Why is it Worship

On my first job in 1962 I had a grand-boss (my boss's boss) who would come in on Saturday mornings, and perform no work related activities. He would drink coffee, share doughnuts, he had brought, talk to folks, hang around until noon and leave. He did not know what to do on Saturdays until he came home from work. It was a habit. I believe the majority of those assembled on Sunday AM are there for the same reason with the additional perk, they like the people. Some are there because the clergy told them if they do not come that a loving God will burn them in Hell forever. They have to be there; to worship but most importantly to fill the collection plates.

 

Why do you believe the assembly is worship?

 

I will tell you why I do not believe it is worship. Paul told the church in Rome what worship is (it is not isolated to Sunday or to groups) and the writer of Hebrews tells us the purpose of the assembly (it is not worship). Nowhere are we commanded nor told nor is it suggested we worship. Jesus told the woman at the well his people would worship and that there would not be a specific place to worship. The clergy tell us the church building is the place where the clergy is. If no worship what would the clergy do?

 

We like examples and commands and my favorites those necessary inferences; where are they to support considering the assemblies worship?

 

The greatest perceived danger to many church leaders is the idea that their congregants begin to embrace questioning and free thought.

I believe most of what is taught as Christianity has as its primary purpose keeping laity dependent upon clergy. What better way than scaring the laity and telling them the Clergy will help them? Clergy tells the laity a loving God will torture his "very good creation" for eternity in Hell unless they do exactly what the Clergy tells them God commands.

Have you ever wondered why, while Christians, today hold dear the virgin birth of Jesus it was never mentioned by Paul, Peter, James the brother of Jesus or Jesus? Paul said it is reasonable to believe God exists by what can be seen. Apparently everything else depends on taking someone's word. When what Clergy claims to be true can be seen to be not true laity begins to doubt that which cannot be seen.

The greatest perceived danger to many church leaders is the idea that their congregants begin to embrace questioning and free thought.

In the 300's CE, Emperor Constantine and his newly formed Church leadership structure took actions to eradicate – by force when necessary – any Christian thought that did not conform to the creeds they had articulated. Free thought impacted their power and control, both physically and spiritually. That mentality remains today, thus Sunday morning is the most segregated day of the week as Christians assemble with those who think as they think. When everyone thinks alike, someone is not thinking.

If Clergy are to remain relevant they should not ignore Augustine of Hippo's advice.

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for teaching of Holy Scripture but our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture"

 

 

The Donald is Right

Which is more sad, a military being killed in his own country or American citizens sending their military to die to promote political goals? If you want to honor the military stop sending them to war.

On the other hand Donald Trump is right, we citizens have allowed our government to forget our military, Projects like Wounded Warriors are proof. When we send military to war we should raise taxes enough to pay as we go, and to take care of any problems the military has for the rest of their lives and we should provide a comfortable living for their families and education for their children. Maybe then we will stop trying to rule the world.

Same-Sex Marriage Temper Tantrums

It seems to me the objections to same-sex marriage are the political equivalent of temper tantrums, attention-getting yet extremely difficult to implement.

 

 

Similar to the result of states refusing to set up health insurance exchanges in accordance with the Affordable Care Act marriage would become the federal government's responsibility. Folks could stand in the corner and hold their breath until they turned blue in the face, they still signed up for Obamacare, but they had given the authority over it to the federal government. Pouting doesn't work.

 

 

Ignoring the fact that no gay couple is going to want someone who deeply opposes their union to consecrate it no civil authority could force a religious institution to perform a ceremony that the institution opposes. That will never happen since it would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution — the part of the First Amendment that protects religious expression.  

 

 

Less obvious is whether that same protection applies to state employees like judges, clerks and justices of the peace who issue marriage licenses as part of their jobs. I doubt they will be protected since what they believe has no relevance to the completion of their official duties.

 

 

Government employees have obligations to perform their job. Rogue county clerks instructed to issue marriage licenses to any couple who asks for one, should be fired for refusing to perform the duties of their job.

 

 

Any couple who wants to have a fight will claim state-sanctioned discrimination. The state will say they're simply protecting the religious liberty of their employees, and the court will say you don't get to elevate employees' religious liberty over other constitutional requirements of their job.

 

 

Supporters of the decision have compared its significance to the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, and the current pushback by anti-gay marriage states is not unlike that sparked by the court's mandate for desegregation. But while the time and effort involved in creating a whole new desegregated school system actually made it easier for states and cities to drag their feet in implementing the requirements following Brown, the simplicity of legalizing same-sex marriage makes it harder to resist.

 

 

Considering all of the problems this country has, so much energy put into same-marriage is a waste. Besides with their acceptance and tolerance for serial adultery and fornication Christians long ago lost the right to the moral high ground on any topic. Voting for or against an individual based on their stand on same-sex marriage just might explain the situation in which this country finds itself.  

Marriage Has Never Been Traditional

The defenders of traditional marriage are not defending traditional marriage—they are defending their own unique religious version of marriage which is that marriage is a "God-ordained" institution that is between one man and one woman and has been so for all of history. By "God-ordained" they mean the Christian God. The alleged gods of other faiths don't matter.

History is filled with accounts of polygamy. The Bible claims that polygamy was common with people like Esau having two wives; Abraham was married to Sarah and Hagar; David had multiple wives and concubines both, as did Solomon. Marriage has not always been about one man and one woman.  

 

Christians claim marriage has always been between individuals of the opposite sex. 

Remember the Christian emperor of Rome, Theodosius II, well he created a code of Christian law for the Roman Empire which specifically banned same-sex marriage. Why ban something that was never practiced? 

How about the claim that the collapse of Rome came about because it tolerated homosexuality? Rome under Christian rule became more intolerant of homosexuality long before it collapsed. The banning of same-sex marriage was the first step of a series of anti-gay laws.Rome was tolerant of gays during its height and least tolerant before its collapse. Christians were tolerated and ruled Rome during the fall of the empire.

Many claim that marriage was a "divine institution" all along and that the state took control of marriage from the church.

Marriage was neither connected to the church or to the state for much of history. A marriage amounted to two individuals announcing their marriage to friends and family and setting up house. There may have been a "wedding feast" as depicted in the New Testament but there was no church ceremony. Early Christian churches had nothing to do with marriage. They did not perform marriages.

Marriage was considered valid if two individuals merely pledged themselves to one another, regardless if anyone else knew about the matter. Martin Luther wrote marriage was "of the earthly kingdom" and "subject to the prince, not to the Pope."

The state did not take over marriage. First, marriage was entirely private without interference of either church or state. Catholicism exerted control over marriage in 1545. It was the Protestant Reformations that brought in state control of marriage. Protestant leaders invited the state to take control of marriage. John Calvin's 1545 "Marriage Ordinance of Geneva" required a state permit and church consecration before a marriage was recognized. Of course they thought they had control of the state.

Is God Involved?

My experience and observations of over 50 years as well as the current status of the sick at GSMCOC suggests you misinterpret the meaning of the verses in your Newsline article My guess is no one was praying that the Littletons' grandson spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair but you said prayer works. Apparently it does not, although I am told by a friend in Nashville he does find him parking places. Last year or the year before the Vacation Bible school used the story of Daniel in the lions' den. At the promotional meeting the Sunday before the session Mark told the kids that God will always rescue you, if you remain faithful. One day, assuming they remember that comment, their experience and observation will tell them he was wrong. I know people who upon such a discovery left the church.

On the subject of same-sex marriage and our ability to have an impac

On the subject of same-sex marriage and our ability to have an impact my guess is our attitude towards LGBT&Q attending our assemblies is influenced by our understanding and our attitude towards the man in 1 Corinthians 5 who "had his father's wife" as well as concern for our children.

 

Are actively immoral individuals even allowed in our assemblies? Why don't we invite people them and others whom we know don't go to church and have never placed their faith in Jesus?

 

Jesus' first followers couldn't wait to bring their brothers, co-workers, and friends to "come and see" what Jesus and the first century church was up to then? Why do we feel funny inviting anybody at all to "come and see?"  Now imagine if some of those friends are LGBT&Q? Will our church friends judge us for hanging out with this crowd?

 

Paul said they were arrogant. Can we tolerate LGBT&Q in our assemblies and not be proud of our tolerance? Do strangers have to be like us to attend or can those who are different attend and possibly become like us?