Posted on 10/24/2006 8:23:05 AM PDT by Dumb_Ox
Communion or as you call it "The Lord's Supper" is SYMBOLIC.
It doesn't matter what is used.
Usually, but the church I was in in college was the exception. Imagine 200 people in a high-arched sanctuary singing the classic Lutheran hymns in 4-part harmony...the first time I visited, we got through the first line of the first hymn and my jaw dropped; I quit singing and gawked, it was so beautiful. There was this one we did, "The Lord Bless You and Keep You," with a fourteen-fold fugue Amen. It would bring tears to your eyes for the right reasons.
A good cantor can take care of that, can keep the congregation in tune. Note that I specify a GOOD cantor ...
The usual practice is to include wine (or grape juice) and unleavened bread, because the original Lord's Supper was a Passover seder, and these foods were part of the seder meal. That being the case, there would have been roasted lamb, bitter herbs, and other things also present at table, but our tradition only includes the bread and wine because those were specifically addressed by our Lord.
Therefore, why should Christians have any interest in your application of Scripture?
1 Corinthians 2:14
But, the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
True, this is the usual practice. The point I was making is that it could be unleavened bread, a Ritz Cracker or a Vanilla Wafer. The ritual is only symbolic.
Yes. I've been in a couple of churches with congregations that could really sing. It's pretty awesome, for sure. Sadly, most of the churches I have visited are not blessed in this way, even with the organ playing. It has been my sad misfortune to share a hymnal with several people for whom pitch is an unknown thing.
I generally take the bass part in traditional four-part hymns, since there are usually not enough strong bass voices in the average congregation.
The right music at the right time can do that! Nothing quite as moving as a great hymn done correctly.
"Therefore, why should Christians have any interest in your application of Scripture?"
If someone has no interest, they needn't bother with what I write. What I have found is that there are those who do have an interest in having me in these discussions. It is to those I write.
I can now see why you don't object to adding to commands we are given by God.
Amen to that. Anything that brings as much joy to people as music could not possibly be scorned by God.
Using that logic, I guess you also believe that sex outside of marriage is condoned by God.
I should have been clearer. I meant no music at all. The instrumentation is the least of my problems with contemporary "church music". In fact, many is the time I have sat and wished for the bad musicians to drown out the bad singers and their bad lyrics. The latter are certainly not going to be any better a capella. :D
I could seriously hug you for wanting to help, though. Thanks.
You should reason this all out in a few paragraphs that cover all the doctrinal bases you feel need to be covered, and make the Lord's case. Then we'll get it.
So do you really think when you take the bread as His body, and "take eat" that you are actually eating His flesh? Do you think when you "take drink" and drink of the cup, that you are actually drinking His blood? What exactly is it, if not SYMBOLIC as I stated in post #61? You are really "out there" on this one...
God wants us to praise Him. You might be surprised how beautiful a capella praise of God can be. Does everyone sing in tune? No, but the purpose of the singing is not to satisfy you, or any other member of the church. The purpose is to praise God and to satisfy Him.
Find a Catholic Church with a really early morning Mass ... almost always no music at all (unless the priese is chanting the Mass).
No, the emblems are symbolic. My point was that Jesus Christ told us what emblems to use. We are not at liberty to change that.
The problem with what you are saying is that there is not form of any liturgy described in the scriptures. The order of the liturgy has been developed by individual churches.
Following your logic, there should be no service at all. Maybe a prayer and a song...that's it. Obviously, that is not it, sinc every church has a liturgy.
Most are derived from the Roman Catholic Mass, of course, but there are very, very broad variations. Since Paul said nothing about the liturgy, is any liturgy forbidden.
If you are going to take a particular logical position, then it's necessary to take that position to its conclusion. The bottom line is that not everything is described in scripture. What is treated as sacred in worship is sacred, whether it is the order of the service or the music used.
I helped the organ builder install the pipe organ in the church I attended in High School. It was hard work. On the day the organ was dedicated and played for the first time in a service, the dedication included a pledge that the organ never be used for anything other than sacred music. That was the intention, and the practice, in that church from that time on. Nothing but sacred music was ever played on that organ. Even when I took lessons on it from the organist, all music played was from the sacred organ literature.
It is the intention that is important, not the form. Paul said something about this when he said that it was not what went into a Christians mouth, but what was in his heart that was important.
If the intention of music in worship is praise, then the music is praise. I cannot find any way to condemn music in worship in scripture. If you can, then I'd love to see the references.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.