|April 7 2006, 9:06 AM |
|April 7 2006, 11:33 PM |
With all due respect to your analogy,in my 45 years of attending church I have seen a lot of "song leaders" do much more than just lead songs. I have seen them ask a congregation to stand in order to enhance the singing. I have seen them be very animated even to the point of seeming to want all of the attention to be on them (could this be entertainment-at least in their minds). I have seen them so self centered that they get upset if they are asked to give up their "stage" to a visiting song leader. Most of this, I have seen in our most conservative churches.
So I ask again, where is the Biblical authority for a man to stand in front of a congregation and call himself a "song leader." It just simply is not in the Bible. Many of the things that we consider to be acceptable would cause the first century Church to fall out of their chairs. For example singing in parts instead of chanting. The only reason we accept so many of the things we do is because they make sense or have been around so long that all of the people who complained about them when the "change agents" introduced them 50 or 100 years ago are now dead.
I predict that in 50 years (if God allows us to survive that long) most of the things that we argue about now will be generally accepted and a new set of things to fight over will be around.
Lest we forget, our very existence is because Jesus set about changing the way things were done. He took the religious status quo and stood it on its ear. And he did not care what the religious elite had to say about then and neither should we now. As long as the Word of God is our guide and is in our hearts we can not go wrong.
One final thought. Our movement came about because some "change agents" (primarily the Alexander Campbell, Thomas Campbell, and Barton W. Stone) did not like what they saw in the church of their day and set about to change the way things were done and the way things were looked at.
Re: re: Questions
|April 8 2006, 1:20 AM |
There is always someone out there that takes advantage of their position - that does not make a song leader the same as a worship leader. That's someone's personal issue and the congregation needs to deal with them as an individual. You still can't use it to make your analogy - they are not comparable. There has to be someone who starts off the song - unless you and your congregation are mind readers. I've been to many, many churches and all of them had several song leaders. In fact, most congregations have a large list of song leaders for that very reason. It is not a "position", it is just a guidance. Anything more turns it into a possible scriptural issue.
As for how the church operates now vs. 50 years from now. I can promise you that it will be very much the same with new break offs occurring over the same issues. Just as it did in 1810, 1850, 1900, 1950, etc. This is a pattern and the church always comes back to the basics. Always will. Will there be some congregations that fell into Satan's trap - sure. Just like the division between the C of C and the other congregations.
As for Campbell, Stone, etc...Please study that issue. You will find many manuscripts and letters discussing these same issues that go back over a thousand years in England, France and Scotland. This is NOT new, the ideas are NOT new, the splits are NOT new. In fact, if you read letters from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, you will find that the early church (pre-Catholic) were turning their backs on the new congregations for the same reasons, these churches were considered heretical.
There is plenty of historical info on this issue if you wish to research it. It will open your eyes/mind to the realization that the "change agents" are the same false teachers as they have always been, pushing the same type of issues for nearly 2000 years. They have never been overly successful for any length of time in respect to the church. It continues to survive and grow as it once was and still is. People get tired of the theatrics and entertainment and want to go back to loving God and his Word without all the hoopla needed by those that are weak and easily bored.
As for Lee Gullism -- have you contacted a counselor in your area for your obsessiveness and anger management? I mean this sincerely and with a kind spirit. Your postings worry me - they are not quite conherent at times.
|seeking the truth|
Re: re: Questions
|April 8 2006, 6:38 PM |
It was usually done by a elder or older deacon (according to 1st/2nd century writings)
Can you please give us exact references? I find this to be laughable. However, if you could supply exact references, i would be very much appreciative.
Re: re: Questions
|April 9 2006, 9:17 PM |
Laughable? Really? And why would that be? Do you come from a church where the elders/deacons are put on pedestals and do not particpate in the service?
Early church writings and writings from Roman citizens clearly state that the early church members did NOTHING without the okay of their elders/presbyters. Deacons could not baptize or accept tithing without the authorization of the elders. The size of the congregations were not extremely large at first and met in homes. There is much dispute that they ever met in the catacombs except when they were celebrating the dead. As the church grew, they began meeting in several homes - having to meet monthly as a larger group when possible. As the church grew in the first several centuries, they began to add more Elders and Deacons beyond the initial chosen ones. Because of their relatively small size, they did not have hundreds to chose from that were well versed in the scriptures. In the early church, the Elders determined who was to lead the teachings/readings/songs/etc. Most of which was given to the Deacons to do as the church groups expanded.
For further information on the history of the early church, please feel free to read any of the early writings which you can find on-line and at large local libraries. There are also plenty of books available for purchase. D. Bercot has a great dictionary of early writings.
You might want to check out the term "anitphonal", "liturgy" and "responsorial". Of course, the early Christian changed the process up a little but it was still closely related. Though there were some changes as the gentiles were added.
Part of me doesn't really think I should provide you with the references, as it is important that you discover the TRUTH on your own. What's that old saying..."Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"
So, I decided to give you just a small taste of the tons of info out there on early christian music. Also, remember that hymns/songs/praises were considered "teaching tools" and not for entertainment. This is a long and complicated subject that can't really be addressed in this one posting. Suffice it to say, that it did change once the Gentiles were added and the Apostles continued to oversee the church.
Just a few references on music in the early church:
"Chanting and Music":
"We have said that the chanting of 'songs and hymns and spiritual songs' was an essential part of Christian worship and was inherited from the Hebrew tradition. In spite of this demonstrated inheritance by the Church of Hebrew chant forms and traditions, however, there can be no doubt that here again after the fourth century a profound change gradually occurred. This was not a change or development in musical theory or technique, but a change in the function of the Church's chanting, its new place in the general structure or worship, its acquisition of new liturgical significance.
"This change is best demonstrated by the peculiar duality in the place and function of chanting in our modern worship. On the one hand, a 'singing quality' has been assigned to almost every word pronounced in Church; Western rubrics still speak of the 'chanting' of the Gospel by the DEACON, and the manner of reading the psalms or parimia is close to being a form of chant. In using the term 'chant' ancient Ordos had reference to the entire service, which was thought of in all its parts as a singing of praise to God.
"We find the same definition of worship as chanting in the New Testament. In Revelation the ELDERS sing a new song before the Lamb, and the Apostle Paul summons the faithful to 'teach and admonish one another ... by grace singing in your hearts to the Lord' (Rev. 4:9; 14:3, 15:3 and Col. 3:16). While not dealing here with the heart of the question, whether there was here a 'Semitic' concept of liturgical chanting, we may note simply that the first meaning of chanting in our Ordo and worship correspond precisely to this Semitic concept. This does not mean that early Christian worship recognized no difference between the various types of chanting and made no special provision for 'hymns' i.e. for material written expressly to be sung (for example, the biblical 'song'). But their function was the same as that of prayers and psalms and litanies all were to the same degree the prayer of the Church, all were subordinated equally to the general scheme of worship."
"Music has evolved into an indispensable element of worship. It underscores the fundamental concept of community which was so vital and so real in the early Church, for it was the task of all present to sing, to participate in song, and to respond with one heart and one voice to the celebrant. It must be noted here however, that music was never understood as a private, or personal devotional service, rather its function was communal; it identified the popular element of liturgical celebration. It is for this reason that any music sung in the church which "focuses attention onto a particular person or group, which forces another group into becoming passive listeners and observers, is alien to the age-old tradition of the Church and to the literal meaning of liturgy: an act of the people." This is not to say that there were no soloists in the Church, because there were, however, their primary task was to lead and cue the responses from the assembled body of the faithful, and not to alienate them from the communal aspect of worship. Musical tradition suggests that simple melodies, ideal for congregations with little or no formal musical knowledge were used and many of the early written melodies that still exist today support this fact."
Rev. Father Peter J. Orfanakos
Drillock: The most widespread method for the chanting of psalms, however, is the second example noted by St. Basil, commonly called responsorial psalmody. One person (a leading chanter) begins the chanting of the psalm verse, while all the others respond, either with a verse selected from the psalm itself, or with "Alleluia." Such a practice was not only common at the time of St. Basil, but was a well-established traditional way of psalm singing, having its roots in the original poetic form and structure of many of the psalms themselves. An example of such a form is found in Psalm 135, where the second half of each verse of the psalm is exactly the same: "for his mercy endures forever."
ERASMUS "We have brought into our churches certain operatic and theatrical music; such a confused, disorderly chattering of some words as I hardly think was ever in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes, and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them. Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled. And for this end organ makers are hired with great salaries, and a company of boys, who waste all their time learning these whining tones." (Erasmus, Commentary on I Cor. 14:19)
EUSEBIUS "Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days... We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms."
Christianity Today: "Much of the music of todays church would have little meaning to those hardy saints of the early church. For them, music was the means for Spirit-led prayer and praise - NOT a pathway to an emotional experience.
St. Ignatius, writing about 110 AD, said: "You must, every man of you, join in a choir, that being harmonious and in concord and taking the keynote of God in unison
sing with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father
Singing was central in the early church because the powerful pattern for the worship of the church was the heavenly worship found in Revelation 4 and 5. (See Isaiah 6:1-4 and Ezekiel 3:12). Many early church fathers (leaders) speak of this connection in relation to worship. Because of this, the early church took a very consistent and conservative approach to music. For if a chant took them to "heaven", the treatment of the music of worship needed to be as "otherworldly" as possible."
Leonard: "The New Testament does not specify who is to officiate in worship, or to administer the Lord's Supper, although prophets (deacons/elders)clearly had a role in corporate worship (1 Cor. 14:23-33)."
Re: re: Questions
|April 10 2006, 11:29 AM |
1. Somebody write down the date. Donnie quoted the NIV in SUPPORT of his argument. I had to pick myself up off the floor. By the way, I looked at the Greek, and it seems like 4 groups to me as well. The conjunction also changes from "de" to "kai" between the last 2 words in Greek. That being said, I don't think that's any kind of proof against worship leaders or preachers.
2. Worship leader is a title. It is no more or less scriptural than "songleader". What Madison's worship leader does can be entirely different than what a worship leader in a church in Ohio or Oklahoma or even across town does. Assuming Keith is still the worship leader there, I can guarantee you that he is vastly different from other worship leaders I know.
3. These knee-jerk generalizations weaken your scriptural arguments. It seems to me that the root problem here is not whether the title "worship leader" is O.K. The concern is more about what that "worship leader" or "songleader" actually does during the service.
4. If the worship leader sang from a list of songs you chose and didn't strike you as performing, would it be as much of a problem?
Re: re: Questions
|April 10 2006, 10:05 PM |
You are right William, the "song director" is not mentioned in the NT. This is one of those areas where the WORD of God is silent. However we know that the example of singing is found in the NT. In this instance we must reason and come to the conclusion that a song director is needed. We must be careful as this pertains to the "worship in song" part of the service. We feel that his only duty is to lead the song. He must not draw attention to himself. Again this is a touchy subject and opinions vary.
We look to the Bible for guidance but sometimes must make decisions based on opinion. We must be careful and always look for guidance in the WORD of God first. Church history (secular) is another reference but only the work of man. GOD is perfect, however church members and church leaders are only human and cannot be relied upon as an example in ever situation. Remember the very early Church and how quickly some became corrupt.
I doubt if we have it all right, but consult the Bible first and pray for guidance. God Bless!
|seeking the truth|
Re: re: Questions
|April 11 2006, 10:19 PM |
You seem a bit hateful
Re: re: Questions
|April 12 2006, 1:37 AM |
Seeking the Truth/Matt
Actually, if you go back and read YOUR comment, it was rude and condescending. I chose to ignore your tone and provide facts. However, I do not believe that my job is to spoon feed fellow christians with basic church history to refute the trash the change agents are teaching. Why have they been allowed to get by with such obvious lies? Why do Lee Gullism and others not see the HUGE holes in their thinking and theories? Its so obvious if you look - really look. It saddens me.
If I provide ALL the research, then I am doing YOUR job as a Christian, am I not? Why would I provide you all the info instead of asking you look it up and finally realize how much the change agents have lied to people? That way, you can't point a finger at me and say "You are trying to manipulate me". You see, that's what the change agents do. They take away your power to learn and study on your own. I just give you the power back so that YOU can find the TRUE facts. Its my gift to you. I'm hoping one day you will realize that.
And believe me, I'm used to the "new" christians getting angry when a response clearly disputes their derogatory comment. I've learned that giving the info doesn't help - they just ignore it.
By the way, please don't transfer your feelings/emotions onto me. I'm NOT angry with you, just sad. Very, very sad.
|Seeking the truth|
Re: re: Questions
|April 12 2006, 7:07 AM |
I think you missed my point. Besides, i said nothing hateful, you seem a bit sensitive. Please grow a tougher skin.
We can not use ANY early writings to guide our worship. The 27 books of the new testament are all we need, and nay, authorized. We can't look to these "early writings" for guidence. The ONLY pattern we have is the NT. I wpould go as far as to say the corporate woship we have today is not authorized and we are all in error. Ken Sublett is correct, most if not all of the Churches practices can be traced to pagenism.
Re: re: Questions
|April 12 2006, 11:13 AM |
You seem to be the one missing the point. And I believe you are doing so on purpose. I can't imagine how anyone would NOT find your comment rude. As for sensitivity - that would be your issue, just look back to your remark about my being "hateful" because I responded with info you didn't like. Please stop putting your feelings onto me.
No one uses the early church writings as a "guide". However, they are still important as they show how quickly man began changing the Truth to fit their own needs and how the early elders fought to keep to the Truth from being lost. It also shows us how the early church (pre 250 AD) worshipped and thought. These people were being led by Elders that had been trained by the Apostles. If you can't see the importance of knowing the Church's past, we'll...your comment about our services today is a good example of speaking without knowing the facts.
You like to play games and I grow tired of such behavior. Good luck with your anger and refusal to see the reality of your own actions. What is that scripture about a log in the eye?
|April 13 2006, 5:47 PM |
Jesus said in Matthew 7:20 "By their fruits you shall know them"
I have to explain my background. I was raised in the churches of Christ
during my teenage years but, I married a woman who is charismatic and I
thought I would try her church. It is very much different than the churches
of Christ. At first I was nervous but over time I found the believers to be
very enthused about spiritual matters and that they have as much respect of
the Bible as any other christian group. The charismatics have praise and
worship teams and the whole congregation participates with great enthusiasm.
The real test is the fruit. Are they glorifying and honoring God through
worship? I believe an emphatic yes to a majority of charismatics. Their style
of worship is different but their actions are filled with love and generosity
towards others. Their fruit is definately from the tree of Jesus Christ.
I guess my point is that many people on this web site appreciate the old hymns
like "The Old Rugged Cross" and "Have thine Own Way" etc. I also appreciate
the old hymns too but I also appreciate the new songs like "Shout to The Lord"
"Step by Step" and "All in All". Has anyone on this web site taken the time
to listen to the lyrics to the new songs ? You might be surprised at how
much of it comes straight from scripture. "Shout to the Lord" is verbatim
from one of the Psalms.And if you listen closely to the words, what is the
message ? The message hasn't changed. These songs come straight from the
Bible. One of my favorite choruses is:
" I love you Lord, I lift my voice to worship you, Oh my soul.
Rejoice, my King in what you hear. May it be a sweet, sweet sound
to your ears."
The problem I have is that the new songs and worship leaders may not
be for you, but other people develop a closer relationship with God
through praise and worship then, isn't it what it is all about.
From my own personal experience I have invited at least five non-
christians to my wife's charismatic church and they love it. they have
told me that they have gone to other churches and didn't like it. These
five people are now christians. Please don't tell me there is something
wrong with that. It is one thing to say I don't like that style of
worship, but it is another thing to say it is wrong for somebody else.
Please let God decide and live in peace without judgement. What may not
be for you may mean the difference between spiritual life and death for
|April 14 2006, 2:43 AM |
Thanks for taking your time to explain your thoughts. Here's some questions that might help you understand the delima we are facing and that it is not just about worship leaders:
How would YOU like it if some members of your charismatic church decided they didn't like how your group was assembling and wanted to change everything AND they would keep your building and your name? And if YOU didn't like it, you could leave. What if the changes went against your basic beliefs? Would you let them walk into your church and take over without a fight?
Though you may find nothing wrong with the issues being debated, remember that you chose to accept different doctrinal beliefs in a forum that is NOT related to the c of C. Hense, you are not changing the teachings of the c of C nor causing division in the c of C. You chose to leave and attend elsewhere. That is fair. And though I strongly disagree with your scriptural conclusions, I am not here (at this website) to argue with you about your beliefs as they are not affecting the c of C as a whole.
All most of us ask is that if they don't like how the c of C is doing things, THEN THEY NEED TO GO START THEIR OWN RELIGION AND NAME IT SOMETHING OTHER THAN "CHURCH OF CHRIST" SO THAT THEY DO NOT CAUSE CONFUSION AND DIVISION AMONGST BRETHEREN AND FUTURE BRETHEREN.
In a nutshell, we are asking them to grow up and take their rebellion elsewhere instead of thumbing their noses at those of us who have stood firm in our beliefs. But no, instead they throw tantrums and accuse us of being the "bad guys" for not playing along and letting them do whatever they want to. That is immature and manipulative. I don't know about you, but they sound like playground bullies.
|April 14 2006, 12:40 PM |
I don't know all of the circumstances behind the changes to
Madison Avenue Church but it seems that there should be some
sort of compromise among members. In the community where I live
there are several churches that have multiple styles of services
in the same church. At 8:00 A.M. Sunday morning it is the
traditional type of services with the hymnals. At 9:30 there
is the contemporary style of worship with praise and worship
teams. And at 11:00 there is even a different type of service
than the other two that is focused on the unchurched and is
in the style of a coffee shop type setting where people who
are unfamiliar to the other styles of services can come
together and just discuss all types of subjects but mostly
revolving around spiritual matters.People feel relaxed and
drawn in to this type of environment where their faith is
expressed openly and honestly.
Several years ago I was watching the History Channel where
an archaeologist discovered a seventh century structure
in South Lebanon where on Fridays an Islamic service was
conducted, Saturadays a Jewish service occurred, and on
Sundays a Christian service was held all in the same stucture.
Certainly, if three divergent religions can all get along
agreeing on how a stucture can be used in the seventh century
we can somehow agree on how Madison Avenue church can be used.
I'm sorry that there is such dissension among so many people
especially in a christian setting, but remeber what Christ said
that the world will know that we are Christians by our love for
one another. Maybe the senario I mentioned above of different
types of services at different times should be investigated.
Re: Re: Questions
|April 14 2006, 3:29 PM |
Obviously, you did not grasp or did not try to grasp what PPB was explaining to you. You have so much missing in your knowledge of the various movements going on in the religious worldthey include, in fact, the Charismatic Movement [which should be of no surprise to you], the Community Church Movement, the Contemporary Christian [Rock] Music Movement, the Church Growth Movement, etc., etc. You have a very limited knowledge of what this website is all about. But we all understand that about you and some of the others who are new posters and begin participating in the discussions.
Because its time consuming to repeat all the information related to the various movements, unless you really and honestly take YOUR time to read the various threads on this site, I would like to simply put it this waythat the problems and issues SEEM to center on worship. Thats not entirely true. Our biggest concern is in the realm of the doctrines and teachings of the church that are being altered, modified, improved upon in order to accommodate the demands and dictates of the secular world and society.
The worship thing, unfortunately, is one of the [undoubtedly, the main] avenue through which these changes are being accomplished. Just an example of this would be in the contemporary CHRISTIAN ROCK music that has infiltrated the worship service in churches. Just because the words God or Jesus or divine or praise or whatever else is mentioned in the musical piece written by the money- and power- and popularity-hungry POP artist does not make it scripturally correct and sound. Just because a religious music is emotionally-driven and nerve-endings-stimulating does not make it the type of hymn that teaches and admonishes one another as what the song is intended to accomplish.
Diversity in worship styles and accommodations is another subject matter which can be discussed at another time.
Just as PPB has pointed outits about changes in a particular church (and this is happening in many other religious faiths also)the church being intruded upon, infiltrated, divided, perverted
is the main issue.
I am sorry that your wife has influenced you to change you. Of course, that is your prerogative, and, too, it simply happens, just because the individual has not thoroughly checked out to see if the newly found religion matches that which the New Testament describes. Love in a particular church is not the main or only basis in determining if the church is the NT church. All churches teach about love. Love aside, it boils down to what a particular church believes and teachessince most Christian religions claim to be based on the Scriptures. But are they all correct? Of course, not! Only by studying the Holy Scriptures can one find and determine if a churchs set of doctrines and beliefs agrees with the Scriptures.
P.S.: BTW, it is Madison Church of Christ [not Madison Avenue
Re: Re: Questions
|April 17 2006, 5:10 PM |
Thank you for your response Bro. Donnie, I sense
that you are a sincere believer who takes matters
of faith as vitally important in life. You are right
that I do not have a great understanding of various
denominations but I do know that supposedly the churches
of Christ do not have a central set of doctrines of which
all congregations must adhere or else face expulsion from
some headquarters. I though that each church of Christ is
independent and autonomous from other congregations. If this
is true, then why are there any arguments over doctrines. Why
can anyone say they have false doctrines if there is no one
standard set of doctrines that all must follow. Be careful
in how you answer. If you say Madison Church of Christ is
not following a set of defined doctrines guess what ? By
that admission the churches of Christ has made themselves
into a denomination by their actions. I know from my own
experience I have asked people who are members of churches
of Christ if they all believe the same and I have not found
even one person who agrees totally with all doctrines. If this
is the case maybe there is enough room under the umbrella of
the Madison Church of Christ and all of the others who attend
there. Maybe we should aree to disagree but still love one
another despite the doctrinal differences.
One question that is at the heart of the whole web site:
What is it that you want to happen ? What would have to take
place for things to be made right from your perspective ??
Let there be no division amoung you
|April 18 2006, 2:21 PM |
WordKeeper all of this has been gone over time and time again. The question "what would it take for you..."
It is not what it would take for Donnie or anyone else to be satisfied. It is far more important than trying to please Donnie or ourselves.
The quest is to encourage leadership to follow examples and commands from the Word of God and not the innovations or inventions of man.
One thing needed is to put unity back at Madison. There are 2 worship services held on Sunday morning that share no resemblance to each other! How can Madison claim "unity" while some poeple worship one way and the other people worship another?
Get the cash register out of the building! Get the church out of the "merchant" business. Remove the books and musical CD,s, remove the cafe and all the other things that make Madison a LAUGHING STOCK to the world. Make the gospel without charge! Get the counsellors off the church pay roll! Get the musicans off the payroll.
TAKE BACK THE PULPIT FOR CHRIST!
I have to stop before I get carried away.
Just follow God's book - throw away the changes that men have made. Just a simple Church doing great things.
Oh, yes, I must mention the rental property controlled by that church. Get rid of it. No one knows for sure how much money is made or lost or stolen from this operation. Get rid of it! Just being the church is enough.
Re: Let there be no division amoung you
|April 18 2006, 5:11 PM |
Worship is very much culturally related. I remember watching
a show on the Discovery channel where a missionary was sent
to a remote polynesian island to share the gospel message.
At first just a few people accepted the gospel, but when one
of the members made a clay resemblence of large women breasts
and placed it in front of the church building the attendence
had a rapid increase. A lot of westerners would say they were
drawn because of the erotica of women's breasts but nothing
was further from the truth. In that society women's breasts
was not erotic but rather a symbol of God as a nurturing
parent who cares for man's needs. If such a clay motif was
to be displayed in America it would have a completely
different reaction from people than from the polynesians.
In case you may not have noticed God made us all so differently
that really worship cannot be monolithic. Rather worship is
as much varied as there are people in the world.
For Madison to have two different worship services that are
radically different is really nothing to be concerned about.
On the other point that you made I also am concerned about
the church engaging in commercial ventures if for nothing
else it jepardizes the tax-exempt status of the church. If
christian literature and music is exchanged I would agree.
But investment in rental property looks to me to go over
the boundaries of the difference between church and secular.
|April 18 2006, 8:00 PM |
"One thing needed is to put unity back at Madison. There are 2 worship services held on Sunday morning that share no resemblance to each other! How can Madison claim "unity" while some poeple worship one way and the other people worship another?"
Unity does not come with uniformity, just look at the example of the Jewish and Gentile churches. They did not agree on everything yet I would say that they had unity. As to needing Men who use the Word as their basis for leading a church, I think that two people can disagree on something and still be in Unity. Even very learned men can look at the same passage and see entirely different things. If our standard is, I don't agree with it therefore it is a wrong interpretation, then we better ber very sure that we are correct, because if we are wrong, then we are going to have to answer for that. I have attended church for over 45 years (my entire life) and I for one am not willing to say that I am a Bible scholar with all of the answers. God is still revealing new things to me through His Word daily.
I consider Madison to be a very Godly congregation. One who is searching God's word and willing to explore it not from our traditional bias(that is looking at it and then trying to prove a certain belief, but rather studying it and seeing what it says even if that is different from what has always been taught or believed). If you do not agree with this, thats OK. I will still consider you a fellow believer even if you do not see me as one.
As an example from our own history, We have had disagreements on many things. From Sunday School to whether or not multiple cups are acceptable. To one they are a matter of opinion, to another they are a matter of not rightly dividing the Word of God. I may not agree with a non sunday school church but I still consider them Christians, although I doubt that they would consider me one.
I see many of the things that we disagree upon in the Church falling into this category. Another person might not. Do we need to devide on these issues. I think not. We can have healthy discussions but then let the congregation decide for themself. Then we need to stay out of their business and let them go about fulfilling the Great Commission.
Now if you want to devide on these issues (by this I mean anything that you think Madison or any other church is doing wrong), then feel free to, but I will still consider you my brother. However, I think that I can safely say that you would not repay the favor.
I just keep remembering the words of a song I heard recently. By the way, it was a Contempory Christian song. "This is simply my two cents, I think that we can all do better than this."
|April 19 2006, 11:37 PM |
A sectarian has always been identified as someone who ADDS something not absolutely necessary to conduct the EKKLESIA or synagogue or school of the Bible. If you read Romans 15 you will hear Paul define the assembly which EXCLUDES the pleasuring or AROUSING of excitement because that is the LADED BURDEN Jesus died to remove along with the burden laders.
A legalist is someone who ADDS something to the clearly defined role of the church CLAIMING to give more POWER than God supplied in His Word. Arousal singing was always a POWER POINT to gain control over the gods and the PROCURER of the prophesier's service. ALL names of musical instruments and musical terms parse directly to Satan (Lucifer-Zoe), to warriors, to prostitutes and sodomites. All Greek forms of SINGING are clearly identified as ENCHANTMENT or SORCERY. That is why the singers, musicians and other religious teknocrats in Revelation 18:22 will go back into Sheol with the "mother" and John then defines their service as SORCERY for which the CANDLES are removed.
The church DECIDED when it was founded: it has always been those who BOAST as they did at Madison of INFILTRATING and DIVERTING to change the church into a "theater for holy entertainment" who DELIBERATELY SOW discord and usually to let some too-close bonded buddy ride on the backs of widows and honest workers. There is NO LAW OF GIVING so you have NO Scriptural FUNDING for what you approve.
The usual GUILT CLAUSE first articulated by Adam and ALL of the instrumental banditos is that if YOU leave when I impose instruments then YOU are the one sowing discord. That is what I hear you claiming. Didn't about half of the OWNERS vote with their feet? Didn't most of those who remained SUFFER the spiritual abuse rather than being CHASED AWAY? And make no mistake about it MELODY has no connection to HARMONY so the highly honed complex harmony is NOT different from a MECHANICAL instrument. If anything such singing often identified as screeching and screaming is more DESTRUCTIVE and creates more damaging anxiety than MECHANICAL instruments.
That is truly low class and intends to intimidate those who teach the TRUTH which is well documented from Genesis to Revelation and by ALL church scolars and ALL founders of denominations. Not even the Catholics ever fell into the APOSTASY of "congregational singing with accompaniment." And it is a fact that A CAPELLA was invented by the Popel's CASTRATED singers who did a legalistic end run around the LAW AGAINST the Organ in the Pope's REAL mass in the Sistine Chapel.
John Calvin pronoucned his anathema against those who THOUGHT that TIME negated the evil results of heresy. The role of history has always been to document both heresy and heretics so the NAMES will be on file when the next generation GAGS on the "virtual" sexuality and worse CONNECTED to all pagan singers and musicians. The WILL rise up and are already doing so and call you cursed for promoting such ignorance of what Jesus died to PEEL OFF us to give us REST.