[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm beginning to think that all the emphasis on the form of a meeting, from openly participative, to somewhat participative in portions, to structured, to liturgical, is a distraction from what really matters. And it is not the form of the meeting. It is not definitionally wrong to "do church" the way the Lutherans, Anglicans, (even RCC, excluding the prayers to Saints and Mary), the Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians/Reformed, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostals/Charismatics, Brethren, Baptists (all of them), Mennonite, Bible churches, or any number of different nondenominational/free groups, and home groups do it. Even the LRC. A particular form might be a distraction to me. And my form may be a distraction to someone else.

In schools the way in which you teach is very critical. Studies have proven that students will learn more and retain more when they are active participants in the learning and not merely passive spectators. Teachers will be rated unacceptable and fired if they lecture for more than 15 minutes as a regular practice. In the same way I think it is important, and not merely a distraction, that the leaders in the church emphasize the active participation of the saints. That is merely a general principle. The practical working of that can be something quite different. In Odessa many of the church meetings were held in living rooms, so obviously it was easy to have a meeting in which all can speak. Where I am now the hall can hold over 3,000 and is generally at least half full, so it is a very different situation. Still, I think the emphasis where I am now is also on the active participation of the saints.