Ship of Fools: Why do Protestants go to church?

Thread: Why do Protestants go to church? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025482

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

Catholics go to church to receive and grow in the grace which leads to holiness and ultimate salvation. But why do Protestants go? If salvation comes through faith in God's promises, what difference does it make whether you go to church or not?

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

Protestants go to church to receive and grow in the grace which leads to holiness.

So not so different to Catholics, really. It's probably more a question of theological ordering than outright difference. We understand our salvation not so much as the goal of worship, but as as the starting point, inspiring our praise and our utmost devotion. (I suspect Catholic theology also contains this concept.) While I'm not endorsing every one of its sentiments, this old hymn expresses it rather well:
My God, I love thee, not because I hope for heaven thereby.

So yes, our ultimate salvation is in God's hands, but that doesn't mean we don't also have an understanding of sanctification as a process as well. On God's part, our salvation is assured, but we still have to grow into it.

ETA: I write here as a Reformed Protestant, and this reflects my tradition's theology. It occurs to me that those of a Wesleyan tradition might express it differently.

[ 15. June 2013, 08:34: Message edited by: Cottontail ]

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Sounds a bit of a daft question and I wondered if it was from an uber-catholic but I note you are Anglican. Which is not the same as Protestant at least to Anglo-Catholics.
So are you a Protestant? If so do you go to church in which case you can answer your own question.
I see no real difference between Catholics and Protestants on this. They go for the same reason, albeit with different emphases regarding sacraments preaching and fellowship.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

I meet with fellow Christians* to grow in faith through the mutual encouragement, strengthening and challenge that can (but doesn't always, of course) happen when Christians gather together. Your profile says you're Anglican, Corvo, so how would you describe your reasons for going to church services (if you do, of course!)?

*Sorry, I hate the phrase 'go to church'. We are the church so IMO it's not helpful to talk about 'going to church'.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

The two (salvation through faith and through the sacraments of the Church) aren't necessarily opposed to one another and, in fact, they aren't. As for Protestants going to Church, you will probably find that many will say it's not necessary.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

One reason Protestants (and presumably Catholics and Orthodox) go to church is that we are instructed "not to stop meeting together" in Scripture, surely?

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Sounds a bit of a daft question . . .
I see no real difference between Catholics and Protestants on this. They go for the same reason, albeit with different emphases regarding sacraments preaching and fellowship.

It was a serious question. Maybe it should have been do Protestants need to go to church?

If justification/righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith/trust, rather than infused through the grace of the sacraments (surely more than a mere difference of 'emphasis'?) is church going necessary?

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Catholics go to church to receive and grow in the grace which leads to holiness and ultimate salvation. But why do Protestants go? If salvation comes through faith in God's promises, what difference does it make whether you go to church or not?

(Amongst many other reasons) To hear the Word of God broken open by one appointed (ordained/elected/delegated according to preference) by the Church to do so, and/or by one possessing the charismata/skills to do so.

That would be a classically 16th-18th century position, I would imagine.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

Protestants like to be together to hear the Bible, which they read every day at home, and to sing hymns about God, and hear the teaching words of the ministers.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Sounds a bit of a daft question and I wondered if it was from an uber-catholic but I note you are Anglican. Which is not the same as Protestant at least to Anglo-Catholics.
So are you a Protestant? If so do you go to church in which case you can answer your own question.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
. . . Your profile says you're Anglican, Corvo, so how would you describe your reasons for going to church services (if you do, of course!)?

My question was intended to be a serious theological one. But, for what its worth, I usually go to anglo-catholic churches because I appreciate the 'aura of sacredness' I find there. But I don't think that answers 'my own question'.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I agree with South Coast Kevin that we don't just 'go to' church, we are the church. As a catholic-minded Anglican I believe that 'being the church' is expressed primarily in our taking part in the liturgy of the Mass, Eucharist, Holy Communion or whatever you call it, because in that way our feeble devotion is united with the perfect offering of Christ and we are transformed to reflect God's glory.

Of course, the test of whether or not we are truly 'being the church' is not how dignified or inspiring our worship is, but how we live out our faith in the world. But without the Mass at the centre of it all we are going to be thrown back on our own fallible resources.

I can well imagine that many protestants who don't have the same belief about the Eucharist, or even abjure sacraments altogether, might understand that meeting to hear the Word of God is a similar and vital focal point.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Another answer on another aspect. Being a Christian is not just about personal salvation, it is about living in community both with God and with others. The only way to grow in community is to turn up to community and though I am pretty sure God makes exceptions for those in solitary confinement and on desert islands, I am very sure that as part of being a Christian for the rest of us is to participate in community.

What is more I am very sure that God wants us to be in community with the people we DO NOT GET on with and that is more than just taking the sacraments. Indeed for this Protestant if sacraments are means of Grace then participating in the activities of the Christian community is a sacrament.

Jengie

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

In answer to the OP, for the life of me I no longer know. I'm a blind man looking for a shadow of doubt still. But I can't see it. Shadows in the darkness at best.

JJ - we are of a certain fellowship, you and I, and you can do and say no wrong as far as I'm concerned - but ! What community ?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

There is a hundred and one answers to that one Martin and it depends what sort of a mood I am in.

Perhaps the community of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who take the unwashed body of Christ down from the cross.

Jengie

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Catholics go to church to receive and grow in the grace which leads to holiness and ultimate salvation. But why do Protestants go? If salvation comes through faith in God's promises, what difference does it make whether you go to church or not?

Theoretically speaking, protestants go to the church to avail themselves of the means of grace: the preaching of God's word, the administration of the sacraments, pastoral care and the discipline of the church. Why? Because they want their lives to bring glory to the God who has saved them by grace through faith in Christ.

[ 15. June 2013, 10:57: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
One reason Protestants (and presumably Catholics and Orthodox) go to church is that we are instructed "not to stop meeting together" in Scripture, surely?

Yes, but we're not expected to spend time with the church out of blind obedience. It's OK to ask why that command it in scripture.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

For the Word
For the Sermon (at least the first 10 min and the last 5 min if not the whole thing for the usual reasons of disagreement or undisciplined drifting off)
For the Sacrament of Communion. Which is weekly at our shack.
For me personally the Confession and Assurance of forgiveness has become much more important in the last ten years. Probably since I became so much more aware of that particular sacrament with exposure to RC and Anglican (bad??!)influences. And as I get older I am less uncomfortable seeing myself as "a sinner".

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Theoretically speaking, protestants go to the church to avail themselves of the means of grace: the preaching of God's word, the administration of the sacraments, pastoral care and the discipline of the church.

Speak for yourself, Mr Medway! I don't think I'd describe my 'go[ing] to the church' (assuming this means 'attending a church service') as being for any of those reasons.

IMO we can avail ourselves of the means of grace through a range of activities in a range of places. Likewise, I don't engage with God's word just at church services, and even then there's nothing sacred or special about preaching as a way of engaging with the Bible. And finally, pastoral care and discipline shouldn't be restricted to the church service; they should be a constant thread through all our interactions with other Christians.

Perhaps the label 'Protestant' doesn't really apply to me, I don't know...

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The two (salvation through faith and through the sacraments of the Church) aren't necessarily opposed to one another and, in fact, they aren't. As for Protestants going to Church, you will probably find that many will say it's not necessary.

Are you thinking of any particular Protestant denomination, when you say 'many'? I can think of countless Roman Catholics, and non-denominationalists, of my acquaintance who will also say 'going to church' isn't necessary, and who feel they prove it by not going anywhere near a church while - in their minds - still considering themselves a Catholic and/or whatever other kind of Christian there is. So are you talking institutional Protestant Churches or individual Protestants?

Institutionally, I haven't yet come across a Protestant Church that teaches that going to church is optional. And I presume that regardless of how many Roman Catholics tell me churchgoing isn't necessary for them or their religion, I know that their Church thinks and teaches otherwise.

I'm a Protestant - and Anglican - and I go to worship God. I know there are other reasons to go to church, but generally I thought most other people also went to church to worship God. To me, that would be the priority surely of attending an ordinary service?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

For Protestants in the Nonconformist and more recent Pentecostal and evangelical traditions the sermon, 'preaching the Word', has been the main attraction of communal church life. It's been more important in practice, if not necessarily in theory, than taking communion. I've heard of Catholics who go to church to take communion, and then leave. This makes no sense from a deeply Protestant perspective.

The downside of prioritising sermons is that their quality, content and context are hugely variable, and preachers and congregations are variable too. A sermon can disappoint you, but presumably the bread and wine always maintain their mystical powers, regardless of what's going on in your life or your soul.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

. . . Institutionally, I haven't yet come across a Protestant Church that teaches that going to church is optional . . .

Apart from asserting that it is, what reasons do these Protestant churches give for it not being optional? Or rather, what positive reasons do they give for it being compulsory?

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Hmmm. We Lutherans are Protestant and sacramental. We go to church to receive the benefits of the Sacraments, to participate in community worship and edification, as has been the custom of God's people throughout history and to marshal our faith community's resources for the benefit of our neighbors (in the broadest sense of the word).

[ 15. June 2013, 12:39: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Hmmm. We Lutherans are Protestant and sacramental. We go to church to receive the benefits of the Sacraments, to participate in community worship and edification, as has been the custom of God's people throughout history and to marshal our faith community's resources for the benefit of our neighbors (in the broadest sense of the word).

I don't think the Lutheran Church fits into the rather British Nonconformist category that I referred to. It's unsurprising that the Lutherans are both Protestant and sacramental; you're historically and stylistically closer to the RCC than the Nonconformist churches are, even though your theology may be very different from the RCC in other respects.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Svitlana

British Non-Conformists is very broad, basically anyone who in 1663 would not sign up to the 39 Articles and the Prayer book and was not specifically Roman Catholic.

That would mean any Lutherans that were in England, Arminian, any Pelagian and I can go on. It is one of the reasons that Congregational church structure has been the dominant form. There as in the CofE is a strong Reformed strand but the variety of theological stances far out does the CofE. Basically they drew the lines and we took everyone who was outside of it.

Jengie

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
One reason Protestants (and presumably Catholics and Orthodox) go to church is that we are instructed "not to stop meeting together" in Scripture, surely?

So we go becuase it's a rule to go?

No. That's not it.

Because even we evangelicals, who often concentrate on the salvation of individuals and play down the corporate aspects of salvation, have a sense of being part of the church, the body of Christ. there is a sense tha we work out our salvation along with others.

Just don't expect to hear this in many evangelical sermons. Acceptance of the corporate nature of the church tends to be tacit, but it is still there.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Jengie Jon

I'm sure you're correct, theoretically speaking. But Lutheranism seems to have survived as a dominant state-supported church in Continental Europe, rather than as a culturally or numerically significant presence in British Nonconformism.

I accept that in the USA everyone is a 'Nonconformist', in the sense that there is no state church. Do Americans use this word to describe their churches?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

I don't know about other Protestants, but I go to church as an act of worship. It isn't a deed for which I expect credit.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I certainly see Lutheranism as the equivalent of Anglicanism in continental Europe.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Svitlana. No. To the extent that Americans would use the term "Nonconformist" at all (it's a pretty big word for us -- that was a joke), it would probably only be in the context of describing the Puritans...whom we usually just call Puritans; or social nonconformists of any or no spiritual persuasion.

PS Some of us suspect that the Southern Baptist Convention would love to become the default expression of Christianity in the US, which would make all the rest of us nonconformists, I suppose, in some future
Handmaid's Tale dystopia.

Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Protestants like to be together to hear the Bible, which they read every day at home, and to sing hymns about God, and hear the teaching words of the ministers.

Not all of us like to sing hymns, some of us just tolerate them

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jengie Jon

I'm sure you're correct, theoretically speaking. But Lutheranism seems to have survived as a dominant state-supported church in Continental Europe, rather than as a culturally or numerically significant presence in British Nonconformism.

Yes but that is its absence from the whole of UK churchmanship including Anglicanism. Anglicanism is Erastian-Calvinian mix (and actually many of the high elements come from Calvin, there does not seem to be much Zwinglianism in it unlike other Reformed traditions). It is not Lutheran much as it at times like to think it is.

Jengie

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Lutheran congregations would have been categorized as "stranger church" and were under the authority of the Bishop of London, if'n I'm not mistaken. Non-conformism was a matter of English people not being part of the State Church.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

. . . Institutionally, I haven't yet come across a Protestant Church that teaches that going to church is optional . . .

Apart from asserting that it is, what reasons do these Protestant churches give for it not being optional? Or rather, what positive reasons do they give for it being compulsory?

The ones that I'm aware of would normally quote something like 'do not neglect the fellowship as some are in the habit of doing' from Paul's writings, and point to the very many references from scripture where it's clear Christ's disciples met together regularly and that this was a desirable if not essential part of being the Body of Christ.

I know of a few Brethren, Pentecostal and Christian Community style Churches, in fact, who are very strong on regular attendance. A little like the Holiness clubs of the Wesleys where one's card needed to be punched (so to speak) to prove attendance at one's parish church, if one wished to be fully accepted ino the new Methodism.

Also, it would be rather difficult to be a Church institution without a rather strict policy - or least ideal - of churchgoing being part and parcel of the membership. 'Yes, we have this lovely big building for everyone to gather in and worship God together, but it's not in the least important that you actually come!' I struggle to even imagine how that would work.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

What I originally had in mind was, perhaps, a more theological question. Given that in Protestantism salvation comes through personal faith - rather than institutional channels of grace - is participation in worship ultimately about anything other than edification?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I go to church because they have good coffee afterwards.

This of course leaves the question: why do Anglicans go to church? [Biased]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
What I originally had in mind was, perhaps, a more theological question. Given that in Protestantism salvation comes through personal faith - rather than institutional channels of grace - is participation in worship ultimately about anything other than edification?

Corvo

Protestantism has never said "Personal faith" that is your spin. It says "faith", the million dollar question is "What is faith?" what is clear to me as a sociologist is "Faith" is not solely intellectual assent. Indeed I have heard Protestants argue that it is Christ's faith in us nor our faith at all that counts. Quite a few Reformed type quite like this.

Oh and going to church is not necessarily about Salvation. A good Reformed stance would be because God desires it!

Jengie

[ 15. June 2013, 16:44: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

I think the OP is confusing, because, in conversation, "Catholic" usually means Roman Catholic, but then your subsequent posts suggest that you, an Anglican who goes to "anglo-catholic" churches, consider yourself Catholic. Of course I am aware that there are more and less catholic-leaning strands within Anglicanism, and one can call oneself a catholic-leaning Anglican. But in a discussion like this, isn't it clearer if one specifies what one means by "Catholic" ?

Shouldn't the OP have been worded more clearly, something like "Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics....." (if indeed you are including the latter) rather than just saying "Catholics..."???

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
What I originally had in mind was, perhaps, a more theological question. Given that in Protestantism salvation comes through personal faith - rather than institutional channels of grace - is participation in worship ultimately about anything other than edification?

Ok, I guess I myself, as a cradle Roman Catholic and now Anglican, am catholic-leaning, and not "Protestant." So I can't speak for people who consider themselves Protestant. But is it ever as cut-and-dried as you suggest? Yes, salvation comes through personal faith in the Protestant view--but surely one can also hold that gathering with other Christians is crucial (and enjoined by St Paul, as has been said) and that Communion is an important part of practising the faith--as has also been said, the very earliest Christians gathered together to pray and break bread together, which became the eucharistic gathering....Justin Martyr and Didache and other early witnesses, as well as Acts and Paul's letters, attest to this.

So surely it would be an unusual Protestant who said personal faith by itself is absolutely all there is to the Christian life?

Yes, it may the way to salvation; but there's more to the Christian life than just whether or not one is "saved," and surely most Protestants would say so?

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

I don't think my own affiliation or any distinction between types of Catholic is particularly relevant.

My understanding of the difference between 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' (in general) is that, at root, with the former salvation is understood in terms of a growing in grace (primarily) through the sacraments mediated by the church, whereas in the latter it is understood in terms of a personal faith (trust) in the promises of God. The former is expressed though the idea of infused righteousness, the latter through that of imputed righteousness. The former seems to make an institutional church essential; the latter . . . ? And that's my question.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Corvo: Given that in Protestantism salvation comes through personal faith

I'm a Protestant, and I don't believe this. I'm a little hazy on what 'salvation' means, but if anything, it comes from God.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Corvo: Given that in Protestantism salvation comes through personal faith
I'm a Protestant, and I don't believe this. I'm a little hazy on what 'salvation' means, but if anything, it comes from God.

How about this then: In Protestantism salvation comes by grace through faith (Ephesians 2.8). But isn't that 'faith' trust (fiducia) in righteousness imputed, in the promises of God? And without any mediating church?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Why does any Christian attend a church service? I think many would say "to worship God". The details may vary. of course, one can worship God anytime and anywhere; a church service is a community event in which we instruct, comfort and strengthen each other. Solo worship may sometimes be the right choice, but most of us, most of the time, need the community.

By the way, I don't see a dichotomy of faith versus grace; I see a question also of good works. (I suspect the disaster-relief worker who loses track of the days of the week need not worry.)

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Corvo: I think an issue here is that you're focusing exclusively on the "saved from what?" element of the salvation equation at the expense of the "saved for what?" Justification, at least for us Lutherans and for people with similar doctrinal stances, is all about God saving us. I cannot add a single thing, a single good work or right thought or feeling to God's saving action in order to be "justified-er" than the next person; justification all about God's saving action. (I'll add, before someone else does, that I realize the complication here regarding baptism -- the fact that this saving on God's initiative, has been understood to take place through baptism, something done through the offices of the faith community. But just work with me here for a moment.)

"Saved for what?" is a different question. We're saved, the saying goes, to love God and help our neighbor. Anyone who's ever tried to do this "freelance" will soon discover that, as hard as it can be to deal with other people sometimes, it's arguably harder to operate as a church-of-one without falling into subjectivity, lack of guidance/support and frustration. That's why Christians practice their faith in communities (even the cantankerous Desert Fathers and Mothers were part of communities.)

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Anglicanism is Erastian-Calvinian mix (and actually many of the high elements come from Calvin, there does not seem to be much Zwinglianism in it unlike other Reformed traditions). It is not Lutheran much as it at times like to think it is.

Actually, Jengie, Anglicanism is none of these things. The Church of England is a legitimate successor of the historic Catholic Church that has been present in this country since long before St Augustine, let alone Calvin or Luther. At the 'Reformation' it renounced the political power of the papacy, but the first 'Anglicans' were in other respects orthodox Catholics (Henry VIII, despite his many sins, in particular). Later generations were obviously influenced by the continental reformers, and the character of the C of E as we now know it has been moulded by their thought. But it is by no means unanglican to look more to early and medieval Catholic traditions than to the teaching of Calvin et al.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

And I think you'll find that the 39 Articles have in them echoes of the Augsburg Confession.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Corvo: Given that in Protestantism salvation comes through personal faith
I'm a Protestant, and I don't believe this. I'm a little hazy on what 'salvation' means, but if anything, it comes from God.

He didn't say FROM he said THROUGH.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Anglicanism is Erastian-Calvinian mix (and actually many of the high elements come from Calvin, there does not seem to be much Zwinglianism in it unlike other Reformed traditions). It is not Lutheran much as it at times like to think it is.

Actually, Jengie, Anglicanism is none of these things. The Church of England is a legitimate successor of the historic Catholic Church that has been present in this country since long before St Augustine, let alone Calvin or Luther. At the 'Reformation' it renounced the political power of the papacy, but the first 'Anglicans' were in other respects orthodox Catholics (Henry VIII, despite his many sins, in particular). Later generations were obviously influenced by the continental reformers, and the character of the C of E as we now know it has been moulded by their thought. But it is by no means unanglican to look more to early and medieval Catholic traditions than to the teaching of Calvin et al.

Ahh you are believing the myth they tell you. The 39 Articles are a relatively low form of Calvinism. England at the time of the Restoration did not disagree on theology but on how the church should be governed and that was more to do with the Stuart kings wanting to be in control of the church and felt Bishops were the best way to do that. The claim to be successor is duplicated in every single historic form of Protestantism. There are Roman Catholic theologians who claim Calvin is the last to the Great Medieval Scholastics.

You are over emphasising much that Protestantism took from the Western Church and not noticing where it has a specific Reformed spin.

Jengie

[ 16. June 2013, 08:02: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

I realise (and apologise if) I have only offered a caricature of how salvation is understood in Protestantism.

I was only trying to make the point that 'going to church' is essential to the Catholic understanding because salvation comes through growing in the grace mediated through the sacraments - the Eucharist is food for the journey.

And then I was asking (and forgive me for doing so in a headline grabbing sort of way) how 'going to church' is understood by those who understand salvation more as an 'event' than a journey.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Le Roc,Anglicans and Lutherans generally take this morning's reading from Galatians as saying that we are saved by faith through grace.

Jengie Jon, As to the Restoration: Clarendon (Hyde) and his group managed very deftly to move the Presbyterians and Puritans well out of the way, and to reinstate bishops very quickly. Some of us are very grateful for their work.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Catholics go to church to receive and grow in the grace which leads to holiness and ultimate salvation. But why do Protestants go? If salvation comes through faith in God's promises, what difference does it make whether you go to church or not?

Your major premise is incorrect, I would suggest. Catholics "go to church" - I too loathe that expression - to worship God, or more accurately to enter into the worship of God. They do this in specific ways that accord with the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church. They may receive and grow in grace as a result. How is that different from what Protestants, however they may defined, do?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I'd tend to agree with Trisagion. The concept of 'going to church' to 'get' something seems a bit lopsided to me.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

You are over emphasising much that Protestantism took from the Western Church and not noticing where it has a specific Reformed spin.

Jengie

Oh, I accept that Reformed theology has greatly influenced the C of E (and Anglicanism), and that historically, since the 16th century, most Anglicans have always claimed to be protestant. But there is a basic undercurrent of Catholicism in which all Anglicans share and which many of us see as our primary inheritance.

Of course it is equally true that most other churches in the protestant tradition see themselves as continuations of the Catholic church. We Anglicans are not so different from the rest of you as we sometimes like to pretend. But in practice, even to label a church as 'Reformed' tends to indicate that it places more weight on its Reformation inheritance than its Catholic one.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Catholics go to church to receive and grow in the grace which leads to holiness and ultimate salvation. But why do Protestants go? If salvation comes through faith in God's promises, what difference does it make whether you go to church or not?
Your major premise is incorrect, I would suggest. Catholics "go to church" - I too loathe that expression - to worship God, or more accurately to enter into the worship of God. They do this in specific ways that accord with the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church. They may receive and grow in grace as a result. How is that different from what Protestants, however they may defined, do?

Agreed.

Christians primarily go to church to worship God.

The perceived flow-on effects may be different but the primary objective remains the same.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Surely all Christians,in whatever way they see themselves as members of the Church go to church or rather meet together with their fellow Christians in the knowledge that they are all part of the one Body of Christ.Each limb of the Body of Christ has its part to play in the building up and the maintaining of the Body of Christ.It could be individual members of one parish or gathered community meeting to praise the Lord, to meditate upon His word or to receive the Sacraments as signs of His grace.It could be also larger confessional bodies meeting together to discuss and learn from one another.

Indeed the RC Church tells its faithful to participate at Mass each Sunday.I'm not sure if any of the Protestant churches say this to their faithful.The numbers who listen and act upon these commands or exhortations are the same as those who listen to and act upon the exhortations not to sin by taking the name of the Lord in vain,by not committing adultery,by not coveting the goods of others etc.

All Christians are in some way strengthened by the knowledge that we are not alone in the struggles of life and that there are others who try to follow the same way as we do.

Paradoxically,however,if it's clear that the Christians in any church are not at least trying to live by the teachings of Jesus,they may put off
others who come to the church.Sometimes we hear of people who say'I went to the church and found it wanting,so I didn't go back.'

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Evensong

I'm not entirely convinced that worship is (or should be) what churchgoing is principally about. After all, we can worship at home, and that can often be more fulfilling.

The prioritising of worship also complicates the role of the (Protestant) sermon. Are sermons 'worship'? Some people talk as though worship were principally about singing: 'Let's have some worship now'. If so, what's the sermon for? Why is a sermon almost always shoehorned into an event that's mostly about praising God? Why do Methodists, Baptists and others still have expectations of the sermon, if 'worship' is the most important thing?

The Anglican sermon is often very short compared to other church traditions. This may indicate that less emphasis is placed upon it by the people in the pews, although the clergy probably wouldn't see it like that.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

I'd reject the premise that worship is primarily about singing, and that praise is primarily about praise bands.* Anglicans have plenty of spoken worship services. Worship is anything that praises God. That praise can be spoken, sung, or even wordless music; it can be still or involve movement; it can be loud or silent; it can even have funny smells. All these acts are intended to praise God. The Eucharist, especially, being literally a thanksgiving, involves quite a bit of praise. We like to make it clear what we're thanking God for, namely salvation but daily victories as well.

I would add a second goal to the church service: edification. The purpose of the sermon and much of the liturgy is to teach something but in a way that somehow reinforces and enables our worship, both within that morning's service and beyond the walls of the sanctuary. This is why we can see the sermon as a part of worship: it teaches us about God and God's work in the world, in order that we may come to know and worship God better and help to do God's work in the world better.

* Although I have a vague idea banging around in my head that in let's say the post-Nicene Eastern Mediterranean, public speakers were expected to chant, in which case the entire act of worship, homily included, could be sung. Now that's impressive, if I'm anywhere near right...

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

You are over emphasising much that Protestantism took from the Western Church and not noticing where it has a specific Reformed spin.

Jengie
Oh, I accept that Reformed theology has greatly influenced the C of E (and Anglicanism), and that historically, since the 16th century, most Anglicans have always claimed to be protestant. But there is a basic undercurrent of Catholicism in which all Anglicans share and which many of us see as our primary inheritance.

Of course it is equally true that most other churches in the protestant tradition see themselves as continuations of the Catholic church. We Anglicans are not so different from the rest of you as we sometimes like to pretend. But in practice, even to label a church as 'Reformed' tends to indicate that it places more weight on its Reformation inheritance than its Catholic one.

Actually my original post did not say you were Reformed but a cross between Calvinian and Erastian, Reformed is Calvinian crossed with Zwinglianism. I may even as have given Erasmus the upper hand. Erasmus was more Catholic and Zwingli less sacramental.

Jengie

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Christians primarily go to church to worship God.

But what does this phrase mean? And where does the idea come from that we have to 'go to church' to do this 'worship God' thing?

IMO we worship God by, as per Romans 12:1-2 living our entire lives in sacrificial offering to God, preferring what He wants over what we ourselves want. The language of 'going to church to worship God' is ISTM a carry-over from the Old Testament practices of worshipping God in the Temple. But the New Testament extends the definition of 'worship' to make it about an attitude and a consistent orientation of our lives, just as much as a specific set of actions.

All this to say, I don't think 'worshipping God' is something that we only do at church services. So it's not helpful, IMO, to use that as a reason for our going to church; it gives a misleading impression of what the point is of gathering together as church.

As I said upthread, why don't we use what the New Testament explains as the reason for us to continue to meet together - for encouragement of one another in our faith, and to challenge one another to live as we should. That's why I 'go to church'.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm CofE and Protestant. I go to church for all sorts of reasons but salient among them are,

- To worship (which is a verb, not an 'act of')
- To receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and the wine.
- To hear the scriptures read and the faith expounded.
- To meet with other believers.
- Because we are commanded to, and
- Because it would be both foolish and arrogant not to take part in what the Lord has provided for our nourishment.

Is there anything for people to disagree with there?

What's perhaps more controversial, is that I prefer to avoid talking about going to church to 'receive grace'. The phrase itself is scriptural, but has often been used since in a way that implies that grace is in some way parcelled out and dispensed in portions. I do not know of anywhere that it is used that way in scripture.

I've said before that I have a strong suspicion that grace is a quality of God's personality, an aspect of his nature, part of what he is like, not something that flows out of him like a sort of heavenly electricity or with an independent life of its own.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

We go to church to render thanks for the great benefits we have received at God's hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary as well for the body as the soul.

We also receive sacramental grace, and sanctification through neighbouring ourselves to our Lord Jesus Christ in the sacrament of his Body and Blood.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
We go to church to render thanks for the great benefits we have received at God's hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary as well for the body as the soul.

We also receive sacramental grace, and sanctification through neighbouring ourselves to our Lord Jesus Christ in the sacrament of his Body and Blood.

Only speaking for myself, but I would agree with you.

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
We go to church to render thanks for the great benefits we have received at God's hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary as well for the body as the soul.

We also receive sacramental grace, and sanctification through neighbouring ourselves to our Lord Jesus Christ in the sacrament of his Body and Blood.
Only speaking for myself, but I would agree with you.

Haha, nice that we can agree on something!

I actually enjoy going to church. Soaking myself in the great mystery of the Eucharist is an awesome experience (in the proper sense of the word "awesome"). It really is the great drama of our salvation happening before our eyes.

[ 16. June 2013, 22:01: Message edited by: Indifferently ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The two (salvation through faith and through the sacraments of the Church) aren't necessarily opposed to one another and, in fact, they aren't. As for Protestants going to Church, you will probably find that many will say it's not necessary.
Are you thinking of any particular Protestant denomination, when you say 'many'? I can think of countless Roman Catholics, and non-denominationalists, of my acquaintance who will also say 'going to church' isn't necessary, and who feel they prove it by not going anywhere near a church while - in their minds - still considering themselves a Catholic and/or whatever other kind of Christian there is. So are you talking institutional Protestant Churches or individual Protestants?

Institutionally, I haven't yet come across a Protestant Church that teaches that going to church is optional. And I presume that regardless of how many Roman Catholics tell me churchgoing isn't necessary for them or their religion, I know that their Church thinks and teaches otherwise.

I'm a Protestant - and Anglican - and I go to worship God. I know there are other reasons to go to church, but generally I thought most other people also went to church to worship God. To me, that would be the priority surely of attending an ordinary service?

I was referring to Protestants as individuals. I'm saying that even if most agree that it is good to go to church, for whatever reasons, many will say that it is not necessary.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The two (salvation through faith and through the sacraments of the Church) aren't necessarily opposed to one another and, in fact, they aren't. As for Protestants going to Church, you will probably find that many will say it's not necessary.
Are you thinking of any particular Protestant denomination, when you say 'many'? I can think of countless Roman Catholics, and non-denominationalists, of my acquaintance who will also say 'going to church' isn't necessary, and who feel they prove it by not going anywhere near a church while - in their minds - still considering themselves a Catholic and/or whatever other kind of Christian there is. So are you talking institutional Protestant Churches or individual Protestants?

Institutionally, I haven't yet come across a Protestant Church that teaches that going to church is optional. And I presume that regardless of how many Roman Catholics tell me churchgoing isn't necessary for them or their religion, I know that their Church thinks and teaches otherwise.

I'm a Protestant - and Anglican - and I go to worship God. I know there are other reasons to go to church, but generally I thought most other people also went to church to worship God. To me, that would be the priority surely of attending an ordinary service?
I was referring to Protestants as individuals. I'm saying that even if most agree that it is good to go to church, for whatever reasons, many will say that it is not necessary.

Hate to tell you this, but I know loads of Orthodox and Catholics who do too.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Hate to tell you this, but I know loads of Orthodox and Catholics who do too.

Well yes but we know why they're wrong. Why, if a low-church (no sacraments, or sacraments are not efficacious) Protestant be wrong if they said it?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

'Going to church' is (not) necessary for what, though? As a low church, 'sacraments are not efficacious' Protestant, I wouldn't say meeting with other Christians for praise, mutual encouragement, challenge to live a more godly life etc. is necessary for salvation.

However, I think it's pretty much essential for any kind of growth in the spiritual life; ISTM that growing in faith, love, devotion to God, and conformity to Christ is very difficult for most people without the support of a Christian community with whom one gathers on a regular and fairly frequent basis.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Evensong

I'm not entirely convinced that worship is (or should be) what churchgoing is principally about. After all, we can worship at home, and that can often be more fulfilling.

That depends on whether you define worship as beneficium or sacrificum (or some kind of mixture of the two) and whether you believe in means of grace and how you think they are made available.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That depends on whether you define worship as beneficium or sacrificum (or some kind of mixture of the two) and whether you believe in means of grace and how you think they are made available.

I admit I don't quite understand what this question is getting at, but even so is it the right question to be asking? Neither sounds as though it has any bearing on what either "worship" or its Greek antecedent "proskuneo" means.

"Made available" also implies an assumption that grace is a commodity.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Hate to tell you this, but I know loads of Orthodox and Catholics who do too.
Well yes but we know why they're wrong. Why, if a low-church (no sacraments, or sacraments are not efficacious) Protestant be wrong if they said it?

Catholics and the like don't necessarily go to Church to receive the Eucharist either- the Eucharist is merely a means to the end of salvation and union with God. Which strikes at why Protestants go to Church too. In hearing God's word preached and in engaging Christian fellowship God offers himself to humankind to be received in faith.

The issue for Calvin, at least, was not the the Eucharist wasn't sacramantal (he actually supported weekly communion), but that the Eucharist seemed to become the only channel of God's grace in the piety of his day, binding the freedom of God and humans alike to a Pelagian, mechanical system..

[ 17. June 2013, 10:48: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
'Going to church' is (not) necessary for what, though? As a low church, 'sacraments are not efficacious' Protestant, I wouldn't say meeting with other Christians for praise, mutual encouragement, challenge to live a more godly life etc. is necessary for salvation.

However, I think it's pretty much essential for any kind of growth in the spiritual life; ISTM that growing in faith, love, devotion to God, and conformity to Christ is very difficult for most people without the support of a Christian community with whom one gathers on a regular and fairly frequent basis.

I would agree with that. There seems to be a trend on this thread that's saying that if something isn't necessary for salvation then it isn't worth doing - what surprises me is that it seems to be coming from the non-protestant side...

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

And narrowly understood "salvation" as "not going on the Divine Rotisserie upon shuffling off this mortal coil" at that - something I'd always seen as mainly a feature of evangelicalism, especially of the dour "if you're enjoying yourself you must be committing a sin" po-faced variety.

[ 17. June 2013, 10:57: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

...shouldn't that be the Infernal Rotisserie?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Corvo: How about this then: In Protestantism salvation comes by grace through faith (Ephesians 2.8).

I'm also the kind of Protestant that doesn't look at single Bible verses to prove or disprove his faith positions.

quote:
mousethief: He didn't say FROM he said THROUGH.

Hmm, like I said, I'm not sure what 'salvation' means anyway, so I guess this includes the prepositions that come after it [Biased]

quote:
Gee D: Le Roc,Anglicans and Lutherans generally take this morning's reading from Galatians as saying that we are saved by faith through grace.

That's why I'm neither Anglican nor Lutheran.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Evensong

I'm not entirely convinced that worship is (or should be) what churchgoing is principally about. After all, we can worship at home, and that can often be more fulfilling.

We certainly can worship at home. Worshiping at church is just the communal, more embodied experience of worship.

I see it as something like the transcendence and immanence of God. We are called to love God (transcendence, personal private worship) and love neighbour (more immanent worship - relation to others and the world. Embodied in sensory and communal experience).

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The prioritising of worship also complicates the role of the (Protestant) sermon. Are sermons 'worship'? Some people talk as though worship were principally about singing: 'Let's have some worship now'. If so, what's the sermon for? Why is a sermon almost always shoehorned into an event that's mostly about praising God? Why do Methodists, Baptists and others still have expectations of the sermon, if 'worship' is the most important thing?

The Anglican sermon is often very short compared to other church traditions. This may indicate that less emphasis is placed upon it by the people in the pews, although the clergy probably wouldn't see it like that.

As Bostonman said, I think worship includes all sorts of things: sermons, songs, words, dancing etc.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

We certainly can worship at home. Worshiping at church is just the communal, more embodied experience of worship.

In other words, what church really brings to the table is is communality, not worship.

If communality is what really matters in church life, we currently pursue it very poorly, in most cases. Our togetherness in God seems to be inadequately realised both in practical and theological terms, IMO.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

We certainly can worship at home. Worshiping at church is just the communal, more embodied experience of worship.

In other words, what church really brings to the table is is communality, not worship.

If communality is what really matters in church life, we currently pursue it very poorly, in most cases. Our togetherness in God seems to be inadequately realised both in practical and theological terms, IMO.

Yeah, agreed. And your comment explains why I'm so baffled by people (here and elsewhere) who talk about going to church (spit! horrid phrase) and preferring to keep themselves to themselves rather than interacting with anyone else.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

We certainly can worship at home. Worshiping at church is just the communal, more embodied experience of worship.

In other words, what church really brings to the table is is communality, not worship.

No. It's communal worship. Worshipping with others embodies faith - makes it real. It is the principle of sacramentality at work. Outward signs of inward grace.

The communal worship is the outward sign of the inward Grace we receive from God.

And I agree that churches are not often the best ways to find community. Meeting once a week just aint enough to build that.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Oh, we try. We introduced the Peace with wet fish handshake and cheesy grin. Which has the exact opposite effect on me to what was intended.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Catholics go to church to receive and grow in the grace which leads to holiness and ultimate salvation. But why do Protestants go? If salvation comes through faith in God's promises, what difference does it make whether you go to church or not?

In my original question I was thinking of how one might explain the difference between 'catholic' and 'protestant' Christianity to (let's say) an RE class made up mainly of Hindus or Muslims.

They know that Christianity is about salvation ('getting to heaven').

They know there is an important difference between 'catholic' and 'protestant' (hasn't blood been spilled?).

They observe that 'catholic' seems to require 'institutional' worship; whereas 'protestant' seems to place more emphasis on individual faith.

Being a catholic seems to involve 'going to church' for baptism, the eucharist, confession . . . These are said to be sources of 'grace', and by growing in grace the catholic 'gets to heaven'. Without them he doesn't.

Being a protestant seems to involve 'going to church' for similar 'activities', but they do not seem to be thought of so much as sources of grace as 'signs of faith'. He doesn't seem to need them to 'get to heaven'.

I wasn't so much looking for a single answer to 'Why do protestants go to church?', as for the kind of answers that might be given.

But I cannot help thinking that such students might conclude 'catholics have to go to church; protestants haven't.'

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Catholics go to church to receive and grow in the grace which leads to holiness and ultimate salvation. But why do Protestants go? If salvation comes through faith in God's promises, what difference does it make whether you go to church or not?
In my original question I was thinking of how one might explain the difference between 'catholic' and 'protestant' Christianity to (let's say) an RE class made up mainly of Hindus or Muslims.

They know that Christianity is about salvation ('getting to heaven').

Oh I don't know; I think our RE teachers are better than that.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

They know that Christianity is about salvation ('getting to heaven').

Well see, there's your problem. That's not what salvation is about. [Big Grin]

[Edited to note awesome cross post with Karl. [Big Grin]

]

[ 17. June 2013, 12:40: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And I agree that churches are not often the best ways to find community. Meeting once a week just aint enough to build that.

So spend time or at least keep in touch with people from church during the rest of the week. I know there's the opposite danger of finding yourself in a 'Christian ghetto', but let's take active steps to deepen our relationships with others in our church.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Oh, we try. We introduced the Peace with wet fish handshake and cheesy grin. Which has the exact opposite effect on me to what was intended.

Heh, I'm not a fan of the Peace either! I suppose I have in mind two things: first, emphasise the deepening of friendships and encourage church members to simply spend more time with each other outside the church services. Then make some space actually in the services for people to talk with one another and make connections with new people (especially people new to the church; it's easy to fall into cliques and exclude some people).

Hopefully this way church leaders can encourage the formation of stronger relationships within the church community, without it being forced, awkward or imposed 'from the top'.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

They know that Christianity is about salvation ('getting to heaven').

Well see, there's your problem. That's not what salvation is about.

Fair enough.

However we define 'salvation', would you say there is a difference between the 'catholic' and 'protestant' routes to it, or understandings of how salvation is to be achieved? And, if so, would you not agree that one of the differences seems to be the part played by participation in the (institutional') church?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And I agree that churches are not often the best ways to find community. Meeting once a week just aint enough to build that.
So spend time or at least keep in touch with people from church during the rest of the week. I know there's the opposite danger of finding yourself in a 'Christian ghetto', but let's take active steps to deepen our relationships with others in our church.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Oh, we try. We introduced the Peace with wet fish handshake and cheesy grin. Which has the exact opposite effect on me to what was intended.
Heh, I'm not a fan of the Peace either! I suppose I have in mind two things: first, emphasise the deepening of friendships and encourage church members to simply spend more time with each other outside the church services. Then make some space actually in the services for people to talk with one another and make connections with new people (especially people new to the church; it's easy to fall into cliques and exclude some people).

Hopefully this way church leaders can encourage the formation of stronger relationships within the church community, without it being forced, awkward or imposed 'from the top'.

One of the problems with church as community is that it's dependent on other parishioners being PLU - People Like Us. Especially for those of us who lean towards the introvert end of things; we have a select group of friends and they tend to be carefully, albeit not consciously, chosen. This is quite hard to explain without coming across as "I don't want to be around people who aren't like me"; it's not that, it's rather "I find it incredibly hard and very tiring to socialise with people with whom I have little in common in the way of shared interests". This was one problem with our previous church; the problem wasn't inherently that the rest of the congregation was twice our age; it was rather that it's very difficult, without any judgementalism, for introverted alternative people of an age to have young children and a record collection containing Led Zep, Frank Zappa and Fairport to get beyond mere pleasantries and small-talk with elderly, conventional beetle-drive and Summer Fayre folk with a penchant for brass bands and male voice choirs.

This is of course why cliques form. The problem is for the oddballs who don't fit into any of the cliques.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

They know that Christianity is about salvation ('getting to heaven').

Well see, there's your problem. That's not what salvation is about.

Fair enough.

However we define 'salvation', would you say there is a difference between the 'catholic' and 'protestant' routes to it, or understandings of how salvation is to be achieved? And, if so, would you not agree that one of the differences seems to be the part played by participation in the (institutional') church?

Well see, the problem here is that I'm an Anglican. So I'm both protestant and catholic and I have trouble making the clean break between the two you seem to be asking for. [Big Grin]

Theologically I think the differences in terms of "achieving salvation" would not be massively different or profound these days. The faith vs. works dichotomy is an old one that is no longer as divisive as it once used to be.

Practically speaking I think you are correct to say a Catholic would place greater emphasis on the need to attend the institutional church.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And I agree that churches are not often the best ways to find community. Meeting once a week just aint enough to build that.
So spend time or at least keep in touch with people from church during the rest of the week. I know there's the opposite danger of finding yourself in a 'Christian ghetto', but let's take active steps to deepen our relationships with others in our church.

Oh mate. All the churches I've been in have tried.

And tried.

And tried.

Often ppl just aint keen. They find "community" in other ways or not at all.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
They observe that 'catholic' seems to require 'institutional' worship; whereas 'protestant' seems to place more emphasis on individual faith.

Being a catholic seems to involve 'going to church' for baptism, the eucharist, confession . . . These are said to be sources of 'grace', and by growing in grace the catholic 'gets to heaven'. Without them he doesn't.

Being a protestant seems to involve 'going to church' for similar 'activities', but they do not seem to be thought of so much as sources of grace as 'signs of faith'. He doesn't seem to need them to 'get to heaven'.

In my part of the world, I hear it's not uncommon for old-fashioned but devout Catholics to do all sorts of churchy things "because I want to get the grace". It's really a Catholic catchphrase - "I want to get the grace".

Aside from the conceptual problems I have with this "quantity theory of grace", as a Protestant I have significant problems with the idea of going to church for anything, and certainly with the idea of going to church in order hoover up a quantity of grace that you can keep in your grace wallet for later.

Going to church - celebrating the sacraments, proclaiming the Word, continuing to meet as Christ's Body - should surely be as natural to Christians as breathing. The question shouldn't be why do you go to church, but rather why wouldn't you?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Sorry, Ads, we were talking about church. You seem to be talking about a completely different thing that sounds wonderful but doesn't resemble what goes on on a lot of Sunday mornings in a lot of places, which might answer the question in your final paragraph. When what you describe happens, folk want to be there. That they generally don't may tell us something.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

They know that Christianity is about salvation ('getting to heaven').

Well see, there's your problem. That's not what salvation is about.

Fair enough.

However we define 'salvation', would you say there is a difference between the 'catholic' and 'protestant' routes to it, or understandings of how salvation is to be achieved? And, if so, would you not agree that one of the differences seems to be the part played by participation in the (institutional') church?
Well see, the problem here is that I'm an Anglican. So I'm both protestant and catholic and I have trouble making the clean break between the two you seem to be asking for.

Theologically I think the differences in terms of "achieving salvation" would not be massively different or profound these days. The faith vs. works dichotomy is an old one that is no longer as divisive as it once used to be.

Practically speaking I think you are correct to say a Catholic would place greater emphasis on the need to attend the institutional church.

The thing is those outside of the church ask for, and assume there must be, a distinction between 'catholic' and 'protestant'. Would it be right to tell them the differences are mainly 'practical' rather than 'theological'? Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sorry, Ads, we were talking about church. You seem to be talking about a completely different thing that sounds wonderful but doesn't resemble what goes on on a lot of Sunday mornings in a lot of places, which might answer the question in your final paragraph. When what you describe happens, folk want to be there. That they generally don't may tell us something.

First,

But also, I never said going to church wasn't bloody awful. I'm an Anglican, remember. I never said you might expect to find the sacraments celebrated with virtuosity, the Word proclaimed with flair, or meet with other members of Christ's Body who aren't slightly smelly and a bit weird.

But nevertheless, sacrament, Word and Body are what we're about. And you're certainly not going to find those elsewhere than in that damp, draughty old shack on a Sunday morning.

[ 17. June 2013, 13:23: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Most of our congregation are well, if not a bit smelly, certainly weird. That's what I like about them. We also have the advantage that our shack isn't damp and draughty. Well, it was yesterday, because it was a disused quarry in the Peak District, but other weeks it more resembles the chill out room at a dodgy night club, except they don't usually have bread and wine between the candles.

In true Anglican style though we do manage to lack a little flair. The number of times a piece of video is prefaced with "talk amongst yourselves whilst I find out why it's jumped to the Eucharistic Prayer montage..."

[ 17. June 2013, 13:27: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Another answer to the thread title: as a glowing coal once taken from the company of other glowing coals soon loses its heat, so it is also with us.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Another answer to the thread title: as a glowing coal once taken from the company of other glowing coals soon loses its heat, so it is also with us.

Yeah, but have you seen what happens to a glowing coal amongst damp rotten logs?

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

What an odd question. The opportunity to worship with fellow Christians is very important to me as I believe it is to most other protestants and I guess other denominations. It is not essential to participate in communal worship, but I feel it is difficult to live a solitary existence, so we gather together for mutual support. That is part of being human. All sorts of groups meet together such as service organisations and sports clubs and people attending church are no different in this regard. My Sunday get together with fellow Christians is a very important part of my life and enables me to meet each week with renewed hope and joy.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Speak for yourself! Oh, wait... [Devil]

[reply to Karl]

[ 17. June 2013, 13:39: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I admit I don't quite understand what this question is getting at, but even so is it the right question to be asking? Neither sounds as though it has any bearing on what either "worship" or its Greek antecedent "proskuneo" means.

"Made available" also implies an assumption that grace is a commodity.

No it doesn't, it just implies that it is something we can receive, and our theology of worship is not drawn solely from a simple definition of 'proskuneo'.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
What an odd question. The opportunity to worship with fellow Christians is very important to me as I believe it is to most other protestants and I guess other denominations. It is not essential to participate in communal worship, but I feel it is difficult to live a solitary existence, so we gather together for mutual support. That is part of being human. All sorts of groups meet together such as service organisations and sports clubs and people attending church are no different in this regard. My Sunday get together with fellow Christians is a very important part of my life and enables me to meet each week with renewed hope and joy.

An odd question maybe, but an interesting answer, and not one I think a catholic could give: worship is 'important' but 'not essential', for 'mutual support', but 'no different' from attending any other organisation.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And I agree that churches are not often the best ways to find community. Meeting once a week just aint enough to build that.
So spend time or at least keep in touch with people from church during the rest of the week. I know there's the opposite danger of finding yourself in a 'Christian ghetto', but let's take active steps to deepen our relationships with others in our church.
Oh mate. All the churches I've been in have tried.

And tried.

And tried.

Often ppl just aint keen. They find "community" in other ways or not at all.

In my last church, where I held a responsible lay position, I regularly heard the minister and others say how difficult it was to get churchgoers to join small groups, or to come out at any time other than Sunday mornings. Oh my - I got so tired of hearing that! To me, it just oozes spiritual and creative weakness and exhaustion. The frustration has contributed to my reluctance to commit to another church.

FWIW, RCC church attendance figures have, at least until very recently, held up better than Protestant ones in the West. I suggest there are both sociological as well as theological reasons for that. Some scholars see Protestantism as the creator of Western individualism: every Protestant must decide for themselves what comes from the Spirit. This reliance on individual perception leads either to increased religious vigour and churchgoing - and Protestant individualism is also apparent in the founding of new denominations - or to a rejection of institutional answers to personal spiritual questions.

So ISTM that Catholic churchgoing relies far more on an acceptance of institutional authority, whereas Protestant churchgoing is more reliant on a personal spiritual response, which makes it more vulnerable. We see, for example, that Protestants find it far easier to switch denominations than Catholics do. In reality, of course, Western Catholics too have been influenced by an individualised, Protestantised culture.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Corvo: An odd question maybe, but an interesting answer, and not one I think a catholic could give: worship is 'important' but 'not essential', for 'mutual support', but 'no different' from attending any other organisation.

(I'm wondering: did you actually make all of these scare quotes with your fingers next to the computer screen when you wrote this?)

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
One of the problems with church as community is that it's dependent on other parishioners being PLU - People Like Us. Especially for those of us who lean towards the introvert end of things; we have a select group of friends and they tend to be carefully, albeit not consciously, chosen. This is quite hard to explain without coming across as "I don't want to be around people who aren't like me"; it's not that, it's rather "I find it incredibly hard and very tiring to socialise with people with whom I have little in common in the way of shared interests".

Yeah, I hear you. It's tough, especially for us introverts. What about serving together, for example with helping people move house or redecorate, or on a community clear-up team, or a welcome meal for international students at the start of the new academic year? But, yes, you're right; community does not come easily.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh mate. All the churches I've been in have tried.

And tried.

And tried.

Often ppl just aint keen. They find "community" in other ways or not at all.

Have you found strong community in any of the churches you've been involved with? How did those churches help it happen? Or, if you haven't really found it in any church... [Votive]

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Another answer to the thread title: as a glowing coal once taken from the company of other glowing coals soon loses its heat, so it is also with us.

Yes, I like this analogy too. But like Karl and others have suggested, finding fellow glowing coals isn't always easy...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?

The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Corvo: An odd question maybe, but an interesting answer, and not one I think a catholic could give: worship is 'important' but 'not essential', for 'mutual support', but 'no different' from attending any other organisation.
(I'm wondering: did you actually make all of these scare quotes with your fingers next to the computer screen when you wrote this?)

Sorry, they were meant to be quotations marks.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?
The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?

No one said "Sunday attendance". By "going to church" I meant (something like) understanding the church to be instrumental in salvation rather than (let's say) a gathering of the already committed.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?
The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?

Well, weekly Mass attendance is compulsory but I don't know if that means Sunday attendance is compulsory (ie if the weekly attendance can be met by attending midweek services).

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?
The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?
No one said "Sunday attendance". By "going to church" I meant (something like) understanding the church to be instrumental in salvation rather than (let's say) a gathering of the already committed.

I think the Catholic view is that it's both.

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :

Between around 1991 and (Oct.)'98 I went to an ex-Assemblies of God church that had become an independent charsimatic church (& that didn't really suit me), and was moving into being a 'cell church' i.e. one that focused its life on its small groups and began to play down Sunday 'services'. After we left (moved house) it reduced these to once a month and then they disappeared altogether, as in effect did the church (I think one of the cell groups may still exist, but that is by no means certain).

It certainly has made this protestant value meeting together on a Sunday (though the three-quarters of an hour 'preach' last Sunday was , ahem, a 'trying experience' (trying to stay focused/awake)!

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(I'm wondering: did you actually make all of these scare quotes with your fingers next to the computer screen when you wrote this?)

Sorry, they were meant to be quotation marks.

Actually, I am not sure I have come across the term "scare quotes" before. Don't we use single inverted commas for quotes within a quote, or taken from a quote? Maybe it's an American term.

[ 17. June 2013, 15:22: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?
The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?
No one said "Sunday attendance". By "going to church" I meant (something like) understanding the church to be instrumental in salvation rather than (let's say) a gathering of the already committed.
I think the Catholic view is that it's both.

. . . and the protestant view is?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
mousethief: He didn't say FROM he said THROUGH.
Hmm, like I said, I'm not sure what 'salvation' means anyway, so I guess this includes the prepositions that come after it

Then I wonder how you can argue one way or the other based on a squishy or unknown definition.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

We certainly can worship at home. Worshiping at church is just the communal, more embodied experience of worship.

In other words, what church really brings to the table is is communality, not worship.

No, it brings (in the context of this discussion) communal worship. Which is a different thing from private worship.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

They know that Christianity is about salvation ('getting to heaven').

Well see, there's your problem. That's not what salvation is about.

Dammit, that's twice in this thread I've agreed with Evensong. Anybody hear horsemen?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mousethief: Then I wonder how you can argue one way or the other based on a squishy or unknown definition.

That's why I wasn't arguing one way or the other [Biased]

Corvo started this topic by saying "Given that in Protestantism salvation comes through personal faith..." I argued that at least in my case, this is not true. The fact that my definition of salvation is squishy or unknown strengthens my case that salvation isn't that important for me.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Sounds a bit of a daft question . . .
I see no real difference between Catholics and Protestants on this. They go for the same reason, albeit with different emphases regarding sacraments preaching and fellowship.
It was a serious question. Maybe it should have been do Protestants need to go to church?

If justification/righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith/trust, rather than infused through the grace of the sacraments (surely more than a mere difference of 'emphasis'?) is church going necessary?

There's still the duty of gathering with fellow Christians for worship. Even the least sacramental Protestant does that; our faith has both vertical and horizontal elements.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?
The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?
Well, weekly Mass attendance is compulsory but I don't know if that means Sunday attendance is compulsory (ie if the weekly attendance can be met by attending midweek services).

Sundays are days of obligation.

quote:
Canon 1247
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?
The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?
Well, weekly Mass attendance is compulsory but I don't know if that means Sunday attendance is compulsory (ie if the weekly attendance can be met by attending midweek services).
Sundays are days of obligation.

quote:
Canon 1247
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body.

Why are they bound to participate in the mass? I mean, seriously, theologically, would it make any difference if they didn't? Worship is due to God, the body and mind need relaxation, but surely in catholic theology participation in the mass is about more than these?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I admit I don't quite understand what this question is getting at, but even so is it the right question to be asking? Neither sounds as though it has any bearing on what either "worship" or its Greek antecedent "proskuneo" means.

"Made available" also implies an assumption that grace is a commodity.
No it doesn't, it just implies that it is something we can receive, and our theology of worship is not drawn solely from a simple definition of 'proskuneo'.

Our theology may not solely be, but you were talking specifically about how one defines worship. And, anyway, our theology has to start with what the word we're talking about means.

Perhaps a useful starting point might be answering the following questions.
1. When I worship, what am I doing?
2. When I worship, what do experts think I ought to be doing?
Is this where the reference to beneficium or sacrificum which I don't really understand comes from?
3. Are what I am doing and what somebody else thinks I ought to be doing, the same?

Be that as it may, 'made available' still sounds to me uncomfortably like the commoditification of grace.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Sidebar: Our Amish neighbors have worship services only every *other* Sunday. I'm not sure why, but it may have to do with the simple logistics of their worship model -- they meet in one another's houses on a rotational basis, but a "district" may have well over 100 attendees, with worship (lots of a capella singing and VERY long sermons by their preacher -- no trained clergy; laymen are elected to the preacher position on a rotating basis) lasting the better part of the day and including a communal potluck; that's a lot to ask from the hosting family in the midst of their other daily responsibilities. (What typically happens is that female relatives and friends descend upon the host house the Friday before Sunday worship to clean the place top to bottom, and probably also to start preparing the big meal, while the menfolk deliver and set up the benches for the service.) Even considering that children and un-baptized youth are not required to attend the church service per se (some may stay home; others stay in the yard), we wonder how some of these houses can accomodate so many worshippers. Anyway...their particular understanding of corporate worship doesn't necessitate weekly meetings.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Our Amish neighbors... meet in one another's houses on a rotational basis... [have] no trained clergy... [services] including a communal potluck...

Right, is there an Amish community anywhere near me? I think not, sadly... [Frown]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Dear Partner and I were talking about how every-other-week worship, except when I'm assisting, seems to be a more natural rhythm for our household, and how maybe the Amish model is on to something.

Although the difference is that the Amish are interacting with other members of their congregation nearly every day, unlike "English" congregations like mine whose members tend to lead separate lives apart from weekly worship.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Although the difference is that the Amish are interacting with other members of their congregation nearly every day, unlike "English" congregations like mine whose members tend to lead separate lives apart from weekly worship.

As I think I said upthread, this is where we're all getting it wrong IMO. How can we be the body of Christ in any genuine, meaningful sense if our only interactions with one another are a shallow conversation and a few 'Peace be with you's once a week?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Our main services are twice a month. However, we have a Facebook page where we post the daily prayer and generally interact, such as expressing our views on the new Black Sabbath album. And there's a weekly evening discussion which tends to be casual but deep, if you get what I mean.

Our Sunday meetings are followed by a bring and share meal so except for our sermons being more like a five minute ramble than a long exposition, and not singing anything, we're not a million miles from that Amish model, if expressed in a dramatically non-Amish manner*

*We don't have the funny beards.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

SCK: Well, for us part of the solution is transitioning to a different church closer to home (just one of several reasons we're moving in this direction), where we already have friends and acquaintances and also have more potential for activities that bring us together during the week.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why are they bound to participate in the mass? I mean, seriously, theologically, would it make any difference if they didn't? Worship is due to God, the body and mind need relaxation, but surely in catholic theology participation in the mass is about more than these?

The only worship Jesus ever commanded is the eucharist - a command.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I can't decide about this thread. It either pisses me off, or I should dismiss it as based on a narrow view derived from some historical European idea that Christianity is divvied up between the Roman Catholic denomination and everyone else.

Not around here it isn't. Roman Catholic is no different than Baptist, Pentacostal, Anglican, Greek or Russian Orthodox and Mennonite. Merely a religious preference. Nothing more. The claimed historical pedigree carries as much weight as titles like sir, lord, baron. It's not part of the culture. Once we dump the specialness idea for the Roman church, we actually work rather well together. But then, I'm living in a young province in Canada where old means 3 generations and maybe 100 years.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

NP, it has nothing to do with "specialness" -- it's about differences in attitudes/requirements of corporate worship. Being all chummy in the local Christian Churches Club doesn't mean that the various churches don't look at corporate worship differently.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I may be reacting to things I've seen elsewhere. But I still don't get the difference and nor do I accept it. Only 20% of us go to any form of church, and the numbers and proportions for Romans is not different. I don't see any distinction here. I find the question begs an answer that accepts that RCers are different.

The ones who are really different here and go to church in the highest proportions are the evangelical theatre churches. The ones with mini orchestras, bookstores and fast food restaurants. I think they have the idea that this is where business takes place. They go to feel good and to be confirmed that they are good people.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Again you are missing the entire point of the question, but I despair now of explaining it so you will understand.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
They go to feel good and to be confirmed that they are good people.

Because that's what Christianity is all about, really, isn't it?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Again you are missing the entire point of the question, but I despair now of explaining it so you will understand.

Something the pope says? Some theoretical self-serving thing about the church holding Peter's keys and all that? I don't mean to be dim.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

NP, as someone who has travelled up the candle myself, I do find that there is a difference in what church is for from the perspectives of Protestants (of various kinds), RCs, and other catholic-minded Christians. It has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism being 'more special', it's a cultural difference. Do you really not see how for Christians who don't believe in sacraments, church will be different from how it is for Christians who do believe in sacraments?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I'm seeing nor really getting the "up the candle" idea. It just doesn't fit here at all. The highest candle appears to be the one group of Anglo-Catholics. They do some Latin too. Around here, Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics particularly all appear relatively parallel. Of course, Lutherans and Anglicans recognize fully the ordination of each other with seamlessness in Canada. The Lutherans have the most money and largest population mostly it seems.

I may be reflecting on regional lack of difference. And reflecting further on the retreat centres I've attended, the most recent one run via an agreement between the 3 denominations listed above, with 3 live-in friars and the resident priest being Anglican. Also the ecumenical centre which is run by these 3 plus the United Church of Canada and I think the Mennonites. The sharing of facilities between the same 3 in a number of our rural communities. The general tendency to focus on the liturgy of the mass/communion, the usual pattern for couples being to live together and get married later when expecting children. The chaplains in hospitals also being shared among the three denominations. One relative who died in hospital was chaplained by an RC. I might also reflect the history of the division of First Nations communities historically, with the agreement that this one would be RC, that one Anglican, that one Presbyterian, like picking teams for hockey.

So I do not see it. I will ask the neighbours, perhaps similarly uninformative.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I may be reacting to things I've seen elsewhere. But I still don't get the difference and nor do I accept it. Only 20% of us go to any form of church, and the numbers and proportions for Romans is not different. I don't see any distinction here. I find the question begs an answer that accepts that RCers are different.

The ones who are really different here and go to church in the highest proportions are the evangelical theatre churches.

Every community has distinctive social and historical circumstances that influence churchgoing practices, in addition to (or in spite of) whatever the different denominations explicitly teach on the subject. So although in your country there may be little difference between, say, Catholic and Methodist churchgoing rates, this is very unlikely to be the case in England, for a variety of reasons.

By most accounts evangelicals are more likely to attend church than more 'moderate' or 'mainstream' Protestants. This stands to reason, since evangelicalism - especially in its more Pentecostal manifestations - is often the fruit of revivalism and conversionism, and stresses the outward signs of religious belief and practice. Nevertheless, certain kinds of evangelicalism have an individualistic streak, are less sacramental than other kinds of Christianity, and emphasise the priesthood of all believers and the personal relationship with God. So IMO some evangelicals must find it easier to do without the institutional church than, for example, Christians of the High Church/Catholic type.

As you say, in many Western countries churchgoing is only practiced by a small percentage of the population.

[ 18. June 2013, 20:16: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
NP, as someone who has travelled up the candle myself, I do find that there is a difference in what church is for from the perspectives of Protestants (of various kinds), RCs, and other catholic-minded Christians. It has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism being 'more special', it's a cultural difference. Do you really not see how for Christians who don't believe in sacraments, church will be different from how it is for Christians who do believe in sacraments?

Quite. I would say it was actually a I]theological[/I] difference.

Catholicism (in its several expressions) understands salvation in terms of the communication of grace through the sacraments, so that the individual soul grows in the holiness required to stand before the holy God. The church is instrumental in this, and so 'going to church' is itself essential for the individual Christian.

Protestantism, on the other hand (and in its various expressions), understands salvation in terms of trust in the promise of God that the individual sinner will be accepted while still formally a sinner. The Church is where this promise is proclaimed in Word and sacrament. So 'going to church' would not seem to be essential in the same sort of way.

My question - Why do Protestants go to Church ? - was a serious one. I realise there are many strands within Protestantism, so there may be many answers, but I am asking could going to church ever be described as 'essential' (to salvation) and why?

[ 18. June 2013, 20:53: Message edited by: Corvo ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
My question - Why do Protestants go to Church ? - was a serious one. I realise there are many strands within Protestantism, so there may be many answers, but I am asking could going to church ever be described as 'essential' (to salvation) and why?

Well I think it was a perfectly sensible question, and one well worth asking. I hope the various answers have been helpful for you, Corvo. [Smile]

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

Well, I've come late to this conversation, but I've taken the time to read it through from the beginning. One item that has been raised but not fully explored is the serious difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants about how authority works in each church.

The Roman Catholic Church legislates by means of Canon Law that its members are bound to attend Mass on Sundays. This binding comes with the attachment of grave sin. By making the Mass the object of legislation, the Roman Catholic Church has always opened itself to a legalistic understanding of participation. At the local Catholic parish in my neighborhood, for instance, there are often 50-100 people who exit the church as soon as Communion begins, because it is at that point that people understand they have fulfilled their obligation to attend.

Now, there are many, even most Roman Catholics who are deeply devotional, and I do not mean to put the genuine nature of their participation down. But for Protestants, the Mass as an object of legislation, is a foreign notion. For Catholics, skipping Mass on Sunday IS a matter of salvation since it is gravely sinful. For the Protestant, salvation is not at stake in missing Sunday worship. Church and worship are given to us as ways to express to God our thanks for the gift of salvation. As in any large body, some will be faithful and devout, others will be more occasional, others indifferent.

As a Lutheran myself, I would say that since we understand salvation to be a gift from God, and not something to be earned, we may not say that anyone is saved by church attendance, nor can we say anyone is damned by lack of church attendance. Authority is not understood or exercised in our church in such a way as to make the church necessary for salvation. We go to church on Sunday, as has been mentioned, to make use of a means of grace: to hear the promises of God, to explore God's Word, to support and be supported by our fellow believers, to express out thanksgiving to God for the gift of faith.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

My question - Why do Protestants go to Church ? - was a serious one. I realise there are many strands within Protestantism, so there may be many answers, but I am asking could going to church ever be described as 'essential' (to salvation) and why?

If the particular protestant believes in justification by faith as essential to salvation, then church attendance could be seen as necessary for faith because it is the best place to cultivate faith.

I guess it rather depends on what justification by faith means. What is faith? Is it only believing that x,y,z is true or is it hearing Jesus' words and acting on them as the scriptures say? Or is it simply the belief that God exists and we trust it'll all be okay.

Church attendance would probably depend on what faith means to them.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Authority is not understood or exercised in our church in such a way as to make the church necessary for salvation.

So what would you say, as a Lutheran, is necessary for salvation?

The divide between RC's does seem to underlie the idea that in the RCC, salvation is a continual process of growing in sanctification whereas a more protestant one might suggest salvation has already occurred ( a more one off event ) and the rest is rather superfluous.

Continual vs Static.

Perhaps.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. When I worship, what do experts think I ought to be doing?
Is this where the reference to beneficium or sacrificum which I don't really understand comes from?

The original context was more or less "as worship is something *I can do* at any place and time, why do I need to go to church to do it?" In that context it makes sense.

quote:

Be that as it may, 'made available' still sounds to me uncomfortably like the commoditification of grace.

Well if you want to be sensitive about it, so does the idea of 'infusion'.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The original context was more or less "as worship is something *I can do* at any place and time, why do I need to go to church to do it?" In that context it makes sense.

That seems to me a deliberate misinterpretation of the OP, which is clearly talking about corporate worship. ("Going to church")

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

Originally posted by Evensong:
So what would you say, as a Lutheran, is necessary for salvation?

Faith, in the sense of trust in God, is necessary for salvation, which is itself a gift of God.

Lutherans would want to resist any effort to push faith back to the human being as a response to God, for then, always questions arise e.g. how do I know I have responded adequately? This is why Lutherans maintained the baptism of infants, and the firm belief that the pious and the impious both receive the Body and Blood of Christ in communion, where other Protestants began to practice "believer's baptism" or taught that unbelievers received only bread and wine at the communion table. If God's promises are somehow conditional on our ability to respond to them, the certainty of the promise is compromised. So we regard church attendance as a way to express to God our thanksgiving for God's gift of faith only, and not as a way of cultivating faith. In the view of others, Lutherans come across in a more passive way.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. When I worship, what do experts think I ought to be doing?
Is this where the reference to beneficium or sacrificum which I don't really understand comes from?
The original context was more or less "as worship is something *I can do* at any place and time, why do I need to go to church to do it?" In that context it makes sense.

quote:

Be that as it may, 'made available' still sounds to me uncomfortably like the commoditification of grace.
Well if you want to be sensitive about it, so does the idea of 'infusion'.

Sorry. I was confused before, but now I'm really confused.

Neither beneficium nor sacrificum mean anything to me. I don't speak Latin, and haven't done it since the 1960s. Even in those days, most of the Latin I did was about military weapons, Gauls etc.

Is sacrificum just Latin for sacrifice? If so do you mean 'whether the Mass is a sacrifice' or something else? If not, what do you mean by it here? And what do you mean by beneficium?

You say 'in that context it makes sense' but to this simple bear, it doesn't.

As for 'infusion', neither of us has mentioned the word before. I don't think anyone else has. This is facetious, but I'm inclined to ask 'what have herbal teas got to do with the subject?' But what, in this context, are you talking about? I think you may be assuming the rest of us have technical knowledge about liturgical theory which in my case, is way beyond the case. I strongly suspect I am not the only one.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Catholics go to church to receive and grow in the grace which leads to holiness and ultimate salvation. But why do Protestants go? If salvation comes through faith in God's promises, what difference does it make whether you go to church or not?

That's the $64, 000 dollar question. I seldom do at present. Local standards of preaching are very bad. My background/preference is Aff-Cath, currently I'm stuck with latitudinarian provincial Tory middledom. I go to quieter weekday services when I can make it, and rush out before the bleating interrogation starts. That's it.

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

Yep. Exactly my point.

Either we're on contact with the Holy Spirit, or we're not paying attention in the first place.

So, Church is only a matter of finding a place in the community of ideas and doctrines ...

or not.

Emily

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Catholics go to church to receive and grow in the grace which leads to holiness and ultimate salvation. But why do Protestants go? If salvation comes through faith in God's promises, what difference does it make whether you go to church or not?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
So, Church is only a matter of finding a place in the community of ideas and doctrines

I think this somewhat misses the point regarding a local community of Christians. IMO it's not a group of people who meet to discuss, share, and / or formulate ideas and doctrines, although those are important. It's a group of people who are committed to share their lives with one another, so as to encourage growth in godly character and the spreading of God's kingdom.

Using 'God's kingdom' in the sense of the area within which God's ways and will hold sway. So spreading God's kingdom means, essentially, making disciples; people who follow Christ's ways in every sphere of their lives.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

As for 'infusion', neither of us has mentioned the word before. I don't think anyone else has. This is facetious, but I'm inclined to ask 'what have herbal teas got to do with the subject?' But what, in this context, are you talking about?

It's implied to by the original post and later referred to explicitly by the original poster:

"Catholics go to church to receive (and grow in the) grace"

"rather than infused through the grace of the sacraments"

It seems to me that to be consistent this would also have to be viewed by you as a 'commoditification of grace'

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So what would you say, as a Lutheran, is necessary for salvation?

Faith, in the sense of trust in God, is necessary for salvation, which is itself a gift of God.

Works for me. The first part at least.

I read a bit of Luther a few years ago. Admired the dude. He had balls and I think his heart was in the right place.

Yet his theology seems ultimately to end up with predestination.......which I couldn't countenance. But that's probably why his requirement for faith is so easy in the first place.

The hard shit comes later.

[Biased]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Sorry, you missed the point of Luther. He's not the predestination dude, that's Calvin. Luther cheerfully says that ALL are called, and none predestined to hell, so we should stop fussing about it. And faith is not easy--it's impossible. A gift of the Holy Spirit, not something we can choose ourselves. (the idea of it being easy is probably from looking at things AFTER the HS does his thing)

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Actually some Protestants go to Church to worship God. It is meet and right so to do. And our bounden duty.

What we think to get out of going is another matter.

[ 21. June 2013, 12:07: Message edited by: shamwari ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Sorry, you missed the point of Luther. He's not the predestination dude, that's Calvin.

I don't think so. Calvin is the double predestination dude. Luther is the single but hides behind the "Hidden God" when it comes to Hell.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And faith is not easy--it's impossible. A gift of the Holy Spirit, not something we can choose ourselves. (the idea of it being easy is probably from looking at things AFTER the HS does his thing)

Faith being a gift of the Holy Spirit is the element of predestination is it not?

If you're not riding that particular animal, you're screwed.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Luther declines to take a position at all unless he can point to it in the Scriptures. Which is why Lutherans get queasy even about the term "single predestination", as it moves one step away from the evidence and into the realm of logic--which is not much help in this particular area. Very like the way we avoid saying "consubstantiation" about the Lord's Supper--trying to pin things down that way makes our stomachs hurt.

I've just been reading Gerhard (all 800 pages of him!) on the subject. Predestination et al in Lutheran theology. Very [Snore]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Both wrong.

Double Predestinarianism is a later take on Calvin by lesser theologians who were his followers.

I have read what Calvin actually says about predestination. He basically says "I suppose you could say that as God is outside time". In other words the causal link with God does not work. This is of course a classical take of theology.

The mistake you are making is thinking Calvinism is all about Calvin. It is not and never was. It always has been a group effort. First Calvinist theologian time wise is Huldrych Zwingli and William Farel is John Calvin's predecessor in Geneva.

Jengie

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Luther declines to take a position at all unless he can point to it in the Scriptures.

I distinctly recall things about prevenient grace in his discussions with Erasmus in The Bondage of the Will.

But I suppose one could refer to :

John 6.44: No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.

or

John 6.65: And he said, ‘For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.’

Rather messes with the rest of the Gospels tho.

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Both wrong.

Double Predestinarianism is a later take on Calvin by lesser theologians who were his followers.

Fair enough! Thanks for setting us straight Jengie.

I've read quite a bit of Marilynne Robinson in the last few years and she has said the same thing. She is a self-proclaimed Calvinist and I love her work.

I'd like to grill you on what you believe his atonement theory to be at some stage. [Smile]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0