quote:

---

Synagogue worship allowed great freedom and participation. Philip Schaff has aptly noted, "As there was no proper priesthood outside of Jerusalem, any Jew of age might get up to read the lessons, offer prayer, and address the congregation." (Philip Schaff, History Of The Christian Church, Hendrickson, 1:459.) Indeed, we find Jesus constantly teaching in the synagogues on the Sabbath, (Lu.4:18-30; Mt.4:23; 13:54-58; Mk.1:21; Jn.18:20) even though he was neither a Levitical priest nor the ruler of a synagogue. Moreover, those who spoke in the synagogue meetings were not "pre-screened" as to what they were going to say, for Paul, directly upon his conversion, preached in the synagogues that Jesus was the Son of God to a group of hostile Jews (Acts 9:20)...

In the larger and more institutionalised synagogues we know that the main function of the ruler of the synagogue was to preside over services and to encourage the participation of those present. This is likely to have been the way the first leaders of house-churches functioned. The early Christians avoided the title used by Jews (ruler of the synagogue) and chose instead the neutral, but equally appropriate term episkopos [overseer]; yet they continued to hold that the chief duty of those who presided over assemblies was to facilitate widespread participation and not do everything themselves.

---

That all paints a far more participative picture of 1st century synagogue meetings than is normally suggested, and thus IMO adds weight to the argument that the early church meetings were also strongly participative (by which I mean everyone being able to bring an encouragement, a prayer, an insight from the scriptures, a song etc.). And hence, that our church meetings should be similarly participative. What say you?
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
... unless, of course, they were women and St Paul was about
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
I think there needs to be consideration of what meetings and services we are talking about. For example, what we now call the communion service combines elements of passover ritual (home, not synagogue) and atonement ritual (temple, not synagogue).

No doubt the other services of the time (such as the lighting of the lamps which seems to have been current at the time) would have had an element of formality to them.

I don't know enough about this to comment further, but it seems to me that you would need to look at the whole range of meetings that the synagogue was used for - generalisations could be dangerously simplifying.
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Also, in the first century, weren't many Christian gatherings in private houses? So this might have affected the way the gathering went...less formal than in a temple??? Though a wealthy citizen's private house could be quite imposing....but it seems thought (Wayne Meeks, "The First Urban Christians, " etc) that the early church was mostly made of of tradespeople, artisans, not the wealthy for the most part....
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Should we make Christian services more "paticipative" because everyone's insights into Christian doctrine and the Scriptures are equally valid or something?

[ 20. July 2013, 11:19: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I don't know enough about this to comment further, but it seems to me that you would need to look at the whole range of meetings that the synagogue was used for - generalisations could be dangerously simplifying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
Also, in the first century, weren't many Christian gatherings in private houses? So this might have affected the way the gathering went...less formal than in a temple???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Should we make Christian services more "paticipative" because everyone's insights into Christian doctrine and the Scriptures are equally valid or something?

---

quote:

---

Zach82: Should we make Christian services more "paticipative" because everyone's insights into Christian doctrine and the Scriptures are equally valid or something?

---

Good idea!
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
But did the early Christians base their worship on the synagogue, the Temple or something else? Is Christian worship just its own tradition? When the Church met in houses or "aula" of more well off Christians, these were consecrated places.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I can understand the reason for your question and your position on this, South Coast Kevin, but would suggest that we are all - to some extent - imposing our own value-judgements of what constitutes formality and informality onto the 1st century.

I suspect that society in general was more 'formal' back then - after all it was very heirarchical and practised slavery and so on.

If you watch documentaries about some tribal or so-called 'primitive' societies you'll find that they have very ritualised practices too ... I once saw a fascinating speeded up clip of film shot in a West African village where everyone went through an elaborate greeting ritual whenever they met anyone else in the course of their daily routine.

Because something looks or appears 'formal' doesn't mean that it is non-participative.

Contemporary synagogue worship is quite 'formal' in some ways but you talk to the participants and you'll find that they don't feel at all 'excluded' by that.

I don't think that anyone is saying that 1st century synagogue worship was like High Mass at the Brompton Oratory, but neither would it have particularly resembled what goes on in a contemporary charismatic setting such as the Vineyard.

If you want to have services that you regard as more participative and interactive, then that's fine, but I don't see why you have to insist on finding precedents in 1st century Jewish worship.

It's certainly fair to say that all Christian worship has evolved from 1st century home and synagogue practice - arguably with some Temple elements in there too. And most Christian traditions allow scope for small group studies and interaction - even those which go in for a more formalised or ritualised liturgy do so to some extent. I've attended RC lectio-divina sessions that are highly participative - and still very RC flavoured - and I've attended Orthodox Bible studies where there have been a wide range of questions, discussion and debate. In neither setting did this in any way detract from the more formalised approach taken during the liturgy.

I suspect your ideal vision of how a church service should be conducted would appeal to certain people and not others. That's the reality of it. As a young Christian I'd probably have thoroughly enjoyed the kind of meetings you have in mind. Now, I wouldn't be so interested. Not because I think I know it all, but because I get irritated by random thoughts and cod-informality.

The next time I'm handed a pencil and a piece of paper in a supposedly informal church service and told to write down my thoughts on this that or the other I'm liable to do something very un-Christian and unneighbourly with the pencil ...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
But to answer your qualification to the OP, as far as I can gather 1st century synagogue worship would have been participative in the sense that any of those present who could read or were in good standing would have been able to do the set readings or prayers.

I'm not sure that the prayers would have been extemporary as such - the Jews had a well developed selection of prayers for all eventualities - as indeed the Orthodox Christians do to this day.

I've been to services in the Orthodox Easter cycle where attendees have been called upon to read the prescribed passages and readings without prior notice or warning - and the Bible or the pages from the prayer books/missals have been passed around accordingly.

Those that are used to it chant the passages, those that aren't used to that simply read them aloud. Nobody bats an eyelid whether they do it 'properly' or not. The whole thing is formally/informal as it were.

I'd imagine it would have been the same in the 1st century synagogues. People would be familiar with the material and comfortable with the setting. They would have felt very 'at home' there.

In Orthodox settings us Westerners can find the demeanour of the Greeks and other 'cradle' or ethnically Orthodox to be somewhat irreverent from our point of view - they wander around, nip outside to the loo or for a cigarette ( ), they nurse babies, chat, light candles, venerate icons, sometimes join in with the prayers or chant or at other times look as if they would be rather be anywhere else ...

That's just how it is. That's how they do these things.

I suspect it would've been similar in the synagogues and in the early church services too ... I've often heard it said that the apostle Paul's injunction for women to remain silent was because there'd be knots of them stood around chatting to their friends ... although that begs the question as to what the blokes might have been doing.
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
South Coast Kevin wrote:

quote:

---

It's just that some people point to the relative formality of synagogue meetings in order to suggest what the earliest church meetings / services were like. I hadn't realised until reading the post I linked to, that perhaps most synagogue meetings were actually informal and participative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...the 1st century church would have modelled many of its practices on the synagogues of the time...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It so happens that the New Testament has an account of a synagogue service in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...the 1st century church would have modelled many of its practices on the synagogues of the time...

---

I think it would be much closer to the truth to say that 1st century "church" services were Jewish prayer meetings. And, 2nd century, too.

The word "church" and, certainly, "synagogue" have an anachronistic imprecision to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect it would've been similar in the synagogues and in the early church services too ... I've often heard it said that the apostle Paul's injunction for women to remain silent was because there'd be knots of them stood around chatting to their friends ... although that begs the question as to what the blokes might have been doing.

---

quote:

---

That all paints a far more participative picture of 1st century synagogue meetings than is normally suggested, and thus IMO adds weight to the argument that the early church meetings were also strongly participative (by which I mean everyone being able to bring an encouragement, a prayer, an insight from the scriptures, a song etc.). And hence, that our church meetings should be similarly participative. What say you? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
... unless, of course, they were women and St Paul was about

---

Sorry, no time just now to check my references, but AIUI:
Paul did appoint women to responsible positions in his churches
and
Such passages as instruct women to keep silent in meetings etc are now largely understood to come from Pauline followers who hadn't been able to throw off their patriarchal conditioning.

A friend in the Progressive synagogue tells me that their services are more participatory than in the Orthodox synagogue.

GG
 

---

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :
 
First century Christians sometimes engaged in highly liturgical worship, by attending the Temple: as they do often enough in Acts until Christians are expelled from fellowship with Jews. Temple worship could involve priests, sacrifices, consecrated buildings, choirs, vestments, incense, etc - Zacharias for example was a biblical character who met an angel while taking a liturgical service. Many priests became Christians, and presumably continued their priestly services. Just as Jesus often preached in the courts at the Temple, so the apostles attempted the same during their time in Jerusalem. Both Jesus and the apostles would have attended "high" temple worship.

First century Christians also attended synagogues where the ruler would allow visitors and local members to read the scriptures and speak about them. It was participatory, but structured - women and children did not lead services or teach the congregation, and the adult men were invited or allowed to speak by the ruler (as far as I understand).

First century Christians also met in houses - presumably the houses of wealthier Christians. There the structure is largely unknown - we have a possible sample in the house meeting in Acts where a young man fell out of a window and was taken up dead - until Paul prayed for him. Like many aspects of the NT church, it is mostly speculation as to how those house meetings were ordered. Jews of course also had their domestic rituals - such as the Passover meal, often with a number of visitors.

I sometimes think these three types of NT worship look a bit like catholic/orthodox (temple), classic protestant (synangogue), and independent/pentecostal (home meetings) - although that is imposing 20th-21st century ideas onto an altogether different period of social history. 1st century Jews and Christians would have attended all three types of worship - although getting to the Temple was a long journey for Jews in the Diaspora, and a much more optional pilgrimage for Christians (well, in later times than the NT). But the church started out with temple, synagogue and house meetings, where the houses were common property, it seems, in the beginning.

[ 21. July 2013, 08:12: Message edited by: MSHB ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I reckon that's pretty on the money MHSB.

I'd venture to suggest - and this is a purely subjective response for a moment - that the three forms that you describe could well provide a suitable and, for me at least, highly conducive model today.

So there'd be the eucharistic aspect (more liturgical), the 'synagogue' aspect, more teaching/reading and fellowship and the 'charismatic' or closer-fellowship aspect ... the smaller group.

The reason I feel a disconnect with the way these things are often undertaken in contemporary evangelical or evangelical/charismatic circles is that the eucharistic aspect can be rather slip-shod and the other two aspects prone to highly subjective and pietistic responses.

Bluntly, it's a case of crap in, crap out.

The thing that impresses me about the lectio-divina small group at our local RC parish is that the material used isn't crap in the first place.

In fact, the only person I've heard talking crap there on the two Lenten seasons when I attended it was a visitor from our evangelical/mildly charismatic Anglican parish.

In each instance this lady didn't stick to the text under consideration but veered off into some wild and whacky charismatic world of her own imagining.

I'd be more than happy to attend a house-group or similar small study group at our local evangelical/charismatic Anglican parish but I know darn well that much of what I'll hear there will be complete pants.

Rather than the structures and principles of small groups and interactivity - which I think are incontrovertibly applicable and which can be helpful - I'm more conscious of the content. If the content is crap then you're not going to get me along.

I've been to enough charismatic/evangelical small groups over the years to suggest that by-and-large the content has become increasingly dire. Or perhaps it's just me who has changed ...


 

---

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It so happens that the New Testament has an account of a synagogue service in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
That all paints a far more participative picture of 1st century synagogue meetings than is normally suggested, and thus IMO adds weight to the argument that the early church meetings were also strongly participative (by which I mean everyone being able to bring an encouragement, a prayer, an insight from the scriptures, a song etc.). And hence, that our church meetings should be similarly participative. What say you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It so happens that the New Testament has an account of a synagogue service in it.

---

The account of Jesus' visit to the Nazareth synagogue in
Luke 4 sounds fairly informal (within certain structured limits) -- there's a synagogue "attendant"; a visitor (albeit a local boy who at that point might have been thought to have done pretty well for himself as a rabbi in the wider world) is invited to read the Scripture; following the reading it seems like general discussion of the text and the reader's interpretation of it breaks out. Of course, there's no way to know how typical this would have been.

In the next scene Jesus is presumably again teaching in the Capernaum synagogue and is interrupted to perform an exorcism, but I don't suppose you can take the actions of the demon-possessed as a reliable guide to synagogue practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MSHB:
Many priests became Christians, and presumably continued their priestly services.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galloping Granny:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
[qb] ... unless, of course, they were women and St Paul was about

---

Sorry, no time just now to check my references, but AIUI:
Paul did appoint women to responsible positions in his churches
and
Such passages as instruct women to keep silent in meetings etc are now largely understood to come from Pauline followers who hadn't been able to throw off their patriarchal conditioning.
/QB]

---

quote:

---

Why does Luke write like this? There’s something going on behind the text. There was a debate within Judaism about women’s roles. Some rabbis said: "It is better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman," and "It is better to teach a daughter to be a prostitute than to teach her the Torah." Yet women's leadership in synagogue services was nothing extraordinary. It is well attested by inscriptions. Women held the offices of 'ruler of the synagogue,' elder and 'mother of the synagogue'“. Even ‘priestess’ is found in an inscription dated back to 27 BCE

---

quote:

---

Participation of women in synagogues was a debating topic at the time

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
The big issue with drawing a parallel - as MSHB alludes to - is that synagogue worship didn't stand alone. Until 70CE the synagogue would have served as an adjunct to the temple rather than an end in and of itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
A friend in the Progressive synagogue tells me that their services are more participatory than in the Orthodox synagogue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
That surprises me rather. In North America at least (and I realize the movements don't exactly translate across the ocean), the Progressive (i.e. Reform and Reconstructionist) branches tended to incorporate more "churchly" structure, with pipe organs and congregational responses and cantors functioning like ministerial officiants.

Meanwhile the Orthodox and (to an extent) Conservative/Masorti liturgy continued along lines to dissimilar to what's described in the Gospel passage, where a variety of prayers may be led by anyone (or any man) in good standing, with a gabbai (attendant) to keep the sequence going.

---

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 14:26-40

26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
That surprises me rather. In North America at least (and I realize the movements don't exactly translate across the ocean), the Progressive (i.e. Reform and Reconstructionist) branches tended to incorporate more "churchly" structure, with pipe organs and congregational responses and cantors functioning like ministerial officiants.

Meanwhile the Orthodox and (to an extent) Conservative/Masorti liturgy continued along lines to dissimilar to what's described in the Gospel passage, where a variety of prayers may be led by anyone (or any man) in good standing, with a gabbai (attendant) to keep the sequence going.

---

I've taken the liberty of splitting your post into two paragraphs, to ask, what your basis is for saying that the latter is too dissimilar to what is being described in the New Testament to have anything to say to our understanding the New Testament context?

---

quote:

---

And what is your argument (if you are suggesting such) that a more "churchly" way of doing things with pipe organs, cantors etc is more consistent with our own foundations?

---

quote:

---

4. "...as the Law says." I would be very interested to discover what exactly the Torah does say. Paul seems anxious merely to maintain the Jewish traditions of worship (he was a Pharisee after all). It's unfair to label him as a mysogenist merely for carrying on the tradition that all other Jews accepted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Sorry, it was late. I mean to say, "not too dissimilar." Orthodox services more closely resemble the NT passage discussed, while Reform tend to have more formal leadership with a single quasi-clergy rabbi or cantor up front.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...the 1st century church would have modelled many of its practices on the synagogues of the time...

---

I think it would be much closer to the truth to say that 1st century "church" services were Jewish prayer meetings.

---

Yes. The first churches were synagogues.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've visited a synagogue and can see what your Jewish friends meant. I mentioned to the elders there that it reminded me of Orthodoxy (in the Christian sense) and they readily agreed.

I think it's more than a shared Eastern heritage.

Ok, so the Jewish people tend not to go in for figurative art - although the Orthodox cite early examples of synagogue paintings and mosaics as antecedents for their own iconographic tradition - but the way that the Torah and the scrolls are venerated is somewhat reminiscent of Orthodox practice.

Equally, the services are chanted and there are set prayers.

Another similarity is that not everyone arrives on time ( ) and people are free to wander around or chat to their pals once they've finished their set prayers. There is an atmosphere of informal formality. Both the Orthodox Christians and the Jews are comfortable in church/synagogue and don't act any differently during services than they do outside ... they aren't given to what I call 'spiritual gurning' or the pulling of facial expressions that denote piety ... still less the kind of demonstrative or emotional responses that you find in charismatic worship.

That said, I wouldn't say that either Jewish nor Orthodox Christian worship was cold and unemotional. It operates beyond the purely cerebral in both instances.
 

---

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
Yes, what Gamaliel says resonates with my experience of both synagogues and Byzantine churches. I'm sure common Levantine origins are a part of it.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Gamaliel. Truly WOL. Spiritual gurning.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
A short while ago my wife and I were invited to a Barmitzvah and a wedding on a Sabbath and a Sunday respectively.

I had to wear the yarmulke that was preovided and we were all given a prayer book. Being a reform synagogue men and women sat together.

The femal rabbi took the readings and prayers at an olympic pace. one hardly had time to find the pages she called out in quick succession before everyone started singing, responding, speaking, etc.

It was breakneck!

After the service the chairs were cleared, the tables were set up ass if my magic and we sat down. But before the buffet was opened, more prayer books were distributed and a man led the prayers, sitting at his table where not everyone could see him. He did the same: page 5 der der der der. Page 8 der der der der. In fact, so quick was it all that at one point, from a table behind me, as soon as a paragraph had been chanted someone called out "Tiddly on pom pom!"

I kid you not !

Anyway, I wondered about all this and the seeming lack of reverence, thoughtfulness, meditiation. I could imagine the CofE rattling through the liturgy and finding it an impossible thought!

Then a Christian aquaintgance who is Messianic told me that to the Jew the most important thing is 'community'. It isn't what is being said that is impoortant; it's not the thinking carefully about the prayers and the readings that is regarded, it is the simply fact of reciting words together. THAT is what makes the Jewish worshipo experience so profound: the simply physical recitation of words that every one else is reciting and has recited for years. Content? irrelevant. Communal act - that;'s what makes it special.

I bet half of them neither believed not remembered half of what they recited that day. But they valued the communal experience.

I don't think Jesus would have been impressed: "They think they will be heard because of their many words."
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Then a Christian aquaintgance who is Messianic told me that to the Jew the most important thing is 'community'. It isn't what is being said that is impoortant; it's not the thinking carefully about the prayers and the readings that is regarded, it is the simply fact of reciting words together. THAT is what makes the Jewish worshipo experience so profound: the simply physical recitation of words that every one else is reciting and has recited for years. Content? irrelevant. Communal act - that;'s what makes it special.

I bet half of them neither believed not remembered half of what they recited that day.

---

If they have all been reciting these words for years, they must know them by heart now. They have been steeped in them.

This form of worship does not appeal to me at all, but I don't have to participate in it.

The effectiveness and value of people's worship is shown in their daily lives.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, you are not Jewish are you, Moo? Unless I'm very much mistaken.

I think Mudfrog is broadly in the right ball-park with the community aspect in Judaism but I'm not sure that applies right across the board - Judaism is pretty broad and has 'high', 'low' and 'MOTR' equivalents.

What can appear as lack of reverence to outsiders isn't necessarily lack of reverence to those taking part ... I suspect it varies from individual to individual.

I can see what Mudfrog is getting at and I'm not criticising him, but I'd be wary of making ad hominem remarks about anyone's approach to worship - although I do that myself at times ... mea culpa.

I mean, whilst I'm quite partial to Sally Army style worship and understand that there is a greater variety there than the familiar brass bands, some people might find that rather irreverent too.

I can't speak for Judaism, of course, but I was struck by an occasion recently after I'd organised a reading for a Buddhist poet in London. There were representatives there from Christian, Muslim and Judaism as well as people from non-faith backgrounds. The next day I bumped into one of the Jewish representatives. He said some insightful things about the poems, about Buddhism and about Christianity - then said that Buddhism would never 'do' for him because it lacked any sense of a personal deity and to him God was nothing if not personal and this he believed to be the great Jewish contribution to the world of faith.

I could not but agree.


 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Pepys's response to his visit to the Bevis Marks synagogue in London (he went on Simchas Torah, FWIW) was very similar to Mudfrog's.

Both give a terrific insight into what it is to view someone else's religous observance entirely and absolutely from the outside. Probably this is why both Mudfrog's and Pepys's observations seem disrespectful to those who can imagine only too easily how their own religious observances might look to someone who has, on the one hand, a sense of devotional superiority ('Ick! I couldn't pray like that! Those people have no sense whatsoever of either decorum or holiness!') and on the other a lack of self-awareness ('Naturally I do not look like a prat! And my own worship is objectively better than this farrago of gibberish!') Likewise, speaking from my own Jewish background, I'd guess that my many Jewish relations and friends would take strong, unanimous, issue with Mudfrog's 'Messianic' pal. Both the content and the form of prayer do matter to Jews. While worship style differs from one branch of Judaism to another, it's taken very seriously in and out of the home. In and out of the synagogue too. It is generally true that Jews say their prayers more rapidly than Christians do. To Jewish ears, Christians praying sound as though someone is making an embarrassing show of pseudo-sincerity (which isn't going to fool God anyway). This isn't generally the case--it's just the way your prayers, Mudfrog, probably would sound to the Jews whose prayers you overheard.

To get back to the OP--I think this part of the thread was thoroughly relevant to the question of what the worship of the first century synagogue would have been like: to both Greeks and Romans, it would have appeared weird and undignified.

PS I am about | | far away from calling Mudfrog to Hell. But I'm also feeling lazy and have a lot of admin to get done.

[ 27. July 2013, 13:56: Message edited by: Amos ]
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
To get back to the OP--I think this part of the thread was thoroughly relevant to the question of what the worship of the first century synagogue would have been like: to both Greeks and Romans, it would have appeared weird and undignified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
a Christian aquaintgance who is Messianic told me that to the Jew the most important thing is 'community'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
He did the same: page 5 der der der der. Page 8 der der der der.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I bet half of them neither believed not remembered half of what they recited that day.

---

Now now, I'm sure that's not so - that would be Reconstructionist!
 

---

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Just to ask: while all this anthropological analysis of Jewish worship is terribly interesting, do we have good reason to believe that contemporary Jewish services are a good guide to 1st century practice? Just because we're conditioned to think of Judaism as the precursor of Christianity doesn't mean that the living Jewish community has been frozen in aspic for two millenia...
 

---

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
Originally posted by Amos:

quote:

---

It is generally true that Jews say their prayers more rapidly than Christians do. To Jewish ears, Christians praying sound as though someone is making an embarrassing show of pseudo-sincerity (which isn't going to fool God anyway)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chamois:
FWIW, many Protestants attending a RC service are shocked and disconcerted by how rapidly the RCs say their prayers. My mother (from the Anglican side of my family) went to my father's sister's funeral mass and came back saying it made her feel breathless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
Just to ask: while all this anthropological analysis of Jewish worship is terribly interesting, do we have good reason to believe that contemporary Jewish services are a good guide to 1st century practice? Just because we're conditioned to think of Judaism as the precursor of Christianity doesn't mean that the living Jewish community has been frozen in aspic for two millenia...

---

That was commented on earlier, Garasu. I think considerable circumspection is required.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, indeed, contemporary Jewish worship has been influenced by the Enlightenment and other issues and movements in analogous ways to Christian worship.

I must admit, Mudfrog's 'I don't think Jesus would have been very impressed' begged a few questions for me. How do we know that Jesus likes brass-band worship?

Or choral evensong or Gospel music or happy-clappy or hymn-prayer-sandwiches or High Mass or ...



Besides, the Jewish worship that Mudfrog observed wouldn't have been directed at Jesus anyway but at his Father already ...
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I must admit, Mudfrog's 'I don't think Jesus would have been very impressed' begged a few questions for me. How do we know that Jesus likes brass-band worship?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I must admit, Mudfrog's 'I don't think Jesus would have been very impressed' begged a few questions for me. How do we know that Jesus likes brass-band worship?

---

Gamaliel, I think you've done this a few times now on this and other threads; it's not really about what style of musical worship is or isn't pleasing to the Lord, it's about the ethos.

Mudfrog's disparaging comment about the Jewish act of worship he attended focused on the apparent irreverence of the way it was all done, and how for him that suggested a lack of engagement with God (hope I've summarised accurately). Brass band worship, or any other musical style, could be done just as irreverently, ISTM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
You seem to have missed the next paragraph of Gamaliel's post, where exactly the same point is made (but with a bit of good-humour).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And I don't suppose the Lord Jesus is that pleased with me for pointing the finger at Mudfrog and highlighting the speck in his eye when I have a whopping big telegraph pole in my own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not saying, SCK, that we should not express an opinion or criticise any practice, simply that if and when we do so we should be aware of the pitfalls, weaknesses and inconsistencies that are inevitably going to be there - albeit in a different way - in our own.

---

Oh yes, definitely. But I still think you got the wrong end of the stick regarding Mudfrog's comment about the synagogue worship. As he's just clarified, it wasn't about the style at all.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes ... but there's a fine line isn't there?

My point wasn't particularly about style, either South Coast Kevin. I specifically said that judgemental attitudes can accompany all or any style.

I take Mudfrog's point about Christ criticising the Pharisees and Sadducees and so on of his own day for thinking that outward show was more important than inward conviction or even right action - although he did warn us to ensure that our righteousness should 'exceed' that of the Pharisees and Sadducees - not everything they did was wrong ...

But what he THEN does is to apply it to the Jewish people at that gathering in such a way as to imply that it couldn't possibly have been real for them because it was so perfunctory. Which IS a value judgement.

So he wants his cake and eat it. He wants it both ways.
 

---

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
You start about a thread a month to criticise charismatic worship. Surely you don't begrudge other people the chance to be unimpressed with something once in a while.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Which is why I said that I had a whopping big telegraph in my own eye.



Read my posts.

Otherwise I might start a thread criticising people who don't read my posts properly ...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I meant 'pole' - 'telegraph pole'.

Anyway, it's called irony, moonlitdoor.

You may have heard of it.

More seriously, that was part of the point I was making. Mudfrog was doing what I do, what we all do. I'm as capable and culpable of it as he or anyone else is. We all are.

That was what I was trying to say.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Mudfrog, did you by any chance happen to read my post in response to your original one? Or are you just replying to Gamaliel?

Which synagogue was it that you visited? I'm very familiar with the Progressive Synagogue in Birmingham--Rabbi Margaret Jacoby's synagogue--and I imagine that there are other Shipmates who know it too. Was it that one? Or another? Do let us know.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Well, the rather rude way you wrote your post - referring to me as if I were absent, rather than directing your comments to me, as in a conversation, rather disinclined me from replying to you; why should I?

Secondly, you were going to call me to hell? For what? Antisemitism??

And no, I am not going to tell you which synagogue I attended. FWIS I actually thoroughly enjoyed the experience and was able to worship quite happily (from my POV knowing that Jesus is their Messiah, would they but know it.

The disrespect, I'm afraid, came from the Jewish worshipers who called out 'tiddly om pom pom' at one point in the prayers. (It was certainly not us Gentiles!!)

Call them to hell if you must, and if it soothes your inflated sense victimhood!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, I can't say I picked up any sense of rudeness from that previous exchange, Mudfrog. It seems that you're pointing the finger again with an accusation of an exaggerated sense of victimhood ...

If anyone is playing the victim here, it's you.

Or perhaps you don't like being exposed for your own judgementalism?



I'm not sure anyone is saying that the 'tiddly-om-pom-pom' was a sign of reverence or respect - of course not - but what you were being challenged on was the assertion - from a very partial source - that contemporary Judaism consists predominantly of a sense of community of not a great deal else.

I'm sure there is some element of truth in that, but it won't be the full picture. And again, I'm sure your vignette wasn't intended to imply that this was all there was to it.

But I think if I came from a Jewish background I would have been tempted to call you Hellwards too, for all the somewhat Zionist tone of some of your previous posts.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
But then ... there's a telegraph pole in my own eye, of course ...
 

---

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :
 
Christian worship probably owes something to synagogue worship, but my suspicion is that it owes more to Jewish domestic worship. Also, synagogue worship itself may in the 1st century have incorporated some general Hellenistic presuppositions about how a meeting should be run, and these presuppositions, apart from synagogue worship, may well have influenced the development of Christian worship.

The evidence for prayers (in addition to Scripture readings) in 1st century synagogues is quite meager. There is the fact that a synonym for synagogue was proseuche, "prayer [place]", and one passage in Josephus' Contra Apionem that I know of. There may be a few others. Except for that, the only thing attested for the 1st-century Sabbath synagogue meeting is Scripture reading and commentary.

The singing of Psalms in the synagogue service is not attested until later than the 1st century, and may have been adopted under Christian influence. But I take a passage in Philo as indicating that Psalms were likely used in 1st century Jewish domestic worship.
 

---

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
... unless, of course, they were women and St Paul was about

---

quote:

---

In Paul's own writings, he assumed that women could teach and lead churches. (Rosemary Radford Ruether)

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0