Home | Forum | Arcade
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nancy
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 1097
Location: Illinois, U.S.A.
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:16 pm Post subject: Why do you stay with one denominaton? |
 |
|
Most Christians tend to stay with one particular church.
How then, are we to embrace the concept of Jesus' message to love all as the Father loves us?
Is there a benefit of going from church to church to meet with + share other Christian's ways?
_________________
You O Lord are the potter, I am the clay,the work of Your hands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's two questions here, and I'll try to provide my initial opinions on both.
How do "we embrace the concept of Jesus' message to love all"? Well, without sounding too trite, we need to just do it. We need to acknowledge that the other traditions are valid ways of expressing a response to God, treat members of different denominations with respect, support and encourage outreach and mission by other churches and avoid confrontation about theological differences unless there is an important reason not to.
I definitely think that there is a benefit to be gained from making an effort to experience other Christian 'cultures', but there is also a danger of 'church-hopping' too much. Personally, I go to a fairly staid evangelical church, but once every month or two I'll go to the Anglican Priory where it's bells and smells because I like the change. This helps me to remember that singing emotionalised songs about the cute and fluffy side of God (which is what happens most Sundays at my main church) is not the only expression of corporate worship available. The differences in theology between the two churches also helps to keep me thinking about what I believe and can challenge my assumptions. It's also nice to get different biscuits after the service!
However, fundamentally I'm a member of the family of God at the staid evangelical, and I think it's important that I spend more time there than I do everywhere else combined so that I'm properly a part of the family there. Everything else has to be just a break from the routine, and not the routine itself.
Does that answer the question at all? Anyone else like to comment?
davelarge
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: Re: Why do you stay with one denominaton? |
|
|
Hello Nancy,
Are you speaking of only going to one church, or only worshipping at one "denomination's" churches? (I'll explain the use of quotes later).
Attending one church, your local church, regularly obviously serves its purpose as being the place to go to receive the Sacraments and worship as "one body", that is, the same as all other Christians thoughout history. It is practical to go to the nearest church possible, providing there are no problems with other members of the congregation or thr priest. Attending other churches that are less local, or two congregations meeting together to receive Communion from the same priest is also a good idea, especially if it brings together people from different cultures. For example, in my home town recently the Greek church met up with my own (a roughly 60-40 mix of English and Russian, with services in English) to share communion. Both of these churches are Orthodox.
As for "inter-demoniational" meetings, that is a different matter. My use of quotation marks is simply this: I don't believe in denominations. There is one main reason to go to church, and that is to receive communion.
I live in Beijing. There is one Orthodox church, on the grounds of the Russian Embassy, that gives the Divine Liturgy very irregularly (the next service is the 28th of August). Even when there is a service, it can be difficult to enter, being a non-Russian, and the (non-Orthodox) security guards on the gates of the embassy are very capricious as to who they let in. Now, in Beijing there are roughly 30 or so established churches, that give their own services in Chinese or English. The British Embassy gives two Catholic masses every Sunday(the influence of Blair!?), as does the Argentinian embassy. On top of that there are hundreds of "house churches" dotted around Beijing, some less legal than others.
I don't go to any of them. Because none of them provide the flesh and blood of Christ to the faithful, nor worship as the way the early Christians did (which was based on a liturgy given directly by God). So that's why I saty with one "denomination".
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VictoriaPlum
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 718
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
In my case I spent years searching and experienced worship in many different churches - denominational and non-denominational. Eventually i found what I felt was my true spiritual home and haven't wanted to go anywhere else. However, I am quite happy to pray with anyone and respect members of other denominations (& none!).
_________________
Vix |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nancy
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 1097
Location: Illinois, U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This leads me to ask, do you suppose that Jesus intended for people to be "ruled over" by specific leaders their gathering together? I don't suppose they even had what we call churches during Christ's time.
It would seem that there is often a rigidity to comply with "ceremony" rather than just love God+one another.
If then we are one big Christian family(for the most part), why can't people just all gather together to worship? Why are there set services at all? Why not just live as Jesus instructed us to?
_________________
You O Lord are the potter, I am the clay,the work of Your hands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1452
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMO there is not justification for a "priesthood". There is no priesthood apart from the priethood of all believers in the NT.
I take communion regularly and would ask every christian be baptised.
I do not believe that taking or adminstering communion is a single reason to go to church.
I am not going to enter into a prolonged discussion on these matters as I know we shall not agree. I am expressing my opinion.
Man made rules and regulations are just that "man made" and are only of value in so far as they are also God made. IMHO many many aren't.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand (and I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, because I do agree with you jtheb), Jesus did seem to appoint certain people to do the job of leadership before he went back to heaven. Therefore, shouldn't this leadership be continued?
Personally, I think it's very sad when a Christian says words to the effect of "I won't worship with them because they don't do it right". All Christians agree on so much more than they disagree on, I really don't think there's anything to be gained by being so exclusive.
As for Nancy's question about ceremony, I don't have a problem with ceremony as a concept, so long as it is a symbol of what is going on in the individual and not the end in itself. Quite where the real presence in the sacraments of the RC and Orthodox fits into that, I genuinely don't know. But what I am sure of is that when churches (by which I mean individual congregations of any denomination) get too set in their ways, Bad Things™ can start to happen.
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1452
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | On the other hand (and I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, because I do agree with you jtheb), Jesus did seem to appoint certain people to do the job of leadership before he went back to heaven. |
He did say to Peter and several others that they would loose on earth what was loosed in heaven and bind on earth what was bound in heaven.
He did not say that any authority they had would be passed on.
Obviously the better informed and taught would possess some leadership roles and "elders" presbuteros are put in churches but are not given dictatorial positions. These are not priests hieros this word is only used to describe all believers in the church. It is used to describe the jewish priests.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patjoseph55
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 17
Location: Kettering
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I go to 2 differant churches, in the morning its the Salvation Army, and in the afternoon a new plant on the estate where i live. I do community work through both from time to time
_________________
While women weep as they do now, I’ll fight; while little children go hungry as they do now, I’ll fight; while there remains one dark soul without the light of God, I’ll fight—I’ll fight to the very end.
William Booth May 9th 1912 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nancy
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 1097
Location: Illinois, U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can someone here try to give the "literal"/original meaning of "church" in the following verse from scripture?
Matthew 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
NAB
_________________
You O Lord are the potter, I am the clay,the work of Your hands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Nancy,
| Nancy wrote: | | This leads me to ask, do you suppose that Jesus intended for people to be "ruled over" by specific leaders their gathering together? I don't suppose they even had what we call churches during Christ's time. |
Not exactly the same, but as your Catholic mass contains (I believe) many Scriptural references, and the prayers are based on Psalms, we can certainly trace a natural progression from the time of the Apsotles to now. That is, I believe, how it should be.
The early Christians certainly gathered together to worship, as it is recorded in Acts. The nature of their worship is recorded elsewhere (in the Didache) because the book of Acts does not concern itself with instructing the faithful on how to worship, but is instead a narrative. I posted a thread here about "liturgy" in the New Testament church. Like JtheB I don't want to argue on here, but a friendly debate on that thread I have no problem with.
http://keepingthefaith.forumwise.com/keepingthefaith-thread841.html
| Nancy wrote: | | It would seem that there is often a rigidity to comply with "ceremony" rather than just love God+one another. |
This can always be a problem, but the importance and power of the liturgy should not be underestimated.
| Nancy wrote: | | If then we are one big Christian family(for the most part), why can't people just all gather together to worship? Why are there set services at all? Why not just live as Jesus instructed us to? |
"Do this is rememberance of me". How to "do this"? The New Testament church seemed to meet together every Sunday to worship together (in Greek decribed as "the liturgy"), so again the set services are the instructions of Jesus. Again, I'll reference you to the thread.
| davelarge wrote: | | Personally, I think it's very sad when a Christian says words to the effect of "I won't worship with them because they don't do it right". All Christians agree on so much more than they disagree on, I really don't think there's anything to be gained by being so exclusive. |
I tried not to say that above. The reason is that I now (perhaps belatedly) realize it is saddening and sometimes offensive. It is also not the way I came to my understanding: i.e. I didn't believe "they don't do it right" first, and then try to justify the position. What I did, was recognize what I needed, found it in the Orthodox church, and stayed there. Later I saw the other Christian groups, and could not find what I needed (not what I "wanted") there. Yes, it's true that on those most Christians agree. Yet there are a number of fundamental differences, and they are not to do with mere cerebral assent to certain dogmas. The main one is of course the Real Presence.
| davelarge wrote: |
Quite where the real presence in the sacraments of the RC and Orthodox fits into that, I genuinely don't know. |
They don't, and that is why I cannot go to non-Orthodox churches. But it's certainly nothing personal. And neither is it being "exclusive". Membership of the Orthodox chruch is open to all
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1452
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
A reasonable reply IMHO
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| -theophilus- wrote: | | They don't, and that is why I cannot go to non-Orthodox churches. But it's certainly nothing personal. And neither is it being "exclusive". Membership of the Orthodox chruch is open to all |
I'll happily accept that it's not personal, but it is still exclusive. It also doesn't matter how you came to believe that the Orthodox Church is the 'right' one (subjectively or objectively), you're still being exclusive by holding that belief. You're making an assessment which says that a majority of people who call themselves Christian actually are not, and that what they believe about how they interact with God is wrong, and that the way your church does it is the only right way.
That is the very definition of the word exclusive.
Anyhow, let's move on.
Nancy, I've wondered about your question too. From the Forerunner commmentary | Quote: | | The word "church" is translated from the Greek ekklesia, meaning "called-out" or "assembly." The "church in the wilderness" consisted of those called out of physical Egypt; the New Testament church are those called out of the spiritual Egypt of false belief and practice dominating this world. Without this knowledge, it is extremely difficult to identify the church Christ built. |
Hopefully that helps?
davelarge
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| davelarge wrote: |
I'll happily accept that it's not personal, but it is still exclusive. It also doesn't matter how you came to believe that the Orthodox Church is the 'right' one (subjectively or objectively), you're still being exclusive by holding that belief. You're making an assessment which says that a majority of people who call themselves Christian actually are not, and that what they believe about how they interact with God is wrong, and that the way your church does it is the only right way.
That is the very definition of the word exclusive.
|
It's only exclusive in a world were belief and action are divorced from each other. Or in a world were words and their meaning are divorced from each other.
| davelarge wrote: | | and that the way your church does it is the only right way. |
As we are both agreed it's nothing personal, then it is wrong I think to call it "my church". It is no more my church than it is yours.
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davelarge
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 219
Location: Left a bit... Right a bit...
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| -theophilus- wrote: | | davelarge wrote: |
I'll happily accept that it's not personal, but it is still exclusive. It also doesn't matter how you came to believe that the Orthodox Church is the 'right' one (subjectively or objectively), you're still being exclusive by holding that belief. You're making an assessment which says that a majority of people who call themselves Christian actually are not, and that what they believe about how they interact with God is wrong, and that the way your church does it is the only right way.
That is the very definition of the word exclusive.
|
It's only exclusive in a world were belief and action are divorced from each other. Or in a world were words and their meaning are divorced from each other. |
So how would you define exclusive then? You're saying that Christianity is limited to those that attend churches (note the small 'c') with the label Orthodox (note the capital 'O'). Therefore you are excluding a lot of people who would apply the label Christian to themselves. Therefore you are being exclusive.
It's not a matter of whether "belief and action are divorced from each other", whatever that even means. It's a matter of you judging who is and is not in the club, and excluding a lot of people from it.
| -theophilus- wrote: | | davelarge wrote: | | and that the way your church does it is the only right way. |
As we are both agreed it's nothing personal, then it is wrong I think to call it "my church". It is no more my church than it is yours. |
Fine then. I shall be pedantic with my words. You have essentially said that the Church is actually only the church that you identify yourself with. It happens to be labelled the Orthodox church. The implication of what you've said is that churches with other labels (like the Roman Catholic church, the CofE and all the others) are not part of the Church. If that is not exclusive, then you need to look up that word in a dictionary.
By the way, I did only say that it 'saddens' me when Christians make these kinds of statements. I never attacked your right to hold these opinions, or the amount of thought which brought you to them. I just want you to be honest about the implications of what you're saying.
davelarge
_________________
Penguin-powered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
