Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
No, they would not confuse the two. But only because the outward form is so different. But a closer look would reveal that you have a modern liturgy that you stick to is a serious way.
Please understand that I am not saying that you are brought down by it. But neither are you lifted up because you think your liturgy is better than theirs. Your liturgy doesn't eat Ken-L-Ration and is therefor better. It is just different.
To borrow from the words of God himself . . .
You search the scripture to find ways to separate yourself from my servants but you do not truly come to me, the only source of unity and oneness — oneness in which you do not seek to find separation.
This is the quest in which you are so seriously engaged as you seek to define a "unique move or God" that excludes others and leaves only yourselves within that move.
|
If you want to define liturgy as anything we do every week that is routine or common, such as arriving at 9 am for the meeting every Sunday, then I guess it is a liturgy.
But I use the normal use of the term liturgy to refer to the churches which are known as conducting "liturgical church services".
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Actually, I have it on pretty good authority that outside of the Lord's table, the number of meetings that are not taken over as "ministry station meetings" has been decimated. And in those meetings they specify the song — generally only one — and the content of the meeting.
Yes, in the Table meeting you are free to call a song. But it is generally enforced as being according to a pattern of progress. I can no longer quote the whole of it, but it is fairly-well established. Deviate very far and it will be corrected. Deviate just a little and they might let it pass, but expect a lecture afterward on the "official" (even though the term will not be used) flow of the Table meeting. I spent many years there and have seen it all first hand. And I have a pretty close relationship with some who are still there and occasionally comment on things like this.
But having admitted that your "morning revival" is prepared beforehand, would you scoff at those who read each day's passages from a lectionary that is in a 2 or 3 year cycle? Would you declare that using suggested readings by the pastor from the Sunday sermon is something sub-par. That would seem to fit well with the notion of learning in the temple then fellowshipping through the week.
But the expectation that you would find reason to demean either as deficient and evidence that they are not participating in the body of Christ (your group, it would seem from your rhetoric) is pretty consistent with your MO.
|
That sounds like a unique sort of church in the Recovery. Most churches I believe have any member calling the songs and piano players struggling to catch up or remember the tune...and when in doubt, leave the piano out!
I'm not sure what you mean by "admitting that our morning revival is prepared beforehand". This implies that I tried to hide that morning revivals are prepared beforehand because they form part of our liturgy, but I was not. This should be obvious, everyone knows they are prepared beforehand, so I was admitting nothing.
But where you err is by suggesting that the morning revivals are part of some liturgical service - they are not. We do not use the morning revival for the "church service". The morning revival is not a feature of the Lord's Table meeting and we do not read it off by rote in a service.
This is in contrast to denominations where liturgical churches have a specially crafted "order of service" that is prepared beforehand and even tells you what exact words to say when you pray in exactly the same order every week. The morning revival is just our devotional which is used during the prophesying meeting, but even though the outline is prepared and we may all read that together, people are free to express themselves, plus we have
different morning revivals every few weeks, which as another thread no here indicates -is how LSM make their money.