Old Testament Religion and Problems with Protestantism

[ralphinal]

I think we have a tendency to think of “Liturgy” in terms that reflect only a “high” liturgical practice.

In fact, ANY ordered worship is a liturgy.

Helpful or not, it is more accurate to see liturgy as a spectrum with those who hold to a very traditional and formulaic approach on one side and those with an approach incorporating more extemporaneity within an essentially consistent and constant framework.

Baptists are not usually thought of as “Liturgical” and yet, every Sunday, the service will follow the same order, with the same elements in the same places.

This is liturgy.

Even Friends have a “liturgy”…it’s the “liturgy of silence”…each First Day we meet in expectant waiting upon the Light to provide ministry, either “silent” or vocal.

Exactly. It may do for us to view this discussion as those with “high” liturgy and those with “informal” or some other term for it.

I think that for the sake of the OP, we are discussing “high” liturgy that would include communion.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Look at Old-Testament Judaism. It is was an ancient sacramental religion which made use of incense, ritual, chanting, liturgy, etc. And then in Apocalypse, we see this is the same worship in Heaven. If this is the kind of worship that God accepted in the Old Testament and in Heaven, why would Christians not worship God in this way? Isn’t God consistent?

Old-Testament Judaism was also heirarchical and unified. Do we really believe disunity and splintering and anti-clericalism sprung from that, and that that is what God intended for the New-Testament Religion? Division is repeatedly condemned by St. Paul, and he emphasizes that there is “one body”. One body alone. Not tonnes of different rival bodies.

We see in the Old Testament, a sacramental, ritual, communal, heirarchical and unified religion, so we should expect to see Christianity as a sacramental, ritual, communal, heirarchical and unified religion-- Since God isn’t inconsistent or chaotic. Due to the Incarnation, you would actually expect the New Testament religion to further emphasize the sacramental aspect, much as the understanding of the Eucharist in Catholic understanding.

Thoughts or explanations?

**No problem at all. Those material things are done away in Christ - they served until He came. The Jews offered bloody sacrifices - does the CC ? Of course not. That’s one big difference for a start - & where there is one, there may be several. **​

**Isaiah expressed God’s hatred of the Jewish rites - see chapter 1. Does He find the Mass ****equally hateful ? Why not ? **

God is consistent - He trains His People by leading them from the lesser to the better, from types & shadows to reality, from carnal rites for carnal men to “worship [of] God in Spirit and in truth”. By your reasoning, we need a Temple - but we are that Temple, in Christ. Their Law was written on stone tablets - ours, on our hearts. So even within the OT, there is a shift away from outward worship & splendour, to inward worship not confined to any place, but offered up in the Spirit through Christ to the Father in all the Christian does. He needs no temple who is a living stone in God’s House not built with hands: for he has been made both priest & king in Christ. **

**You’ve been arguing for Dispensationalism. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Was Wesleyan, then Nazarene, then Independent, then (very shortly) Episcopalian, then Anglican, and now I’m going through RCIA to become Catholic.

But that’s the problem. It, by itself, coveys the the wrong messages.

Actually, this is the first time I heard of “historians” saying that, and I highly doubt that that’s true. The Pharisees wanted to kill Him because He claimed Godhood. Also, if you read the Early Church Fathers, you’ll see Christian worship was clearly liturgical. For instance, Justin Martyr, the first Christian Apologist, describes in the 2nd century (100 A.D) speaks of the early Christian worship, and describes a liturgical worship with the Eucharist as the centre.

Believe me, you’re not. I’ve never heard of the historian you quoted, but most historians I’ve read highlight that early Christian worship, was in fact, liturgical. For instance, wikipedia states:

Also check out Liturgica.com.
And read the Early Church Fathers.

**That X is the case, does not make X right. So to say what the ECFs did or said is not a reason - let alone a proof - that they were right to do or say as they did. They could - as to the logic of this - have been very badly wrong. St. Paul warned of false teachers - we have no certainty from history that they were not of that number. Logically, there is no reason they could not have been - which is one reason not all Christians are Catholics **​

 

[Matariel]

Okay, this thread is competely going against the öpee that I posted.

Please everyone re-read the öpee and post relevant to the öpee.

Thank you very much!

 

[Steadfast]

Well the OP has been answered and now we’re riffing, this happens all the time, don;t be alarmed.



We all seem to be getting along nicely, anyway.

To recap:

There really isn’t any direct correspondence between Old Testament ceremonial worship and the higher expressions of Christian liturgy and synaqoque worship was much more like low liturgy Protestant worship anyway.

Some suggested a balance was necessary and that the current order of the mass reflects this balance.

I think there is a tendency to look for correspondences where there really aren’t any beyond a sort of likeness in kind. Second Temple worship was ordered and “liturgical” but it doesn’t bear much organic resemblance to the more ordered varieties of Christian worship.

Insistence that the mass is a sacrifice as the central point of contact seems to be a case of wishful thinking IMO, but leaving that, the basic assumption that there even SHOULD be a correspondence between Christian and Jewish worship (whether temple or synagogue) seems to be unfounded, or, at least unsubstantiated in this thread. And if it is not unfounded, substantiation ought to include some idea of the degree to which the correspondence relates.

From here we got into a discussion of what liturgy is since the OP is, basically, about liturgy.

 

[Steadfast]

Matariel,

Can you tell me why you think there ought to be a correspondence between Old Testament temple worship and the Christian Liturgy?

Is it just that it seems fitting to you? Or are you suggesting that the unchangeable nature of God must necessarily be reflected in an immutible format for public worship?

Or maybe you think I’m wrong and there actually is such a correspondence and since there is, well, there ought to be?

In any case, I’d like to see something more than just the claim.

 

[Matariel]

Due to universal misunderstanding of the öpee, I’m posting a revised öpee-- also because the thread’s pretty much dying…

REVISED ÖPEE

What tradition of worship were you raised in, and what kind of tradition do you take part of now?

Does extemporaneous services lead to abuses? Does it lead to commercialization or secularization of Christianity?

Do people believe extemporaneous services are to be prefered over liturgical worship? If so, why?

Personally, I love the symbology and sacramentality of liturgical worship to be consistent and beautifying of the Incarnational principle of Christianity.

But I would like to know why people worship how they do?

What are the weaknesses and strengths of such worship?

Do you think that differences in “worship styles” leads to misunderstandings and further disunity?

Thanks in advance to all responses.

 

[Publisher]

Exactly. It may do for us to view this discussion as those with “high” liturgy and those with “informal” or some other term for it.

I think that for the sake of the OP, we are discussing “high” liturgy that would include communion.

LOL…Each First Day we do have communion as well…“Communion after the manner of Friends”

 

[Publisher]

Due to universal misunderstanding of the öpee, I’m posting a revised öpee-- also because the thread’s pretty much dying…

REVISED ÖPEE

What tradition of worship were you raised in, and what kind of tradition do you take part of now?

I** was raised in a small evangelical church, the Church of the Nazarene, for the last 35 years I have been a member of the Society of Friends.**

Does extemporaneous services lead to abuses?

It can, but it can also provide an “opening” to the movement of the Holy Spirit as He guides and instructs those who are not “encumbered” by a set form of worship. Do we base our worship experiences on “what abuses might happen”?

Does it lead to commercialization or secularization of Christianity?

**Again, it can, but we should not worship with “what if” in the back of our minds…or…“we must not deviate from how we’ve always done it because something bad ******MIGHT happen…”…“Litury was made for man…not man for litury.” To paraphrase Someone we all hold dear.

Do people believe extemporaneous services are to be prefered over liturgical worship? If so, why?

I do not think they should be “prefered”, each has it’s place. I have been to liturgical churches and found the experience wonderful…but I’ve also been to liturgical services where there was no emotion and it was simply done by rote…I have been to Friends Meeting for Worship and wanted to stick a fork through my forehead I was so bored I could hardly stand it…but for the most part when I go to Meeting prepared to meet God in the Gathered Meeting…it is a wonderful experience of worship, joy and communion.

Personally, I love the symbology and sacramentality of liturgical worship to be consistent and beautifying of the Incarnational principle of Christianity.

I can see how liturgy can reflect the symbology of the “incarnational principle of Christianity”…it is that very principle that Friends Meeting for Worship is based upon…the very Real Presence of Christ is present among His people seeking to incarnate in each life present.

But I would like to know why people worship how they do?

I worship among Friends because it meets the deepest longings of my spirit and Christ is Truly Present among us.

What are the weaknesses and strengths of such worship?

When we do not prepare before hand, when our First Day mornings are rushed or when our minds wander and we plan activities when Meeting is over…when we do not gather expectantly, but just a a matter of “form”, it’s just a bunch of people sitting together in a room. For our worship experience to be meaningful, it takes preparation…not just First Day morning…but each day lived in anticipation of the Gathered Meeting.

Do you think that differences in “worship styles” leads to misunderstandings and further disunity?

Only when the “worship style” becomes more important than the people worshipping…when the “style” becomes the focus and the “style” is seen as “Truth” instead of a vehicle of Truth, then yes, it can lead to misunderstandings and disunity…we place “form” over one another.

Thanks in advance to all responses.

 

[Steadfast]

What tradition of worship were you raised in, and what kind of tradition do you take part of now?

None. Lutheran.

Does extemporaneous services lead to abuses? Does it lead to commercialization or secularization of Christianity?

Maybe. Maybe.

Do people believe extemporaneous services are to be prefered over liturgical worship? If so, why?

I am sure some do. Probably because they see ritual and ceremony as evil and contrary to the intent of Christ.

Personally, I love the symbology and sacramentality of liturgical worship to be consistent and beautifying of the Incarnational principle of Christianity.

Incarnational is key, but I agree on all points.

But I would like to know why people worship how they do?

Because I like it this way.

What are the weaknesses and strengths of such worship?

Which worship? The way we do it?

Strengths: Historical continuity and solemnity.

Weaknessesanger of vain repetition and rote recitation of formulae.

Do you think that differences in “worship styles” leads to misunderstandings and further disunity?

Maybe.

 

[Matariel]

Now everyone interact and share stories.

 

[Matariel]

LOL…Each First Day we do have communion as well…“Communion after the manner of Friends”

What’s Quaker Communion service like?

 

[Publisher]

What’s Quaker Communion service like?

Friends do not use “outward forms”. We commune with Christ through his Living Presence in our midst.

Friends typically have little or no ritual. Each is a priest and minister to one another. We seek to expemplify an “incarnational theology”…one of your Yearly Meetings wrote it best…IMO…

“We do not reject the spiritual realities toward which sacraments point. We recognize baptism as the transformation of life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We recognize communion as the presence of Jesus Christ in our corporate worship. We recognize ordination as the diverse giftedness for ministry of all people. We recognize these things, and rejoice in them, but we do not believe that the church should seek to initiate them through ritual means.
Without getting too deep into theology, it is important to bring in here the fact that our understanding of the nature of the church is based on a realized eschatology of the new covenant. The old system has passed away, and Christ is present among us to lead us into an experience of the kingdom, here and now. Therefore, we reject all interim structures of authority, and seek in all ways to be obedient to the immediate leadership of Christ. As the Friends in Lausanne stated, “We believe that a corporate practice of the presence of God, a corporate knowledge of Christ in our midst, a common experience of the work of the living Spirit, constitute the supremely real sacrament of a Holy Communion.” (Nuhn p. 20)”

 

[Peter_J]

Well the OP has been answered

I’d say people have given answers to the question about liturgy (in particular, saying that liturgy can be “high” or “low”), but I don’t think the question about unity has really been addressed.

 

[Publisher]

I’d say people have given answers to the question about liturgy (in particular, saying that liturgy can be “high” or “low”), but I don’t think the question about unity has really been addressed.

When we meet with one another in the worship of God through Christ and receive His blessing and Presence in our Midst…are we not one? It is He that we meet…a Single Presence in our Midst…this Presence in in the midst of a “high mass” or a “silent meeting”…it is the Lord Himself who binds us together in Him by the same Spirit who works within us…some may stand…others may kneel…some may sit…some may recite creeds or sing songs…each heart and voice raised in praise to the One who gave Himself for us…even if we believe others share in this Reality very imperfectly…it is He who still binds us together in Himself as His Body.

 

[Matariel]

Friends do not use “outward forms”. We commune with Christ through his Living Presence in our midst.

No offence, but what about Christ’s actions at the Last Supper and command to “do this in memory of Me”? Or of Saint Paul’s speaking on the matter?

 

[Peter_J]

When we meet with one another in the worship of God through Christ and receive His blessing and Presence in our Midst…are we not one?

But what about those who aren’t Quakers? Are you just waiting for them to come to get with the (your) program?

 

[Publisher]

No offence, but what about Christ’s actions at the Last Supper and command to “do this in memory of Me”? Or of Saint Paul’s speaking on the matter?

I understand your concern, but just as the first disciples and apostles continued participating in Jewish ceremonies and temple worshp as shown in Acts…just as Paul decided to circumcise Timothy even though he felt circumcision availed nothing, we Friends do not believe that perpetual rituals and rites were at the core of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, instead He calls us into union with Him through the indwelling Presence of His Spirit and His recognized Presence in our midst…one does not have to have a “memorial” when the subject of the memorial is Present among us.

For Friends we seek to live in the Reality of His Presence…we do not believe that Jesus intended to perpetuate a new set of rites and rituals. It is a choice one exercises to engage in these rituals IF the Presence of God is made known through them to you…wonderful…but in our experiece with God, such rituals and rites detract from our experience with the Eternal, so we choose not to engage in them. For those Christians who choose to follow a more ritualistic approach, we have no quarrel with them, but rejoice with them that they have found the same Reality of the Presence we believe we share.

 

[Peter_J]

Oops.

When we meet with one another in the worship of God through Christ and receive His blessing and Presence in our Midst…are we not one?

But what about those who aren’t Quakers? Are you just waiting for them to get with the (your) program?

 

[Publisher]

Oops.

But what about those who aren’t Quakers? Are you just waiting for them to get with the (your) program?

One does not need to be a Quaker to experience the Divine Presence in their lives…William Penn or John Woolman wrote…

“There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and ages hath had different names. It is, however, pure and proceeds from God. It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of religion nor excluded from any, where the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever they become brethren in the best sense of the expression.”

There is One Presence and One Spirit who binds us together whether we call ourselves “Quaker”…“Catholic”…“Orthodox”…“Anglican”…“Methodist”…or “XYZ”…we still are bound in the Spirit whether we believe others faith is “imperfect” or not.