Rome is now pressing the Anglican Church to “make a decision.” It seems that they are saying that we can no longer serve two masters:
“Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.”
This should be an interesting conference! I would love to hear back from anyone that attends.
Notice the correlation of each…
I choose the 1928 Book of Common Prayer for my authority of worship. I do this for a number of reasons, some of which support the use of the 1662:
- 1. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer represents the Anglican Church in America as it was in its orthodox state; the last official Prayer Book to be received by the entire American Anglican union prior to the modern division of the church. It was also a revision that was authorized by both the American bishops as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury (1789). The 1928 is also more ecumenical to the East, which, to me, is an important part of the future of Christendom.
- 2. Because of the statement above, the 1928, to me, represents the unity of the Anglican church of America. I think that the new revised Prayer Book put out by Rev. Toon, is a bold attempt for a new type of unified Prayer Book (as was the REC Prayer Book), but only time will tell if it will be able to sustain. If it was to become the leading Prayer Book, I would likely use it, but with some reluctance.
- 3. The 1928 has maintained the Elizabethan language, which is important for a number of reasons: It prevents the standard of worship from drifting into “ghetto” formats of language, as time within America has proven itself to drag various liturgies into; it brings the Christian to the linguistic roots of the Prayer Book, which in turn opens the door for great appreciation for the Reformation; and finally the Elizabethan language is a very “poetic” language, and so enables the Christian to separate themselves from the loose language of everyday life and take up a language that is rich in meaning and melody, exemplifying ones worship experience.
- 4. The 1928 contains the Apocrypha within the liturgical calendar. This is important for a variety of reasons, one being that Article 6 states that the Apocrypha is to continue as a part of the Church, as opposed to what the Anabaptist believed. The Article states: “the Church doth read [the Apocrypha] for example of life and instruction of manners…”
- 5. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer, in the Holy Communion, begins with the Our Father. This, to me, is a very “biblical” way of beginning a service. Also the latter part of the Holy Communion is placed nearer to the end of the service, with a greater anticipation and building up to the distribution. In the 1662, it seems as though the distribution is done a bit too prematurely, with the Our Father and Oblation done after, rather than before. Although there is a short type of Oblation and Invocation within the Prayer of Consecration, it does not seem to make the impact that the extended version of the 1928 makes.
- The differences between the 1928 and the 1979 are far too many to list in this page. Overall, the 1928 is more Reformed in character/doctrine, confronting the Christian with their sin and depravity, whereas the 79 is much softer on sin and depravity. Many Anglicans believe the 1979 Prayer Book to be unorthodox.
This article shows how restaurants are now losing money due to more women doing what women have traditionally done in pre-liberal times: manage their homes!
According to the article, more women are staying at home and cooking for their families, which has in turn caused restaurants to lose revenue. No offense to anyone that works within the restaurant industry, but let’s face it, this industry, along with many other modern industries (see industrial revolution) has created a narcissistic culture and ethic in America (in particular) that leads to nothing but schism within the family and the Church.
Not only is the American economy based on this “capitalistic” framework, but much of the Christian ministry - especially within Evangelicalism - is built on this same framework. The essence of this model includes the basic tendency and motive to capitalize on the overall desires and weaknesses of the people! Yet the ethic of Christ involves selfless and sacrificial love for one another, as Christ clearly demonstrated to us in His lifetime. This means that one may actually need to repent and serve those that Christ calls us to serve, rather than fleeing from the difficult service in order to build our own, more monetarily gainful, business or ministry.
Western economics and ministry is simply out of control! Take, for instance, much of the American youth ministry. Because parents are too wrapped up in hedonism, insisting on living a life of materialism and social acceptance, thus fleeing from the traditional model/ethic of the family, they ignore training their children in the Lord properly. The child is then given over to the youth ministry in hopes of spiritual conversion. If the Church would simply instruct the parents on proper Christian ethics of the family, the child would not need or even want to be a part of ministries outside the home and the Church (the youth pastor is not an office of the Church according to the Scriptures). Ministries such as the youth ministry should be for the children that have no parents or whom have non-Christian parents - the legal, as well as spiritual orphans. To capitalize on the sins of the parents is very sinful; ”growing” the ministry to accommodate the children that are not orphans, thus ultimately stealing them from their God-given mentors - their parents, all the while neglecting the true orphans.
The overcorrection to modern capitalism would be the pursuit of idealistic notions (idealism - the creation and belief of ideals that are impossible to manage). The Puritans fell into this shortly after they settled in America. Imposing laws and theologies that had never been fully embraced in all of history, the Puritans believed that God had called them to be the new Jerusalem. They were wrong! God does not want an overnight make-shift Jerusalem erected. God simply wants us to do what is right and just within our own lives, and teach those same principles to our pupils. If our pupils do not want to learn and live the ways of Christ, then they have chosen to live as peasants (there is nothing sinful about a society with poor people. When Christ says to give to the poor, He is certainly not commanding us to instantly make them wealthy). Typically, the idealist would want both classes of peasant and elitist to become abolished, and this is generally called liberalism. Liberalism is not the answer to capitalism! The answer to secular capitalism is… well, I am not sure there is a proper “ism” to place here, at least not one that would be understood by most Christians. Though, I can say this: The “biblical” model of Christian economy is not found in one particular frame of history, but likely, a combination of historical frames, coupled with a combination of historical theologies.
It’s great to see many of the conservative bodies breaking away from ECUSA to find another Bishop to align under. But my question is: What is so wrong with the Continuing Anglican movement that these break-offs cannot seem to submit to a Continuing Bishop? Wasn’t it the continuing Anglicans that first recognized the error of the ECUSA church, back in the 60s and even as far back (concerning the REC) as the late 1800s? The Continuing churches such as the REC, APA, ACA, etc., already have bishops with apostolic succession, that are more than capable of being an Archbishop of a unified Anglican church in America.
It appears that we are beginning to align with Bishop Akinola, of Africa, which is great news. But what does this convey to others about the Continuing movement, as well as America as the Christian country that it was supposedly destined to be? Will the Continuing churches eventually dissolve and become absorbed by the Third World movement? And, will America itself be swallowed up by one of the Third World countries after we align with a Third World Bishop? Do not underestimate the influence of the Church!
God may indeed use one of the more liberal, future presidents like Clinton or McCain to continue to merge us with other countries through trade and military, and maybe even immigration. Meanwhile, we are aligning ourselves with a Bishop in another country.
Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the direction we are headed is in some way disastrous. I’m just attempting to sort the confusion out. If the Continuing Anglican church needs a Bishop outside America, then that’s what she needs. And if America needs to be absorbed by another country to remain conservative, then that is what she needs. But if we are to remain an independent country, we will eventually need a Bishop that resides in our country. Otherwise, we will be looking at some of the same problems that the Anglican settlers had in the 1700s with the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
At first glance, the title of this post should seem oxymoronic. After all, Anglicanism is by definition the shape the Church of England took after the Reformation (and later its sister churches in the British Colonies) and the primate of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence, how could something even be considered “Anglican” without Canterbury? My answer to this question is that Anglicanism is not a bureaucracy, but a tradition. It had its roots in the experience of the English Church throughout history and was expressed most definitively in the period after the Reformation in the development of the Book of Common Prayer. If the current elite at Canterbury wishes to overthrow the developed tradition of the Church of England in the matter of a few decades, that does not mean Anglicanism has changed, but that they are no longer truly Anglican at all.The problem we see with Canterbury is that the Rt. Rev. Rowan Williams, the current occupant of the office of Archbishop of Canterbury, does not see defending the faith once delivered to the saints as his primary function, but rather the preservation of union within the Anglican Communion. That is, it is not the beliefs of the Church that matter, but the institution. His ultimate goal is simply the preservation of unity at all costs.
It is fairly clear from his writings that ++Rowan would like to side with the revisionists but thinks their powerplay tactics are ill advised. He does not object to the apostasy of the Episcopal Church because it is wrong, but rather that it is against the will of the communion. With the will of God not being part of his decision making equation, it seems the Archbishop hopes to bide time until his views become the received view of the Communion as a whole.
From the way things are moving, he may not have long to wait. The Anglican Churches in the Global South have had far their fill of Western apostasy and now have called their own conference - the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) - shortly before the Lambeth Conference where Anglican leadership traditionally meets. Many bishops from the Global South are choosing GAFCON over Lambeth and it is likely the bishops attending will represent a far greater percentage of the communion than those attending Lambeth. Many see this not only as a rejection of the apostate teachings of Western Anglican leadership, but also of the leadership of Canterbury during the current crisis.
With such an obvious slap in the face of the Archbishop imminent, a future split in the Anglican Communion seems likely. The departure of so many churches would only leave Anglicanism with a group of dying Western apostates and others who have not the courage to take a firm stand. Eventually, the obvious decline of vitality within the remnants of the Anglican Communion would cause many fence sitters to depart as well. Canterbury would then be relegated to the leadership of apostate caretakers of architecturally interesting but increasingly empty buildings.
For the vibrant Churches of the Global South, they have little to fear. They will continue to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and continue to make converts. As they also grow in strongholds of Islam, they will also give up martyrs for the cause of Christ. It is they, and not their decadent Western peers, who are the true Anglicans and the true Christians. As the Rt. Rev. Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria (the largest church in the communion) has stated, “You do not need to go through Canterbury to get to Jesus.”
Nor do you need to go through Canterbury to be an Anglican. We have a rich tradition that expresses the Holy Scriptures through the collected wisdom of the Church through her history. This tradition certainly has always had Canterbury at its theological center, but when this center veers from the revealed Word of God we must choose Scripture over geography no matter how sentimental our feelings may be for that location.
On the surface, the forces behind the spread of secularism and Islam would appear to have little in common. Secularism is essentially a movement against a place for religious belief in public life, while Islam holds the complete subservience of the public sphere to Islam through the imposition of Sharia law. But, as Richarad Bastein points out in an article at Mercator.net, things may not always be as they seem. Just as similarities were notable between the seemingly opposed forces of Nazism and Marxism, so links can also be seen between Islam and secularism.
Read the rest of this entry »
By request, we have added a new website to the sidebar, that is well worth noting: Christ Church Anglican of Phoenix, AZ. I recently visited this church on Good Friday and can personally attest to its soundness. A breakaway from the fallen ECUSA, Christ Church Anglican has done what many are frightened to do, but what many are yet to do in the future: seek unity through godly bishops and parishioners whom adore the Christ of the Bible and not the christ of modernity.
Systematic doctrine is almost never enough. Here is a poetic stance on the crucifixion, sent by our Cantor, Jeff Holston.
___________________________________
Philosophers have measured mountains,
Fathomed the depth of seas, of states, of kings,
Walked with a staff to heaven, and traced fountains:
But there are two vast, spacious things,
The which to measure it doth more behove:
Yet few there are that sound them: Sin and Love.
Who would know Sin, let him repair
Unto Mount Olivet; there shall he see
A man so wrung with pains, that all his hair,
His skin, his garments bloody be.
Sin is that press and vice, which forceth pain
To hunt his cruel food through every vein.
And taste that juice, which on the cross a pike
Did set again abroach; then let him say
If ever he did taste the like.
Love is that liquor sweet and most divine,
Which my God feels as blood; but I, as wine.
Finally, one of the greatest books ever written, Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s By This Standard, is being reprinted in hardback…and with a very nice cover, if I might add!
There is no neutrality within the spiritual realm, and this includes the use of clerical attire and liturgical vestments. If one does not choose to wear, say, an alb, to minister in, why does he choose a suit or a polo shirt? A modern pastor may say that he is attempting to “become all things to all people,” as if St. Paul used that statement for a license of some sort. And where does this philosophy end? If the majority of the culture is, for instance, wearing bathing suits, does this mean that the pastor should do the same? Or is there an actual moral standard to be met? If there is, then what should this standard be? Has the all-things-to-all-people concept really done the Church much good? Is it effective for creating a conscience within society? Does the more modern concept demonstrate modesty and sobriety?
I am “high church” in my choosing of vestments and I currently wear what my current priest requires me to wear, which is the white alb, as a postulant. As an ordained Anglican, my priest uses a black cassock with a surplice. I understand that the black cassock is traditional to the Church of England, but I prefer the alb with either a stole or a chasuble, depending on the Eucharistic duties, of course. Early writings of the fathers show that the priests were required to wear all white, signifying the purity of Christ. The white alb also seems to be more accepted by today’s culture - not that that is the standard, but it is always nice when we can be traditional and accepted! The alb is a little sleeker than the cassock - with the thin white surplice, and the alb, to me, seems to make a bolder statement.
Jesus Wore Clerical Attire
If it is such a noble thing for a pastor to compromise his standard of dress to appease the modern culture, then one has to wonder why Christ did not do such a thing.
Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?” They said, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” - John 1:38
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” - Mark 10:17
The question that arises from these passages is just how the people knew that Jesus was a Rabbi. It can safely be assumed that they knew he was a Rabbi due to his rabbinical attire!
The following verses show that people did not immediately recognize Jesus as a Rabbi, but this was due to his need to go to the feast “in secret.”
However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.” But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews. Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the Temple courts and begin to teach. The Jews were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learning without having studied?” - John 7:10-15
Clerical attire, such as the collar, sets a man apart for his service, and keeps him accountable to the public. One of the very problems with the Church today is that they refuse to take dominion - as commanded by God - of the culture. When a priest or deacon wears his collar in public he makes a statement to the public that the Church is alive and well, and the Church is available for their needs. Not wearing clerical attire, for a pastor, is like not wearing a uniform for a police officer. No one can reach out for help if they do not know whom to reach out to.
The clerical collar, as well as the liturgical vestments, prevent the people from judging the pastor according to his style; whether or not he is fashionable or “cool.” Clerical attire can also help set a conservative tone within the church. However the pastor dresses, the congregants will dress a step or two below. For example, if the pastor wears jeans and a Hawaiian shirt, the congregants will likely wear shorts and flip-flops. Clerical attire sets standards, and sinful man needs standards to be set, especially from the clergy.
Clerical attire is apostolic. The apostles dressed in robes. This is an important standard to follow, not because robes are holy in and of themselves, but it is important because the apostolic standard, which was in place for hundreds of years, prevents the Church from fully embracing modernity, which is a slippery slope to liberalism and other New Age heresies. Clerical attire can help prevent apostasy.
I will conclude this discussion by mentioning the fact that the future of the Church, according to the Bible, involves the wearing of robes, the attire we use to anticipate this glorious state of the Church:
Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns of gold on their heads. - Revelation 4:4 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed. - Revelation 6:11 [ A Multitude from the Great Tribulation ] After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands…” - Revelation 7:9Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?” - Revelation 7:13And I said to him, “Sir, you know.” So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. - Revelation 7:14
He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. - Revelation 19:13
And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. - Revelation 19:16
Something that I have noticed within many Protestant circles is that theological discussion - especially in the “Bible only” camps - can sometimes actually be an hindrance for the Christian’s sanctification. Yes, that’s right! What happens is that the groups of Christians thrive on reinventing the wheel, becoming preoccupied with “wrestling with the Scriptures,” and such, rather than living and believing the Scriptures. It becomes a sort of legalism, where one feels sanctified because they are “in the Word.” I hate to say this, but you are not in the Word just because you are in a wrestling match with the Bible. The Word is the logos, the living being of Christ that involves the spiritual formation of souls. The Word is not God reduced to the English or even Greek and Hebrew vocabulary. The Word of God is His revelatory will for mankind found within the Scriptures, but as they illuminate themselves through the authority of His Church, not as they illuminate themselves through Nelson Printing Press, or any other schmo that takes his own authority to become the standard-bearer.
The Word of God is what the Bible is saying and doing, not just what the Bible said or once said. Some theology-buffs may now be howling outside their windows through the authority of what their seminary teacher taught them about hermeneutics, so please allow me to qualify: Certainly there is a place for what is called The Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic, but what happens is that this form of studying the Bible is often not properly embraced, even by seminarians, and one suddenly becomes a theologian overnight from proof-texting verses; then goes to his friends and spreads this germ, and born is a Bible study.
This sounds like your typical overzealous Baptist/Evangelical, right? Yes, but it is within the higher churches, also, just on a more sophisticated level. What happens here is that rather than wrestling with Bible verses, they wrestle with theological positions that have not yet blossomed. They create false dichotomies of argumentation by splitting a traditional doctrine in two and then pitching them against each other. One perfect example of this would be the “Law and Gospel” debate; as if the Gospel does not include Law and the Law does not include Gospel. Or how about this one: The Five Points of Calvinism; not that the Five Points are heretical, but the five points cannot be understood very easily outside the context of many other biblical concepts; and after one understands these concepts, the Five Points begin to look like unreasonable dichotomies. Yes, that is right. When something so powerful like the Gospel is reduced to five propositions, mass friction is bound to happen, resulting in explosion.
If you are looking for dogma, as you should be, then look no further than the ancient creeds, as well as the catechism and Canons of the Church, which will lead you to all sorts of ethical and soteriological standards, including standards of worship. But, if you are not looking for dogma, and you simply want to feel like a theologian, then there is always a divisive debate-circle or modern/independent church, just waiting to suck you in.
This website has acquired tens of thousands of hits over the past year and so it is time to place it at the top of the web searches for Anglicanism in Phoenix, Arizona. This is done by typing the words Anglican and Phoenix, Arizona as many times possible in order for the search engines to catch the site. The Continuing Anglican Church is alive and well in Phoenix Arizona, but so is the liberal “Anglican” church. We must rise above the liberals on the search engines by creating Anglican sites such as this one, right here in Phoenix, Arizona, so that when an enquirer punches in the words Anglican Phoenix, AnglicanThought pulls right up. This will prevent the Anglican (Episcopal) enquirer from thinking that the only Anglican/Episcopal churches in Arizona are liberal. Phoenix, Arizona is primed for new Anglican movement. One can find a variety of Continuing Anglican churches in the valley simply by typing the words Anglican/Episcopal and Phoenix into a search bar. One day all the conservatives will leave the Episcopal Church of the United States and will be in need of a conservative Anglican/Episcopal church. Hopefully those conservatives - or would be conservatives - here in Phoenix, Arizona, will find this site on Google, and will discover the riches of the historic Anglican faith.
For all of you who are uncomfortable about kneeling while praying to and worshiping God, here is an article by a well known pastor - whose name I will not mention, in order not to stumble the weak hearted. Great clip! Hope you enjoy.
I love the way St. Paul describes Christians as “bondservants.” Other translations besides the NKJ use the word slave, but bondservant seems much more appropriate since it is not associated with modern slavery. To be a bondservant of Christ means that we are indeed bound to our servant-hood. We are not slaves in the modern sense of not having freedom, but we are slaves in the spiritual sense of having freedom yet under the certain care and tutelage of Christ.
The doctrine of purgatory has fueled some of the most passionate division amongst Catholics and Protestants ever since the Reformation. But with a closer look at the doctrine and its different latitudes of dogma within the history of the Church, we may be able to put to rest the two extremes that continue to battle against each other.
This looks very hopeful. And look, there are a substantial amount of men on the front of the site. This is even more encouraging! Many of us long for the day when men will become real men and will be able to recognize other real men. It seems that in our day pastors and ministry leaders, even in conservative circles, are recruiting women for the work that men are to be doing. It is good to see that real men within real Anglican churches are going to battle for the Church.
Speaking of Evangelicalism and liturgy - I was listening to the radio the other day (I do a lot of driving) and there was this interview on the Christian station with some Olympic snowboarders. One of the snowboarders stated that when they snowboarded they were at there best worship with God.
There seems to be some confusion as to just what “worship” is and is not. Although our lives are indeed a worship experience, we need to be careful what we identify as our “worship experience.” The climax of our worship is not when we are experiencing our favorite sport or even just enjoying the splendor of God’s beauty within nature, perhaps at the beach or within the mountains. St. Paul warned us in Romans by explaining that many have fallen to worship the creation and not the creator.
I’m not saying that this snowboarder is worshiping creation, but I am saying that this is the typical Evangelical error of over-realized eschatology. The climax of our worship experience, here on earth, is when we first kneel before the Lord our maker on Sunday. This may sound shocking, but if you are not throwing your entire life at the throne of the living God during your worship within the Church, then you will not experience an abundant life the days after. Our worship experience in life begins with the Eucharistic celebration of the Lord’s Day and dovetails from there, not from our favorite hobby.
If your worship experience is not where it should be, then make it so. If you are living in a house of cedar - as King David put it - but your God is dwelling in a tent, then obviously something needs to be done. No Christian should be complaining about their worship service unless they have first offered themselves to the ministry of Church; whether it be through service or finance.
The worship service of the Church, and not our favorite hobby, should be the pillar of our psychological well being. When disruptive thoughts come to mind, think of how you worship, and those thoughts will likely turn and run; unless your worship is disruptive or you rarely worship. I am absolutely convinced that contemporary, liturgicaless, Psalmless (not singing them as God commands), and Eucharistless (not including the Eucharist on the Lord’s Day service) worship is harmful to the Christian and the Church as a whole. If it were right, then the Church would have been partaking in it for the first 1800 years of existence prior to the Enlightenment.
Something to think about.
I recently heard a very popular Evangelical pastor preach a very common message on the radio. He said (and I have heard Reformed say this) that we should be always ready to give our testimony to others. What is a “testimony?” Ever since the days of the Enlightenment, and likely even before then, Christians have equated the Gospel with some sort of ethical conversion, “I was once that and now I am this.” Now, I am all for giving glory to God in what he does, and what he has done in the saints, this is why I like to celebrate the feast days. But to equate the Gospel to ethical conversion is a serious mistake.
Any self-help group can take a drug-addicted or other socially oppressed person off the streets and “clean up their life.” In fact, the world has a better track record, in these modern days, of doing such a thing. As a former minister to homeless and incarcerated, I witnessed much of this sort of secular rehabilitation: Many people could not decide between the rehabilitation of the Church or the rehabilitation of the cult of the state (the state issues them license to minister), because they are both able to help.
Change in social and civil ethic is certainly a result of the Gospel taking root in a person, but it is not the essence of the Gospel. The essence of the Gospel, in regards to the change in the elect, is the change in which what the new Christian worships. The new Christian is now no longer an idolater! Now, the new Christian worships the living God! But, this worship is not primarily ethical in the social and even personal sense. This worship that the new Christian begins to give themselves to is corporate and ceremonial. The new Christian is now identified with what Christ spoke about: The Eucharist, Baptism, and the Church in its entirety.
The temptation within the Church has been to begin to act like God, proclaiming who is and is not elect on the basis of one’s inner morality and, as we have discussed, their outward ethics. But we do not know the heart like God knows that heart. We only know what we have been given; the outward workings of Christ: The Eucharist, Baptism, and the Church as a whole. We have not been given jurisdiction of the heart, as judge.
By teaching the testimony doctrine, Evangelical theology has been teaching, not that we are idolaters, but that we are simply breaching modern ethics. With this doctrine anyone can be a Christian that lives a moral life and inserts the name of Jesus in their life. Proper and submissive worship is not vital in this doctrine.
The drastic change in the Christian life can be seen IN THE VERY WAY AND FREQUENCY THAT THEY WORSHIP! Is the Christian in submission to Godly forms of worship, or is the Christian desiring “worship” that appeases their flesh through modern worldliness? Worship involves the “evolving” manner of the liturgical actions as first portrayed by Christ and his Apostles. You will be judged in the end by this Christological standard. So my question is: Why would one risk all of this by worshiping within the context of modern paradigms, presuppositions, and culture? My other question is: Could many be deceived into thinking they are “saved” because they have reached a higher level of morality but not a higher level of worship?
Why would one want to leave a life of fleshly entertainment just to enter a ceremony of fleshly entertainment, such as found in most Evangelical churches? How much has really happened in our hearts if we cannot leave the worlds liturgy to the world?