PPB
PPB

April 12th, 2006, 3:13 pm #31

STT:

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?
Quote
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2006, 10:01 pm

April 13th, 2006, 9:47 pm #32

William,

That analogy just doesn't work and needs to stop being used. A song leader is NOT a worship leader. Let's look at your analogy...

Song leader -
A requirement when any two or more sing together. A person who begins the first note of a song so that others may follow. Provides the song and verse for others. A person who's role is to keep order in the praising of God - to prevent chaos. Someone who helps pace the song so that everyone knows when to sing the next word. Literally it means to be a temporary guide during a song, a helper, a servant. It is not a "leadership" roll, but is shared by any male Christian brave enough sing in front of others. A necessity.

Fact: Song leaders existed in Jesus' time. How do we know? Well, unless all the early Christian's had the ability to read each other's minds, someone had to start the song off. It was usually done by a elder or older deacon (according to 1st/2nd century writings) and done in an orderly fashion without the use of instruments. We also know that the assemblies were extremely orderly, quiet, simple, and reflective. Any dancing, high spirits, instruments, and clapping were considered satanic and paganistic. (Why doesn't that still apply today when we still have pagan religions?)

Worship Leader - (per job descriptions and the many worship leader websites)
A position of authority over the singing and entertainment portion of the services. Used when services incorporate more than mere praising through song. The worship leader's main job is to enthuse the crowd with emotion and spirit via theatrics and enterainment. To evoke passion beyond that which was originally intended by Christ. To add to the orderly and simple assembly described in the NT. To bring about "feelings" that are not normally felt with the regular psalms or songs.

Facts about the job - to attract members that are not comfortable with the type of assembly described in the NT - like the ones held by Jesus and the Apostles.
Reason - the original Word of God is not inspiring enough or entertaining enough to hold the attention of the masses. A gimick is needed to get their attention centered back on Christ.

So let's compare:

A simple job that any Christian accepts when beginning the first note of a song for others to follow.
VS
a position intended to create, design and provide entertainment and merriment by adding theatrics/instruments in order to make the basic assembly more exciting and less scriptural based.

Don't see the analogy there...
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
someone else.

Thank you,

Wordkeeper
Quote
Like
Share

PPB
PPB

April 14th, 2006, 6:43 am #33

Dear WordKeeper,

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.








Quote
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2006, 10:01 pm

April 14th, 2006, 4:40 pm #34

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.

Wordkeeper
Quote
Like
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

April 14th, 2006, 7:29 pm #35

<font color=indigo size=3 face=times new roman>Wordkeeper,

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 world—they 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 it’s 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 way—that the problems and issues SEEM to center on worship. That’s 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 out—it’s 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 teaches—since 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 church’s set of doctrines and beliefs agrees with the Scriptures.

Donnie

P.S.: BTW, it is “Madison Church of Christ” [not Madison Avenue…] Thanks!</font>
Quote
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2006, 10:01 pm

April 17th, 2006, 9:10 pm #36

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 ??

Thank you,

Wordkeeper
Quote
Like
Share

Judge Knott
Judge Knott

April 18th, 2006, 6:21 pm #37

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.

Judge Knott
Quote
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2006, 10:01 pm

April 18th, 2006, 9:11 pm #38

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.

Thank you,

Harry Smith
Quote
Like
Share

William
William

April 19th, 2006, 12:00 am #39

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.

Judge Knott
You wrote:

"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."




Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

April 19th, 2006, 8:17 pm #40

William,

That analogy just doesn't work and needs to stop being used. A song leader is NOT a worship leader. Let's look at your analogy...

Song leader -
A requirement when any two or more sing together. A person who begins the first note of a song so that others may follow. Provides the song and verse for others. A person who's role is to keep order in the praising of God - to prevent chaos. Someone who helps pace the song so that everyone knows when to sing the next word. Literally it means to be a temporary guide during a song, a helper, a servant. It is not a "leadership" roll, but is shared by any male Christian brave enough sing in front of others. A necessity.

Fact: Song leaders existed in Jesus' time. How do we know? Well, unless all the early Christian's had the ability to read each other's minds, someone had to start the song off. It was usually done by a elder or older deacon (according to 1st/2nd century writings) and done in an orderly fashion without the use of instruments. We also know that the assemblies were extremely orderly, quiet, simple, and reflective. Any dancing, high spirits, instruments, and clapping were considered satanic and paganistic. (Why doesn't that still apply today when we still have pagan religions?)

Worship Leader - (per job descriptions and the many worship leader websites)
A position of authority over the singing and entertainment portion of the services. Used when services incorporate more than mere praising through song. The worship leader's main job is to enthuse the crowd with emotion and spirit via theatrics and enterainment. To evoke passion beyond that which was originally intended by Christ. To add to the orderly and simple assembly described in the NT. To bring about "feelings" that are not normally felt with the regular psalms or songs.

Facts about the job - to attract members that are not comfortable with the type of assembly described in the NT - like the ones held by Jesus and the Apostles.
Reason - the original Word of God is not inspiring enough or entertaining enough to hold the attention of the masses. A gimick is needed to get their attention centered back on Christ.

So let's compare:

A simple job that any Christian accepts when beginning the first note of a song for others to follow.
VS
a position intended to create, design and provide entertainment and merriment by adding theatrics/instruments in order to make the basic assembly more exciting and less scriptural based.

Don't see the analogy there...
So, Would a SOLO be OK?
Quote
Share