Contemporary or liturgical service?

[Guest]

One of my coworkers is a Lutheran (Missouri Synod). He insists that their liturgical form of worship is how the early Christians worshipped.

Another coworker (a Christian) and I were discussing this afterward and she says that this is not true and that the early church had various styles of worship depending upon which country you lived in. And the liturgy did not come about until after 100 a.d.

I visited the Lutheran church that my coworker attends and enjoyed the service very much. But I think I would probably be bored with it after a few weeks because of the recitation of the same creeds over and over.

I would like some insight as to whether it matters what form of worship a church uses. Also, where does the present day pattern of "3 songs, offering, sermon" originate?
Thank you.

[_Steve]

Hi Seeker,

It's good to have you here at this forum. Welcome!

The main requirement of acceptable worship, according to Jesus, is that it be genuine and spiritual. "True worshipers...worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). This means, I think, that any outward form or expression of adoration and submission to God must arise from a corresponding attitude of the spirit and heart, rather than being a mere outward ritual or pretense. The exact form of outward expression matters much less than this inward motivation.

Different groups would disagree among themselves as to when the liturgical elements of worship were brought in. I am inclined to agree with your friend who placed their emergence in the second century. Without knowing the exact time of their introduction, we can nonetheless know one thing for certain, and that is that they do not seem to have been introduced by Jesus, nor, so far as we have record, by the apostles. This does not mean that the liturgy is a bad thing...only that it can not in any sense be regarded as essential to worship as Jesus and the apostles described or practiced it.

Since the inward sincerity of the worship is the most essential element, I would think that you should seek an environment of worship which cultivates the proper attitudes of worship in your own heart, and which encourages the expression to those attitudes in a manner that does not distract you from God Himself to a focus upon forms—whether high liturgical forms or free and uninhibited forms. Unfortunately, any liturgy, whether the higher liturgy of the mainline churches, or the lower liturgies of evangelical and charismatic churches, can easily come to dominate the consciousness while worshiping (Am I kneeling properly? Is it time to sit down? Am I supposed to read this portion out loud now? Am I expected to have my hands in the air like some of these people do? Do I look more spiritual singing with my eyes closed?, etc.). This needs to be guarded against, I think, regardless which kind of church you end up choosing.

I don't know when the "sing three songs, pass the plate, and hear a sermon (comprised of three points and a poem)" structure originated. I find that, if my spirit is right, I can worship happily in any structured or unstructured environment. Some people, because of their temperament or conditioning, find that the more liturgical service, by its very unnaturalness, tends to elevate their thoughts to God from the more mundane distractions of their lives at home and work. Others find the liturgy itself to be the distraction, and fare better in a fluid, unstructured song service, or in praying and praising out loud while walking in a solitary place. Some would find the recitation of a creed week-by-week a monotonous drudgery, but I suspect that there are those who find it to be the high point of their week, and who find their faith energized by the reaffirmation of the truths by which they define themselves in an unbelieving world. There is no one size that fits all personalities.

The Bible does not prescribe specific forms for the churches' gatherings. The elements that I would think indispensable in a church would be (in no particular order): congregational prayer, ministry of the Word of God, opportunity for the Spirit of God to speak through members of the congregation, worshipful singing, and opportunity for personal interaction and interpersonal ministry and prayer. These elements need not all be featured at every gathering. Worship can be done anywhere, so you might choose a church on the basis of what its church community offers in the way of these other elements.

[Guest]

Is there really anyone who enjoys saying the same prayers every week? In my Christian Worship class at seminary, we were encouraged to be more creative than that. At times when I've visited Catholic churches in the past, I've noticed that many people don't speak during the prayers. I have known people who pray the rosary, but that seems to be more of meditative experience for them. One Palestinian Christian I know uses rosary beads to keep from smoking!

Lin

[_Steve]

Hi Lin,

The question whether anyone really enjoys saying the same prayers week-by-week can probably be answered in the affirmative, but you raised another very relevant question: Why do they enjoy it? There is the distinct possibility that many who do so, as you suggest, enjoy this mostly as a type of "therapy." I have even known evangelicals who have suggested (quite contrary to scripture) that our prayers aren't intended change our circumstances, and that their value is in the change they make in us! I think it is a shame when that which is intended by God to be the means of real communion between two real persons, as well as a potent power to change the world, is reduced to a self-serving therapeutic practice. There are even secular mental health professionals who include in their practice what they call “prayer therapy,” which seems, to me, to place the emphasis entirely in the wrong place.

Of course, religious people who may be using prayer in this way are probably seldom aware that they are doing so. After the best times of prayer, the petitioner often, quite legitimately, feels a sense of release from the burden that first drove him/her to the place of prayer. David's Psalms testify to such a release, in the dozens of cases where he begins his prayer complaining about overwhelming trials, and, by the time he is finished, he is praising God and expressing complete assurance that God has taken his concern to heart and will do the right thing. I believe that prayer should, more often than not, bring comfort.

But the danger is that we will become so infatuated with the comfort (we all desperately need it!) that we will settle for whatever "prayer-like" experience seems to deliver this relief, and may never ask ourselves whether our prayers are in any sense putting us in touch with our Creator or not. Everyone who has ever prayed much knows, I am sure, that it is possible to go into and come again from the place of prayer and afterward to feel that no one actually heard a word we said and to have no sense of any actual "contact" being made with that Being who is as invisible as the air into which the sounds of our voices disappeared. If we are praying to a God that we do not already KNOW in personal experience, or by dynamic conviction, then we might come to think that prayers to an empty universe are really the norm that everyone else is satisfied with as well, and that we ought to be happy at least to have gotten a little peace for our trouble.

True prayer is, of course, the activity of a child talking to his/her father. There is a real person listening, who bears a real relationship to the one speaking to Him. Knowing God personally, then, is an indispensable element of true worship and prayer (this was the deficiency that Jesus identified in the worship of the Samaritans—John 4:22). But even those who really know God can only claim to know Him “in part" (1 Cor.13:12), meaning we know Him imperfectly, and may not all perceive Him with equal clarity.

Thus some who know God may be struck by His majesty and holiness to a degree that the dominant feature of their approach to Him is their reverence, and the high liturgical forms of prayer that they can read from a book seem to express their sentiments in terms more reverently and eloquently than would any words that they can muster from their own mind. If they find that a printed prayer expresses well what they really want to say to God, but could not as well have put their thoughts into words, I can see why they might find value in this. I myself went through a family crisis a couple of years ago that left me emotionally numb, as if someone had taken a giant spoon and scraped my insides out, leaving a huge cavity where my personality had once been. I knew that my only hope was to draw near to God, but whenever I prayed, all I could think of to say was, "Father....help us!" I am sure that this was an acceptable prayer in the sight of God, but I felt I wanted to say more than just this over a period of months in my devotional life. I found that reading many of the Psalms aloud as prayers provided a very genuine way to voice the deep sentiments of my heart. I don't mean that I did this to feel better (though that was often the result), but that David's cries, so often, exactly corresponded to what I wanted to say, but did not know how. Also, although I have no interest in liturgical forms, in general, I have often recited the exact wording of what we call "the Lord's Prayer" as a regular part of my prayer time, often using its successive clauses as an outline or framework upon which to hang my specific requests.

On the other hand, there are those who, because of their particular concept of God, wish for their prayers not to be weighted so heavily on the side of reverence as on the side of intimacy. Thus spontaneity would be the mood that they aim at in praying. To them, a printed prayer can not be considered a real prayer at all. Some lovers may find it the highest expression of romantic love to read to their beloved a classic love poem by a favorite poet, while others, because they did not write the poem themselves would find this to be merely gauche.

I am of the opinion that God accepts both emphases in prayer (i.e., reverence and spontaneity), so long as one does not wholly exclude the other, and, more importantly, so long as the person praying is actually a member of His family.

[Guest]

All Western Liturgies of Mainline Protestantism are reformed and or simplified forms of the Western Rite Liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church.

There are 2 main parts in every Liturgy. I. The Litany of the Word. Which is the time of Praise (Hymns), Bible Readinngs and a Sermon. II. Litany of the Oblation. Which is the time of offerings, communal repentance and Communion at the Lord's Table. This is then followed by the finishing Hymns, Final Blessing and COFFEE!!

This skeletal form is used by most forms

We in the East have a similar Liturgical Tradition. All the Liturgies come from our Jewish Heritage as Nazaraeans who worshipped in like manner in their synagogues. Jewish Liturgy is still much the same...and it all is based upon the Temple Liturgy. So there you have it.

Temple Liturgy begat Synagogue liturgy, begat Nazaraean Liturgy, begat multitudes of Catholic Liturgies, which spawned Protestantized Liturgies which developed into the freestyle and loose contemporary worship service we know today since the Jesus Movement of the late 60s.

Does that sound like Darwinian Theory of Worship of what? LOL!! Well, just like all dogs derive from the wolf....all Christian Worship Forms developed from the Mosiac Temple Services...wow. Kinda nifty when you think on it.......maybe not if you hate organized communal worship services.

R.R. Fr. Ken Huffman

[_Steve]

Hi Ken!
Great to have you contributing to this forum! On many topics, I have never known a more authoritative person to ask than yourself, so I would enjoy knowing the following:

1. In your tradition, how much does liturgy matter? And in what way? In other words, is it tied to salvation in any sense, or is it a means for those who are saved on another basis simply to please God and bring more grace into their lives? Can the same benefits to God and men be accomplished without the rituals?

2. Is there any biblical indication that the specific things done in a liturgical service actually DO please God, or that they are a conveyance of grace to the worshiping soul?

3. Is it the opinion of your church that the elements of your liturgy, as practiced throughout history, have their origin in the same practices among Christ and His disciples, or were they developments added by the Spirit's direction of the fathers in later generations? If the former, could you give me some idea which scriptures suggest that Christ and the apostles established or practiced these liturgies?

As you know, I have not come to see any personal or scriptural value in high liturgies, though I do not criticize those who do. I am just curious about your church's position on these questions.

[Guest]

Avinu Shalom Alekhim Steve!

Liturgy (i.e. to serve God in Worship) is considered the primary purpose of all the Royal Priesthood. Mediation of God's Will and Grace to a dying world is the equal and secondary purpose of the Priesthood of God. Of course all who are members of the New Covenant Commonwealth of Israel (i.e. The Church) are members of this Royal Priesthood according to their callings, gifts and ranks.

We do not serve God as Royal Priests in order to attain merit or saving Grace...not even to retain them. We serve because we have received Messiah's Sacrificial Merits and Saving Grace through a Trusting, Committed and Repentant Submission to His Will and the Loving Covenant Obedience of Faith.

We see ourselves as the repentant and forgiven Woman who was forgiven for so much..our Worship is like her anointing tears of gratitude and our Eucharist Oblation is like her pouring out of costly aromatic oil upon the Master's feet. We show God our sincere gratitude and spiritual dependance upon Him in and through our acts of Worship and Sacramental outworking of our Faith. We worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth..in inward and in outward expressions. Our Faith must have works, or it is a dead said Faith that has no real purpose or power.

Does the Biblical data show us that Worshipping God pleases Him or that outward acts of Worship etc can be the vehicles by which Divine Grace is received? Great question. Yes. and Yes.

God is never pleased with outward actions which do not reflect an inward reality......that is lip service and pretense. God hates such faithless "going through the motions" religionists. Their Lifestyles do not reflect a Saving Faith nor the Obedience of such a Faith. Look at the History of Carnal Israel and the Cry of the Prophets concerning this fake fidelity and crass covenant keeping. This is why God said that He came to despise the faithless Temple Priesthood and their empty Sacrifices and vain Worship. But this does not mean God despises Authentic Worship of Faithful and Obedient Covenant Keepers. What does God require of Us? But to act Justly with each other, show all men Loving Kindness and to Walk in Submission with our God...this has not changed since the beginning. Messiah praised the simple act of Faith performed by the poor Widow who fulfilled her act of Worship and Obedience of Faith in the Temple Court of Women. God in Messiah was pleased by Her Sincere Worshipping Faith, because in Faith she gave that which cost her all she had. All of the New Testament shows the difference between true and false worship.

True worship is a Sacrament : It is an visible working out and corresponding action of an actual unseen inward working out of Divine Grace upon the Spirit, Mind and Will of man. False worship is an Abomination : It is a visible working out and disassociated action of a man seeking to attain divine merit or receive rewards by virtue of the action alone and without a true faith or sincere loving trust in God.

Baptism, Sealing, Reconciliation, Communion, Ordination, Marriage and Anointing Prayer of the Sick should all be visible working out and corresponding actions of an actual unseen inward working out of Divine Grace upon the Spirit, Mind and Will of the participants. But a Sincere Faith and Submission to God must present for this to be so...otherwise it is all just empty actions with no validity and symbolic rituals with no Divine Grace to enliven and empower the Soul.

We do hold that a Sacramental Spirituality (Mystical Faith) has been part and parcel of the Christian Revelation...as well as under the former Covenant Revelations too. This Sacred world view sees things from an inward Spiritual perspective as well as through it's outward Actual perspective. The Inner Life of Man along with the corresponding Outer Life of Man. By the Power of His Grace, God the Father works to Transform the Whole Man (i.e. The Soul) from the inside (i.e. The Spirit, Mind & Will) out (i.e. The Thoughts, Words & Actions) into the Imge of His Son our Lord Jesus Christ ...this is the Mystery of our Faith : Sacramental Life.

You ask me to cite proof texts for our Faith...well I offer you the whole Canon of Scripture and All of the Western, Eastern and Oriental Church Witnesses (Apologists, Martyrs & Fathers) thereof from the Time of the Apostles until this very hour unbroken.

Of Course you must not include those who have chosen to detach themselves from the Historic Apostolic Faith since the Great Schisms of the 11th and 16th Centuries. But even "orthodox" among the Old Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodist Episcopalians (Weslyians), Lutherans and some Charismatics still retain this Sacramental Perspective within the Western Church. Roman Catholicism officially adheres to this Historic Apostolic Perspective, but actually differs markedly from Eastern/ Oriental Orthodoxy in actuality due to their Medieval Theological innovations and additions which caused the final Schism between the East & West in 1054 AD.

Both John and Paul speak in Sacramental (Mystical) terms. Their Theology is pure Sacramentalism..which is quite Jewish in perspective and reference. Most do Protestants do not even understand Sacramentalism and just dismiss it as a Catholic innovation, never even realizing that Mystical Faith is as Old as Adam and is the View of the Hebrew People and their Scriptures. Protestants seem to have a more intellectual, forensic & legal view of Christian Faith detached from it's Historic legacy and Semitic Context. This might have more to do with their LATIN origins in Rome whose theology has been affected more by the ROMAN LAWYERS turned Bishops like Tertullian, Ambrose and Augustine than by Scripture. Luther, Beza, Zwingli, Calvin and Knox where all Augustinian Scholars who developed their "Reformed Tradition" upon the foundation of Augustine, not Paul. Their Greek knowledge was limited due to the fact that Greek Education was in it's infancy in the West at that time, and they where already well versed in Latin Scholarship. Thus their theology reflects a Latin Western view which is very judicial and Scholastic in nature...not Semitic or Apostolic. They and their Protestant heirs have their theological and exegetical roots in Latin North Africa and not in Jerusalem. As you can see we do not see Augustine as a Great Representative of Pure Apostolic Doctrine and Perspective.....because you can take the Bishop of Hippo out of Manichaean Gnosticism but you cannot take the Manichaean Gnosticism out of the Bishop of Hippo. I say this as a ex-Protestant and ex-Pentacosta, not just as an Orthodox Nazarani.

:lol: :lol:

I hope this helps you,
Ken .H

[_Steve]

Thanks, Ken.

As usual, you have illuminated me on several things.

I obviously agree that worship pleases God, but I still am not aware of any sense in which the writings of the apostles present a clear case for a liturgy-based worship as over against the "spiritual worship" that is identified as presenting our bodies (daily and constantly) as a living sacrifice, and being metamorphosized by the renewing of our minds (Rom.12:1, 2).

One of the things I have appreciated about the Eastern Church is its independance from Augustine. I agree with your inference about his residual Manichaean leanings, though I am not sufficiently an Augustine scholar to speak with any great authority about him. I have developed my theology (whether correctly or incorrectly) with a high degree of independance of Augustine. And where I have detected his default influence in the views I imbibed before I knew how to think biblically, I have made every effort to critically re-examine them. My dependance has been on the scriptures alone, as well as the ecclectic input of a wide variety of Christian thinkers from virtually every camp (including you!).

In any case, I appreciate your taking the time to clarify your position here.

[Guest]

Pax Domini Steve!!
I know you are far from Augustinian.. But "Western" Theology and Paradigms, whether Roman Catholic, Old Catholic (Jansenist), Anglican, Episcopal, Weslyian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Anabaptist or .NonConformist are theologically influenced by +Aquinas, +Augustine, +Ambrose, +Jerome, +Tertullian and other Latin Church Fathers. of course that is their Occidental hHeritage and bias.

The Eastern (including Mar +Irenaeos, Bishop of Lyons: Disciple of Mar +Papios, Bishop of Ephesos who was Mar +Yohannan BarZevedee's Sucessor) Church Fathers (Greeks, Egyptians, Syrians, Assyrians and Persians) have all taken second stage..if any place within the Western Theological Paradigm. For most, our "Eastern/Oriental" Paradigm seems so foreign and "otherworldly" that it upsets the "Western/Occidental" forensic and materialistic mindset. EVEN Western Sacramental Theology differs somewhat from Eastern Sacramental Theology because is seeks to scientifically/forensically explain the "Mystery" of the Sacraments. In the West you have Transubstanciation (Roman Catholic) or Consubstanciation (Lutheran~Anglican) which seeks to foolishly explain in materialistic terms the Mystery of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Celebration.

We in the East do not seek to explain the Mysteries (Sacraments) but to accept the Reality that after the Invocation of the Holy Spirit's Presence and impartation of Grace at the Consecration of the Bread and Wine, we then partake of the Holy Gift (Qaddisha Qurbana) of the Body and Blood of Messiah which for His Holy People. We know it is through the Power of the Holy Spirit that the Sacrificial Body and Blood Christ is Re-Presented to Us as His Body. We know this and understand this by the clear and simple language of Christ at the Last Supper and through Mar +Paul's explicit teaching in His Letter to the Corinthian Church. We do not seek to explain what is a Mystery, but a Reality nonetheless. All Church witnesses from the Apostles onward have expressed this in clear and carefully described detail...all from Scriptural Typologies and Exegetical Studies. It was only in the West, after the decline of the Theological purity and practice of the Roman Church that some Protestants arose and began to deny this Ancient Teaching of the Whole Church East and West. Due to their rejection of all things "Catholic" and any "Mystical" Paradigm we created from scratch a redefinition of Sacrament as Symbol without substance.....Ritual without Grace....a materialistic religion which denies that Grace is anything more than God taking a liking to you even though you really do no merit such Love. I see this Perspective as dark and heretical...Not Spiritual but Material...so we see our Worship as Spiritual Indeed.

You seem to imply that "Spiritual Worship" is not Liturgical...yet you fail to see that Liturgy means worship. What text defines "Spiritual Worship" as different from an outward expression of an Inward Saving Faith? That is the nature of Worship...False worship I have already described. Rock Concert "Praise" is no more spiritual than Quiet Contemplative Introspection on Christ and His Word. A Living Self Sacrifice is the Nazaraean Way of Sacramental Life in Messiah through the Father's indwelling Holy Spirit...changing us day by day into His Image through the Power of His Grace imparted to us by the Spirit during our Prayers, during our Liturgical Worship, during our Charity, during the obedient performance of His Sacraments and during all the simple acts of the working out of our Salvation by the Obedience of Faith. Thus we say it is not we ourselves who do these things, nor is it in our own strength...but it is Christ who dwells within us and empowers us to do good works through Hids Grace which must take all the credit and glory...for we in ourselves can do nothing which can merit God's Mercy, Salvation or Good Pleasure.

I see this Mystical Faith expressed clearly and in similar language by The Torah, the Nevi'im, the Ketuvi'im and all the Writings of the Brit Chadasha...not to mention continuously in the Apologists, the Confessors (Martyrs), the Fathers and All later Doctors of the Catholic (Undivided) Church both Western, Eastern and Oriental. Even after 431 A.D. Split (Church of the East : Assyria, Chaldaea, Medo-Persia, Aphganistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Mongolia, China, Indochina, Indonesia & Japan), the 481 A.D. Split (Coptic, Abbyssinian, Armenian & Syrian Orthodox of Africa, Syria & Asia) and the 1054 Split (Western Roman Catholic Church & Eastern Uniate Affiliates ~VS~ the (Eastern) Byzantine Orthodox Church & Canonical Affiliates of Eastern Europe) All these once United Churches continued to hold to and in unity express the Historic Apostolic Mystical (Sacramentum) Faith, use the same Biblical Canon and Observe the similar Liturgical Worship, though varied in style due to local customs and cultures.

There remains a clear differences between Rome's Catholic Faith (which has sadly departed Theologically into errors and has innovated Dogmatically into Heresy) and the Eastern & Oriental Orthodox Catholic Faith. The differences between Eastern Orthodoxy & Oriental Orthodoxy is more along Theologic Minutia. Language and foolish miscommunications in the past due African, Syrian, Armenian, Mesopotamian & Byzantine Patriarchal political power plays.

The Church of the East was not within the Eastern Roman Empire, but enjoyed great liberties within the Persian, Indian, Mongolian and Chinese Empires. The Patriarch of Babylon (Church of the East) refused to play along with either the schismatic African, Syrian & Armenian Orthodox (Monophysites) or the compromising Byzantine Orthodox who had adopted Mar +Yohann Nestorios' Christiology at Ephesos and Chalcedon while misrepresenting his position completely. Since the Monophysite Orthodox, the Roman Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Orthodox Church even condemned His teachers Theodore and Deodore ( Assyrian Doctors) as heretics at Ephesos, we then refused to recognize the legitimacy of that Council or it's findings regarding the Patriarch of Contantinople, H.H. Mar +Nestorios, or His Teachings, or those of the Church of the East. Thus we let the Imperial Catholic Church of the Roman Empire wage war and divide into 3 rival "Orthodox" Catholic Churches all seeking Imperial sanction and supremacy over the others. We see this in itself as Heresy and a co-opting of the Church by a dividing and collapsing Roman State.

We are not Romans of the West or the East....but Nazaranis of the East (Eastern Nazaraeans descended from the migration of the Nazaraean Hebrew Church into the East (Woman given wings to fly into a safe haven) under the efforts of Saint Simon Peter (Mar +Shimun Kepa), Saint Jude Thomas (Mar +Ehoda Thoma), Saint Thaddeus (Mar +Addai), Saint Bartholomew (Mar +Bartalmai) and Saint Simon the Zealot ( Mar +Shimun Cana'anim). All this began between A.D. 45 - A.D. 73. That is why our Liturgy, Customs and Doctrine seem more Primitive and very Hebraic. Some of the Lord's own family moved to the East and became leaders in our Church...their family line still exists and is highly esteemed.

I believe only the Anglican & Presbyterians seem to have given our Church her due and have correctly discussed our history, customs, beliefs and practices. Our Church has been the most persecuted among the Historic Apostolic Churches. The Church of the East and her Indian Mar Thoma Nazarani were almost wiped out by the Asian Barbarians, the Muslims and the Oriental Pagans after the fall of the Persian & West Indian Empires. We once were larger than Roman Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxies combined....and only the Soviet Union spanned a greater territory. Our Assyrian Church was almost destroyed by the Turkish, the Kurds and the Ba'athists of Iraq. There was an Assyrian~Armenian genocide between 1850 ~ 1920. This is why our Church immegrated to the West (Australia, America, Canada & Europe) in the Diaspora of the Church of the East. Becuase of this Diaspora the Mar Thoma Faith has been preserved and now accepted by a growing number of Western Christians like me.

So there is some history and some answers for you.
Happy Easter! Christo Anasti!
+Kenat'el

[Guest]

You killed Me!!! Hippy Spectacles!!! Love it!! Heavy Doooood! Whooooa! Reminds Me of Larry Norman's "Rock that doesn't Roll" Love that tune.......yep, I still consider myself a Jesus Movemant "Jesus Freak" too, just an Oriental Orthodox Nazrani Thomasine Jeezuz Freak!!! Not to be mistaken for a Tillamook "Cheeses Freak" by the way!! ROFL! Had to say it Steve...just had too. I can see you giggling too!! STOP IT!!!! We must show decorum as befitting men of God, ain't that the Old Puritan way? No Jokes or smiles? Puritanical Fundies don't sound too Fun do they? Oooops! I forgot them be Calvinists...yikes. Sinners in the hands of an Angry Puritan...ROFL!!!! I gotta stop that. Pardon Me. May I have a few Indulgencies now...lol. See I jab everyone!! Equal opportunity jester.

Anyway.
Do you see the Bible ever detailing how and by what means we "spiritually worship"? You seem to import a lot of meaning into that phrase, seems to me. And I am only looking at things from 70's Kalidaskope Eyes looking though Thomasine Oriental Orthodox Spectacles (beat that!! LOL!!). Maybe Spiritual Service (Liturgy of the Spirit = literally) and Spiritual Worship denote a Mystical Internal worship expressed in submission of the flesh to Divine Service..whether it be Good works in Christ or Community Celebrated Eucharist with Scripture Readings, Hymns, Sermon, Offerings, Reconciliation, Praise, Fellowship and more Good works in Christ? Maybe? I could be wrong, but seems to me the whole of Scripture, Paul included, SCREAMS THIS TO US STILL!!! HEHEHEHEHE.
I know formal and ordered Community Fellowship and Worship (Liturgical Spiritual Worship) seems a drag to us Hipster and Rock'n Jesus Generation...yes I sometimes just wanna sing "Ya Make me wanna shout!" by the Isley Bros. during Liturgy....just to get folks focused...lol. But I resist my groovy leanings.

Yet Sometimes I feel as if a Rock Concert Praise ~n~ Worship Service is sooooooooooooooo fleshly and is more about us that Christ it sickens Me. Many have substituted Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia) for Holy Rollers, and Spiritual Service to a Laughing Liver Quiver! The Pentacostal Anointing now is a Sweating free for all in which we can shiver, shake, bark , scream, seize and slip into altered states and become mediums of all types of untested visions, communications and new revelations. Steve, now where is this revealed in Scripture as the definition of "spiritual worship"? As I recall we in the "CHURCH" dealt with this carnal vanity when it first arose in Phrygia. Remember Montanus and His Charismatic~Adventist Movement? Same old Religion Steve....new time slot and new channel...but the same old bad reruns. Of course you could take the Folk Worship Style of Peter, Paul, & Mary..or Joan Baez. I mean Coffee house Worship of the late 50s to Mid 60s Hipster Type. Instead of giving the Lord a Clap Offering we could just give Him a Finger Snap offering. The Catholic & Episcopalian Charismatics merged this form of worship with the liturgy and the Folk Mass was created during the Jesus Movement. This is the Liturgy and Charismatic Faith I was introduced to at the first. I think this is also you style too Steve...personality wise. A light roasted mellow spiritual brew (joyful folk song worship) with a dab of whipped cream (Charismania)...you know, Michael Row your boat a shore, raise your hands (flaming lighters optional) while swaying side to side slowly and sitting indian style around a long haired, bearded singer who is playing his 12 string very well. Man, all you need is some beads and patchuli oil and we're back to 72!!! skip the bongo drum though...very tacky. I almost forgot the Maranatha Song Book!!!! Good grief!!! That's Cappuccino without the 2% froth!!!!! Eeegad!!!

Like the song says Steve, "I've looked at life from both sides now." And I cannot see post 1960 "contemporary" praise n worship styles as any more or less apart of Spiritual Service/Worship. Actually, I seem to see more carnal excesses in the counterculture's contemporary worship than in Traditional worship......yet if the "worshippers" in either worship setting are carnally motivated and emotionally based and not spiritually motivated and rationally based (remember "your reasonable service" i.e literally "your rational liturgy") there will develop a fleshly inspired, emotionally charged, irrational and ecstatic orgy of religious excesses, and disorderly vain worship. I know this both in theory and by my personal experiences and errant participation between the years 1970 & 1995. I was religiously raised, emotionally conditioned and mentally indoctrinated to unquestioningly accept, believe, promote and respond to on command/signal to this Charismatic/Pentacostal belief system and contemporary worship. I felt itwas true whether or not I knew it was true. I was conditioned to see things in a dualistic way....gnostic heresy.

According to NeoMontanist Gnosticism (i.e. Pentacostal Charismaticism) there is "head knowledge" (Education : Scriptural Languages, Exegetics, Hermanuetics, Theology, Dogmatics, Ecclesiology, the Arts & Sciences) verses "spiritual knowledge" (Selective Scriptural Proof Texting, Biblical Isogetics, Emotional Manipulation, Subjective Insights, Authoritarianism, Religious Syncretism, Adventistism, Extrabiblical Revelation & New Light through New Apostles, Prophets and Teachers. There are two classes of Christian, the Saved and the Spirit Filled (Charismatio ~ Pnuematio according to Montanus).

In the later gnostic church of Phrygia & Armenia they were also called the Paulicians, Bogomili, Cathari and the Armeno~Russian Molokans These Russian & Armenian "Pentacostals" who immigrated from the Caucuses across the River from Azuza St. Los Angeles California prior to the 20th Century because of the prophecies of their illiterate Molokan boy A. Rudomenkin. The main Dogmas, Paradigm and Practices of Modern Pentacostalism & later Charismaticism come from this Imported Gnostic Sect when they attended, infiltrated and influenced the AZUZA STREET REVIVAL. Read Demos Shakarian's Full Gospel Businessmen's Book , "The Happiest People on earth"...it details the true Molokan~Jumpers origin od modern Pentacostalism etc. I know the Molokans well. I have read their Sacred Book which contains the messages of their Prophets A. RUDOMENKIN & MAXIM.Molokon's still refer to themselves as the "Spiritual Christians" (pnuematikos christianoi) and descendants of the Paulician Bogomili of Armenia & the Serbo~Bulgars. They also claim the Charismatic gifts & 5 fold ministry. They are dualists who despise orthodoxy and the sacraments. They also claim sola scriptura and soli fide....a claim proven false. They freely admit they are the source and origin for the 20th Century Pentacostal Phenomenon & later Charismatic Restorationist Movements (Latter Rain, Manifested Sons of God, Shepherding, Prosperity, Dominion, Kingdom Now, Spiritual Warfare, Apostolic Renewal etc.). Now I am convinced that this is not Spiritual Worship or Service.......but A return to Ancient Heresies and a systematic slide into full Apostasy. I say this as an X-Pentacostal/Charismatic entrenched in the Restoration/Latter Rain Movement. I am well read on all the popularized publications of the Teachers, Authors, Apostles & Prophets of this Paradigm including A. Rudomentkin, Maxim, Parham, Demos Shakarian, FGBMA, William Branham, A.A.Allen, Kansas City Prophets, Shambaugh, Kenneth Haggin Sr., Benny Hinn, Torronto Airport Church, Brownsville Assembly of God, Vineyard Movement, Kenneth Copeland, Casey Treat (I know him personally...a real apostate heretic), TBN Network and now the infiltrated and infected YWAM. I know this well from personal investigation and family experiences from within this parachurch organization. YWAM is now fully associated with Benny Hinn Ministries and is now lead by a 70s leader in the Latter Rain/ Shepherding Movement. Need I say More? Fig Trees cannot bear Lemons and Lemon Trees will never bear Figs. Once a Well has been poisoned, the Water thereof cannot be drank from. Milk should not ever need to be strained of soured chunks if it is fresh and wholesome. I know well the catch all of accepting the truth and sifting the error out and leaving it...but the Church should not have such a compromising policy....if the Bread (Teacher/Teaching) is Moldy it is not to be eaten as you pick out the rotten bits (Pentacostal/Charismatic style discernment) , but the whole Loaf (Teacher/Teaching) must be considered rotten (Heretical) and cast into the garbage (Anathematized). Now where do you see this within post 1966 counterculture pentacostal/charismatic churchianity Steve? Is this Spiritual Worship? No...this is false worship with empty ecstatic ritual, self validating praise, self fulfilling prophecy, self magnifying charismania, self oriented glorification and self oriented subjective spirituality. This is the Post Modernist Pentacostal/Charismatic Gnostic Church which has sought to infiltrate and assimilate every Protestant, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church since 1904. That is exactly the doctrines, nature, methodologies and intent of the Nicolatians aka Paulicians aka Bogomils aka Cathars aka Molokan~Jumpers. They are Gnostic Borgs! LOL!! "Resistance is futile..so too is Historic Apostolic Orthodoxy! Surrender and be Assimilated!" Yikes...been there done that. Always afraid of missing their train to glory, or of never going into deeper or ever new realms of
insight. Yup, it was always a struggle to keep up with the latest revealed "New Thing" or "Revival". We where always Thirsty and always in dry spells......Maybe we hadn't been guzzling the Living Water after all? Maybe they thirst because they drink from that which cannot quench? And maybe we have Dry Spots because we have no internal springs? Huh?Doh!!!! Mabey Fast Food Grape Juice Jesus and Pie Crust Christ ain't the Bread of Life and the Cup of Salvation we all assumed it was? Hmmm? Maybe? Maybe there is something to that "Old Time Religion" once for all received complete by the Saints from the Hands of Christ's Holy Apostles in the First Century?!! Maybe the Restorationist Pentacostal/Charismatic propaganda that the Church fell into Apostasy immediatly after John's death ( Evidence anyone? Oh, you can't see Modern Pentacostal/Charismatic Churchianity in Sub Apostolic and Pre Nicaean Church records? So you assume since you must be the restored Apostolic Orthodoxy and that explains why you can find no Apostolic link to Christ and the Apostles in Church records...well except in a few gnostic & heretical sects...Hmmm) is a modern lie first adopted by Joseph Smith and all who like him need to explain their radical departure from Apostolic Traditional Christianity (Reformed, Catholic & Orthodox) and the lack of any historicity to their claims...especially from those Church Testamonies from 80 A.D. unbroken until 431 A.D. Even After 431 AD until 1045 AD unity on the essentials was still evident.

So you see Steve, I do have an alien paradigm confusing to many.....but my shift was a RESTORATION to the Ancient Historic and Apostolic Paradigm and a wholesale renunciation and rejection of the the Modern Pentacostal/Charismatic Paradigm which is a REVIVAL of an Ancient Anathematized Heresy/Apostacy. They claim to be Second Blessing/Holiness heirs of the Anglican Bishop R.R. Charles Wesley......but this is a vain attempt a historical validation froman Apostolic Church source. The Second Blessing is the Second Sacrament of Charismation : the Pentacostal Sealing of the Holy Spirit..called Confirmation in both the Anglican (Episcopalian) & Roman Catholic Church. We call it Charismation.......We are True Charismatists. Wesley revived the Second Sacrament in the Anglican Church (Which sadly had fallen into Calvinist Hands Theologically and Sacramental Theology was down played) and His Anglican followers became (Orthodox)Methodist Episcopalians to this day...Methodist Sacramentalists All.

No, the AngloCatholic Second Blessing (Charismation) implies the First Blessing (Baptism) and necessitates the other Five Blessings (Eucharist, Reconciliation, Ordination, Marriage and Anointing the Ill) of the Apostolic Church. All of which are referenced, discussed, later defined and always defended by Church Witnesses from the Apostles onwards against heretics and pagans alike. Charles Wesley did not teach or espouse Pentacostal/Charismaticism. All "Pentacostal/Charismatic phenomenon described in early American Missionary tours (Great Awakening etc.) among the unchurched and wayward American Settlers during Traveling EVANGELISTIC meetings were denounced as demonically or carnally induced reaction to the Gospel..NOT PENTACOSTAL CHARISMATA! That Modern Pentacostal/Charismatics so desperate for validation seek to ratify their unbiblical and disorderly ecstatic orgies of excess by citing description of unbelievers reacting animalistically, hysterically and violently seizing from emotional irrationality upon hear the "Fire & Brimstone" Gospel of the Puritans is both amazing and Clintonian Logic at it's best. The excesses of Corinth are now acclaimed as Spiritual Worship!! But Pentacostal/Charismatics have never been one to actually perceive the Messages of Paul correctly.....because if they did they would admit that Tongues is not the Sign/Fruit of the Indwelling Holy Spirit, but a Gift...and not the greatest gift. And they would have to admit that not all are gifted with tongues. And they would have to rethink a majority of their Pentacostal views and phenomenon to be inline with Saint Paul. But they are more concerned with using the Bible to validate their experiences and doctrinal opinions (what they call rightly dividing the word of god..i.e. correctly picking and choosing your proof texts and explain it so as to make the Book Jive with Doctrine) than sound textual exegetics, linguistic philiology, grammer and lexiconology. God forbid! That is HEAD KNOWLEDGE!! And we all know Head knowledge is BAD!! We need to let the Spirit speak to us today and let the Bible confirm it as a witness. Let's see what the Bible means to us today!! That's Spiritual.....Not!

So you see, I speak Christianize too, but I sometimes think our Dictionaries are by different publishers. Spiritual (Pnuematikos), Service (Diakonia), Liturgy (Greek :Latreia = Latin:Liturgia), Witness (Martyria) and Fellowship (Koinonia) who have different definitions. I use Liddel & Scott Koine Greek /English Lexicon...and the LXX for Hebrew to Greek translation and usage/definition. I am not so sure what you are using. The Church is to be Spiritual not Carnal; Worshipping God and no other; Serving God and man; Witnessing to the world concerning Him, His Son and His Gospel of the New Covenant Kingdom. And to Fellowship daily with each other to uplift and support one another's burdens.

"I am begging you, then, Brethren, according to the tender mercies of God, to physically offer yourselves up to Him as a living oblation, set apart and completely acceptable. Logically, this is your Divine Liturgy; and it is not by conforming yourselves to this present age either; but you are to be transforming yourselves by the renewing of your mind, for you are supposed to be determining what is the good, well pleasing and perfect will of God." As you can see, I not only know Paul's Letters well, I can translate them also...and I do not see where your misgivings to Traditional Liturgies are founded...or your "spiritual" vs "liturgical" dichotomy, seems like head knowledge vs spiritual knowledge all over again. The Sacred Authors make no dichotomy, nor do they equate spiritual worship/service in contradistinction to sacred rituals or divine liturgies as you clearly do.

I do not know if you consider yourself a Pentacostal or Charismatic...for some reason I kinda doubt that you do. Evenso, I know many of your doctrinal positions are either influenced by or are directly adopted from theirs in many respects. Yet their eclectic paradigm is not from historic/classic Reformation Protestantism, but an eclectic mish/mash of doctrines from the Molokan~Jumpers (Gnostic Paulician"christianity": Apostles, Prophets, New Revelation, Tongues, Ecstasies, Dancing etc.), Millerites (Prophetic Second Adventistism), Irvingites (William Irving: Apostolic Restoration & Dispensationalism), Plymouth Brethren (JN Darby: Apostolic Restoration & Dispensationalism), Quakers (George Fox: Subjective Spiritual Enlightenment) and the Holiness Movement (Legalistic Sanctification Holiness Codes).

I know Eschatologically and Soteriologically you are not Pentacostal/Charismatic. But as far as the "Second Blessing", Christian demonization and their dichotomist (pc for dualistic) views of "spirit/spiritual" things/ways vs "nonspirit/nonspiritual" things/ways seems to be exactly like theirs. I am not saying man ins not a Spiritual Being incarnate in a corresponding mortal Biological Form.......no do I deny seeing two warring natures in the human condition: the carnal/biological & the spiritual/pnuemalogical...this is the Soul's Constitution. I am concerned with false dichotomy (dualism), because the Scriptures teach a wholistic world view in which All things are good for their designed purposes. It is the disruption of the original harmony by sin that causes the flesh to seek to reign over our spiritual nature......only Grace can restore this unity and place the flesh in subjection to the rational Spirit of the Mind, like the Rider and His Horse.

But Worship/Divine Service on earth is by our very constitution performed outwardly (the rituals of meeting, hymn singing, scripture reading, studying, partaking of the Lord's table and fellowshipping together) corresponding to an inward obedience of Faith empowered by Grace.....whether you accept this or not. All worship is ritual by nature..it is a spiritual oriented action repeated in unison to the Glory of God in Christ. We are a ritual oriented species by design.....designed to offer up to God Divine Service (Liturgy) on Earth as the Angels do so in Heaven. How can you miss this? All Heavenly worship is Ritualistic and all earthly worship is modeled on this Heavenly pattern. We are to be God's Angels of Service on Earth, which is our appointed world. When Messiah returns this original perfection will be restored. All Life in God is a Sacramental Mystery for all Creatures designed by God in Love...both in Heaven and on Earth. This is the Paradigm of the Bible, the Historic Church (whether under the Old or New Covenants) and the united Apostolic Church Testimony from the Western Empire, the Eastern Empire and the Lands of the Orient (Holy Tradition).

Our Liturgy is Modeled after Corporate Temple Worship in which we in Faith offer our Logical Spiritual Service as our Apostolic forebears did and which we continue to walk in. God the Triune Deity is our Object of Devotion, Adoration and Praise. Our Liturgy unites us to our Ancient Past, while perpetuating the eternal Temple Worship of God on earth as it is in Heaven. I Guess you can say we take the Scriptures at their word when they say we (The Church) are God's Precious and Elect PRIESTHOOD OF HIS KINGDOM on this earth. As the Old Temple worship centered around Corporate Offerings & Corporate Atonement....so too our worship is centered on the same. We offer up ourselves as Living Thank Offerings as we partake of the Re-Presented Sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, thus we Offer up Bread & Wine and Receive back the Body and Blood of Christ the Lamb of God. I know this Hebraic perspective seems alien to you, but the Scriptures are a Hebraic Collection of Divinely Inspired texts appointed to the Jew first (Native Branches of Messiah) and to the Gentile Second (Grafted in Branches of Messiah).

I hope this detailed reply clarifies my Orthodox Nazrani Thomasine position,
In Messiah,
Ken