|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Glory and Worship
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair enough, Eutychus and out of respect both for your Hostly role and you as a person and a poster, I will take this to heart.
I will endeavour to post less hastily in future and to review them before hitting the send button.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Maybe some good old Nonconformist language usage may help. There are three types of meeting that are part of congregational life:
- Meeting for worship
- Meeting for fellowship
- Meeting for business
Does that mean when I go to the bank I am not doing business and when I have a coffee with a friend I am not having fellowship. These are obviously silly statements. So why is the usage of "worship" be any different?
I think it's especially important that we are careful with our use of the word 'worship' because of how 'worship' is often stated as our highest purpose in life.
As I said upthread, Christians say things like 'nothing is more important than worshipping God'. So if the main context we use the word 'worship' is with regard to our church gatherings then I think it's pretty much inevitable that, to some extent, we'll absorb the ideas that our church services (a) should be the focus of our energies and resources, and (b) are the main expression of our devotion to God.
Maybe digressing a bit, but I think the above two points are largely behind the focus many churches (especially USA mega-churches, I suppose) have on big buildings and lavish services, with a correspondingly lesser focus on whole-life discipleship and missional living.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think you are right to be concerned, South Coast Kevin and I would agree that the US mega churches do exemplify the concerns you have rightly expressed.
It may not remain that way, though. There's only so long that people can be sustained by pop-corn Christianity.
My own take on this would be that there are equal and opposite problems in this regard at both ends of the spectrum ... on the one hand it can be seen in the nominalism that bedevils many of the historic Churches - and which they will readily acknowledge themselves so I'm not pointing out something they aren't aware of - and on the other it can be seen in the kind of self-help therapy, vaguely evangelical/charismatic ethos of the megachurches.
I wouldn't like to say whether this tendency is more apparent in one tradition over another, though.
Saying that, I would posit that the kind of dualism you've identified is more of a feature of a certain kind of evangelical charismatic mindset than it is in the more 'catholic' traditions.
At least, that's how I see it as I've begun to adopt a more 'catholic' and sacramental approach over the years. I think it's also an issue of spiritual maturity - not that I'd claim to be spiritually mature of course - and the stage we're at in life and so on ... and I won't bring Fowler's Stages of Faith into this just now ...
So, for instance, I can remember a time in my early 20s when I looked forward to and was 'addicted' almost to the kind of adrenalin rush experienced on a Sunday morning in my full-on charismatic days. The Sunday gathering almost became the be-all and end-all of the week.
That's where I was at back then, I'm not knocking it, simply stating how it was.
These days, I'd like to think I've developed a more balanced and integrated approach and I'd suggest that the discovery of older traditions and practices has contributed to that.
I don't doubt that a similar ethos/approach exists - in a different way in terms of how its expressed - in the circles Jengie Jon moves in for instance.
Consequently, I'm less hung-up on nomenclature and how we refer to our services/gatherings etc and whether we use the term 'worship time' etc.
What does bug me though, is the use of the term 'time of worship' to refer to a particular section of a church meeting or gathering - such as an extended time of chorus-singing. As though this constitutes 'worship' and the rest of the service/meeting and anything else we might do, doesn't.
So I guess I'm saying I'll meet you half-way.
And I guess I'm also apologising for being a prat yesterday.
I think I will disappear from the Ship for a few days. I know I've done that before and come back posting in a similar vein as before but I'll try to do better this time.
Meanwhile, keep up the posting and all the good work, my thanks to the Hosts and to all who serve the Ship and my apologies to anyone I might have offended.
I will be back but hopefully as a 'wiser, better man' as Johnny Cash might have put it.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin
What you need to realise is that you need not to prohibit the usage of worship but to extend it. If worship can only be used correctly you set up an idol of the word. Something that can only be used if it is used correctly creates a barrier. It becomes a word that is too special to be used everyday. The only way to get people to realise that it applies to the profane is to use it for the profane. To put barriers to using it for that which happens on a Sunday morning, does not make people apply it more widely, it makes it apply less widely.
The tradition I work with has a strong element of deliberately profaning the sacred. It is deliberate but unless you are aware of it, it would probably go unnoticed. However this does not make us any better at taking the sacred into the profane.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Saying that, I would posit that the kind of dualism you've identified is more of a feature of a certain kind of evangelical charismatic mindset than it is in the more 'catholic' traditions.
At least, that's how I see it as I've begun to adopt a more 'catholic' and sacramental approach over the years.
I can't see the difference between someone who attends charismatic worship for the buzz and someone who attends choral evensong for the peaceful feeling. I'm not having a go, I chose them as I love both of them.
I can't see the Charismatics being any worse than Catholic traditions in this.
It isn't anywors
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
The last sentence got eaten by the software or by my incompetence. Never mind, it wasn't necesary.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
