... a group of persons having a common religious faith; association; fellowship; interchange or sharing of thoughts or emotions; intimate communication; the act of sharing, or holding in common; participation
How might this be the core purpose of our church? Instead of outreach as our purpose, what about intimacy, sharing and interchange. How might that service look? And how might it draw newcomers to us?
Friday, January 16, 2009
King James Only
As a second reader in my branch church I took very seriously the manual requirement to read understandingly, and be well educated. I am well educated. But the imperative to read understandingly, I found challenging. In discussing this with other people and I’ve discovered something and I’d like to share it with you. I’m surprised to have discovered that Christian Scientists don’t seem to understand how difficult the King James is to understand by people who aren’t familiar with it. Think about how hard you think the King James is to understand. Now I want to share with you my personal experience with this.
For the past ten years I’ve been studying my lesson from translations other than the King James. For the past three years, from the English Standard Version published in 2001, and available in our Reading Room. I love to study my lesson this way. I find that I understand the ideas behind the lesson sermon quickly and simply this way. I rarely have to look up a passage in other resources to understand its meaning. Often I will do research to delve deeper into the background, but I generally I’m getting the spiritual ideas promptly and easily.
When I was elected second reader I began reading from the King James to prepare for Sundays. I found this to be challenging. I needed to research every passage to be sure I understood what the words were saying because the language is so difficult to follow. So before I could even begin to understand the meaning I had to get through the language. Studying the lesson became much less pleasant and more time consuming.
After all the work I would be able to understand the lesson, but then as reader I needed to read it understandingly. That’s where the trouble kicked in. I know how hard I had to work to figure out the language, much less the meaning. As a reader my job was to convey meaning through language. As a dedicated student and healer in Christian Science I’ve spent years learning to understand the meaning. The newcomer my find the meaning to be the most amazing thing they’ve ever experienced. But if the language isn’t clear how they get to the meaning? Again I need to stress that the language isn’t clear. It may be to you who’ve been studying it for years, but I have not been, and it’s not clear to me.
I’ve started listening more intently in church and on the Mother Church bible lesson broadcasts to hear how others read understandingly. What I’ve found is that I rely heavily on the study that I’ve done during the week to piece together the sermon on Sunday. When the Scriptural selection isn’t a passage I’m familiar with, I’m usually left clueless. I honestly can’t follow its message. And this is true on Wednesdays too.
For a long time now I’ve been wondering why I continue to come to a service I can’t understand. I think it’s because of my commitment to the Truth and the church and the healing movement of the church. But I shouldn’t expect a newcomer to have that commitment. And why should they? There are plenty of studies to show that Americans are generally unchurched and therefore unfamiliar with any Bible, but particularly the King James. In a Gallup poll 61% felt that the Bible should be easier to read than it is.
What about the fact that we’ve always read the King James only and that all English speaking churches use the King James exclusively? Let’s go to our leader on this. In a letter in Miscellaneous Writings she says that “ The Rules and By-laws in the Manual... were not arbitrary opinions nor dictatorial demands, such as one person might impose on another. … They sprang from necessity, the logic of events, — from the immediate demand for them as a help that must be supplied to maintain the dignity and defense of our Cause…” Mis 148:8 In the manual Mrs. Eddy ordained the pastor as follows, “ Ordination. SECTION 1. I, Mary Baker Eddy, ordain the BIBLE, and SCIENCE AND HEALTH WITH KEY TO THE SCRIPTURES, Pastor over The Mother Church,” Man 58:4-7 What an opportunity to state that the King James should be the only authorized version in our English speaking churches. But she didn’t.
Another opportunity to make her preference known was when a letter was sent into the sentinel in 1910, when she was the editor, asking what the order of services was in the Mother Church. She may have seen from the “logic of events” that this would be the time to state once and for all that all Bible passages are read from the King James. But she didn’t. And this order of services is now in the appendix of the manual.
I’ve gone to the Mary Baker Eddy library and looked up every use of the words “King James”. There’s only one, it’s just a letter to the printer who appeared to be changing some quotes before publishing and she wrote that they should be kept as she wrote them. All quotes in Science and Health are from the same translation, the King James. This was to ensure that anyone following along in the Bible wouldn’t have to have a whole library of translations to keep up.
In summary here are some ideas I’d like you to take with you to think about:
1. Don’t underestimate how trained you’ve become in understanding the language of the King James because you’ve been studying it for many years. Newcomers to the church services are likely to be unfamiliar with the King James. So we can assume it’s difficult to get past the language to get a clear understanding of the message of the sermon. If you argue that a receptive mind can get past the language to get the message, then by that argument we should really be reading it in Greek and Hebrew. But why should anyone have to struggle to get the meaning when easily understandable translations are readily available?
2. Remember the manual is the only authority for our church, and Mrs. Eddy prayed long and hard about everything in it. She didn’t make the King James a requirement. So by making it a strong priority in our churches, do we think she just overlooked it, assuming she meant to do it but forgot? There’s strong evidence that she didn’t. Are we comfortable making up pseudo-rules that Mrs. Eddy didn’t intend?
3. It is difficult for children and those without advanced educations to follow this archaic language so they may be less inclined to study their lesson. Also, it may seem unpleasant for young people graduating from the fluid interactions and discussions in Sunday school to be presented with such and old fashioned, lofty, and unfamiliar sounding church service.
4. Until the 1950’s the King James was the most read Bible in society. After that it became the least read. That’s also when the decline of the Christian Science membership began.
5. Christian Scientists say, “you can read from translations all week so why should it matter on Sunday?” That’s counterintuitive, because a newcomer isn’t going to be studying their lesson all week, they’re going to come to a Sunday service. Wouldn’t it make sense to read from the King James during the week if you like then have a clear translation on Sunday?
6. Some say the King James is the most pleasant to hear read aloud and many of you would choose the King James because you consider it to be the best of all English Bibles because of its use of poetic devices. Can you concede that the pleasantness of the King James is a matter of opinion rather than fact, and that it’s possible that pleasantness and literary excellence aren’t more important that readability and clarity in our services.
7. “As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.” Man 15:3 If we accept this then can we claim that there’s one particular literal word of the Bible that’s more sufficient than another? What would have us cling so passionately to one set of words? Words don’t heal, ideas do.
8. The publishing Society sells many different translations in the Reading Room that could be used in our church services without breaking anything but tradition. Have you ever considered this? If you have, is it important to you? Why?
I want you to know that I love the word of God. I hope you read these ideas with the love and respect that I’ve presented them.
As a second reader in my branch church I took very seriously the manual requirement to read understandingly, and be well educated. I am well educated. But the imperative to read understandingly, I found challenging. In discussing this with other people and I’ve discovered something and I’d like to share it with you. I’m surprised to have discovered that Christian Scientists don’t seem to understand how difficult the King James is to understand by people who aren’t familiar with it. Think about how hard you think the King James is to understand. Now I want to share with you my personal experience with this.
For the past ten years I’ve been studying my lesson from translations other than the King James. For the past three years, from the English Standard Version published in 2001, and available in our Reading Room. I love to study my lesson this way. I find that I understand the ideas behind the lesson sermon quickly and simply this way. I rarely have to look up a passage in other resources to understand its meaning. Often I will do research to delve deeper into the background, but I generally I’m getting the spiritual ideas promptly and easily.
When I was elected second reader I began reading from the King James to prepare for Sundays. I found this to be challenging. I needed to research every passage to be sure I understood what the words were saying because the language is so difficult to follow. So before I could even begin to understand the meaning I had to get through the language. Studying the lesson became much less pleasant and more time consuming.
After all the work I would be able to understand the lesson, but then as reader I needed to read it understandingly. That’s where the trouble kicked in. I know how hard I had to work to figure out the language, much less the meaning. As a reader my job was to convey meaning through language. As a dedicated student and healer in Christian Science I’ve spent years learning to understand the meaning. The newcomer my find the meaning to be the most amazing thing they’ve ever experienced. But if the language isn’t clear how they get to the meaning? Again I need to stress that the language isn’t clear. It may be to you who’ve been studying it for years, but I have not been, and it’s not clear to me.
I’ve started listening more intently in church and on the Mother Church bible lesson broadcasts to hear how others read understandingly. What I’ve found is that I rely heavily on the study that I’ve done during the week to piece together the sermon on Sunday. When the Scriptural selection isn’t a passage I’m familiar with, I’m usually left clueless. I honestly can’t follow its message. And this is true on Wednesdays too.
For a long time now I’ve been wondering why I continue to come to a service I can’t understand. I think it’s because of my commitment to the Truth and the church and the healing movement of the church. But I shouldn’t expect a newcomer to have that commitment. And why should they? There are plenty of studies to show that Americans are generally unchurched and therefore unfamiliar with any Bible, but particularly the King James. In a Gallup poll 61% felt that the Bible should be easier to read than it is.
What about the fact that we’ve always read the King James only and that all English speaking churches use the King James exclusively? Let’s go to our leader on this. In a letter in Miscellaneous Writings she says that “ The Rules and By-laws in the Manual... were not arbitrary opinions nor dictatorial demands, such as one person might impose on another. … They sprang from necessity, the logic of events, — from the immediate demand for them as a help that must be supplied to maintain the dignity and defense of our Cause…” Mis 148:8 In the manual Mrs. Eddy ordained the pastor as follows, “ Ordination. SECTION 1. I, Mary Baker Eddy, ordain the BIBLE, and SCIENCE AND HEALTH WITH KEY TO THE SCRIPTURES, Pastor over The Mother Church,” Man 58:4-7 What an opportunity to state that the King James should be the only authorized version in our English speaking churches. But she didn’t.
Another opportunity to make her preference known was when a letter was sent into the sentinel in 1910, when she was the editor, asking what the order of services was in the Mother Church. She may have seen from the “logic of events” that this would be the time to state once and for all that all Bible passages are read from the King James. But she didn’t. And this order of services is now in the appendix of the manual.
I’ve gone to the Mary Baker Eddy library and looked up every use of the words “King James”. There’s only one, it’s just a letter to the printer who appeared to be changing some quotes before publishing and she wrote that they should be kept as she wrote them. All quotes in Science and Health are from the same translation, the King James. This was to ensure that anyone following along in the Bible wouldn’t have to have a whole library of translations to keep up.
In summary here are some ideas I’d like you to take with you to think about:
1. Don’t underestimate how trained you’ve become in understanding the language of the King James because you’ve been studying it for many years. Newcomers to the church services are likely to be unfamiliar with the King James. So we can assume it’s difficult to get past the language to get a clear understanding of the message of the sermon. If you argue that a receptive mind can get past the language to get the message, then by that argument we should really be reading it in Greek and Hebrew. But why should anyone have to struggle to get the meaning when easily understandable translations are readily available?
2. Remember the manual is the only authority for our church, and Mrs. Eddy prayed long and hard about everything in it. She didn’t make the King James a requirement. So by making it a strong priority in our churches, do we think she just overlooked it, assuming she meant to do it but forgot? There’s strong evidence that she didn’t. Are we comfortable making up pseudo-rules that Mrs. Eddy didn’t intend?
3. It is difficult for children and those without advanced educations to follow this archaic language so they may be less inclined to study their lesson. Also, it may seem unpleasant for young people graduating from the fluid interactions and discussions in Sunday school to be presented with such and old fashioned, lofty, and unfamiliar sounding church service.
4. Until the 1950’s the King James was the most read Bible in society. After that it became the least read. That’s also when the decline of the Christian Science membership began.
5. Christian Scientists say, “you can read from translations all week so why should it matter on Sunday?” That’s counterintuitive, because a newcomer isn’t going to be studying their lesson all week, they’re going to come to a Sunday service. Wouldn’t it make sense to read from the King James during the week if you like then have a clear translation on Sunday?
6. Some say the King James is the most pleasant to hear read aloud and many of you would choose the King James because you consider it to be the best of all English Bibles because of its use of poetic devices. Can you concede that the pleasantness of the King James is a matter of opinion rather than fact, and that it’s possible that pleasantness and literary excellence aren’t more important that readability and clarity in our services.
7. “As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.” Man 15:3 If we accept this then can we claim that there’s one particular literal word of the Bible that’s more sufficient than another? What would have us cling so passionately to one set of words? Words don’t heal, ideas do.
8. The publishing Society sells many different translations in the Reading Room that could be used in our church services without breaking anything but tradition. Have you ever considered this? If you have, is it important to you? Why?
I want you to know that I love the word of God. I hope you read these ideas with the love and respect that I’ve presented them.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Endrun around the Manual
The BOD is amazing. I love their honesty and their openness. They really need our support and they need us to do it. They are very restricted by the Manual and its requirements because it's the Manual of the "Mother Church". But is there a possibility that the Manual doesn't have to restrict my God given mission to express my concept of church differently than they did 100 years ago? Can I do whatever I want to share CS as long as I don't attempt to be a branch church? There are no restrictions on activities of members, that's why there are nursing schools and camps and Prin. So what if there aren't any branches in 50 years, if there are wonderful "groups" healing and changing lives. It doesn't have to be called a branch church to make a difference. All of us who want something different can just do it (just not in our branch churches). Who’s with me? How shall we start?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
We need to replace ourselves
When the Board of Directors came to speak in Seattle a couple of years ago they told us, in response to a complaint, that the young people have said they will leave if we don't stop the bickering. 2 questions later the same complaint came up and they repeated it again. Obviously these people cared more about their politics than retaining the young.
The math is this. Every member must replace themselves with 1.5 new members or there will be no members in 50 years. I have two parents they raised 6 kids, one is a member. My husband's parents had 2 kids they raised 1 member, so between our parents this generation is behind by 4 members. So Jim and I have to come up with 7 just to catch up for our parents. We only have 3 kids... we're taking this job very seriously.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
something positive
So I think my comments have been quite negative lately and I think I’ve been reacting to the defensive nature of those who don’t believe in radical change. So I need to share my positive perspective.
I’ve been healed of some intense conditions in my life, a paralyzed face, a severe sinus infection, bipolar disorder, the symptoms of meningitis, and an inflamed gall bladder are just a few. Each time the healing took place I was transformed spiritually. In no case was I studying or reading to get a healing. I do that when I’m well so I’m prepared for the trials to come. When I need a healing I work to let go of whatever I’m identifying with that’s not true and learn what is true about me and then I mentally jump off a cliff with the knowledge that God’s Love is there to catch me. Sometimes it takes me days to get to this place, but when I get there, the free fall into the Christ is the most amazing experience.
The thing is I want everyone who desires it to have a chance to have this. I feel lonely and useless keeping it to myself. And while I do share one-on-one without restraint, I can only do so much. I want to offer a place where people can delve into this practice. I imagine a church that performs more like a wellness center where there are resources to help people along in their spiritual journey. I want to be part of this place, something bigger than myself.
I’ve been healed of some intense conditions in my life, a paralyzed face, a severe sinus infection, bipolar disorder, the symptoms of meningitis, and an inflamed gall bladder are just a few. Each time the healing took place I was transformed spiritually. In no case was I studying or reading to get a healing. I do that when I’m well so I’m prepared for the trials to come. When I need a healing I work to let go of whatever I’m identifying with that’s not true and learn what is true about me and then I mentally jump off a cliff with the knowledge that God’s Love is there to catch me. Sometimes it takes me days to get to this place, but when I get there, the free fall into the Christ is the most amazing experience.
The thing is I want everyone who desires it to have a chance to have this. I feel lonely and useless keeping it to myself. And while I do share one-on-one without restraint, I can only do so much. I want to offer a place where people can delve into this practice. I imagine a church that performs more like a wellness center where there are resources to help people along in their spiritual journey. I want to be part of this place, something bigger than myself.
Stop making people feel bad
I was thinking today about how Christian Science Nursing changed about 20 years ago. The old nursing structure was rigid and kind of the medical model with specific procedures and very little creativity. When the Mother Church let go of the training it opened nursing up to inspiration and creativity in people’s nursing expression. These new ideas led to new opportunities for nursing. Well some of the older institutions like the old way of doing things and believe nurses should be following the old model. And the old model has maintained a presence in the community.
But here’s the point I want to make: When I work at a nursing facility where I’m valued and appreciated for my inspiration and qualities that I bring to the work, I go home feeling on top of the world, like God has blessed me with this calling. When I work with a supervisor who’s looking over my shoulder and questioning and criticizing my unique methods, and not valuing my contribution, I go home feeling like I have no right to be thinking I should be a nurse. I’m a failure and I should quit now. I’m heartbroken.
When I think about someone growing up in our church or thinking about becoming part of our church, I can’t imagine how they would feel if we were treating them like the second kind of nurse treats me. Meaning we look to their procedures and behaviors more than their beautiful soul expression. I know people are leaving the church because we have made them feel like the most important thing is for them to obey the following policies: first and most important they don’t drink or smoke, second and nearly as important they read the bible lesson every day, third and slightly less important they don’t take any medicine for any reason. Each church may have other priorities, but we all know this is how you determine if someone is one of us.
If we would focus more on our own ability to love and embrace each person’s contribution as a child of God and less on their lifestyle choices we might be able to retain more of our young adults.
But here’s the point I want to make: When I work at a nursing facility where I’m valued and appreciated for my inspiration and qualities that I bring to the work, I go home feeling on top of the world, like God has blessed me with this calling. When I work with a supervisor who’s looking over my shoulder and questioning and criticizing my unique methods, and not valuing my contribution, I go home feeling like I have no right to be thinking I should be a nurse. I’m a failure and I should quit now. I’m heartbroken.
When I think about someone growing up in our church or thinking about becoming part of our church, I can’t imagine how they would feel if we were treating them like the second kind of nurse treats me. Meaning we look to their procedures and behaviors more than their beautiful soul expression. I know people are leaving the church because we have made them feel like the most important thing is for them to obey the following policies: first and most important they don’t drink or smoke, second and nearly as important they read the bible lesson every day, third and slightly less important they don’t take any medicine for any reason. Each church may have other priorities, but we all know this is how you determine if someone is one of us.
If we would focus more on our own ability to love and embrace each person’s contribution as a child of God and less on their lifestyle choices we might be able to retain more of our young adults.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
I was reading the news items at CS Directory yesterday and after the articles there were places for people to comment. Not surprisingly the comments were negative about CS. It’s so hard to believe that after all these years people are still so in the dark about CS. However the only Christian Scientist responding to all the negativity didn’t communicate to them very well. She was talking about prophecy and the Bible. Well other religions have that, but they don’t “put their children at risk” for them. The world should know how healthy our children are, and how our members live long lives without the assistance of medicine.
People who question Christian Science as health care don’t have a clue about our practice. We look like religious fundamentalist, faith healers from the outside. And is that surprising? We are the only church that isn’t strictly, radically fundamentalist that uses King James exclusively. We go on and on about the divine revelation of our Leader. Much like the Mormons do. We continue to publish new recordings of old hymns, much like the most fundamentalist radicals do. Our church services are exclusive, boring, antiquated, hard to understand, and many times rather cold.
If someone found themselves in a Christian Science church on a Sunday, there’s no way for them to understand what we’re really doing. Christian Science is so much more than the Bible Lesson, but that’s all we put out there on Sunday.
We generally only communicate with our own members. We don’t do really do community outreach. Since most people understand church as a Sunday activity and not a storefront or magazine, our “community outreach” has no context for people. There’s no reason for anyone to go out of their way to expose themselves to our ideas. They’ve never even heard of us.
People who question Christian Science as health care don’t have a clue about our practice. We look like religious fundamentalist, faith healers from the outside. And is that surprising? We are the only church that isn’t strictly, radically fundamentalist that uses King James exclusively. We go on and on about the divine revelation of our Leader. Much like the Mormons do. We continue to publish new recordings of old hymns, much like the most fundamentalist radicals do. Our church services are exclusive, boring, antiquated, hard to understand, and many times rather cold.
If someone found themselves in a Christian Science church on a Sunday, there’s no way for them to understand what we’re really doing. Christian Science is so much more than the Bible Lesson, but that’s all we put out there on Sunday.
We generally only communicate with our own members. We don’t do really do community outreach. Since most people understand church as a Sunday activity and not a storefront or magazine, our “community outreach” has no context for people. There’s no reason for anyone to go out of their way to expose themselves to our ideas. They’ve never even heard of us.
From a post on TMC Youth Forum: Manual Revisited
133providence:
I think my general point is that the manual is an inspiration and guiding tool, but I cringe when its viewed as the end all be all word of God. I want to add that I think it would be beneficial to think, pray, and explore this while keeping the big picture in mind. Do we as a movement really think God "cares" if a particular format, order, service structure, etc occurs? I vote no. Do I even think God cares about us following a particular manual? No. Sure for organizational sake it helps to have some sort of structure in order to keep us from descending into chaos and keeps the movement from being side-tracked. But I think sometimes the manual is talked about it like it is the 10 Commandments part II and it some how magically appeared and is indisputable. Rather it appears to be a historical document that arrived on the scene inspired by God, but also a reflection of the growing needs around the church as it grew. I think God cares about our hearts. And when we are following the letter of the law for the sake of "being loyal to MBE" rather than "being loyal to God" I think we should really pray about our motives.
...maybe you could help with the following questions, and it will help us understand why exactly portions of the manual developed in particular ways.
- Do you know why exactly "preaching," "pastors," or "leaders" were not developed within the CS church? I think it was allowed for some time then discontinued. Many denominations have programs that are used to raise up people in their giftings, but don't see that within CS. I understand the theory is that we are all "leaders" in our own fashion, but don't know the history. I had seen some amazing CS practioners talk and have thought, "wow this would amazing to have them talk on sundays, I would love to invite friends to that." Obviously lectures are a place for that, but I have always thought it would be great to have lectures sundays during a normal service sometimes too. Many CS camps have daily speakers everyday before the cabins go back to study the lesson. Ask any young person (or old who works at the camps), and these talks are fantastic. In reality they are really "sermons." Sometimes straight lectures, sometimes videos, sometimes mini-plays to act out themes. But they combine timeless truth with present relevency. Ask any young person too and they will say they get 100 times more things from these inspiring/ lively talks than they do from sitting in a normal sunday service. It seems like the baby was dumped out with bathwater in regards to banning preaching.
- Were there ever local or regional "sermons" or "lessons" rather than institutionalized studies?
- Do you know why youth ministries were historically avoided? Why no youth groups, vacation bible schools, etc.
- Was there ever a focus on mid-week bible study, fellowship, prayer time, dinner, etc? I have a feeling that is what Wednesday night started out as then was insitutionalized into a sort of observational "service" rather than interactive fellowship.
- Why no organized missionary work?
- Why no organized service ministries?
- Why the cultural ban on weddings, funerals, etc?
- Why no room for "new" audible prayers within church? I understand this is in effort to stay away from Jewish tradition of long-winded prayers, again it seems like the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.
I think my general point is that the manual is an inspiration and guiding tool, but I cringe when its viewed as the end all be all word of God. I want to add that I think it would be beneficial to think, pray, and explore this while keeping the big picture in mind. Do we as a movement really think God "cares" if a particular format, order, service structure, etc occurs? I vote no. Do I even think God cares about us following a particular manual? No. Sure for organizational sake it helps to have some sort of structure in order to keep us from descending into chaos and keeps the movement from being side-tracked. But I think sometimes the manual is talked about it like it is the 10 Commandments part II and it some how magically appeared and is indisputable. Rather it appears to be a historical document that arrived on the scene inspired by God, but also a reflection of the growing needs around the church as it grew. I think God cares about our hearts. And when we are following the letter of the law for the sake of "being loyal to MBE" rather than "being loyal to God" I think we should really pray about our motives.
...maybe you could help with the following questions, and it will help us understand why exactly portions of the manual developed in particular ways.
- Do you know why exactly "preaching," "pastors," or "leaders" were not developed within the CS church? I think it was allowed for some time then discontinued. Many denominations have programs that are used to raise up people in their giftings, but don't see that within CS. I understand the theory is that we are all "leaders" in our own fashion, but don't know the history. I had seen some amazing CS practioners talk and have thought, "wow this would amazing to have them talk on sundays, I would love to invite friends to that." Obviously lectures are a place for that, but I have always thought it would be great to have lectures sundays during a normal service sometimes too. Many CS camps have daily speakers everyday before the cabins go back to study the lesson. Ask any young person (or old who works at the camps), and these talks are fantastic. In reality they are really "sermons." Sometimes straight lectures, sometimes videos, sometimes mini-plays to act out themes. But they combine timeless truth with present relevency. Ask any young person too and they will say they get 100 times more things from these inspiring/ lively talks than they do from sitting in a normal sunday service. It seems like the baby was dumped out with bathwater in regards to banning preaching.
- Were there ever local or regional "sermons" or "lessons" rather than institutionalized studies?
- Do you know why youth ministries were historically avoided? Why no youth groups, vacation bible schools, etc.
- Was there ever a focus on mid-week bible study, fellowship, prayer time, dinner, etc? I have a feeling that is what Wednesday night started out as then was insitutionalized into a sort of observational "service" rather than interactive fellowship.
- Why no organized missionary work?
- Why no organized service ministries?
- Why the cultural ban on weddings, funerals, etc?
- Why no room for "new" audible prayers within church? I understand this is in effort to stay away from Jewish tradition of long-winded prayers, again it seems like the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
