|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Christian worship, past and present
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
This thread is a development of a discussion in Kerygmania which was in danger of becoming too theological and too broad for the normal Kerygmania parameters.
Depending on your interests, it may become more suitable for Ecclesiantics (worship practice) but that's fine. By opening a thread up here, I'm hoping to provide scope for a discussion which can cover the history of worship within the church, its theology and links/contrasts with Judaism, the extent to which current practices are novel, or in continuity with the past, current radical criticisms of our understanding of what worship actually is. All of those issues got touched on in the Keryg thread, at least to some extent.
I appreciate this is a very wide brief, maybe too wide, but if it spawns self-containable tangents that's fine too.
So, on any of those themes, and the way they might connect, I'd be very interested to hear Shipmates' views and understandings.
[ 06. January 2014, 23:16: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
We will never know exactly how the Apostles worshipped with the fulness of Christ's undistorted teaching under their belt (although Catholics/Orthodox believe that the Church still has the fulness of Christ's undistorted teaching ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ). We will also never know whether or not the Apostles might have worshipped differently if they had not been in a state of persecution, if they had the power and resources that the Church had in later centuries, or if they lived in the modern world with modern technology and social issues.
So I think that trying to reconstruct a "pure, original, historically authentic" type of worship from the earliest days of Christianity is not helpful.
You can then either take two views or some combination of them:
1. The gradual development of Liturgy in different places over time (or in the right place, the center of authority, over time), or the gradual development of it until the authorities sat down and codified it for all eternity, is what you should stick with. Don't try to have committees revise worship or come up with completely new forms of worship in order to respond to modern challenges.
2. Forms of worship are merely means to an end - what matters is whether souls are being saved or not. Therefore, they can change radically as the conditions of society change.
The 39 Articles (which I often vehemently disagree with - not that I am an Anglican anyway) do seem to offer a compromise between these two extremes.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
We will never know exactly how the Apostles worshipped with the fulness of Christ's undistorted teaching under their belt
I think this is true in so far as there aren't any extant records. There re some clues in the NT, particularly 1 Cor 14, but we argue over what they mean.
But there are some other pointers. These relate back to the first century after Jesus' earthly life. I don't think there is a lot of argument over dates and provenance, but of course they aren't canonical documents.
Here is the Didache.
(Particularly Chapters 9 and 10)
Then, from the first part of the 2nd century, from the writings of Justin Martyr, we have this.
So by half way through the second century, we can already see many of the elements still incorporated in many traditional Sunday services today. To me, they look like this
Readings from Holy Records
Exhortations from suitably gifted and appointed leaders.
Prayers of thanksgiving and intercession.
Eucharist
Offerings of goods or money for redistribution.
All conducted in a pretty structured setting, even down to the use of set language.
quote:
So I think that trying to reconstruct a "pure, original, historically authentic" type of worship from the earliest days of Christianity is not helpful.
I think that and your following comments are very helpful. I tend to see your options as the formal and functional approaches.
To modern eyes, perhaps the most obvious question is "did they sing?". I'm inclined to think that singing would have been a part of these services, whether communal or through some kind of cantor I'm not sure. But communal song does not seem to have played a very significant part in all of this. Congregational participation is there, but not a lot seems to be made of that either. Looks like the majority came, mostly, to assent and receive.
These records also seem to be of services for the faithful. They don't seem to have much "outreach" in them. Their primary purposes appear to be different kinds of feeding for the faithful. Of heart, mind, soul and body.
I'll leave it there. This is pretty much a personal, "lay" view of these early developments, which I guess laid at least some of the groundwork for what we have today. As far as I can gather, these early gatherings were serious, purposeful and formal. So any attempt to recover the "older, purer, ways" might be pretty challenging, certainly in the low church neck of the woods that I come from.
But I am sure there are other views about this early history and its significance.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
stonespring: We will never know exactly how the Apostles worshipped with the fulness of Christ's undistorted teaching under their belt
I personally think that rather often they didn't have a clue of what Jesus was talking about. There are numerous examples of this happening in the Gospels, and I don't believe that these misunderstandings were magically waved away during the First Pentecost.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I tend to agree, Barnabas62 and would add little to what you've written.
On the singing aspect, there is the reference to Christ and his disciples singing a hymn in both Matthew and Mark's Gospels -
Matthew 26:30
http://biblehub.com/matthew/26-30.htm
Mark 14:26
http://biblehub.com/mark/14-26.htm
One assumes that this would have been in accordance with contemporary Jewish practice - perhaps the chanting or a Psalm?
There are also said to be echoes of early doxologies or hymns in the NT epistles - several examples in Romans and, I think, Colossians and Philippians.
Whether these were 'congregational' hymns in the sense we'd recognise is a moot point.
I rather suspect a cantor - as in Jewish synagogue worship to this very day.
There have also been suggestions that The Didache represents non-standard practice and some particularly Syrian procedures that didn't catch on elsewhere ... certainly the way that prophecy and so on seems to operate in The Didache appears problematic and I can't see anyone rushing to adopt the same modus operandi on that one today ...
I don't think I'd hang around very long if they did ... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Suffice to say, I think we do have a gradually standardised form of liturgy which incorporated the elements you listed. Whether this is 'purer' or closer to the NT practice we'll never know.
I find all attempts to 'reconstruct' NT worship to be less than convincing. As for 1 Corinthians 14 ... it's like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We haven't a clue what the other part of the conversation sounded like.
We can theorise, we can speculate but we can never be entirely sure. And we should mistrust anyone who believes we can.
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Barnabas62
In response to the question on singing, there's Pliny the Younger's letter dated in the early 100s AD that says
quote:
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.
Pliny the Younger
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Never knew that ... strange source for supporting evidence re singing Christians, but probably more credible for being incidental.
But it made me wonder. Given that, according to Pliny, the source was apostate Christians, I suppose their evidence gives credence to the thought that "singing - well that's not such a big thing" Perhaps considered a few rungs down from prayer and a lot more rungs down from refusal to worship the emperor. Pliny doesn't seem to think that singing on its own was such a big deal in the "loyalty stakes".
Think I'll do a bit more digging re music in the period after AD150. Bound to be something there in the writings of the church fathers.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, here's a bit of historical treasure.
Check out the quotes from Clement, Augustine, and Chrysostom in particular. Clement dates from about AD190, Chrysostom and Augustine from the 4th century, but all saying the same thing. The human voice was the acceptable musical instrument; use of instruments was not "kosher" maybe for being "kosher"?
A strange resonance with the much later Puritanism and some subsequent nonconformist groupings.
So it looks as though singing was normal, certainly well established by the end of the second century if not much earlier. But instrumental accompaniment gets a real thumbs down from some pretty "heavy hitters" amongst the Church Fathers. And there is a common theological understanding at work, which we can still see having influence in the much later quotes from the Middle Ages. And then post Reformation as well.
This was news to me; does anyone know if this is a general understanding of how things developed?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Re : unaccompanied singing, I think the proto-Orthodox defense is that the voice is the only instrument created by God, hence the only instrument suitable for using in the liturgy. And of course, in late antiquity organs and other instruments were appurtenances of the Empire, and had uncomfortable connotations of not only Imperial religion but also use for accompanying arena games (including the torture and execution of Christians).
The Puritan distaste for instruments has more to do with the Regulative Principle of Worship. So a surface similarity, surely, but justified in a very different way.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Isn't there a tradition in the Western (or at least RC) Church of saying that the organ is special and more permitted than other instruments? Where did this come from?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting, Stonespring. I don't know about that, but I do know that Brunswick Chapel, an influential Methodist church in Leeds, West Yorkshire, split over the introduction of an organ in the 1840s which many in the congregation took to be a 'Popish' innovation ...
Among the Orthodox, of course, singing is acapella ... apart from among the Greeks who are quite partial to harmoniums for some reason.
--------------------
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 Barnabas62:
Well, here's a bit of historical treasure.
Check out the quotes from Clement, Augustine, and Chrysostom in particular. Clement dates from about AD190, Chrysostom and Augustine from the 4th century, but all saying the same thing. The human voice was the acceptable musical instrument; use of instruments was not "kosher" maybe for being "kosher"?
A strange resonance with the much later Puritanism and some subsequent nonconformist groupings.
Huh, that is indeed interesting! One strand of the modern argument in favour of voices-only singing is that such a set-up enables anyone to lead, to 'bring a song' (as per 1 Corinthians 14). As soon as you introduce instruments, it becomes harder for someone without an instrument to start or lead a song; it introduces some sort of division among the assembly into leaders (those holding the guitar, sitting at the keyboard etc.) and non-leaders.
--------------------
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
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Be assured, if you remove instruments, not everyone can bring a song.
Originally I intended that humorously, but thinking of fellowships I know, I suspect it would be politically and practically true too.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmm ...
Interesting.
From what I can gather, all Christian traditions that go in for acapella singing tend to go with 'set' songs ...
I don't know how they operate - and maybe someone can enlighten us - but I've heard that some congregations within the US 'restorationist' Churche s of Christ go in for unaccompanied singing. As far as I know, though, they don't tend to go in for 'spontaneous' singing with someone or other chipping in with a song as they feel 'led' to do so.
I can see that working in a small group context, although even there I'd suggest that contributions of that kind wouldn't be quite as spontaneous as they appear. After all, there'd be a generally recognised repertoire of songs that people would be drawing on.
Back in the day, in my full-on charismatic days, we used to have what we referred to as 'spiritual songs' ie someone improvising/making up a song on the spur of the moment as they were apparently led by the Spirit. On occasions, other people would join in and the whole thing would take off and meander in different directions.
I was pretty impressed by this, at first, until I realised that some of these were actually existing songs I hadn't heard of or else they were so trite and silly as to be embarrassing.
There was a lot of super-spirituality connected with all this.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Isn't there a tradition in the Western (or at least RC) Church of saying that the organ is special and more permitted than other instruments? Where did this come from?
I know a church in my town (independent Calvinist) that believes the piano to be special and more permitted than other instruments, but I don't know why they believe this or if it's connected to any RC believe (I suspect not re the latter given that they don't believe RCs to be Christians!).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmm ...
Interesting.
From what I can gather, all Christian traditions that go in for acapella singing tend to go with 'set' songs ...
I don't know how they operate - and maybe someone can enlighten us - but I've heard that some congregations within the US 'restorationist' Churche s of Christ go in for unaccompanied singing. As far as I know, though, they don't tend to go in for 'spontaneous' singing with someone or other chipping in with a song as they feel 'led' to do so.
I can see that working in a small group context, although even there I'd suggest that contributions of that kind wouldn't be quite as spontaneous as they appear. After all, there'd be a generally recognised repertoire of songs that people would be drawing on.
Back in the day, in my full-on charismatic days, we used to have what we referred to as 'spiritual songs' ie someone improvising/making up a song on the spur of the moment as they were apparently led by the Spirit. On occasions, other people would join in and the whole thing would take off and meander in different directions.
I was pretty impressed by this, at first, until I realised that some of these were actually existing songs I hadn't heard of or else they were so trite and silly as to be embarrassing.
There was a lot of super-spirituality connected with all this.
In my old church (Anglican, mainstream, gently charismatic) during the time set aside for spontaneous prayer, it was quite common for a few people to spontaneously sing, albeit it was always well-known songs so everyone else to join in.
Iirc spontaneous singing happens in more evangelical Quaker meetings.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know how they operate - and maybe someone can enlighten us - but I've heard that some congregations within the US 'restorationist' Churche s of Christ go in for unaccompanied singing. As far as I know, though, they don't tend to go in for 'spontaneous' singing with someone or other chipping in with a song as they feel 'led' to do so.
Correct. It would generally be considered verboten.*
*Loosely translated from German as "Don't do that unless you want a stern lecture from the elders."
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Be assured, if you remove instruments, not everyone can bring a song.
You only need a few who can. The rest need only follow. I don't think it matters if the singing isn't concert standard or if someone happens to be a little out of tune or whatever. That's really the beauty of chant one of the things that make it liturgical.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Be assured, if you remove instruments, not everyone can bring a song.
Originally I intended that humorously, but thinking of fellowships I know, I suspect it would be politically and practically true too.
But even people with who can't hold a tune to save their lives can say 'Let's sing [this or that song]' and then someone who can hold a tune will actually start the song. I was suggested that if some people have instruments then everyone tends to leave (or completely leaves) the song leading / starting to them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A personal experience (actually several) came to mind, reflecting on this marvellous view of ourselves as living instruments of worship and praise.
There have been times in contemporary worship when the musicians stop playing, but the congregation continues singing. I've no doubt that some of that is relatively "earthly" but by no means all. There is a sense of being "lost in wonder, love and praise". I remember in particular some times at Soul Survivor youth events where spontaneous unaccompanied singing of a song not used by the musicians would break out, be joined, continue, stop. Then another song.
My wife and I both found these experiences profound and moving. I think it is true that there are dangers of emotional manipulation in the use of music in corporate worship and there can be a kind of corporate hysteria going on. And yet ... there was certainly for me a kind of transcendent purity in those times of spontaneous expression which was profoundly uplifting. A sense that this is what singing the praises of God is really all about.
I suppose you had to be there. And I do recognise there is wisdom in having reservations about all of this. "Heightened emotional states" and a desire to experience them for themselves can be a quite nasty form of addiction and have precious little to do with a sincere offering to Another. But I must say that Clement's reflection, 1800 years old now, on Psalm 150 applied to the "living instruments" touched a real chord within me.
Perhaps, using the Songs of Ascents concepts, it may be necessary to "process", progress somehow, to the point where other things fall away, the barriers of "earthly things", and praise becomes lifted up? Here is Clement's quote.
quote:
The Spirit, to purify the divine liturgy from any such unrestrained revelry chants: 'Praise Him with sound of trumpet," for, in fact, at the sound of the trumpet the dead will rise again; praise Him with harp,' for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; 'and with the lute. praise Him.' understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit as the lute is by the plectrum; 'praise Him with timbal and choir,' that is, the Church awaiting the resurrection of the body in the flesh which is its echo; 'praise Him with strings and organ,' calling our bodies an organ and its sinews strings, for from them the body derives its Coordinated movement, and when touched by the Spirit, gives forth human sounds; 'praise Him on high-sounding cymbals,' which mean the tongue of the mouth which with the movement of the lips, produces words. Then to all mankind He calls out, 'Let every spirit praise the Lord,' because He rules over every spirit He has made.
Sung worship, in Spirit and in Truth, seems to be this kind of response to a Divine call. It does seem to me to take many forms. There is some harmonisation with the Divine at work when we respond to this Divine call. Perhaps we only catch "glimpses of the Divine" in this? But they are precious. It seems very right to try to incorporate such sincere offerings in our gatherings.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure. I can remember times like that from gatherings I used to frequent - not Soul Survivor but things on similar lines ...
I think there can be something uplifting and very genuine about these things - of course there can.
It's all about context and authenticity and being true to that context.
Back in the day, some of the leaders I used to know in the restorationist 'new church' thing had various stories about contributions and so on they'd heard in Pentecostal churches and so on ... many of these guys had Pentecostal backgrounds ...
For instance, one claimed to have heard a lady start singing 'You are my sunshine, my only sunshine ...' during a time of spontaneous prayer/'waiting on God.'
People started joining in and it was only when they got a few lines into the song that they realised what they were singing ...
Not that I have a problem with that. In the context it may have been a genuinely devotional act ...
Similarly, one guy told me how he'd once been in a service where someone had started singing, 'He'll be coming round the mountain when He comes ... He'll be coming round the mountain when He comes ... He'll be coming round the mountain, coming round the mountain, coming round the mountain when he comes ...'
Apparently, people joined in and it was only when they got to 'Singing i-i-ippy-ippy-i ...' that they realised what was going on ...
Now, this might be apocryphal but I think it illustrates what could happen ...
Which is fine. Provided you're set up for that.
It depends on how regulated or apparently de-regulated you want to be.
I've read that it was bad experiences with the Montanists that seems to have accelerated moves towards a more regularised liturgy ... but I suspect that process was in place already and the Montanist thing simply gave things a nudge further in that direction.
There's a balance, of course.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The lesson from history appears to be to respect the dangers of entanglement and seek to find a sincere way nevertheless.
I guess I'm just impressed by the creativity and wisdom in Clement's view. It's an allegorical interpretation of course, but he managed to hit a number of nails on the head simultaneously.
To be clear, it doesn't persuade me that we should drop the use of instruments, but we do need to remember the dangers of distracting the living instruments, who are there for a wider primary purpose. To show forth the praise of God, as Eusebius put it. That's not about performance, however skilled, and in whatever form it may take.
ETA
Liturgy itself can be a different kind of distraction. Either becoming a matter of fluent recitation, showing what good memories we have, or so familiar that we lose the meaning and purpose of the words. Not so much an issue for me. Coming from a non liturgical background, I find it very helpful in visits to other churches. The words come fresh to me. But I've heard different views from those for whom the forms are usual.
[ 08. January 2014, 11:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, here's a bit of historical treasure.
Check out the quotes from Clement, Augustine, and Chrysostom in particular. Clement dates from about AD190, Chrysostom and Augustine from the 4th century, but all saying the same thing. The human voice was the acceptable musical instrument; use of instruments was not "kosher" maybe for being "kosher"?
A strange resonance with the much later Puritanism and some subsequent nonconformist groupings.
So it looks as though singing was normal, certainly well established by the end of the second century if not much earlier. But instrumental accompaniment gets a real thumbs down from some pretty "heavy hitters" amongst the Church Fathers. And there is a common theological understanding at work, which we can still see having influence in the much later quotes from the Middle Ages. And then post Reformation as well.
This was news to me; does anyone know if this is a general understanding of how things developed?
I could not work out who owns the website at the end of the link. So how seriously can we take the selection on it? Is it a convincing selection or has he or she simply picked out what suits their own opinion? Do you know?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I asked myself the same questions, Enoch! Thought it best just to 'float the quotes' and see the reactions of others. The quotes from the Church Fathers are referenced and so can be checked out, either by reference to books or websites. To that extent it doesn't much matter what the agenda of the site's owners might be.
Are they representative or balanced? Don't know. I'm not sure what is 'balanced' anyway re this topic. I thought they were interesting evidence of early views, and the quotes themselves were worth discussing in the context of past/present considerations.
[ 08. January 2014, 12:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Liturgy itself can be a different kind of distraction. Either becoming a matter of fluent recitation, showing what good memories we have, or so familiar that we lose the meaning and purpose of the words.
This would also be my assumption, and I see it in my own church context with songs I'm very familiar with. ISTM this is a powerful argument in favour of extempore prayer, although I do acknowledge that such prayer can be rather trivial and prosaic (Lord, we just really just pray that you'll just really...).
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Distinctly non-charismatic/evangelical example - at SCM events/meetings where we have a more basic time of worship, it often consists of some pre-prepared prayers, singing Taize chants and a Scripture reading or two. Usually the singing is acapella. I do agree that the 'purity' of it is very uplifting, and I find myself humming/singing to myself the chants for ages afterwards. I do find that where there are instruments and/or a choir (especially a choir), people leave it up to them to do the work.
Singing the offices is another non-evangelical example of acapella singing being used successfully.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Barnabas62: Liturgy itself can be a different kind of distraction. Either becoming a matter of fluent recitation, showing what good memories we have, or so familiar that we lose the meaning and purpose of the words.
To me personally, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hearing (or reciting) a liturgy of which I know the words well can be a meditational tool to me. I guess it's a bit similar to sining a Taizé song repeatedly.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Had a little chuckle over your typo, LeRoc. The connection between the repetitive Taize songs (and other forms of repeated singing) and "sin" has been made by several!
"I could sing of your love for ever" is a well known and often much repeated line in a Martin Smith contemporary worship song.
But I do think that in all of this, whether one is singing, or praying, or listening to Holy Readings, or making use of liturgical forms in the services, or partaking of bread and wine, or giving towards needs, or indeed anything else which forms part of worship, the key individual and congregational factor is sincerity of engagement with what we do. I guess the lesson from the fulminations in Amos 5 is that if our lives are in contradiction to our lips, then God will not think much of our offerings in worship. They will get up His nose (loose translation at work there!)
That I think is the central meaning of "in Spirit and in Truth". And that is a challenge, whatever we are doing. I think it is a challenge which transcends all forms.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
FWIW, in my personal prayers I do use 'office' material but also intersperse it with extemporary prayer for the reasons that have been outlined ... you can become over-familiar with the material and so your mind free-wheels ...
I'm finding that the seasonal aspect of liturgy helps with that, as the 'diet' varies according to the liturgical season and the calendar.
Funnily enough, back in the day when I used to be more into full-on extemporary prayer then I found that my extemporising was heavily influenced by my private liturgical practices ...
I'll be honest, I used to show off a bit with extemporary prayers as I'm Welsh and wordy. People used to comment on them and commend me on them, little knowing that much of what I was saying was rehashed from liturgical sources ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Assuredly, I had my reward in full ... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against extemporary prayer but I tend to think these days that it's given some more 'backbone' if there's a liturgical spine for it to reverberate around.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Barnabas62: Had a little chuckle over your typo, LeRoc. The connection between the repetitive Taize songs (and other forms of repeated singing) and "sin" has been made by several!
Oops I never ever sin to a Taizé song, honest!
quote:
Barnabas62: But I do think that in all of this, whether one is singing, or praying, or listening to Holy Readings, or making use of liturgical forms in the services, or partaking of bread and wine, or giving towards needs, or indeed anything else which forms part of worship, the key individual and congregational factor is sincerity of engagement with what we do. I guess the lesson from the fulminations in Amos 5 is that if our lives are in contradiction to our lips, then God will not think much of our offerings in worship. They will get up His nose (loose translation at work there!)
With this I agree.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
To echo Barnabas62, yes, it's all in the attitude and intention.
I've come across some Baptists (not in the Baptist church I was involved with) who thought that Anglicans were 'insincere' because they used prayers out of a book rather than their own extemporary prayers ... as though extemporary prayer in and of itself was some kind of bulwark against insincerity ...
Irrespective of how we do or don't pray or what forms we do or don't use, it's the attitude of the heart that counts and only the Lord knows that for sure ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Following these exchanges, I'm wondering about the significance of order, by which I mean both sequencing and orderly processes, as an encouragement towards sincerity of engagement, when we gather together.
In the renewal movement, there has often been talk of "holy chaos", but I must say that most of the time it just looked like chaos to me on the occasions when I saw it break out.
Justin Martyr spoke clearly not just of specific ingredients but a particular sequence. And from the ancient examples in Judaism and some liturgical forms today, we find these ideas of procession and ascent. There are signs in the record that the jews gathered together, then processed towards the temple. And in some of today's liturgies, there are opening processional hymns. A movement towards the Holy seems to be a part of sincerity of engagement. So sequence may have a real value in encouraging sincerity of congregational commitment.
There is, for example, the issue of confession as an important early or prior step, or as communal prayer early in the service. Then there is the sequence, which is in Justin Martyr and many modern liturgies, that the reading of the scriptures is followed by the sermon, intended as expository on the scriptures. A kind of get-it, got it sequence. Intercessions, a sign of peace, and offering then follow, and in the Mass or Communion, this sequence reaches its climax in the celebration of the Eucharist (or remembering the Lord in the breaking of bread if we are memorialist).
There is something profoundly practical about that sequence, so far as encouraging sincerity of engagement. What is interesting about the Justin Martyr sequence is that the offering comes at the end. Freely you have received, now freely give as a sign. That looks pretty good too, on reflection.
Sometimes, in my nonco setting, I get this Eric Morecome feeling. "I'm playing all the right notes. BUT, not necessarily in the right order". Sometimes, also, in our informality, we seem to forget some of the notes.
But these are informal times. An extended period of singing seems to encourage sincerity of engagement in some as well; others want to run for cover!
To prevent this getting too Ecclesiantical, I wonder what principles, as well as practices, are involved in encouraging sincerity of engagement. What does the history tell us? What are our current experiences?
Seems like an interesting place to got to, following recent exchanges. But please take the thread in other directions if you'd like.
[ 08. January 2014, 15:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Isn't there a tradition in the Western (or at least RC) Church of saying that the organ is special and more permitted than other instruments? Where did this come from?
I do not know. It is certainly the case now that the pipe organ has a special place in the Latin Church, as affirmed even in Vatican II documents. (For a collection of various contemporary official quotes on RC music, see here.) But the Catholic Encyclopaedia states that the rejection of all musical instruments during mass, including of the organ, prevailed also in the Western Church right up to the 12th century! One cannot be too sad about a corruption that gave us J.S. Bach, or for that matter a wide variety of truly stunning religious music to this day. Still, as far as communal worship is concerned, communal chanting, with perhaps the addition of some simple unaccompanied singing at the beginning and the end, is IMHO superior to anything else... but silence. (I'm using a simplistic but helpful distinction there: chanting is tune following text, singing is text following tune.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, that's my reading too. The reluctance did not just apply to Catholicism. In my earlier link, there is this quote.
quote:
ANGLICAN: the only protestant church to use instrumental music before 1750 AD: When the Reformation came to England, the Anglican church came within one vote (58-59) of abolishing instrumental music in 1562.
Right on about J S Bach!
[ETA Silence, too]
[ 08. January 2014, 17:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I think when the music becomes so complicated that is can only be performed by specialist musicians it essentially ceases to be liturgical, in my opinion. So for me that means complex polyphony, orchestral pieces etc are all out despite their beauty. They are performance pieces not liturgical music.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Isn't there a tradition in the Western (or at least RC) Church of saying that the organ is special and more permitted than other instruments? Where did this come from?
I do not know. It is certainly the case now that the pipe organ has a special place in the Latin Church, as affirmed even in Vatican II documents. (For a collection of various contemporary official quotes on RC music, see here.) But the Catholic Encyclopaedia states that the rejection of all musical instruments during mass, including of the organ, prevailed also in the Western Church right up to the 12th century! One cannot be too sad about a corruption that gave us J.S. Bach, or for that matter a wide variety of truly stunning religious music to this day. Still, as far as communal worship is concerned, communal chanting, with perhaps the addition of some simple unaccompanied singing at the beginning and the end, is IMHO superior to anything else... but silence. (I'm using a simplistic but helpful distinction there: chanting is tune following text, singing is text following tune.)
Didn't Pius X ban all instruments but organs (and all mass settings other than Solesmes Gregorian Chant), which got the Austrians in a tither because of their orchestral Masses? I don't remember where I read that.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Coming back to Barnabas62's point about sequence and pattern ... many years ago now, Fr Gregory, an Orthodox priest who used to frequent the Ship, observed to me that he could detect an echo of the Orthodox procession - or 'ascent' if you like - in what he saw as the cyclical pattern of charismatic worship.
He didn't expand on that but it was an interesting thought.
At the risk of becoming too Ecclesiantical, I'm wondering whether the non-conformist worship of Barnabas62's setting follows a 'hymn-sandwich' pattern or the pattern that many charismatic churches have adopted - where they distinguish 'praise and thanksgiving' from what they call 'worship' - which is rather more vatic or even ecstatic in tone (without necessarily descending into the kind of 'holy chaos' which has been referred to - and which is generally quite rare these days I think).
I remember a URC minister telling me that he felt that charismatic worship was skewed and deficient in its Trinitarianism ... ie. you started with prayers and songs addressed to God the Father then the more 'ecstatic' worship which followed would be largely Christocentric - as would often be the sermon - with the following 'ministry time' (personal or individual prayer etc) being the part where God the Holy Spirit was evoked.
He felt the whole thing was out of whack.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I think when the music becomes so complicated that is can only be performed by specialist musicians it essentially ceases to be liturgical, in my opinion. So for me that means complex polyphony, orchestral pieces etc are all out despite their beauty. They are performance pieces not liturgical music.
Some and some, Ad Orientem. This is acceptable, surely?
More controversially, perhaps, Bach's Mass in B minor and indeed the whole of the St Matthew Passion do not fit the simple Traditional criteria for worship, but I am sure I am not the only one who finds that listening to them "draws me upwards". Even if that is mixing up aesthetic appreciation with praising God, I really don't mind that sort of mixed up at all. I'd say it is music which can be appreciated on different levels.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Without a doubt wonderful music. I too am especially fond of Bach. I just don't think it's liturgical. The same goes for complex polyphony, beautiful as that can sound too.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Hmm. You see, I agree about the need to have prayers or songs requiring active participation available in straightforward, simple forms. But I am not against beautiful decoration as an offering. Despite my nonco background, it does not strike me as necessary for everything to be "plain and simple" in communal offerings. The setting is part of the offering as well.
As a child, I sang in a church choir. The choir master was an excellent organist as well. On many occasions, the last sound heard in the church at the point of departure was his playing of Toccata and Fugue. I always enjoyed the singing, even though I didn't really have much idea about what was going on, or its purpose. But I particularly enjoyed that ending, was stirred by it.
I thiink the aesthetics of music, its capacity to speak in a way words do not, its uplifting effect, can be a kind of window through which glimpses of the numinous can be seen. It stirs, even brings awe and wonder into play. At least it does for me.
I think the concerns about idolatry, or distraction, or suitability as a pure offering, make good sense. There is "bathwater" in that. But there is also "baby" around. Human creativity is an echo of the image of God in human beings. So long as it is window, rather than fascinating shiny bauble, the beauty can serve the purposes of God as well, in "drawing us up".
These things are knife-edged, aren't they?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
For instance, one claimed to have heard a lady start singing 'You are my sunshine, my only sunshine ...' during a time of spontaneous prayer/'waiting on God.'
People started joining in and it was only when they got a few lines into the song that they realised what they were singing ...
Similarly, one guy told me how he'd once been in a service where someone had started singing, 'He'll be coming round the mountain when He comes ... He'll be coming round the mountain when He comes ... He'll be coming round the mountain, coming round the mountain, coming round the mountain when he comes ...'
Apparently, people joined in and it was only when they got to 'Singing i-i-ippy-ippy-i ...' that they realised what was going on ...
Now, this might be apocryphal but I think it illustrates what could happen ...
That sounds suspiciously like the land of Adrian Plass, only his (fictional) example was "Home on the Range" (see this).
[ 09. January 2014, 08:48: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
For what it is worth, I think the Roman Empire had a big influence on the practice of Christianity as we know it - in the sense that it became largely about special religious services in particular special places. I don't believe that it was originally like that.
And, of course, whilst I think Christian expressions which seem to continue this myth are entirely Wrong, that doesn't therefore mean that there is nothing positive or useful about them.
Plenty of room for you to develop that theme in this thread pydseybare; also to air your strong views on the justification (or otherwise) for using the word "worship" to describe practices at particular gatherings. The scope of this thread is easily wide enough to accommodate that.
What did you make of the evidence of Pliny the Younger?
My historical understanding is that Christian practices and customs (let's call them that) were first of all subjected to forms of oppression within the Roman Empire (1 Peter and the Book of Revelation give NT testimony in this respect) and there were martyrs. Attempts were made to stop practices and customs in accordance with Roman understandings of loyalty, and to some extent the effect of the imperial cult assigning divinity to emperors. The influence of the empire re the acceptable forms of Christianity, beliefs, practices, and what is now customarily called worship, is a proper topic, but I thought it applied more post-Constantine i.e. from the 4th century onwards and the era of the Ecumenical Councils.
I also appreciate that part of your argument concerns the correct use and understanding of New Testament words, where there is indeed a lot of scope for argument. But there does seem to be evidence from the post-NT pre-Constantine period which shows that Christians "worshipped" in their gatherings, certainly in the sense of showing forth praise to God in various ways, long before any alleged Roman takeover.
By all means call that something else if you like. Practices at gatherings, whatever. Most of us here are just using a customary word and are well aware of lifestyle obligations as well. None of that needs to inhibit your own insights, which are very welcome.
[Edited to identify Pliny correctly]
[ 09. January 2014, 11:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
For what it is worth, I think the Roman Empire had a big influence on the practice of Christianity as we know it.
Although I'm no church historian, I'm sure you are right - because culture and context ALWAYS influence worship.
The question is whether this is a good thing (i.e. it grounds worship in incarnational reality) or a bad thing (i.e. it means that worship unquestionably adopts the values of the surrounding culture, or becomes a totally negative reaction to that culture) - probably a bit of both.
But I think it means that it's futile (a) to seek some New Testament "perfection" in worship, as that was 'then' and we're living 'now'; or (b) to suggest that worship and liturgy must be timeless and changeless - which is not to say that it shouldn't be rooted in a historical tradition.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Indeed ... coming back to the Roman Empire thing, you still have a residual echo of the times of persecution in the Orthodox Liturgy when the Deacon calls, 'The doors! The doors!' - in a stylised representation of the early church practice of closing the doors before the actual communion part of the service. The 'catechumens' are asked to depart. 'Let all catechumens depart ... let no catechumens remain ... depart ye catechumens ...'
Now, I've never seen a bunch of people get up and walk out at the point, nor have I, as a heterodox Christian between asked to leave ... (although I can't partake, obviously).
Whether this intriguing survival is an example of fossilisation or else of a salutary reminder of the Church's persecuted past, I leave for others to decide ...
Of course, there's been development and there'll always be development - as Baptist Trainfan notes. But the idea that we somehow have in the NT an exact blue-print of how we are conduct ourselves in terms of worship and service strikes me as completely off-the-wall and unattainable.
As I've often said here on these boards, all we end up doing is reading our own worship preferences and practices back into the pages of the NT ... imagining that the NT churches were like the Vineyard in togas or the Brompton Oratory in togas ...
On the singing thing - I can see Ad Orientem's point, and Orthodox chant is pretty plain and unadorned compared with Western polyphony. Just as their iconography doesn't go in for the flourishes of the High Baroque.
There is a fine line in all of this. It seems to me - and to some Orthodox I've come across - that certain famous icons have become so encrusted in complicated and fussy frames and jewels and so on that the actual images themselves are all but obscured ...
So it's not as if even the Orthodox - who would claim so - always get the balance right.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
orthodox chant is plain and unadorned, but there most certainly is singing that is polyphonic (in Russian churches). I'm also wondering about statements in this thread that seem to separate "singing" and "prayer". for us Orthodox the two are often one.. we sing many (most) of our prayers both during the liturgy and outside it. nearly all the liturgy is sung, including prayers such as "our Father". Very little that I can think of sung during an Orthodox liturgy would not be prayers of one type or other.
I was talking with my Mom the other day (Christmas day, actually, by the old calendar) after church about music in liturgy, and while we both don't much care for "modern" music (in a church setting), we recognize that the music of the Orthodox liturgy is certainly culturally based, with each culture developing it's own musical style, so the singing in a Greek church is very different from the singing in a Russian church, and therefore there is no reason why there can't be a new "modern" singing style developed by the new "American" culture. But I doubt I'd like it (within liturgy).
as for early church services, I'm no church historian, but I do know that the Liturgy of St. James was around fairly early on, and even the liturgy of St. Basil was developed before the church was "legitimized". the liturgy of St. James is named after James the brother of Christ, although I don't know how much evidence there is to support it actually being developed by him. we do know it's been around a darned long time, and that it includes notations for the SINGING of prayers.
Just looked it up on Wiki and indeed, some believe it may have been around since AD 60, although there is debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_St_James
[ 09. January 2014, 12:07: Message edited by: Anyuta ]
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Plenty of room for you to develop that theme in this thread pydseybare; also to air your strong views on the justification (or otherwise) for using the word "worship" to describe practices at particular gatherings. The scope of this thread is easily wide enough to accommodate that.
What did you make of the evidence of Pliny the Younger?
I'm not sure what you want me to say. I can believe that Christians met and sang. I can't see that there is anything here to justify the idea that those meetings had a special function as worship.
quote:
My historical understanding is that Christian practices and customs (let's call them that) were first of all subjected to forms of oppression within the Roman Empire (1 Peter and the Book of Revelation give NT testimony in this respect) and there were martyrs. Attempts were made to stop practices and customs in accordance with Roman understandings of loyalty, and to some extent the effect of the imperial cult assigning divinity to emperors. The influence of the empire re the acceptable forms of Christianity, beliefs, practices, and what is now customarily called worship, is a proper topic, but I thought it applied more post-Constantine i.e. from the 4th century onwards and the era of the Ecumenical Councils.
I also appreciate that part of your argument concerns the correct use and understanding of New Testament words, where there is indeed a lot of scope for argument. But there does seem to be evidence from the post-NT pre-Constantine period which shows that Christians "worshipped" in their gatherings, certainly in the sense of showing forth praise to God in various ways, long before any alleged Roman takeover.
I believe that in the early period, Christians pooled resources, lived together and so on and so forth. The influence of the Roman Empire taking on Christianity as official religion was to stamp out this idea of all-embracing Christianity as-a-lifestyle and replace it with the kinds of religious practice that were more familiar to the classical Roman and Greek religions. Hence I believe we have (with a lot of distance) religious practices that have a lot more influence from the Roman Empire than the churches of the New Testament, which were essentially entirely removed and forgotten about outside of the epistles.
The Roman Catholic - and then the other churches - developed forms of religion based on this, hence we have today various forms of structured, time-and-place religion.
[ 09. January 2014, 12:21: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, but the acceptance of Christianity as an official religion did not happen until the 4th century, whereas we have evidence of regular weekly gatherings to listen to scripture, hear exhortations, pray, sing unaccompanied songs, celebrate Eucharist, give to the needs of others, all together, long before that.
The witnesses here for example include Justin Martyr and Clement, both from the 2nd century, a couple of hundred years before the establishment of Christianity as an official religion. By all means call it something else other than worship, but these practices are associated with times of persecution. And these witnesses are by no means the only ones.
If you want to hold to the notion that Christianity was primarily (even solely?) social in its expression of faith, then how do you explain the evidence from these other sources, which predated the official acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire.
The only way you can do that, so far as I can see, is to declare these other sources as corrupt, edited once Christianity became official. But that is a circular argument, isn't it?
Heck, I'm a nonconformist Protestant. I have no difficulty in buying the argument that there was political intervention in the processes of the 4th and 5th Century Ecumenical Councils which clarified Orthodox beliefs and practices. There is evidence to support that.
But the evidence before that period does not support your view of everything Christians did, or of the importance of communal gatherings as offerings to God. There is a multi-volume treatise by Irenaeus "Against Heresies" produced during the second century, which is full of evidence and argument about correct and incorrect practices in regular gatherings. And that was written by a Bishop who had first hand experience of persecutions and martyrdoms within his own flock.
Seriously, there is a lot out there about early church history (first three centuries) which you may never have read. I don't think it supports your understanding.
But let me repeat what I have said elsewhere. I think you are absolutely right to emphasise the central importance of living out the Christian faith by means of unselfish, sharing lifestyles. Regular gatherings were intended, amongst other reasons, to reinforce that faith is expressed not only with our lips but in our lives.
[ 09. January 2014, 12:55: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes, but the acceptance of Christianity as an official religion did not happen until the 4th century, whereas we have evidence of regular weekly gatherings to listen to scripture, hear exhortations, pray, sing unaccompanied songs, celebrate Eucharist, give to the needs of others, all together, long before that.
I don't think we do. We know they met. I don't know that there is evidence more than that about what they thought the purpose of those meetings was.
quote:
The witnesses here for example include Justin Martyr and Clement, both from the 2nd century, a couple of hundred years before the establishment of Christianity as an official religion. By all means call it something else other than worship, but these practices are associated with times of persecution. And these witnesses are by no means the only ones.
I'm not disagreeing that the practices happened, just that they were described as worship. I don't think that people set aside time and gave it a special meaning as they do today. I also believe that they met a lot more regularly than we do today for purposes we would not today regard as worship.
quote:
If you want to hold to the notion that Christianity was primarily (even solely?) social in its expression of faith, then how do you explain the evidence from these other sources, which predated the official acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire.
Well, I explain it by pointing to the New Testament, which to me seems to be very clear about the kind of lifestyle required of the Christian. It is one of sacrifice not worship. I'm not saying that praise, prayer and meeting did not happen, but I am saying that they were not given the importance and title of 'worship' as we have today until the influence of the Roman Empire.
quote:
The only way you can do that, so far as I can see, is to declare these other sources as corrupt, edited once Christianity became official. But that is a circular argument, isn't it?
Not really. Do you have a source which describes early Christian meetings as worship? Because I've never seen one.
quote:
Heck, I'm a nonconformist Protestant. I have no difficulty in buying the argument that there was political intervention in the processes of the 4th and 5th Century Ecumenical Councils which clarified Orthodox beliefs and practices. There is evidence to support that.
But the evidence before that period does not support your view of everything Christians did, or of the importance of communal gatherings as offerings to God. There is a multi-volume treatise by Irenaeus "Against Heresies" produced during the second century, which is full of evidence and argument about correct and incorrect practices in regular gatherings. And that was written by a Bishop who had first hand experience of persecutions and martyrdoms within his own flock.
I'm not sure I see the relevance.
quote:
Seriously, there is a lot out there about early church history (first three centuries) which you may never have read. I don't think it supports your understanding.
But let me repeat what I have said elsewhere. I think you are absolutely right to emphasise the central importance of living out the Christian faith by means of unselfish, sharing lifestyles. Regular gatherings were intended, amongst other reasons, to reinforce that faith is expressed not only with our lips but in our lives.
As I have constantly said, regular gatherings have many functions. But worship is not, and was not, ever one of them.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't doubt that the earliest Christians had a more communal lifestyle - although it's not clear that the pattern described for the Jerusalem church in Acts prior to its scattering through persecution was replicated in precise detail elsewhere.
I don't doubt that the earliest Christians met more regularly than we do and also for purposes which we might not describe nor recognise as 'worship'.
But it's a bit of a jump from that to assert dogmatically that they didn't understand their gatherings - whether for praise, thanksgiving, prayer, sharing alms and everything else they did - as worship and service. Surely however they met and however they conducted themselves when they did so it was all part of a worshipful lifestyle of service and sacrifice - both/and not either/or.
Hence my sense that you are introducing a false dichotomy where none actually exists.
You're constructing an early church of your own imagination that suits your own predilections. Simple as.
Everyone else does the same. I don't see why you should be any different.
Of course the pattern of Christian meetings/gatherings and so on were influenced by the pattern of the cultures in which they found themselves. How could it be otherwise? From the 2nd century onwards the early Church became far more Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman for a kick off - and moved further from its original base in Judaism - although the foundations and impetus for that can be seen in the NT itself, of course.
It's certainly true that there was growing wealth and worldliness - which is what the whole monastic movement sought to guard against - 'white martyrdom' rather than 'red martyrdom.'
People like Anthony of Egypt were withdrawing into the desert as hermits long before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
From the 4th century onwards, as Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire then political interference and shenanigans certainly became prevalent. But they weren't the whole story.
Besides, history has happened. We can't change it. We can't miraculously go back to a pre-Christendom era where everything is fine and dandy. The reality is, nothing was ever fine and dandy. There was never any pure, golden age.
That doesn't mean that people shouldn't live in a counter-cultural way or should shy away from 'speaking truth to power' or shouldn't get involved in radical politics and causes if they feel this is compatible with their Christian witness. Sure. Bring it on.
But getting all anal about what we do or don't call our gatherings/services/meetings or whatever else seems to be missing the point to me.
We could do away with the 'w' word altogether and call our meetings 'Shubalubadingding' or 'Let's all be radical and live like they did in the New Testament meetings' or whatever else but that doesn't, in and of itself, alter anything.
I've got all on trying to live consistently and with integrity in the light of the light I've already received - as it were - without getting all het up about what people do or don't call their gatherings or what they do or don't do in them or what they wear or don't wear or what ...
You see? On and on and on it goes. It's a complete red herring.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
