The Unique Move of God

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And on that point we can generally agree. But whether or not the fellowship is really about "church" and therefore we are talking about when the church meets (assembles), or is just about a get together to chit-chat, watch a baseball game, eat bar-b-q, or any other activity, then that is the difference.

Now I am quick to point out that everything about the life of a Christian should be spiritual. That does not mean that it is all about prayer, "fellowship" with other believers, learning from the word, etc. It means that our life is ordered around Christ in all that we do. We are the best doctors, nurses, accountants, programmers, engineers, short-order cooks, truck drivers, trash haulers, farmers, day laborers, etc., that we can be because we serve our employers (masters) as serving Christ. We are the most honest customers and vendors in the marketplace. We are quick to help those in need, and slow to say anything bad about anyone (outside of any truth that must be said — and that is not license to lay down biblical truth on everyone who is a sinner).

That is our life. And when we get together to meet as Christians, we are quick to admit our own faults and pray for forgiveness (not just assume that we have grace and move on). We focus on God in our worship, not on ourselves.

So while there is always "fellowship" in a meeting of Christians, it is still rational to assume that when someone says "fellowship" in the context of a meeting of Christians, it is intended to refer to their Christ-facing thoughts, actions, talk, and issues, and not just everything simply because everything is "fellowship."

I also would agree that a meeting without interaction is not fellowship. But that is a rather unique (if it has ever actually happened) situation to be making a comment about. What were you really trying to say? Just to be at odds on yet another point? That seems to be your MO.

I recall attending liturgical church services when I was young, I didn't have much to do, it was quite boring, no one really to talk to. Just because I heard a pastor's sermon or went to church does not mean I had fellowship. I had some fellowship with God, but I could have done that at home. That's the difference between a service and a meeting I guess. A service is like going to the dentist.You sit on the chair and the dentist does things with you. But fellowship would be like going for a coffee. The Lord's table meeting is a kind of a feast, a meal, where everyone participates and enjoys. The denominational church services, the masses and communions, are like going to the dentist for a spiritual checkup, scale and clean.

In fact, things are so bad in the denominations, that the good ones will schedule small group meetings during the week to make up for the fellowship they did not have on Sunday. The Sunday service is the ritualistic "must do", and the small groups are where the real fellowship is said to happen. They've taken a page out of the "home church" groups on that one, keeping the Sunday service but adding some house meetings as well. Many denominations don't really do the house meetings at all. The Recovery is basically built on home meetings, rather than church services, it puts fellowship number 1, over ritualistic church services.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I recall attending liturgical church services when I was young, I didn't have much to do, it was quite boring, no one really to talk to. Just because I heard a pastor's sermon or went to church does not mean I had fellowship. I had some fellowship with God, but I could have done that at home. That's the difference between a service and a meeting I guess. A service is like going to the dentist.You sit on the chair and the dentist does things with you. But fellowship would be like going for a coffee. The Lord's table meeting is a kind of a feast, a meal, where everyone participates and enjoys. The denominational church services, the masses and communions, are like going to the dentist for a spiritual checkup, scale and clean.

In fact, things are so bad in the denominations, that the good ones will schedule small group meetings during the week to make up for the fellowship they did not have on Sunday. The Sunday service is the ritualistic "must do", and the small groups are where the real fellowship is said to happen. They've taken a page out of the "home church" groups on that one, keeping the Sunday service but adding some house meetings as well. Many denominations don't really do the house meetings at all. The Recovery is basically built on home meetings, rather than church services, it puts fellowship number 1, over ritualistic church services.

Actually, the things about the liturgical service that you didn't like are the main reasons that we gather together as the church in the larger sense. It is not to have lively conversation among ourselves. It is not to have anyone "really to talk to." That is for sometime else. You want to denigrate small groups? Then don't you ever go over to another Christian's house for anything that resembles Christian fellowship.

The larger meeting is not for the kind of fellowship that you so mournfully sought in that liturgical service. But that is the kind of fellowship that would get a stern eye from an elder (even in the LRC) for disturbing the meeting.

To suggest that fellowship is #1 is probably a mistake. If you look at Acts, you find that they "continued" in the temple for teaching of the apostles, then from house to house in breaking of bread, etc. Without the teaching of the apostles, there is nothing to fellowship in the houses. It becomes an opportunity for the uninformed to discuss what they know little or nothing about.

The larger meetings are prime. They are the gathering.

But if you don't think the larger meetings are so important, then you probably don't think that the formulaic church is really that important. You don't actually meet that way. At least not as the main thing (according to you). So if that is just a side thing, or the lesser thing, then why is it so important?

Besides, if you think that other groups (not the LRC) have home meetings because "things are so bad," then why do you say that the LRC is mainly centered around home groups? Based on your analysis, the reason must be that things are so bad in the larger group.

As for "ritualistic church services," are you blind to the fact that each of your "services" is just as ritualistic? There is even a printed order of service for many of them. And the primary one that does not have one (that would be the Lord's table meeting) is so well orchestrated that if someone suggests a song from the wrong grouping at the wrong time, someone immediately jumps up to change it to a proper one. You herald the joy in this meeting. I will admit that there is a kind of joy in it. But it is, at its best, a way to do it. And the presumption of joy being required is a preference of style. And to some, it may seem to be inconsistent with the kind of reverence and praise that "remembering" the death of Christ and what that means to us should entail. Some would suggest that while it is definitely a benefit to us, to be so outward in joy is to think of it more in terms of me than in terms of the sacrifice that it was. The God of the universe died in my place. That should be sobering. We should constantly have a realization of the weight of guilt that should still be ours but is not. Yes, there is joy in that fact. But if it is too great, it suggests that we have little appreciation for the death we are supposed to remember, and too much appreciation for our freedom from whatever that was.

Moving on.

For many of your meetings, there is no longer any choice of song. It has been preordained in writing from Anaheim. After that, the content of the meeting is similarly preordained — in writing.

You have a rather complex liturgy. May not seem like one when you compare it to the kind that is well thought out by real theologians, but it is liturgy. And it is just a regimented as all the others. The only thing it does not control is what comes out of the mouth of someone who "prophesies" in one of the meetings. But if that gets too far off, there are ways that it is dealt with. In the LRC I've seen everything from groaning and bowed heads, to stern looks by elders, to even one standing and shooing the person back into their seat.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, the things about the liturgical service that you didn't like are the main reasons that we gather together as the church in the larger sense. It is not to have lively conversation among ourselves. It is not to have anyone "really to talk to." That is for sometime else. You want to denigrate small groups? Then don't you ever go over to another Christian's house for anything that resembles Christian fellowship.

The larger meeting is not for the kind of fellowship that you so mournfully sought in that liturgical service. But that is the kind of fellowship that would get a stern eye from an elder (even in the LRC) for disturbing the meeting.

To suggest that fellowship is #1 is probably a mistake. If you look at Acts, you find that they "continued" in the temple for teaching of the apostles, then from house to house in breaking of bread, etc. Without the teaching of the apostles, there is nothing to fellowship in the houses. It becomes an opportunity for the uninformed to discuss what they know little or nothing about.

The larger meetings are prime. They are the gathering.

But if you don't think the larger meetings are so important, then you probably don't think that the formulaic church is really that important. You don't actually meet that way. At least not as the main thing (according to you). So if that is just a side thing, or the lesser thing, then why is it so important?

Besides, if you think that other groups (not the LRC) have home meetings because "things are so bad," then why do you say that the LRC is mainly centered around home groups? Based on your analysis, the reason must be that things are so bad in the larger group.

As for "ritualistic church services," are you blind to the fact that each of your "services" is just as ritualistic? There is even a printed order of service for many of them. And the primary one that does not have one (that would be the Lord's table meeting) is so well orchestrated that if someone suggests a song from the wrong grouping at the wrong time, someone immediately jumps up to change it to a proper one. You herald the joy in this meeting. I will admit that there is a kind of joy in it. But it is, at its best, a way to do it. And the presumption of joy being required is a preference of style. And to some, it may seem to be inconsistent with the kind of reverence and praise that "remembering" the death of Christ and what that means to us should entail. Some would suggest that while it is definitely a benefit to us, to be so outward in joy is to think of it more in terms of me than in terms of the sacrifice that it was. The God of the universe died in my place. That should be sobering. We should constantly have a realization of the weight of guilt that should still be ours but is not. Yes, there is joy in that fact. But if it is too great, it suggests that we have little appreciation for the death we are supposed to remember, and too much appreciation for our freedom from whatever that was.

Moving on.

For many of your meetings, there is no longer any choice of song. It has been preordained in writing from Anaheim. After that, the content of the meeting is similarly preordained — in writing.

You have a rather complex liturgy. May not seem like one when you compare it to the kind that is well thought out by real theologians, but it is liturgy. And it is just a regimented as all the others. The only thing it does not control is what comes out of the mouth of someone who "prophesies" in one of the meetings. But if that gets too far off, there are ways that it is dealt with. In the LRC I've seen everything from groaning and bowed heads, to stern looks by elders, to even one standing and shooing the person back into their seat.

Don't confuse what I'm saying to mean there should be a total lack of order. We do things in an orderly way. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would try to equate our type of meeting with a Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran liturgy.

A lot of what you say is untrue. Typically the choice of song is decided on the spur of the moment by anyone in the meeting. Most things are not prepared beforehand, except what morning revival we are doing that week.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Don't confuse what I'm saying to mean there should be a total lack of order. We do things in an orderly way. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would try to equate our type of meeting with a Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran liturgy.

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A lot of what you say is untrue. Typically the choice of song is decided on the spur of the moment by anyone in the meeting. Most things are not prepared beforehand, except what morning revival we are doing that week.

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.

[Evangelical]

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".

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.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Pray-reading the HWMR is not rote? I would think by this time it is very rote and non-spontaneous. If it isn't by now it eventually will be.

I suppose calling something "liturgy" is simply admitting that the service has become somewhat rote. Whereas the LCM of course lives in denial about that for the sake of never, ever having to admit they have anything that could be called liturgy, because that's what those fallen religious groups do. But not us, cuz we special.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Pray-reading the HWMR is not rote? I would think by this time it is very rote and non-spontaneous. If it isn't by now it eventually will be.

I suppose calling something "liturgy" is simply admitting that the service has become somewhat rote. Whereas the LCM of course lives in denial about that for the sake of never, ever having to admit they have anything that could be called liturgy, because that's what those fallen religious groups do. But not us, cuz we special.

We pray read the bible, never heard of praying reading the HWMR, that doesn't sound right does it? That's not something I would agree with.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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".

Actually, you use the term "liturgy" in a pejorative way. It is designed to evoke a sense of inferiority because it is old, at least somewhat set, or both.

But you make that judgment without any actual understanding of the content of such a meeting, or the spiritual significance or impact it has on its participants.

And you make that judgment without actually understanding what a liturgy is and presuming that your meetings are not full of liturgy and even tradition. Yet you demean both in complete ignorance of what they actually bring to the participant.

And participate they do. You think that your form of meeting is the only participatory form of any consequence. Actually, yours is the effect of the Church in Corinth deciding that they know better than Paul and setting aside his limitations on how they should conduct their meetings.

But the most significant thing about your post is that (once again) you did not respond to my most significant charge that your analysis of scripture is undertaken with an eye for how to segregate Christians into us v them rather than to find our commonality in Christ. How you do your meetings, no matter how much I think that you have completely misconstrued the edicts Paul gave in 1 Cor. 14, is not the important thing. Neither is how others do their meetings. It is the common faith in the one Christ, one God and Father, on Spirit, one baptism, etc. It is not in who are the elders in our assembly, nor the identifier we place on our group so as to be findable, nor who our elders are, no who are the ones that we take our teachings from.

The most significant thing is that you are elevating items within each of those categories such that you have given yourself the right to dismiss everyone else as deficient. Yet you are blind to the fact that this is exactly what Paul was chastising the Corinthians for in the opening chapters of his first letter to them. Not for having names (and thus your constant blathering about denominations). But for taking their preference for certain teachers to the point that they split up over it.

And you like to point to the fact of certain theologians in the center of these various groups — like Luther — are included in the names of the groups that came to follow them. Yet you agree with the split from the RCC that surrounded those people. So you are happy for the separation from the RCC caused by Luther, but are unhappy that those who still follow his teachings are identified by his name in any way. But that identification is not about the person, but the teachings that he brought. And you are more than happy about those teachings.

So when Christ Redeemer Lutheran Church changes its name to "church in [city]" what do you have to say about that? Is it now qualified for inclusion in your group? Or will you start looking into something else as a disqualifier? (In other words, is the whole "church in [city]" think just a first line of attack?)