Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
2) While completely reproducing those days is not possible, applying valid principles learned from those days should produce something like it . . . . The "church life," at least the parts of it God would approve of, should be reproducible by any group of seekers who believe they should take that path. Actually, groups similar in some way exist all over.
|
The question I always have is whether producing "something like it" is really important. (And I note that Igzy didn't say it is.) Even if we are seeking something that is not a product of Lee's folly, do we think that reproducing the "good" parts is important?
Another way of saying this would be to ask whether there are not a myriad of alternate "experiences" that are just as valid, though very different in outward appearance, ranging from quiet, sober reflection all the way to some charismatic forms. Is a preponderance of any of these rather than others anything other than preference? Or is any of this evidence of some special status before God?
This is where I start to sense a
need on the part of some to keep reproducing particular experiences because that is what they think was God's real, up-to-date move when in fact if God is moving at all, it is always real and it is always up to date. It is only us that gets fake and/or old.
God moves in people who jump and shout and in people who are quiet and pray. He moves in those who ad lib every prayer and in those who read prayers. He moves in those who have no absolute order of service and in those who follow a set liturgy.
The problem I find is not in any of these ways, but rather those who think that doing it a certain way will bring God to them. Whether it is a liturgy, or sufficient jumping and shouting. Once we think we have figured out the formula to it all, then we are probably just getting what
we put into it and little more.