The word "word"- it matters

Open discussion on general Baptist-related topics of interest to Baptists around the world.

Moderator: Dave Roberts

The word "word"- it matters

Postby Wade » Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:57 am

I posted these noted which were found in the sermon notes from my church last Sunday. There was no response under the previous thread. Are there Christians that believe you can insert "bible" where you see the word "Word" in John 1:1. Either the pastor believes this or he made an "honest" but very sloppy mistake.

Bible
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” -- John 1:1

Jesus
“The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. “ -- John 1:14
Wade
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Oklahoma City

Postby David Flick » Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:19 pm

Timothy Bonney wrote:I believe there is confusing among some Christians about what is meant by "word of God."

I've been in churches with a couple of Gideon Speakers who constantly called the Bible the "wordagod" (run together with a nice southern accent. :D )

But, in a New Testament sense, Jesus is the Word. The Bible is the word of God in a different sense.

I can buy this, Tim. I used to refer to the Bible as being the "word of God" in that sense. But with the rise of the Bible becoming a sacred object, I prefer to refer to it as being a divinely inspired book. The divinely inspired book is not a sacred object with supernatural powers of its own. It's merely a record God's revelation of himself to man.

Truth be told, many Southern Baptists think of the Bible as being a sacred object. I've known people who wouldn’t even underline verses for fear that they would desecrate the sacred object. And you wouldn’t dare drop a Bible on the ground because that would be like dropping God on the ground...
:D
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8430
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: The word "word"- it matters

Postby William Thornton » Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:29 pm

Wade wrote:I posted these noted which were found in the sermon notes from my church last Sunday. There was no response under the previous thread. Are there Christians that believe you can insert "bible" where you see the word "Word" in John 1:1. Either the pastor believes this or he made an "honest" but very sloppy mistake.

Bible
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” -- John 1:1

Jesus
“The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. “ -- John 1:14


I've never, ever heard anyone in SB life, not even the most hardnosed fundy, say this. Was this a moderate? Don't you attend a non-fundie church, Wade? Maybe you wrote it down wrong...ever mess up a prescription? :wink:
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12075
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: The word "word"- it matters

Postby David Flick » Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:51 pm

William wrote:
Wade wrote:I posted these noted which were found in the sermon notes from my church last Sunday. There was no response under the previous thread. Are there Christians that believe you can insert "bible" where you see the word "Word" in John 1:1. Either the pastor believes this or he made an "honest" but very sloppy mistake.

Bible
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” -- John 1:1

Jesus
“The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. “ -- John 1:14


I've never, ever heard anyone in SB life, not even the most hardnosed fundy, say this. Was this a moderate? Don't you attend a non-fundie church, Wade? Maybe you wrote it down wrong...ever mess up a prescription? :wink:

William, I've heard it before. I know more than one SB who freely substitutes the "Word" of John1:1 for the Bible. It's sort of like what Rdenton described above somewhere. Since they believe the Word of God (Jesus) is alive, it follows that all the words in the Bible are God's words. Ergo, the Bible is indeed (for them) the "Word of God."

Now don't you go messing with my personal physician about miswriting prescriptions. He's written several for me and they are totally and completely inerrant... :wink: :D
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8430
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Postby Wade » Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:00 pm

I thought I was in a nonfundie church, but things have been a bit weird lately. I didn't write it down wrong, copied it off the web site exactly as written.
Wade
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Oklahoma City

Postby rdenton » Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:03 pm

David Flick wrote:
Timothy Bonney wrote:I believe there is confusing among some Christians about what is meant by "word of God."

I've been in churches with a couple of Gideon Speakers who constantly called the Bible the "wordagod" (run together with a nice southern accent. :D )

But, in a New Testament sense, Jesus is the Word. The Bible is the word of God in a different sense.

I can buy this, Tim. I used to refer to the Bible as being the "word of God" in that sense. But with the rise of the Bible becoming a sacred object, I prefer to refer to it as being a divinely inspired book. The divinely inspired book is not a sacred object with supernatural powers of its own. It's merely a record God's revelation of himself to man.

Truth be told, many Southern Baptists think of the Bible as being a sacred object. I've known people who wouldn’t even underline verses for fear that they would desecrate the sacred object. And you wouldn’t dare drop a Bible on the ground because that would be like dropping God on the ground...
:D


Care to cite any Baptist writers who have said that dropping the Bible is like dropping God?
rdenton
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: The word "word"- it matters

Postby rdenton » Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:09 pm

David Flick wrote:
William wrote:
Wade wrote:I posted these noted which were found in the sermon notes from my church last Sunday. There was no response under the previous thread. Are there Christians that believe you can insert "bible" where you see the word "Word" in John 1:1. Either the pastor believes this or he made an "honest" but very sloppy mistake.

Bible
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” -- John 1:1

Jesus
“The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. “ -- John 1:14




I've never, ever heard anyone in SB life, not even the most hardnosed fundy, say this. Was this a moderate? Don't you attend a non-fundie church, Wade? Maybe you wrote it down wrong...ever mess up a prescription? :wink:

William, I've heard it before. I know more than one SB who freely substitutes the "Word" of John1:1 for the Bible. It's sort of like what Rdenton described above somewhere. Since they believe the Word of God (Jesus) is alive, it follows that all the words in the Bible are God's words. Ergo, the Bible is indeed (for them) the "Word of God."

Now don't you go messing with my personal physician about miswriting prescriptions. He's written several for me and they are totally and completely inerrant... :wink: :D


Where did I describe this? I have never heard anyone do this. What SBs do you know who make this move? I doubt you will be able to give any specifics of anyone who makes John 1:1 refer to the Bible.
rdenton
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Postby David Flick » Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:15 am

rdenton wrote:
David Flick wrote:
Timothy Bonney wrote:I believe there is confusing among some Christians about what is meant by "word of God."

I've been in churches with a couple of Gideon Speakers who constantly called the Bible the "wordagod" (run together with a nice southern accent. :D )

But, in a New Testament sense, Jesus is the Word. The Bible is the word of God in a different sense.

I can buy this, Tim. I used to refer to the Bible as being the "word of God" in that sense. But with the rise of the Bible becoming a sacred object, I prefer to refer to it as being a divinely inspired book. The divinely inspired book is not a sacred object with supernatural powers of its own. It's merely a record God's revelation of himself to man.

Truth be told, many Southern Baptists think of the Bible as being a sacred object. I've known people who wouldn’t even underline verses for fear that they would desecrate the sacred object. And you wouldn’t dare drop a Bible on the ground because that would be like dropping God on the ground...
:D


Rdenton: Care to cite any Baptist writers who have said that dropping the Bible is like dropping God?

I wasn't talking about writers, RD. I was talking about people who treat the Bible as though it were a sacred object.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8430
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: The word "word"- it matters

Postby David Flick » Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:22 am

rdenton wrote:
David Flick wrote:
William wrote:
Wade wrote:I posted these noted which were found in the sermon notes from my church last Sunday. There was no response under the previous thread. Are there Christians that believe you can insert "bible" where you see the word "Word" in John 1:1. Either the pastor believes this or he made an "honest" but very sloppy mistake.

Bible
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” -- John 1:1

Jesus
“The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. “ -- John 1:14




I've never, ever heard anyone in SB life, not even the most hardnosed fundy, say this. Was this a moderate? Don't you attend a non-fundie church, Wade? Maybe you wrote it down wrong...ever mess up a prescription? :wink:

William, I've heard it before. I know more than one SB who freely substitutes the "Word" of John1:1 for the Bible. It's sort of like what Rdenton described above somewhere. Since they believe the Word of God (Jesus) is alive, it follows that all the words in the Bible are God's words. Ergo, the Bible is indeed (for them) the "Word of God."

Now don't you go messing with my personal physician about miswriting prescriptions. He's written several for me and they are totally and completely inerrant... :wink: :D


Rdenton: 2Where did I describe this? I have never heard anyone do this. What SBs do you know who make this move? 2I doubt you will be able to give any specifics of anyone who makes John 1:1 refer to the Bible.

1) My mistake. I misread your response in this post.

2) I'd do it, RD, but you wouldn't know them if I did name them. And it's pointless to name someone that you don't know. But I've heard it done on more than one occasion. Usually it comes from persons who misinterpret 2 Timothy 3:16. They believe the verse applies to the entire Bible, even that which wasn't written at the time Paul and his contemporaries were writing. These same persons believe that Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and all the New Testament writers knew they were writing Holy Scripture when they were penning the words. I don't believe a single writer in the Bible had an inkling that he was writing "inspired" scripture. The Bible didn't become accepted as "inspired scripture" until the time the canon was compiled hundreds of years after the authors passed off the scene.

As far as that goes, I don't believe that Timothy considered the epistles he received from Paul to "inspired" in the same sense we do today. I don't believe for a minute that Timothy thought the sentence that eventually became 2 Timothy 3:16 was "inspired." For him, it was simply a sentence in a pastoral letter written from a father in the ministry. I don't believe the members of the churches in Galatia viewed the Epistle to the Galatians to be "inspired scripture." As far as the Galatians were concerned, the epistle was merely a circular pastoral letter passed to and fro among the churches in Galatia. It's surprising how people today think that the NT books were considered to be "inspired" to the first readers.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8430
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Postby Haruo » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:52 am

Let's be clear on this. If the "Word" of John 1:1 is the Bible, then the Bible is not merely a "sacred object", but is in fact God which would go the viewpoint of Jewish and Muslim fundies one better.

But for laughability, making the "Word" of John 1:14 the Bible is much sillier sounding IMHO than 1:1.

Haruo
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12252
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Postby David Flick » Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:08 pm

Haruo wrote:Let's be clear on this. If the "Word" of John 1:1 is the Bible, then the Bible is not merely a "sacred object", but is in fact God which would go the viewpoint of Jewish and Muslim fundies one better.

But for laughability, making the "Word" of John 1:14 the Bible is much sillier sounding IMHO than 1:1.

Haruo

I agree...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8430
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Postby Hal Eaton » Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:20 pm

To call the Bible the "Word of God" leads to a whole panoply of misunderstandings. Even if the phrase is used in the Good Book, it leads many readers to assign properties to the Bible which reduce its quality and applicability. Those properties include, but are obviously not limited to, the idea of inerrancy, magical attributes, talismanic effects, salvific nature, etc.

The implication that the "Word of God" means the "Words of God" is even more disturbing. The writers may have thought they were simply quoting God, or speaking what He had told them (although Paul admits to uncertainty about such matters), but so did many other writers whose products were not included in the canon (another word with almost-magical aspects).

The accumulated writings were then subjected to the arbitrary (and undoubtedly contentious) evaluations by relatively unknown "scholars."

Their vote as to authenticity of said writings was generally accepted, but often with further additions and evaluations.

"Believers" (especially those labeled as inerrantists) today do no more than apply their personal imprimatur to an ancient errant process. The "Word" is further transmogrified by argumentation over "original manuscripts," word definitions, translations, interpretations, cultural pressures, charismatic presentations by both lettered and un-lettered sermonizers, technology, creeds, and confessions of faith.

The latter--confessions of faith (no two of which agree)--are really no more than attempts to condense the "Word" into a simple, one-page (or small pamphlet) analysis of the Truth contained therein. And we decide their efficacy and validity by a majority vote, a la the SBC. And we change them, the same way.

From this ancient, uncertain, muddled origin cometh, believe it or not, the psychological staple of modern-day religious faith--Dogmatism.
User avatar
Hal Eaton
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:01 pm
Location: Mouth of Wilson, VA

Postby David Flick » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:12 pm

Chris wrote:
Timothy Bonney wrote:I've been in churches with a couple of Gideon Speakers who constantly called the Bible the "wordagod" (run together with a nice southern accent. :D )


I've heard some of them sutthen evangelicals make 5 syllables out of it. WURR-rud-of-GAW-wudd.

Chris, it's pronounced "Wordagod" when no points are being made from or about it. But it becomes "WURR-rud-uf-GAW-wudd" when points are being made from or about it. It all depends on the context... :D
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8430
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Postby Michael » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:31 pm

Flick - I've known people who wouldn’t even underline verses for fear that they would desecrate the sacred object. And you wouldn’t dare drop a Bible on the ground because that would be like dropping God on the ground


My dear departed mother wouldn't put anything ON TOP of her Bible. Not even a good SBC publication (in the days when they existed) like Home Life or Open Windows. Those periodicals could be held within the pages but never on top.

I've always loved paperback Bibles 'cause you can fold 'em back and bend 'em, etc. I've gotten comments about that as well. "Young man (back when I was young), you gotta take good care of 'God's Word.'"

Hey Wade, just give it up and go to a UMC church. I think you'll be happy there if you can get used to baptized babies. :P
Michael
"Is this heaven?"
"No, it's Iowa."
"Iowa? I could have sworn this was heaven."
Michael
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:24 pm
Location: Coralville, Iowa

Postby rdenton » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:31 pm

David Flick wrote:
rdenton wrote:
David Flick wrote:
Timothy Bonney wrote:I believe there is confusing among some Christians about what is meant by "word of God."

I've been in churches with a couple of Gideon Speakers who constantly called the Bible the "wordagod" (run together with a nice southern accent. :D )

But, in a New Testament sense, Jesus is the Word. The Bible is the word of God in a different sense.

I can buy this, Tim. I used to refer to the Bible as being the "word of God" in that sense. But with the rise of the Bible becoming a sacred object, I prefer to refer to it as being a divinely inspired book. The divinely inspired book is not a sacred object with supernatural powers of its own. It's merely a record God's revelation of himself to man.

Truth be told, many Southern Baptists think of the Bible as being a sacred object. I've known people who wouldn’t even underline verses for fear that they would desecrate the sacred object. And you wouldn’t dare drop a Bible on the ground because that would be like dropping God on the ground...
:D


Rdenton: Care to cite any Baptist writers who have said that dropping the Bible is like dropping God?

I wasn't talking about writers, RD. I was talking about people who treat the Bible as though it were a sacred object.


There will always be untutored people who make extreme statements because they don't know any better. The real question is whether those who do know better make such statements, and if their statements can be authenticated.
rdenton
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: The word "word"- it matters

Postby rdenton » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:36 pm

David Flick wrote:
rdenton wrote:
David Flick wrote:
William wrote:
Wade wrote:I posted these noted which were found in the sermon notes from my church last Sunday. There was no response under the previous thread. Are there Christians that believe you can insert "bible" where you see the word "Word" in John 1:1. Either the pastor believes this or he made an "honest" but very sloppy mistake.

Bible
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” -- John 1:1

Jesus
“The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us. “ -- John 1:14




I've never, ever heard anyone in SB life, not even the most hardnosed fundy, say this. Was this a moderate? Don't you attend a non-fundie church, Wade? Maybe you wrote it down wrong...ever mess up a prescription? :wink:

William, I've heard it before. I know more than one SB who freely substitutes the "Word" of John1:1 for the Bible. It's sort of like what Rdenton described above somewhere. Since they believe the Word of God (Jesus) is alive, it follows that all the words in the Bible are God's words. Ergo, the Bible is indeed (for them) the "Word of God."

Now don't you go messing with my personal physician about miswriting prescriptions. He's written several for me and they are totally and completely inerrant... :wink: :D


Rdenton: 2Where did I describe this? I have never heard anyone do this. What SBs do you know who make this move? 2I doubt you will be able to give any specifics of anyone who makes John 1:1 refer to the Bible.

1) My mistake. I misread your response in this post.

2) I'd do it, RD, but you wouldn't know them if I did name them. And it's pointless to name someone that you don't know. But I've heard it done on more than one occasion. Usually it comes from persons who misinterpret 2 Timothy 3:16. They believe the verse applies to the entire Bible, even that which wasn't written at the time Paul and his contemporaries were writing. These same persons believe that Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and all the New Testament writers knew they were writing Holy Scripture when they were penning the words. I don't believe a single writer in the Bible had an inkling that he was writing "inspired" scripture. The Bible didn't become accepted as "inspired scripture" until the time the canon was compiled hundreds of years after the authors passed off the scene.

As far as that goes, I don't believe that Timothy considered the epistles he received from Paul to "inspired" in the same sense we do today. I don't believe for a minute that Timothy thought the sentence that eventually became 2 Timothy 3:16 was "inspired." For him, it was simply a sentence in a pastoral letter written from a father in the ministry. I don't believe the members of the churches in Galatia viewed the Epistle to the Galatians to be "inspired scripture." As far as the Galatians were concerned, the epistle was merely a circular pastoral letter passed to and fro among the churches in Galatia. It's surprising how people today think that the NT books were considered to be "inspired" to the first readers.


Peter refered to Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet 3:16). Paul expected the churches to which he wrote to consider his writings as authoritative. Further, the canon did not await hundreds of years. New scholarship argues that the canon was collected and probably published by the middle-second century. (See David Trobisch's writigs on this subject published by Oxford.)
rdenton
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Postby KeithE » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:43 pm

For those of you that have "The Ultimate Heresy: the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy" by Rodger L. Cragun, chapters 3, 4 and 5 discuss most usages of the word "word" in the bible. His conclusion is that the meaning of "word of God" for Paul is "the power of God transforming humanity" and "Jesus is in that word". For John the Word of God is Jesus plain and simple. Those that make "word of god" equate the the bible have done Christendom a great deservice and has resulted in great fighting throughout the life of the church (chapter 1).

I can't speak for his greek translations but his reasoning seems impeccable to me.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8841
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Postby David Flick » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:52 pm

KeithE wrote:For those of you that have "The Ultimate Heresy: the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy" by Rodger L. Cragun, chapters 3, 4 and 5 discuss most usages of the word "word" in the bible. His conclusion is that the meaning of "word of God" for Paul is "the power of God transforming humanity" and "Jesus is in that word". For John the Word of God is Jesus plain and simple. Those that make "word of god" equate the the bible have done Christendom a great deservice and has resulted in great fighting throughout the life of the church (chapter 1).

I can't speak for his greek translations but his reasoning seems impeccable to me.

Cragun's book is a good one. I agree with you, KeithE.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8430
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Postby David Flick » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:12 pm

I can't let this tread die without including a little TIC piece that I wrote several years ago... :D


You Stand While I Read the Bible
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8430
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Postby Hal Eaton » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:10 pm

David, I may be wrong--again--but I think the habit of standing while reading the Bible is a carry-over from Roman Catholic practice. Check it with Catholic folks--they are few and far between hereabouts, or I would do it myself.

But I totally agree with your view. (Especially as I get older--and older--and older . . .) During the 22 years I pastored our church, I fought off the idea of padded pews; the money could be more wisely used eldsewhere. Now, with an expansion project looming, my wife and I are sponsoring the idea of --well, comfort!
User avatar
Hal Eaton
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:01 pm
Location: Mouth of Wilson, VA

Postby David Flick » Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:10 pm

Oldad wrote:David, I may be wrong--again--but I think the habit of standing while reading the Bible is a carry-over from Roman Catholic practice. Check it with Catholic folks--they are few and far between hereabouts, or I would do it myself.

You're probably right, Oldad, but Oklahoma Southern Baptists didn't get the tradition from the Catholics. Many Oklahoma Baptists don't think Catholics can even be saved. Regarding people standing while the preachers/evangelists read the Bible, that didn't begin in Oklahoma until the inerrancy controversy got unto full swing. The tradition began here in Oklahoma in the early 90's when the fundies began defending the inerrancy of the Bible. It caught on like wildfire. The fundamentalist preachers thought they were defending the integrity of the Bible (as if the Bible’s integrity needed defending) by asking people respond in this manner. Preachers saw it at evangelism conferences and state conventions. Local preachers picked up on it and it went from there. It was though the Bible was more of an object of worship than it was a message from God...

Oldad wrote:But I totally agree with your view. (Especially as I get older--and older--and older . . .) During the 22 years I pastored our church, I fought off the idea of padded pews; the money could be more wisely used eldsewhere. Now, with an expansion project looming, my wife and I are sponsoring the idea of --well, comfort!

:lol:
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8430
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Postby David Flick » Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:38 pm

Chris wrote:
David Flick wrote:I can't let this tread die without including a little TIC piece that I wrote several years ago... :D


You Stand While I Read the Bible


The last two times I was asked to stand "for the reading of God's Word," I remained seated....then moved my membership.

I imagine you were a lot happier after the move. :)

Chris, here, an old article that Bruce Prescott wrote along about the time the inerrancy controversy was getting started good and heavy. It's five years old, but it's still true...

The Chief Sin of Fundamentalism
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8430
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Postby Joseph Patrick » Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:13 am

From Joseph Patrick...

David, in a thread drift, I have often asked, "What is the theological basis for standing during the singing of the 'praise & worship' choruses during the first 30 minutes of the services I have been seeing for the past few years?"

I am sure that the middle aged curmudgeon probably takes over from my more saintly nature during these times, but I often find myself "spiritually drifting" as we sing a non-scriptural chorus, which usually has a catchy melody, for the umteenth time.

For me, it is particularly disquieting (sp?) if I am to give the sermon that day, (or not) and with the praise and worship "ditties," the Sunday School report, announcements, offering, special music, etc. we are an hour into a service before the preacher comes to share those great pearls of wisdom. I often wonder how much the speaker can penetrate the "haze" that engulfs congregations after such a long wait...
Joseph Patrick
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:53 am
Location: Portland, OR

Next

Return to Baptist Faith & Practice Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest