Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why are the scriptures not considered more important in our church services?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Just Some Dude View Post
    If it's a good idea (if), I say it should be forced. People might hate it at first, but they'll either eventually come to love it, or be indifferent, or apathetic to getting rid of it. So long as the forced practice is widespread enough that they can't escape it.

    Course, I'd be happy if more of the Scripture, in English, was simply read aloud to the congregation (not during the sermon), as opposed to expecting people to read it in their off time. Especially the reading of the Old Testament. I've only been to one Protestant church, a Lutheran church, that did this. Most others either didn't read the Scriptures, read only what was pertinent to the preacher's sermon, or only read from the New Testament (and if I was at said churches long enough, I'm quick to bet that none of the hard passages of the New Testament would ever come up).
    There are a couple of issues wrapped up in your comments:

    1) Should the church as a whole be exposed to the Bible as a whole? Yes. We should not focus only on the NT, and certainly not only on our favorite passages.

    2) Is it important that the whole Bible be read through as part of the worship service? That might have been important in previous centuries when Bibles were hard to come by and thus people could only be exposed to the Bible at church. Today it's less pressing, and I'd go so far as to say that someone who expects church services to fill their "Bible exposure quota" will have a pretty impoverished spiritual life, compared to someone who's regularly studying the Bible at home as he should. Still, it's good for the people of God to hear to Word of God together. And also to hear it explained.

    3) Is it important to read the Bible, during corporate worship, in the original languages? I can't think of any biblical warrant for such an idea. That seems more like icing than cake. However, when I teach at church, which I do often, I use powerpoint and stop on key words, showing their Greek spelling, pronunciation, and meaning, in hopes of improving congregational comfort with such things. We only have so many hours of instruction at church in a lifetime. I can spend those hours teaching people a foreign language, or I can spend those hours teaching people the Bible. I choose the Bible.

    4) Is a standardized cross-congregational lectionary important? (Robrecht raises this issue) There are pros and cons. A lectionary ensures that "tough texts" are not skipped. It ensures uniformity. It also potentially reduces the freedom of the local minister to choose Scriptures that speak to the particular needs of the particular local church at that particular time, although I'm sure many ministers can tell tales of times that the assigned Scripture happened to be extremely apropos for some situation of the moment.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      Robrecht: Your classes sound awesome!
      Thanks. A parent recommended me to the history teacher at the local public school and she asked me to come in and speak to her history classes that are currently studying ancient Greece. I'm working on the PowerPoint slides right now, in preparation for this Wednesday. Won't speak much about the Bible, of course, as it is a public school, but I do enjoy teaching kids, who are typically much more receptive to learning than adults, 'though every once in a while an adult cannot help but be converted as well.
      Last edited by robrecht; 03-09-2014, 02:13 PM.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        I hope I am as opposed to translation error as you, but greater knowledge of the original texts should safeguard us even more against translation error. Reliance only upon English translations, even published ones, has not eliminated the problem of translation error and even greater misunderstanding as translations become entrenched. But I agree, this proposal is also open to translation error, even more so, especially when more members of the congregation do not also value the original texts. In my opinion, lectors should be trained in the original languages, and they should also consult published translations.
        A little knowledge in any matter can be a dangerous thing. The hand needs to let the eye be the eye. A bunch of amateur linguists may simply be pooling ignorance.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by RBerman View Post
          ... Is it important to read the Bible, during corporate worship, in the original languages? I can't think of any biblical warrant for such an idea. That seems more like icing than cake. ... I can spend those hours teaching people a foreign language, or I can spend those hours teaching people the Bible. I choose the Bible.
          I agree with what you are saying here. As for the importance of the original languages, I am guided somewhat by catholic teaching that the original texts were inspired, not the translations. I'm not sure if this is a common position in the various Protestant and other churches. I suspect that most have a similar perspective on the original texts but that's only my suspicion. Any thoughts on how widespread this perspective is among other churches?
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
            A little knowledge in any matter can be a dangerous thing. The hand needs to let the eye be the eye. A bunch of amateur linguists may simply be pooling ignorance.
            Still, a little knowledge is better than none in my experience, especially in a community of people where each member has some knowledge. And sometimes, a lot of knowledge can be even more dangerous. Would that this were indeed the case.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by RBerman View Post
              1) Should the church as a whole be exposed to the Bible as a whole? Yes. We should not focus only on the NT, and certainly not only on our favorite passages.

              2) Is it important that the whole Bible be read through as part of the worship service? That might have been important in previous centuries when Bibles were hard to come by and thus people could only be exposed to the Bible at church. Today it's less pressing, and I'd go so far as to say that someone who expects church services to fill their "Bible exposure quota" will have a pretty impoverished spiritual life, compared to someone who's regularly studying the Bible at home as he should. Still, it's good for the people of God to hear to Word of God together. And also to hear it explained.
              I'm not quite in agreement with you on the second point. So many people today are so Biblically illiterate that hearing the Holy Writings read aloud in church may be one of the few opportunities where they actually learn what is in it. You can accuse people who don't read the Bible outside of church of being spiritually lazy (and I agree), but that doesn't mean that we should take a snobbish attitude towards such people and not expose them to the scriptures. Who knows, maybe actually hearing the scriptures read in church will stir them to repentance/being more spiritual. In fact, I'm more than certain that such a practice would stir a great number of people to be more active in reading the scriptures, whether or not they were intentionally lazy about reading, apathetic about reading, or weren't reading because they were still bound by bad habits.

              Also, you must consider the illiterate in society. Illiteracy is on the rise here in the U.S., and certain demographics (especially in the town where I live) are more illiterate than literate. In such cases, reading the Holy Writing aloud in church (and a good portions of multiple passages each service) should be mandatory for the spiritual health of the congregation. Simply because the congregation isn't able to go home and read the scriptures, from lack of ability to do so.

              I put the first point in quotes because I wholeheartedly agree. At least of the denominations I've grown up in (and that dominate my area), the OT is almost completely ignored. Which is highly unhealthy for the spiritual condition of the church in the area. (One big gripe of mine still being the use of hymns and modern songs instead of the Psalms in public/private worship, but that's another topic altogether, something too easy to over-focus on, and only one small portion of what happens when the OT is ignored).

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                ... 2) Is it important that the whole Bible be read through as part of the worship service? ...
                Originally posted by Just Some Dude View Post
                ... I'm not quite in agreement with you on the second point. ...
                If you guys don't mind, I'd like to keep this thread related to the use in liturgy of the original texts of scripture and the dynamic translation thereof. I'm still trying to track down the origin of this idea and would like this thread to stay focused at least for a while. Thanks!
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  Still, a little knowledge is better than none in my experience, especially in a community of people where each member has some knowledge. And sometimes, a lot of knowledge can be even more dangerous. Would that this were indeed the case.
                  A little knowledge is OK as long as people know how little they have, and have a good path to get more. In my experience, amateur linguists are prone to all sorts of errors, and a room full of equally amateur linguists are no better off. We know what happens when the blind follow the blind.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    If you guys don't mind, I'd like to keep this thread related to the use in liturgy of the original texts of scripture and the dynamic translation thereof. I'm still trying to track down the origin of this idea and would like this thread to stay focused at least for a while. Thanks!
                    OK. I agree with his point that we ought to read the Scriptures in corporate worship. As to how much at one time, and whether the goal is to read through the entire Bible before starting anew, we can save that for another thread.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                      A little knowledge is OK as long as people know how little they have, and have a good path to get more. In my experience, amateur linguists are prone to all sorts of errors, and a room full of equally amateur linguists are no better off. We know what happens when the blind follow the blind.
                      The Protestant Reformation has already dealt with those who would try to reserve the knowledge and interpretation of the scriptures to the most educated elite clerics. I'm a little more trusting of the ability of individuals and communities to pursue the truth liberally.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        The Protestant Reformation has already dealt with those who would try to reserve the knowledge and interpretation of the scriptures to the most educated elite clerics. I'm a little more trusting of the ability of individuals and communities to pursue the truth liberally.
                        At that point, foreign language acquisition comes down to a matter of elbow grease, recognizing that the ability to quickly learn new material diminishes with age. Anyone can still learn if enough time is put into it. The question is if that's how you want to spend your time together. Sometimes it's a matter of having the right teacher.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                          At that point, foreign language acquisition comes down to a matter of elbow grease, recognizing that the ability to quickly learn new material diminishes with age. Anyone can still learn if enough time is put into it. The question is if that's how you want to spend your time together. Sometimes it's a matter of having the right teacher.
                          I am not suggesting that worship services be spent as instructional lectures in foreign languages! But I would like to see lectors trained in the original languages and capable of translating texts competently for the benefit of the larger community. This should also be augmented by a community and pastors who value the original texts enough to ensure that lectors are indeed trained well. If you think of the amount of time and money we spend in our culture on entertainment, we should be able to dedicate at least as much time and energy to our understanding of the holy scriptures.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            I've recently come across the views of a guy who thinks the scriptures should always be read in their original languages in church services and then the lector should make his or her own translation (prepared or spontaneously) for the given congregation at the given time in order to allow the word of God to speak to the congregation as directly and as spontaneously as possible. I really like this view! It combines the importance of the literal original text with the high value, however fleeting and transitory, of dynamic equivalence translations. This would also require, and encourage, our lectors to be well trained in the original languages and sensitive to the activity of the Spirit in local communities. Most would consider this highly unrealistic, of course, but I really like this idea.

                            Have others come across this idea or practice? Origin? Thoughts?
                            IMO the Scriptures should be read to be understood. If no one (or almost no one) understands the original languages, then what profit is it to read something in it? It would be great if more people understood the original languages, but people generally do not have the time or inclination to do so.
                            I know that in some Orthodox churches, the scriptures are still read in Greek, and I like that, of course, but I'm not sure if this is commonly followed by dynamic equivalent translations or if any importance is given to the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures.
                            In bilingual Orthodox churches, the scriptures tend to be read in both languages, so everyone there can understand the scriptures being read. The Old Testament is generally only read during vespers services (and the OT of the Orthodox church is the LXX).
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              IMO the Scriptures should be read to be understood. If no one (or almost no one) understands the original languages, then what profit is it to read something in it? It would be great if more people understood the original languages, but people generally do not have the time or inclination to do so.

                              In bilingual Orthodox churches, the scriptures tend to be read in both languages, so everyone there can understand the scriptures being read. The Old Testament is generally only read during vespers services (and the OT of the Orthodox church is the LXX).
                              Of course. The whole point of the dynamic equivalence translation is indeed for the congregation to understand the scriptures in their own language. As I mentioned above, it is not necessary for the original languages to be read, for there to be a dynamic equivalence translation, but I do think that is a good practice when people in the congregation can understand the original languages, and I do think that should be encouraged for those who are so inclined.

                              What is the attitude of the Orthodox toward the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures? For example, are they only important for scholarly research? Is there a formal doctrine of the inspiration of the LXX or is it just a matter of the traditional acceptance of the miraculous translation described in the letter of Aristeas?
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                What is the attitude of the Orthodox toward the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures? For example, are they only important for scholarly research? Is there a formal doctrine of the inspiration of the LXX or is it just a matter of the traditional acceptance of the miraculous translation described in the letter of Aristeas?
                                I don't know of a formal doctrine, but the LXX is traditionally accepted as an inspired translation. As far back as Justin Martyr in the mid-2nd century, Christians were accusing Jews of deleting or altering passages from the Hebrew scriptures which were being used by Christians to show that Jesus was the Messiah. It now seems that the Hebrew scriptures were not quite as fixed before the Masoretes took such pains to keep the text pure, and there were regional differences between copies of the Hebrew scriptures in the first century which could explain the differences. In any event, the LXX is what is used and translated into other languages, though some scholars might consult the Hebrew in cases of ambiguity.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X