was philosophy and my M.A. is in intellectual history which covered several schools of philosophy in American History I am impressed with Gill. The Moffatt Commentary by F.J. Foakes-Jackson points out: “Without insisting upon all the logical conclusions of the theory of predestination, it cannot be denies that something of the kind is implied in the Old Testament as well as in the New….there was always a remnant….In like manner those who accepted the gospe wee nrolled among the few who were destined or ordained to eternal life.” (I think the writer could have done without the word “few” as Jesus gave His life a ransom for many. H.H. Hackett in the old American Commentary pointed out that as many as were appointed unto eternal life believed:”This is is theonly translation which the philology of the passage allows.(The Acs, p.162). Others could be cited, but this is sufficient, I think, to indicate the tenor of the passage regardless of the efforts to insist on the middle voice for appointed and make it mean that the believers appointed themselves, an absurdity.
Then there is the matter of Faith as a gift. If it be insisted that Ephs. 2:8,9 limits the gift to eternal life, it can be mentioned that the gift can taken in not only eterna life but also the means to that life, namely, faith (I have not mentioned the fact that neuters can be used with feminine cases). In any case, we do have a clear cut instance of faith as a gift in Phils.1:29 which states, “It is given unto you, not only to believe, but also to suffer.” More than that you have faith in the Genitive/Ablative of source in Mark 11:22, translated, “Have Faith in God,” but in the center or note reference it is rendered “Have faith of God” or “Have the Faith of God,” that is “Have the faith that comes from God, the faith that has its source in God. The same form is used in Gals.2:20 and a few other places, if memory serves correctly.
And as to Jn.3;16,17, YOU HAVE THE SUBJUNCTIVE OF PURPOSE in both veses which our dear Lu ba bi clearly has failed to discern. Now when God purposes to do something, He has this to say about it in Isa.46:11: “I have purposed it, I will also do it.” If God has puposed to save certain who believe with the believe which He gives, I would be very careful about saying something that might be construed as calling God a liar. Now, of course, I am sure none of the writers on this blog would dream of doing such a thing, but they could like the man in Mk.9:24 find out that their belief was really an unbelief, “Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief.” You will note he had expressed his doubt, when he said, “If you can do anything, have compassion on us, and help us.”(vs.22) Jesus zeroed in on: “If you can believe?”(vs.23).
As to can and inability, the word can means ability and Jesus says no man can and that is instantly plain as to one being unable to come. Also let those who think being dead does not mean inability consider that through the ages people have felt that inability and like the man in Mk.9 begged God for faith to trust, for power to overcome their infernal inability to believe. Paul calls attention to the inability of man to even know spiritual things (I Cors.2;14). I am exhausted, and must cease, but I hope this will be of help to someone.
What would Billy Sunday think about all that?
Stephen, that is easily the funniest thing you have ever written. Still chuckling as I write.
QUESTION: Why is the “process” that brings a person to faith important? I’m not talking about “false salvation,” such as by works versus true salvation by grace. I’m talking about a person that has been genuinely saved.
What is the value of knowing the clinical process (assuming of course it can be known with any clinical certainty which I doubt)?
This is not a loaded question, but just something this thread has made me think about. I’d like to see what some think about this particular question.
Paula, here’s the answer to your question:
What are you going on about? Why the condescension?
Answer: your post.
Show me ANY NT scripture that says what “regular worship” is.
Answer: Acts 2:42-44; 1Cor. 16:2 (notice “every week”)
Show me ANY NT scripture that puts us back under the 10 C’s.
Answer: Mat. 5:17
Show me ANY place where I said anything about “quarterly worship” or that we are somehow bound to the Jewish Sabbath.
Answer: that was the subject of the original blog post. My response
to you came after you disagreed–based upon your knowledge of
Greek–with my post. So, I don’t understand your lapse in memory.
Please read what I wrote and you will see that “the first day of the week” is inaccurate and presumes too much, at least as much as anything I ever said.
Answer: as I said, if you take the range of a word’s meaning and
interpret it in context of Scripture, you can make an accurate
interpretation — otherwise, it is just baby Greek opinions. Also, most
Baptist scholars agree that a proper hermeneutic always interprets an
ambiguous passage in light of a clear passage, such as 1Cor. 16:2
You have read far too much into my statement.
Answer: You clearly presented yourself as a person proficient in
Greek. I simply challenged your interpretation. Sorry, you took it
personally.
Again
SSBN,
Re: condescension: Your response had nothing to do with my post.
Re: regular worship: Where’s the “regular” in Acts 2:42, as in “weekly” or any other particular interval? What we see there is daily living, with no prescribed “worship service” at all but people eating and praying together. This is quite unlike meeting people we hardly know. ! Cor. 16:2 is that “first of sabbaths” I already told you about. There are more references in the link I gave to bolster the “wave offering” interpretation.
Re: the 10 C’s I see you did not respond.
Re: I know the topic of the blog post, and addressed the underlying assumption of any prescribed interval for worship at all. Your response did not address my argument at all. Rather than any lapse of memory on my part, there appears to be a lapse of attention on yours.
Re: range of meaning, call my Greek “baby” if you want but it does not change the context, which does not say anything about meeting every Sunday at all, but only uses a common phrase the 1st century Jews has for the weeks leading up to Pentecost. Note that after Paul spoke of the collection of gifts, in 1 Cor. 16:8 he mentions Pentecost. You seem to be trying to narrow the semantic range of an idiom without any justification from context.
And if you want to be consistent in following the excellent advice on hermeneutics, then where are the CLEAR passages specifying when, where, and how to worship as Christians. Surely something so important would have at least one clear command, but there are none at all– only inferences that can be taken several ways.
Re: reading into my statement: I presented no such thing as expertise in Greek or anything else. If your argument cannot stand rebuttal then you might want to reassess your own perceived expertise.
Paula, please accept my apology for offending you. It was not my intent. It is obvious that you just don’t read very carefully, as in missing my response to your question on the 10 C’s.
If you feel that the N.T. actually teaches a “quarterly meeting” (which is what my original post to which you responded was talking about), then that is your right. I can see that nothing is going to change your mind.
I think we are given a wealth of information about the worship of the early church. I do not mean to imply we were given a standardized order of worship. In your reading of the N.T. you see no evidence of any liturgical forms, or norms. Again, nothing is going to change your mind about that either.
And, I don’t see how any stretch of the English language (or Greek) can interpret the words, “every week” to mean the one day event of Pentecost. On that, we flatly disagree.
Again, I surmise that you are a very touchy, lady with some unresolved anger and I tripped your “Nasty” button. I am sorry. I will not respond to your posts to avoid any such collision in the future.
As to my argument standing rebuttal: didn’t you rebut it? Did I criticize you for offering your rebuttal or simply indicate I thought your rebuttal was lacking sufficient merit. You are the one that started flinging sand in sandbox.
I’m open to increasing my learning, or I wouldn’t waste my time on this blog. It seems theology is a cause for much fighting and side taking on this blog. I deal with preschoolers every day fighting in the sandbox. I’d like my blog participation to be a little more civil.
So, while I don’t think we will ever be friends or on the “same team,” I do apologize for choosing words that could be seen as condescending.
SSBN,
You apologize for offending me and then say “it’s obvious that you just don’t read very carefully”. I’m not quite sure how you reconcile those two statements.
I honestly did not see any line after the 10 C’s statement in your comment. But I suppose I cannot be considered a careful reader if I am not perfect like you. And apparently a good reader like you can repeatedly burn the straw man that I ever supported any “quarterly meeting” without having his or her reading skills questioned.
The reason I do not see any standardized order of worship in the NT is because it isn’t there, and you have yet to show me chapter and verse but merely repeated your assertion that it must be so, making your mind every bit as closed and unchangeable as you believe mine is.
Then you call me “touchy” while your own touchiness is as obvious as my apparently poor reading skills. So again I ask how you can reconcile another apology for your condescention with all your words preceding. SSBN, I hope someday you can see the problem with the log in your eye and try to deal with someone’s actual words instead of their imaginary faults. So please accept my pledge to stop thinking I am in your intellectual and spiritual league. What was I thinking anyway?
I doubt SSBN has much expertise in Greek. Maybe he does. But you would expect he would understand English and could understand Pinnock and Noll when they spoke at Ridgecrest and could Understand the Oxford Proff Diarmand on page 51 of the first 3,000 years of Christianity and how the Chronology of Genesis just doesn’t stack up.
And to paraphrase Adrian Rogers and Pressler, if Genesis is not History and Science, then there goes the whole Inerrancy thing and the Fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention was A RUSE.
Mr. Person I Never Name. Feel free to insult me all you wish. It serves to further demolish the myth that “moderates are all nice people.”
Actually, I am not a Greek scholar, though I’ve had about 4 years of classroom studies. I do have somewhat of a level of expertise in understanding the scientific basis for the Creation History, as my graduate work is in the area of Quantum Theology with a specific emphasis on Unified Field Theory, particularly superstring theory.
So, I can say with some level of expertise that anyone who thinks that the Creation story cannot be correlated with scientific facts and history is someone who has not really studied much science.
Touchy, eh?
There can be NO CONFLICT, if certain things are kept in mind:
“”…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.
The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
from ‘Gaudium et Spes’, a pastoral letter.
Quantum theology?
I assume you meant quantum physics, or something of the like. Interesting that we are often on oposite side of a given issue, since I was a physics major in college. That was prior to the develoment of string theory and much else that is at the forefront of physics today, and I have forgotten much of the language of physics (i.e., mathematics, calculus, diffy q’s, etc.). But I too see much correspondance between the lasest developments in physics and the Genesis account, although I am not a young earther (no implication about you here as I don’t know, simply stating where I am).
John
John, no I meant Quantum Theology. It is a little known branch of theology necessitated by developments in quantum physics, particularly in light of Heisenberg’s Theory of Uncertainty and the Copenhagen School.
There are many “quarks” (pun intended) in quantum physics that challenge the world-view that produced the standard model — little ball of protons and neutrons surrounded by orbiting electrons — that created a need to put them into perspective.
I finished my thesis in 1999 and thought it would certainly be out of date by now (which is why one must be careful not to tie their theology to some prevailing scientific theory). Still, string theory and supersymetry are still the best candidates to date for a Theory of Everything.
I was never a physicists (chemistry was originally my field), so I always struggled with the math part of my thesis. You are right, quantum physics raises metaphysical questions that cannot be addressed very well from a non-theistic perspective.
The language of worship is only shrouded in words. Worship is something more than what is spoken.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0kxWXHETlU&feature=related
‘Shepherd me, O God
Beyond my wants
Beyond my fears
From death, into Life . . .
We already have a bunch of our people who attend ever 90 days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGEjKV6eDxY&feature=related
having come to the setting of the sun . . .
bless the Lord o my soul
bless His Holy Name
Comments on this entry are closed.