Part 2 of Viewpoint Brief Bible Study #077. |
||
|---|---|---|
 |
 |
JESUS calls US to be |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
The Christian religion is the worship and service of Jesus Christ. It’s not Mary we worship, but her Son. We worship neither saints, angels, a law code, nor even God’s Spirit. It’s JESUS who is to be honored. The Bible is our guide. |
||
More About Christian Worship per Viewpoints #11, et al
With comments by Jeff Atnip, Russell Duncan, Pete Petree, Lee Winters, David Schepper, Gregory Brownig, Dan Johnson, a thoughtful friend from Toledo, Doug Willis ...
Far More Than A Matter of Style
To: Russell Duncan Jr <rduncan@esu3.esu3.k12.ne.us>
Subject: Re: Viewpoint Study #77 Date sent: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:23:02Russell, Thanks for sharing your comment. You call for simplicity rather than complexity in assemblies of God's people. I agree. But did you notice I'm saying that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians are to assemble in order to praise God? You affirm that the purpose for which we are to meet is to praise God.
Paul says the purpose for which we are to meet is to edify brethren -- not evangelize, not worship (primarily), but to strengthen and edify servants of God. Jesus did not instruct that those who form the church He was going to build were to meet once, twice, or three times each week in order to conduct worship services. The apostles never set forth any such requirement. It's well that you go to the old testament for an example to prove your point. There's no example in the New Testament of Christians having gathered for the primary purpose of praising God.
Remembering. Yes. It may well be that every week they ate the meal of remembrance together, combined with "fellowship in eating" or not. They had no clergy, so likely didn't have a "sermon" every time they met. There's no mention that they had a song service similar to ours. Acts 2:42 speaks of sharing knowledge of Jesus and His Way based on instruction in the apostle's doctrine. The fellowship spoken of there is apparently a sharing of goods, a transfer from those who had to those who did not have. And Luke mentions that they prayed together, and not just in those first days.
Paul's instructions to the Corinthian folks lets us see that their services were sharing times. Those with a word from the Lord were to take turns giving the message to God's people. Those with a song were to sing to the others. But our instructions are to praise God every day while we're serving Him and those He loves. Do you find in the New Testament ANY instruction or example of the church meeting for the purpose of praising God together -- as the primary purpose of meeting? I don't.
So I wonder why you suggest that that's why we are to meet today?
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:26:58 > To: outreach@sofnet.com
> From: Russell Duncan Jr <rduncan@esu3.esu3.k12.ne.us>> Subject: Viewpoint Study #77
> In the book of Exodus, the instructions for constructing an altar was a model of simplicity. It is my conviction that to move beyond simplicity in worship is to move toward an atmosphere of complexity which will ultimately distract from the essential purpose of the assembly: the praise of the LORD.
Date sent: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:22:54
To: outreach@sofnet.com
From: Russell Duncan Jr <rduncan@esu3.esu3.k12.ne.us>Subject: Viewpoint Study #77
Ray: You said >>Paul says the purpose for which we are to meet is to edify brethren -- not evangelize, not worship (primarily), but to strengthen and edify servants of God<<
No dispute there. Perhaps I should have elaborated a bit about the definition of "praise." Things are God-honoring are quite in order for an assembly (Notice I did not use the term "worship service").
>>Paul's instructions to the Corinthian folks lets us see that their services were sharing times<<
To share what God has done for us is praise of the highest degree! And does that not "edify" those that hear?
>>It's well that you go to the old testament for an example to prove your point<<
I make considerable use of the Old Testament. Much of what is quoted as proving that there is a required "pattern" that is applicable in the NT church is misused. The only consistent "pattern" (if I may be allowed the term) is that a certain attitude was acceptable to God; if that was not in place then all of the rest was simply playing religion. That principle was not changed by Jesus; rather, he lifted it to a new level.
>>They had no clergy, so likely didn't have a "sermon" every time they met. There's no mention that they had a song service similar to ours<<
I'm glad you pointed that out! Quite truthfully, we can't "reconstruct" the 1st century church, can we? But we can pray and strive for insight and direction to find the relationship with God that they had ... that being the case, all of the rest will take care of itself. -- Rus [Now how can I quarrel with that? asks Ray.]
From: Jeff Atnip <jeatnip@fedex.com> To: outreach@sofnet.comSubject: Intimate? Quote from Ray Downen: "The best hymns of an earlier day also avoided personal intimacies which are hardly appropriate in public settings. Intimacies between husband and wife are not displayed in public. In my opinion, intimacies between God and man are also best conducted in private."
I agree with you most of the time, but I disagree with your opinion on this, Ray. Here are a couple of lyrics: "As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul longs after you." And the one that was quoted by Russ Blowers, "You alone are my heart's desire...etc..." These are taken directly from the Psalms. They are given to us as examples of the kind of intimacy that should exist between God and man.
David was a man after God's own heart and his poetry points the way for us to deepen our relationship with God. If you and I were kids again and brothers in the same family and I turned to you and said, "I love daddy." and you said, "I love daddy too ... I love to be with him." Would this be inappropriate? I don't think so. Isn't this what we should be doing for each other...encouraging each other to be more intimate with God? -- Jeff Atnip
Senior Illustrator Federal Express Corporation jeatnip@fedex.com
From: "Petree, Pete" <Pete.Petree@COMPAQ.com>
Subject: RE: Public Intimacy?
Date sent: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:15:41 -0600Good points on both sides, Ray. But, the word "intimate" needs definition because it can be one of those "hot button" words that triggers radically different meanings to each beholder. Intimate as a word has somewhat of a sensitive background regarding the subjects it is used with.
My thoughts....If intimate is defined as any personal expression of preference, such as "I love my Dad", then I don't agree with your position, Ray. Jeff's point that "Isn't this what we should be doing for each other...encouraging each other to be more intimate with God?" is dead on. We need to be more "intimate" than we have been. We must be more personally involved with the Lord. We should learn that by being less guarded in any setting about our allegiance to the Lord.
On the other hand, if intimate is taken as an expression of closely-held, very personal desires or issues, then I agree with you, Ray, because a public setting is often filled with folks who can't handle this level of communication or don't desire to. In this setting intimate communication is often just fodder for the gossip mill, and the person expressing the communication may not be able to get the consideration/assistance needed, if that is what they seek.
Differences in the use of terms, to me, is the source of a lot of....differences?
Pete Petree Compaq Computer Corporation
Enterprise Computing - Operations Tools Support (281) 514-3966
Subject: Re: Fwd: Public Intimacy? From: leewint@juno.com (Leland L Winters)Ray: I have to agree with you. Even when we pray in public and the prayer is universal, it's still a personal thing. If the prayer is as your correspondent says, then how do we account for Matthew 6:6 or Psalm 5:3? -- Lee Winters
To: "Ray Downen" <outreach@sofnet.com> Subject: Re: (Fwd) Intimate?
Date sent: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:21:09 -0600I read your view on Russ Blower's writing. I think I know your thinking as well as anyone. Can I have some agreement with two people? Forced, or manufactured, displays of affection are not necessarily affection. It's like telling a child to "kiss your grandmother and tell her you love her." The child may well love grandma, but just because mom or dad (leader) suggests the action and the word doesn't mean the child really does love her.
I've conducted weddings where the bride has cried, at another wedding the bride laughed, I recall another where the bride showed no expression (I've not had one faint yet, a bridegroom almost did once)--which one was really married? More often than not I demonstrate my love to my wife more than I say it to her, that doesn't make me any less married--or love her any less--does it? My worship on the other hand isn't always so demonstrative, though sometimes I do feel like showing it in some outward way, most often I'm telling the Lord how much I love Him and appreciate His active participation in my life. Do I worship more with demonstrating, or when I simply tell God I love Him?
From: "Gregory A. Brownig" <gabnbab@compuserve.com>
Subject: Viewpoint Study #77 To: Ray Downen <outreach@sofnet.com>Ray, Just finished VP#77 with comments. Thought I would add my own. We are told "all scripture is profitable..." I think it sure the writer meant the OT since the NT was not yet collected or written. Philip taught the treasurer about Jesus from the OT. The question of whether the psalms were for the NT worship or not seems to be weak. What other psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs would the believers use in the early days particularly the Jerusalem church? Didn't the leaders of the Jerusalem church spend a lot of time in the temple area if there was no worship taking place? Paul appears to have maintained a number of Jewish laws (Acts 21).
Likewise, the questions about whether the instructions applied to corporate worship or personal or small gatherings appear to lack merit. The church "met daily breaking bread...." Obviously not what we consider corporate worship but I think worhip took place just the same. (The size of the Jerusalem church required a different method of meeting perhaps?) Is worhip defined by the size of the body present? At what size does the worship change from "intimate" to "corporate?" Isn't the real question why isn't our corporate worship more intimate? Isn't this a function of our relationships with each other rather than God?
I worship without instrument by choice. I have concerns that instruments make it easier for us to become spectators rather than worship. We draw conclusions based on absence in the NT rather than using the all scripture. Hebrews does a real god job explaining why sacrafices in the OT are not pertinent any more but doesn't mention the psalms being rescinded. Thanx for listening! From one who struggles daily. GAB
From: kalcofc@bbs.lethal.net Date sent: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:36:29 -0800
To: Ray Downen <outreach@sofnet.com> Subject: Re: Fwd: Public Intimacy?Dear Ray- Gotta agree w/ Jeff and David the Psalm writer on this one! Dan:)
Date sent: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:59:48 -0500 (EST) To: outreach@sofnet.com
Subject: Re: Publicly Intimate?interesting discussion...Being publically initimate can sometimes lose the "importance" of what initimacy is all about......A couple who publically displays affection (holding hands or kissing) is not necesarily acting intimate......In my opinion, intimacy is usually a private matter between you and the Lord or with whom you are being intimate...... just some quick thoughts from Toledo, Ohio and my reply --
John & Jeannette, Thanks for sharing. Our mutual friend, Charles Phipps, is an "intimate" friend with more people than anyone else I know. Somehow, he makes himself close to us without intruding. I wish all of us could be like he is! But I sometimes feel that others, seeking to be friendly, are really being nosy and instrusive. Intimacy! Intimacy with God for all present at any particular service is a desirable aim. But I sure don't see it happening in what is currently the "worship" craze in our churches.
Date sent: Wed, 12 Nov 97 21:21:58 UT
From: "Douglas Willis" <CEFoundation@classic.msn.com>
To: "Ray Downen" <outreach@sofnet.com> Subject: RE: Public Intimacy?I really appreciated the kind and loving spirit demonstrated by Jeff in the way he stated his difference. Oh, that I could possess more of that grace.
Has Jeff considered the difference between the very intimate occasion when Christ prostrated Himself in the garden; the intimate act of the elders kneeling with Paul, weeping freely and falling on his neck to kiss him; the semi-private occasion when the families from the church in Tyre knelt with Paul on the sea shore as they bad him farewell; with their companions the apostles raising their voices to God with one accord (all praying out loud together); of Christ's teaching to go into our room and pray after shutting the door. This last teaching was given to avoid the outward ostentatious public display of religiosity, see Matt.23.
Where is the congregation that does all these intimate acts in public worship? Obviously there is a difference in the public assembly meetings when the church comes together to break bread. Consider 1 Cor. 14:26-40, where we read: 'each in turn'; 'one by one'; women...not permitted to speak'; 'all things be done decently and in order'; 'I will sing with the spirit and...the understanding' - verse 15.
Were all the Psalms intended for public worship? Why are only some Psalms addressed to the 'Chief Musician'? -- A point of view by Doug
Brief Bible Study #77-A from Ray Downen. To go back to Viewpoint's
first page, click < here. Or here to go on to Viewpoint Study 78.For Ray's concluding remarks, click HERE.