Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Why would the Holy Spirit need to speak to the EOC or guide the EOC, when their liturgy and service structure was completely established almost 2,000 years ago? Your priests and church members have been doing the same thing every week and every year for their whole life. They could have service in their sleep. Some I'm sure do.
|
I realize you speak from some level of experience.
And I really understand what you are saying. But at the same time, despite bad experiences in that kind of situation, are we sure that consistency is the enemy of the Spirit? Is following a "script" that has been used for centuries any more or less likely to allow the Spirit to speak to us?
How often do we hear speaking on the same passage that is not even presenting some novel new way of looking at it and we suddenly have an "aha" moment with realization of something we never saw before. When you reach your 60s and have heard virtually every passage in the Bible preached on multiple times, how is it that we still find something new in even the most "common" of passages? Is it really because the preacher said something different this time? Sometimes it surely is. But always? Does the Spirit not often speak to us when He does in the way he does despite the content of the sermon, book, blog, or even small Bible study?
But the leading is in the people who make up whatever group you are talking about. Being somewhat regimented in the way in which we are taught, along with the consistent reminders of the core aspects of our faith do not require modernizing to be real. The problem is that we have minds that are full of the cares of the world, or are hardened to the Word. Something like the parable of the soil.
Now I am not speaking as a proponent of EOC or RCC liturgies as being "the" way. But they are not simply "anti Spirit" because they were written down (for the most part) decades, or even centuries ago. I look at much of today's worship and see a new "cult of me" that is very enjoyable and seemingly alive. And while those songs are not bad, I do not believe that they always make for true worship. When the part of Christ in a song is as the cure for my problem (which is the bulk of the song), then what are we singing about? When the sermon is primarily about knowing details of theology better, but that theology is not made meaningful to my life this week, what did we learn?
Is our worship a dissection of God for the purpose of better knowledge that does us no earthly good. Or is it a turn to the One who made us, loves us, and saves us, coupled with something meaningful to my living (outside of my morning prayers and reading). I still get 35 to 30 minute sermons from a DTS graduate, but sometimes I wonder if what we really need is a 15 to 20 minute homily that talks about the passage in terms of revealing Christ and revealing something meaningful to my life (still from a DTS grad) placed strategically within the totality of worship that includes song and prayer, reading, reciting, and listening. Refreshing our minds in the basics that lead us through life. "Christ is the processed, transformed Spirit in our spirit for the building of the body of Christ" or any non-LRC equivalent really doesn't do anything for my life. It is only meaningful as a part of a life that is exiting this life to be isolationist and sectarian. And it is being used as a pick-me-up to whip up the excitement and helps to ensure that the reasoning is left at the door, allowing the not-so-clear to be declared clear without objection.
I use LRC examples which we may have tossed aside. But I sometimes wonder if some of us are not pining for non-LRC equivalents. Sort of like the leeks and garlic of Egypt. We got "hooked on a feelin'" and we "can't get it out of our head." (apologies to BJ Thomas and ELO).
The place that I meet is sort of caught in a "form" warp between Presbyterian and Baptist. Some want more modern praise and worship songs — the more upbeat the better — while others want just hymns. But neither is the answer. There is good and bad in both. Just as there is good and bad in liturgies, and in Pentecostal free church formats. And everything in between.