We Did it Our Way...

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[DrSam]

Sam:
As a pastor, did you ever sense that you were a fellow laborer with pastors from all over the world and connected though faith to those who had gone before in past generations?  The concept that the pastor is a little monarch in his own kingdom, deciding when and if he will preach the gospel or celebrate Easter seems so superficial and shallow—not worthy of the calling.

LucyB,

I have always felt one in spirit with my fellow brothers and sisters of the past and present, be they leaders or not. It is arrogance to think, as I once thought, that "I" was going to reach the world. Good heart, noble cause, but narcissistic with a lot of God-talk. The reality is that we can reach the world only locked arm in arm with our brothers and sisters wherever they be.

A pastor as a "monarch" as you say is simply another example of "extreme narcissism" (See my article at http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/08/04/how-to-spot-a-narcissist/)

As for deciding whether to preach the gospel or when to celebrate Easter I do not know exactly what you mean. If by that you mean having prerogative to share the plan of salvation at the right time then it is a case of "apples of gold in settings of silver," that is knowing when to time a wise word. In regards to Easter, it is a debatable issue either way whether to celebrate it or not. It all depends on your reasoning. I see pros and cons on both sides. Hope this helped.

[theresearchpersona]

Forgive me if I'm just being repetitious here, but I'm both offering both thoughts for edification or critique or response, as well as trying definitely to be interactive with the other comments on the thread--else why post on a forum? : )

Thing is, we are to let no one judge us in regards Holy Days--even "Christian" ones, as no days were appointed by Christ or His apostles. But, as EAS said, some of those days are exceptionally suited as opportunities to preach Christ to the influx of unbelievers who's cultural or traditional baggage, remnants of others' faith that stuck, bring them into the building.

That said, it's not wrong that Christians might have days or periods of celebrations of events, unless they're declared as enforced or required--kind of like nearly every Catholic holiday in South America. [: (] But, as Sam was putting it, there are, however, many who see such things as empty, the kind of things Agatha was mentioning, for instance, in Catholic Churches, liturgy assumes one is in the know, while simultaneously teaching, mostly, not Scripture, but Catholic Dogma, (and I'm very aware of this particular personally not just anecdotally--I've mentioned my family's Catholic background and all, but not that I was once quite a frequenter of Catholic services with part of that family). Another phenomenon often observable is that liturgical Churches, (disregarding the question of their orthodoxy for now), often have plenty of liturgy, and little teaching: most Catholics I know, know little about Scripture, or Christian teaching, history, etc.. Converts to liturgical Churches and those directly connected to them in some way are usually those who seem to emphasize, enjoy, and understand liturgy. As Sam put it, those things are, however, often empty; it's not that such things are all bad, but too often the emphasis is liturty, beauty, ceremony, whatever: that's the reason that so many dropped "liturgy", as it so often leads to the worst, empty, things. Lone put it well,

Regarding the practices of "to celebrate or not"...I attribute the weaknesses of each "celebrational system" to a real genuine lack of awareness about WHY we do things, not just HOW we do things.

There is also truth, however, as one guy confrontationally asked in a rhetorical question, "do you despise old hymns because you're unregenerate" because, as Agatha put it, hymns are full of theology and doctrine; I would caution many are full of bad doctrine, and yet many hymns that are, are often yet "better" (when comparing bad to worse) still, (though bad), than much of what is called "Christian" these days! Exceptionally popular are the "God you love me, I love me too!" hymns out there! (Not that we should never sing about His love for the Christian, His Church, or vice versa). Some of the very popular hymns that people will sing even today happen to be hymns that in their time, for one reason or another, were suppressed for being overly sentimental or whatnot.

I think it's odd how that "evangelical" is a label coined a few centuries ago to describe the soteriology of those who taught salvation by God's grace, (and not redefining grace from Scripture, either--just caught wind of the C. Catechism on that and it's repugnant and sickening), i.e. "evangelical" meant "gospel Christians", and what's usually called "evangelical" today is the stark opposite of these things and the historical evangelical! I don't blame people for calling the term meaningless these days. A gospel Christian, and evangelical, is one of those who holds fast to justification by grace through faith, and emphasizes certain core Christian concepts/doctrines not just as non-negotiables, nor the only non-negotiables, but that are the foundation and starting-point for any Christian, which are not to be gone beyond in those matters, but are to be abide in faithfully, trusted.

I love hymns and know many by heart but I also realize that unless I am going to reach Old Baptists in the Bible Belt then it can be a deterrent.

If someone is deterred just because it's a hymn, who cares? Church is for the church, not for unbelievers. Evangelism is to reach them, not the meeting of the Church; the point of hymns is that, as spiritual songs, they teach just as we're told to teach one another in songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. Probably the majority of modern "christian" music is empty talk, "I love me too my lover" (the "God is my girlfriend/husband music stinks) music that goes to great lengths not even to mention God's or Jesus's name, says nothing about either, nor the Holy Spirit, nor hardly any Christian doctrine, while, (sometimes if one is "lucky", which is sarcasm) possibly drawing on [drowning in] biblical[-sounding] language. It's not even uncommon that it teaches false doctrine, though hymns themselves can do, and often did do, that too.

If and when someone doesn't like a hymn just because it's not rocking out, that's unacceptable, just as someone who decides they don't like a Church because it doesn't suit them in particular (though there is, when examined, no real problem with it biblically) is unacceptable: such people are hardhearted factious people who need discipline. However, it is not wrong, either, for people to like styles, music, etc., just that to categorically dismiss or denigrate something on mere opinion without judging merits (and thereafter deciding) is as amateurish as the ignorant pseudofundamentalist (I say "ignorant" because a fundamentalist is not a bad thing, and "pseudo" because that's often what we see getting called "fundamentalist") who goes around catigating the patristics without understanding what they taught, etc..

Mary saying "yes" to carrying the Son of God

Um, when did Mary say "yes" to this? She was told it was about to happen, it wasn't a debate or up for question. What she did do, however--at least according to Luke who I've just been reading, is trust God about this and so she was celebrated for her trust (here I'm alluding to Martha's words). Perhaps by hint of the narrative's structure she could have been like Zacharias and questioned it and suffered some punishment--in his case he didn't believe so was corrected and made mute, and I think it's no accident the accounts of the different events are positioned so closely to contrast his doubt with Mary's trust towards the messengers God had sent.

But it struck me how both the lack of hymns AND the lack of commemoration of major Christian feast days are two side of the same coin.

I say this respectfully: I think this is misdiagnosing. The fellowship I'm attending hasn't really laid much emphasis on a bunch of traditional Christian holidays, though we're aware of them, and there was no mention of Palm Sunday (though perhaps that was due to the pastor suddenly losing his voice so that another elder preached, and we did have some change-ups for Advent Sunday), but nevertheless we not only sing hymns, but also encourage not just singing, but learning them by heart. The pastor there has been stressing this too, and likes to "wax eloquent" about how they are so edifying, consoling, strengthening, encouraging, and etc.. (There used to be two pastors but one, unfortunately, had a change of doctrinal convictions that led him to inform the church that he was in contravention with the standards of the fellowship and so no longer suitable, according to the Church's organizing principles/doctrine, to remain--quite upright of him to quickly and forthrightly say so too!)

Sam, Your prediction of a possible future movement sounds so much like men's love growing cold and they will all seek their own ways.

It also sounds like a lot of popular empty talkers these days spreading their own beloved ideas;

These will become small groupings and the Spirit of God will move masses of the newer generation in other ways Evangelicals will miss and have difficulty accepting

in particular sounds like the emergents, as well as Barna and his followers, who haven't gotten the memo that they're nearly almost already a thing of the past, although in a strange way they're not much more than a logical conclusion/outcome to today's so-called evangelicalism. A while back they thought of themselves as deep, thoughtful, bees-knees leaders who were going to re-define everything and make for themselves their own Christ and Church, for our own wants and times, and yet now they're already becoming irrelevant (though they've done much damage and gained followers). I mentioned Barna, by the way, because he was one of those who dared says Church should be a marketing phenomenon adapting and catering to the times, not abiding in Christ; I also add I don't even know why anybody listens to that irrelevant man, no offense to him, since so often his methodology is statistically flawed, his surveying questions utterly unacceptable by basic analysts' standards: usually one tries not to ask questions that could psychologically influence the outcome of answers, that is, one tries to ask neutral questions, but Barna over the years has reliably demonstrated how sure we can count on him not to.

The GCI church I attended was (as Sam's was) one that taught and practiced the priesthood of all believers.

Great! Just curious as to how they did this?

This topic (the priesthood of the believer) came up in discussion at our last meeting with Mark and Spencer. I can't remember how they explained it away, but they had a different take on what it meant.

Their conclusion was that God speaks only through the elders. To obey an elder IS to obey God. To disobey an elder is to disobey God. To question something an elder said or did is to question God. Watch out, the earth might swallow you up!

I always likened it to them being stuck in the Old Testament and forgetting about Pentecost (I wish that they would on occasion teach what happened at Pentecost!). The Holy Spirit speaks to each believer directly now. It was a different deal with Moses. Disobeying Moses WAS disobeying God.

Here's something. In the OT to reject a prophet it taught as a rejection of God; that's why that part of the law gets applied to Jesus in the NT--and why it's so reacted to by the Jews. For someone to take the word and "prophetically" apply it to this or that believer (a prophet is someone who necessarily predicts the future, though that's one thing a prophet might do, but is someone who takes and correctly applies the word, correctly if a true prophet), then, is a serious thing; those who reject that DO, in a very grave and real sense, reject God. Now even with that danger, I wouldn't say that in everything we should assume an utter reprobation of all such people--in the sense that if they happen to be true believers God may discipline them, (and the Church itself should properly discipline such people). In Scriptural matters to disobey Scripture, whoever applies it, whether elder or the unexpected voice of a little child, is to disobey God. Examining everything, however, teaching and practice, whether elder or not, is good! Questioning mere opinions, etc., is good! Even Paul himself, at one point in Scripture, himself stops, distinguishes what he's about to say from God to give a sound and decent judgment of some matter, and demonstrates to us thusly humility in a matter and, I think, that we, whether elder or not, might be able on matters to have opinions (if based on sound judgment) to counsel our fellow believers but, as Paul indicates, it is an opinion, and in those things prayer seeking the Lord's guidance, and searching the Scriptures, must occur. And perhaps the Spirit will lead us to apply that word so accurately and precisely we'll glimpse the prophetic! Repeatedly, GC accused falsely those who rejected false teaching, false practice and worship, unsound leadership, from all I saw, etc. : ( And taught that rejecting them, despite their criminality, was to reject God. Their pastors are pathetic wimps and bullies.

[AgathaL'Orange]

Well, she didn't literally say the word, "Yes."  She didn't even speak English!  But her attitudes and words reflected "yes."  That's important. 

I'd like to chat more, but I've got to run. 

[Linda]

First of all, the reason for my original post on this topic "We Did it Our Way" was NOT to say there was something wrong with GC because once they forgot it was Easter. Nor, was it to say, the church I attend now did something right because they mentioned Palm Sunday and the Holy Week.

My point: Sometimes it seemed that decisions made by GC leaders were arbitrary, inconsistent, and done to exert control.

In the OT to reject a prophet it taught as a rejection of God; that's why that part of the law gets applied to Jesus in the NT--and why it's so reacted to by the Jews. For someone to take the word and "prophetically" apply it to this or that believer (a prophet is someone who necessarily predicts the future, though that's one thing a prophet might do, but is someone who takes and correctly applies the word, correctly if a true prophet), then, is a serious thing; those who reject that DO, in a very grave and real sense, reject God.

To clarify, what I said was:

Their conclusion was that God speaks only through the elders. To obey an elder IS to obey God.

I was talking about GC elders (who, as we all know, got their authority from other elders in an unbroken chain of succession going all the way back to founding apostle Jim McCotter). GC elders believe they ALWAYS speak for God and we should ALWAYS OBEY them in EVERYTHING. That was my point.

They teach obedience to them by giving examples of how God spoke to leaders in the OT. So, my secondary point was that they don't have a very accurate view of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.

[G_Prince]

As  a convert to a liturgical church, I can't imagine church without Easter. Yet I remember this happening in the GCx church I grew up in. A lot of people were angry, following that, and I don't think our church ignored Easter after that year. They now celebrate both Easter and Palm Sunday and have a lot of hubbub around Christmas. I think that is great. Not only are these holidays integral to the faith they are also a lot of fun and unite the Church community. I think any church that tries to go Coke-Zero and get the same flavor without the hollidays will eventually collapse. These events are opportunities for individuals and the church community to show their piety, renew their faith, and remember why the go to church at all. Major dittos Linda.

[lone gone]

These events are opportunities for individuals and the church community to show their piety, renew their faith, and remember why the go to church at all.

I was thinking about this thread today and the word Piety had come to mind. Any of these worship activities are pious acts, overtly spiritual, done for no other reason than that they demonstrate my faith. The acts themselves profit nothing, no more than listening to a sermon with a closed heart or a distracted mind.

The History of Christianity shows that some people reacted negatively to what they called the "dead formalism" that came out of the Reformation by starting to show their faith outside of liturgical practice. They called themselves Pietists. They were influenced by various mystical influences and humanistic thought. Call them 18th century liberals. One offshoot of this was Methodism... which still holds on very loosely to a liturgical form.

The greek term for all this is Adiaphora.... that which is neither commanded nor forbidden. We all have Christian freedom to celebrate or not to celebrate. Some hold one day above another, and some hold all days to be the same.

To judge and condemn a Christian brother or sister for how they choose to celebrate, let alone whether they choose to celebrate is sin. Too much of what passes for PC Christianity is nothing more than looking down on  someone else to make yourself look good.

Additionally,

Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs... gee.... we have more than one type of lyrical music to add to our worship experiences....

and lastly,   if the members of a GC church reacted to the leaders not celebrating Easter, then the leaders did not know their flock very well. That is extremely sad.

[theresearchpersona]

Well, she didn't literally say the word, "Yes."  She didn't even speak English!  But her attitudes and words reflected "yes."  That's important. 

I'd like to chat more, but I've got to run. 

Agreed, in the sense that she very trustingly accepted her "fate", but moreover, better, considered it a blessing. : D Sorry, but in Catholic dogma (I know your E. Ortho, but...) the emphasis is on Mary accepting, not God telling, and almost the exact words you used (probably inadvertently) are used to exalt and emphasize Mary Mary Mary to a stomach-wrenching degree. There it's literally that "Mary said yes" as if she had a choice, rather than "Mary submitted to the will of the Lord faithfully, believing what He promised", which is a huge difference: and the concept is completely and explicitly formalized in Catholic writing and teaching--I say all this having learned it from them themselves.

[theresearchpersona]

First of all, the reason for my original post on this topic "We Did it Our Way" was NOT to say there was something wrong with GC because once they forgot it was Easter. Nor, was it to say, the church I attend now did something right because they mentioned Palm Sunday and the Holy Week.

My point: Sometimes it seemed that decisions made by GC leaders were arbitrary, inconsistent, and done to exert control.

In the OT to reject a prophet it taught as a rejection of God; that's why that part of the law gets applied to Jesus in the NT--and why it's so reacted to by the Jews. For someone to take the word and "prophetically" apply it to this or that believer (a prophet is someone who necessarily predicts the future, though that's one thing a prophet might do, but is someone who takes and correctly applies the word, correctly if a true prophet), then, is a serious thing; those who reject that DO, in a very grave and real sense, reject God.

To clarify, what I said was:

Their conclusion was that God speaks only through the elders. To obey an elder IS to obey God.

I was talking about GC elders (who, as we all know, got their authority from other elders in an unbroken chain of succession going all the way back to founding apostle Jim McCotter). GC elders believe they ALWAYS speak for God and we should ALWAYS OBEY them in EVERYTHING. That was my point.

They teach obedience to them by giving examples of how God spoke to leaders in the OT. So, my secondary point was that they don't have a very accurate view of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.

I was just commenting on a thing alluded to earlier in the thread, about rejecting things, point being (in relation to GC*) that GC*'s leadership really is in real trouble when it rejects the word applied to them accurately (i.e. the main activity of a prophet--just look at the OT prophets, for instance, they constantly over and over and over do little more than apply the word to their current context, though, of course, moved by the Spirit; they have their predictive moments, but their main activity is, I think, applying the word: this is a theme Jews these days really like to point-out to people). Sorry if there were any misunderstandings!

Not only are these holidays integral to the faith they are also a lot of fun and unite the Church community.

Ignoring Paul, are we? Let's qualify, "what these holidays stand for, when celebrated biblically, as an opportunity for feeding the faithful, and not corrupted, are things integral to the faith".

I think any church that tries to go Coke-Zero and get the same flavor without the hollidays will eventually collapse.

That's not

They teach obedience to them by giving examples of how God spoke to leaders in the OT. So, my secondary point was that they don't have a very accurate view of the Holy Spirit in the life of the

Church.

These events are opportunities for individuals and the church community to show their piety, renew their faith, and remember why the go to church at all.

I was thinking about this thread today and the word Piety had come to mind. Any of these worship activities are pious acts, overtly spiritual, done for no other reason than that they demonstrate my faith. The acts themselves profit nothing, no more than listening to a sermon with a closed heart or a distracted mind.

The History of Christianity shows that some people reacted negatively to what they called the "dead formalism" that came out of the Reformation by starting to show their faith outside of liturgical practice. They called themselves Pietists. They were influenced by various mystical influences and humanistic thought. Call them 18th century liberals. One offshoot of this was Methodism... which still holds on very loosely to a liturgical form.

Yeah, some of the things that arose back then are very creepy when examined by Scripture. Note, though, usually when we think "Methodism" we think "Wesley", but to this day there's also the "Calvinistic Methodism", which is still in wales and all (unlike John W. who tried to gain followers and converts, and establish every earthly institution imaginable to ensure "his" Methodism would last--not really trusting in the Spirit of God, I think, at least in America guys like Whitefield didn't care if new converts went to some other denom's Church, so long as it was a valid, faithful, feeding, Church; John W. did, though, help, along with Whitefield and others, a fellow who came from America to get help so they could fund the founding of a new believing institution for training pastors (the old schools for ministerial training were unbelieving and in decay): I think this was the start of Princeton in that time.

The greek term for all this is Adiaphora.... that which is neither commanded nor forbidden. We all have Christian freedom to celebrate or not to celebrate. Some hold one day above another, and some hold all days to be the same.

I'm assuming that despite the context you're talking about holidays, not pietism wrought of syncretizing humanism and Christianity! : ) But yeah, true: and thanks for the reminder of the term!

The greek term for all this is Adiaphora.... that which is neither commanded nor forbidden. We all have Christian freedom to celebrate or not to celebrate. Some hold one day above another, and some hold all days to be the same.

To judge and condemn a Christian brother or sister for how they choose to celebrate, let alone whether they choose to celebrate is sin. Too much of what passes for PC Christianity is nothing more than looking down on  someone else to make yourself look good.

Amen.

Additionally,

Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs... gee.... we have more than one type of lyrical music to add to our worship experiences....

In case you thought by this is meant "no instruments", ever read the headings to the Psalms? Some of those demand instruments! These three terms, by the way, in a Jewish context, if Jamiesson-Fausset-Brown are accurate on this point (discusses the use of the original terms across from Hebrew into the LXX then into the NT), refer to the Psalms (which, after all, is the Jewish hymnal and essential to Christians as well), though I think if someone tried arguing exclusive psalmody from that they would not succeed in that debate.

and lastly,   if the members of a GC church reacted to the leaders not celebrating Easter, then the leaders did not know their flock very well. That is extremely sad.

As program managers, GC "shepherds" don't have the time to know their flock very well. Besides, they devote their time to their core members to do their jobs for them, freeing up their time for their own agendas; and, focused on numbers, it's too big anyways, they're working hard to rack-up them numbers. (And I know that sounds impudent, but that's been my experience...at every GC* Church and from knowing--read, familiarity--national guys, their meetings, conferences, literature, etc.; they're coordinators of programs, not shepherds, far as I can tell.)

[lone gone]

Yeah, some of the things that arose back then are very creepy when examined by Scripture.

I'd be curious what you think is creepy.

In case you thought by this is meant "no instruments", ever read the headings to the Psalms?

Yes I read the Psalms all the time and no, it has nothing to do with instruments.  I did say that there were different types of lyrical music.... lyrics as in words. The tunes or accompaniment was not addressed.  This remark of mine was in reference to the comments of others about old, dead, theological hymns or  happy clappy fluff.  There is any number of possibilities for music befitting worship of God. Whether to comfort or uplift one's spirits(emotions), to teach rebuke reprove or exhort,( which any message is capable of doing by the work of the Holy Spirit), or to confess the faith,  all musical forms are allowed.  It's just that in their context, many won't find that each style of music will appeal to their needs.

Some other practices that haven't been addressed here are prayer and fasting ( how, why, and when), dress ( liturgical AND common), symbols (  crosses on the wall or on necklaces), Art ( paintings of Christ ) Sabboth practices ( commerce or no commerce... which used to be known as blue laws), personal actions such as crossing one's self, folding hands in any particular way for prayer, use or prohibition of alcohol, vegetarianism, sacrifices( usually monetary but also time and talents)  etc etc etc.

Again Christian freedom... based on Godly love and not emotions, is the measure for this. No one is to judge regarding whether they are done or not.  Some of these practices may seem weird, creepy, or downright ungodly to some people.... But to God they may be acts done out of love for Him and for your fellow man.  One of our pastors teaches and preaches that any of these has three ways of being practiced.  You SHALL DO ALL, SOME, OR NONE OF THEM.

Each GC  fellowship has their own take on how to do church. Within each fellowshipping group there is an accepted norm of behavior... the same as in any other group. It is rare that someone coming into their meetings wouldn't be confronted with something outside their personal experience. I am a wedding photographer by trade, and I have seen any number of different practices within and between church denominations on just how to get two people into a state sanctioned legal arrangement for establishing estates and heirs.   

As program managers, GC "shepherds" don't have the time to know their flock very well. Besides, they devote their time to their core members to do their jobs for them, freeing up their time for their own agendas; and, focused on numbers, it's too big anyways, they're working hard to rack-up them numbers. (And I know that sounds impudent, but that's been my experience...at every GC* Church and from knowing--read, familiarity--national guys, their meetings, conferences, literature, etc.; they're coordinators of programs, not shepherds, far as I can tell.) 

I have great respect for your observations here as you are a recently departed GC member. My observations are almost 30 years old!

[EverAStudent]

As program managers, GC "shepherds" don't have the time to know their flock very well. Besides, they devote their time to their core members to do their jobs for them, freeing up their time for their own agendas; and, focused on numbers, it's too big anyways, they're working hard to rack-up them numbers. (And I know that sounds impudent, but that's been my experience...at every GC* Church and from knowing--read, familiarity--national guys, their meetings, conferences, literature, etc.; they're coordinators of programs, not shepherds, far as I can tell.) 

This was certainly true in the 1970's-1980's.  Prorams, events, rallies, drives, campaigns, conventions, conferences, all organized and run by the elders.  Odd, now that I think back on it, the elders never once conducted a Bible study through any book of the Bible with the congregation.  One elder did preach through Nehemiah once, but did not "study" it so much as explain how the entire book is nothing more than a metaphor for evangelism.   ughhhhhh!

I think you are right, they were so swamped with programs they did not personally disciple anyone or personally lead Bible studies.  When you have Bible studies with people, and pray with them, you really get to know them.  But when all you do is preach at them from the podium and orchestrate programs, you never will know "your followers." 

[G_Prince]

Not only are these holidays integral to the faith they are also a lot of fun and unite the Church community.

Ignoring Paul, are we? Let's qualify, "what these holidays stand for, when celebrated biblically, as an opportunity for feeding the faithful, and not corrupted, are things integral to the faith".

I think any church that tries to go Coke-Zero and get the same flavor without the hollidays will eventually collapse.

That's not

They teach obedience to them by giving examples of how God spoke to leaders in the OT. So, my secondary point was that they don't have a very accurate view of the Holy Spirit in the life of the

Church.

Thanks for the input, but I'm not letting you ruin my Easter. 

[theresearchpersona]

Yeah, some of the things that arose back then are very creepy when examined by Scripture.

I'd be curious what you think is creepy.

In case you thought by this is meant "no instruments", ever read the headings to the Psalms?

Yes I read the Psalms all the time and no, it has nothing to do with instruments.  I did say that there were different types of lyrical music.... lyrics as in words. The tunes or accompaniment was not addressed.  This remark of mine was in reference to the comments of others about old, dead, theological hymns or  happy clappy fluff.  There is any number of possibilities for music befitting worship of God. Whether to comfort or uplift one's spirits(emotions), to teach rebuke reprove or exhort,( which any message is capable of doing by the work of the Holy Spirit), or to confess the faith,  all musical forms are allowed.  It's just that in their context, many won't find that each style of music will appeal to their needs.

Some other practices that haven't been addressed here are prayer and fasting ( how, why, and when), dress ( liturgical AND common), symbols (  crosses on the wall or on necklaces), Art ( paintings of Christ ) Sabboth practices ( commerce or no commerce... which used to be known as blue laws), personal actions such as crossing one's self, folding hands in any particular way for prayer, use or prohibition of alcohol, vegetarianism, sacrifices( usually monetary but also time and talents)  etc etc etc.

Again Christian freedom... based on Godly love and not emotions, is the measure for this. No one is to judge regarding whether they are done or not.  Some of these practices may seem weird, creepy, or downright ungodly to some people.... But to God they may be acts done out of love for Him and for your fellow man.  One of our pastors teaches and preaches that any of these has three ways of being practiced.  You SHALL DO ALL, SOME, OR NONE OF THEM.

Each GC  fellowship has their own take on how to do church. Within each fellowshipping group there is an accepted norm of behavior... the same as in any other group. It is rare that someone coming into their meetings wouldn't be confronted with something outside their personal experience. I am a wedding photographer by trade, and I have seen any number of different practices within and between church denominations on just how to get two people into a state sanctioned legal arrangement for establishing estates and heirs.   

As program managers, GC "shepherds" don't have the time to know their flock very well. Besides, they devote their time to their core members to do their jobs for them, freeing up their time for their own agendas; and, focused on numbers, it's too big anyways, they're working hard to rack-up them numbers. (And I know that sounds impudent, but that's been my experience...at every GC* Church and from knowing--read, familiarity--national guys, their meetings, conferences, literature, etc.; they're coordinators of programs, not shepherds, far as I can tell.) 

I have great respect for your observations here as you are a recently departed GC member. My observations are almost 30 years old!

"Creepy", the pietism of that time was creepy. The attempted fusion of contradictory notions then taught to the sheep were creepy. Wesley, for instance, teaching "Christian perfection", by which he did not mean maturity, but utter holiness, absolute perfection in this life--something we do not obtain ultimately, for instance. All the doctrinal warping and perversion from those times that arose and which we're still reeling from today without even, often, realizing the root of the confusions.

And sorry, I took the lyrical music thing a little differently than you intended, as sarcasm--been in some of those music/anti-music conversations lately, [my bad]. I've found myself accused lately of being "legalistic" for telling Christians that no, we shouldn't transform the Church into a concert hall--nor is technical excellence in music the point, though fine, but rather pure and right worship focused on God, not the stage. This incensed a guy who's obsessed with music and would call "worship" the guy who's obsessed with music theory--even though that has nothing to do with the "audience" for this "worshipper" high on tunes he's entrancing himself with on a stage, while no praise is actually being given to God (which is lifting Him up). This accusation of legalism had, mind bogglingly, came from a guy I know who attacked me once for daring to sing music that's not labelled "Christian"--then became angry when I pointed-out the music he listens to, called "Christian", is by a bunch of "Christian" artists who brag their acceptability to the world and that they purposefully try not mentioning God, Jesus, etc., so that the world will think they're cool (which it does). Their (and many others) music is technically excellent (by the imitator's standards that prevails among the neoevangelicals), but their praise is abjectly impoverished, and their good examples of those ashamed of Christ, so I'm sorry for a guy like that, really because he's a friend, love the guy, etc.. : ( That's some of the things been on the mind when I saw your writing and I guess I just got a taste of what they call "context distortion" (or something like that), and actually since Sam is in psychology he could probably talk about it.

So again, sorry bro.

[theresearchpersona]

Not only are these holidays integral to the faith they are also a lot of fun and unite the Church community.

Ignoring Paul, are we? Let's qualify, "what these holidays stand for, when celebrated biblically, as an opportunity for feeding the faithful, and not corrupted, are things integral to the faith".

I think any church that tries to go Coke-Zero and get the same flavor without the hollidays will eventually collapse.

That's not

They teach obedience to them by giving examples of how God spoke to leaders in the OT. So, my secondary point was that they don't have a very accurate view of the Holy Spirit in the life of the

Church.

Thanks for the input, but I'm not letting you ruin my Easter. 

Enjoy!

[theresearchpersona]

I have great respect for your observations here as you are a recently departed GC member. My observations are almost 30 years old!

And yet...they sound to me as if they could have been made just a couple months ago. It's strange because I'm still in the area, and still occasionally see GCers around, and all that stuff, still keep tabs on things, etc., so I've both left GC, and yet it's nearby and around.

[lone gone]

TRP wrote:  So again, sorry bro.

No offense taken!  I figured out from your comments  that you had likely misunderstood me.  Written words can often lead us astray without the visual and oral cues we need for accurate interpretation. As always let's be quick( ready) to hear, and slow to speak (type) .

[saved]

This evening I sat with my children and we watched as, at the end of the Maundy Thursday service, the altar was stripped of its paramounts and trappings, the flowers were removed, the pulpit and lectern stripped as well.  Afterward the congregation left in silence.

Tradition can be empty, but it can also be a very powerful symbol, that even a small child can grasp the meaning of.

Scripture readings can be ignored, but if one attends my church weekly they'll have heard the entire Bible read through in three years, and some stories they'll hear each year.

Christmas may not be anywhere near the actual time of year when Christ was born, but Easter often aligns nicely (as it should) with Passover.  Regardless of when Christ was actually born, the yearly times of Advent and Christmas, Lent and Easter provide continuity and structure, as well as a yearly opportunity to review the basics of the faith with our children.

Liturgy can be dead, but it can also be vibrant and meaningful, and provide a structure that is not only comfortable in its familiarity but useful... praise, word, response, meal... we do what we do for a reason, not by whim.

Tomorrow night my children will see the altar and crosses draped in black.  The Tenebrae service will be led entirely by laiety and the last words of Christ will be read.  As each is read, the candles will be extinguished and the lights turned off until nothing remains but the Christ candle.  That will be carried out and a loud crash will represent the closing of the tomb.  The candle will return representing the hope of Easter morning and the congregation will depart in silence in the dark. 

Then on Saturday, for Easter Vigil, my children will come back into a dark church.  As the service proceeds the lights will come on and we'll celebrate the Risen Christ.

I love modern music, and old hymns too.  I dislike people who simply go through the motions, and it will be annoying on Easter Sunday when droves of people who never attend normally come all decked out in their Easter finery.  But I adore Maundy Thursday, Tenebrae, and Easter Vigil... the people who attend these services (as well as Ash Wednesday) are the heart of our church.  These services are meaningful and rich. 

So, just a plug for a little tradition...

[G_Prince]

This evening I sat with my children and we watched as, at the end of the Maundy Thursday service, the altar was stripped of its paramounts and trappings, the flowers were removed, the pulpit and lectern stripped as well.  Afterward the congregation left in silence.

Tradition can be empty, but it can also be a very powerful symbol, that even a small child can grasp the meaning of.

Scripture readings can be ignored, but if one attends my church weekly they'll have heard the entire Bible read through in three years, and some stories they'll hear each year.

Christmas may not be anywhere near the actual time of year when Christ was born, but Easter often aligns nicely (as it should) with Passover.  Regardless of when Christ was actually born, the yearly times of Advent and Christmas, Lent and Easter provide continuity and structure, as well as a yearly opportunity to review the basics of the faith with our children.

Liturgy can be dead, but it can also be vibrant and meaningful, and provide a structure that is not only comfortable in its familiarity but useful... praise, word, response, meal... we do what we do for a reason, not by whim.

Tomorrow night my children will see the altar and crosses draped in black.  The Tenebrae service will be led entirely by laiety and the last words of Christ will be read.  As each is read, the candles will be extinguished and the lights turned off until nothing remains but the Christ candle.  That will be carried out and a loud crash will represent the closing of the tomb.  The candle will return representing the hope of Easter morning and the congregation will depart in silence in the dark. 

Then on Saturday, for Easter Vigil, my children will come back into a dark church.  As the service proceeds the lights will come on and we'll celebrate the Risen Christ.

I love modern music, and old hymns too.  I dislike people who simply go through the motions, and it will be annoying on Easter Sunday when droves of people who never attend normally come all decked out in their Easter finery.  But I adore Maundy Thursday, Tenebrae, and Easter Vigil... the people who attend these services (as well as Ash Wednesday) are the heart of our church.  These services are meaningful and rich. 

So, just a plug for a little tradition...

Wait a minute...so you are saying tradition is OK? That doesn't sound scriptural!

On a more serious note, you just expressed exactly what I feel about church. The ceremonies have so much power; it is hard to convey the feelings they generate. Thank for saying it so elegantly.

[puff of purple smoke]

Personally, I don't really like going to church on Easter or Christmas or Mother's Day or whatever holiday simply because it's so predictable. I like the unknown of not knowing what a pastor is going to teach on, as opposed to knowing I am about to hear some canned (feels like) sermon that a pastor probably feels like he has to preach simply because it's <whatever holiday>. I often skip church on major holidays for that reason alone..

My GC church observed all of the major holidays but so did just about every other church I've ever attended.

[Linda]

Liturgy can be dead, but it can also be vibrant and meaningful, and provide a structure

I just returned from the Maundy Thursday service at Bethlehem Baptist Church. It, also, ended in darkness with everyone filing out in silence. I found it very meaningful.

The church was packed with people of all ages. Mr. Piper was at a different location this evening, so people were not there to hear him. They were there to meditate on Jesus and his sacrifice.

It is a tradition we have participated in for the past three years. There is no law that says a church has to do this every year, or at all, for that matter, but I am very glad Bethlehem has been consistent in their reflection on Jesus' and that it did not depend upon the whim of a pastor each year.

(Having said that, we didn't attend a Christmas Eve service this year. Did our own at home by reading the Christmas story and lighting our family advent candle.)

[miserere]

For Good Friday:
    My people, my people. What have I done to you?  Answer me!
    I led you out of Egypt, but you led your Savior to the Cross.
    For forty years I lead you safely though the desert,
    I fed you with manna from heaven,
    And brought you to the land of plenty. 
    but you led your Savior to the Cross.
    O my people, my people!  What have I done to your
    That you should testify against me?