At first, I was somewhat uncomfortable because everything was “new” and relatively unfamiliar. I’d been prepped beforehand by my friend, but obviously that couldn’t encompass everything.

I thought it was interesting how so many symbolic things in scripture (the prayers of the saints are like incense, etc.) were turned into literal and metaphorical parts of the service.

The entire service was laden with symbolism, and every symbol had a meaning. I didn’t necessarily agree with all of the symbols, but I respected that everyone in the congregation knew what each symbol meant and why they did it.

The entire service was sung, except for a brief Bible “lesson,” and we had copies of the liturgy to keep track of where we were in the service, and what the proper “responses” were when the time came.

We weren’t allowed to take communion because we weren’t Orthodox, but we were invited to eat with them afterwards nonetheless. In fact, I found it very interesting that a significant number of people who attended the church were former Baptists. Apparently, their traditions and history are very attractive to many in the Baptist church.

I thought the service was beautiful, and though I disagree with a lot of their theology, I don’t think they’re plunging headlong into hell, and I wouldn’t mind attending another service if I got the opportunity.

Clearly rituals can actually be “holy” even though they are not performed by persons who are holy. The Bible makes this abundantly clear when God prescribes a certain form of worship for the Jews, expecting both Levites and the rest of the people to engage in worship in a particular manner. These rites were holy in and of themselves because God prescribed them; they were not dependent on the holiness of the person(s) performing the rites.

Bobstu- Loved the comment about stodginess. Don’t we all wish someone would reformulate the Bible so that it could be warm and inclusive, speak the language of MY heart, and give modern voice to ancient truths. I’m looking for a nice tickle, here.

All- It appears that Tony experienced a service that, for once, was not all about what it offered him (whether in terms of cool music, great preaching, good feelings, or whatever) but was simply about what it offered God– worship. Perhaps it catered to God rather than to people? Odd concept, that . . .

Holiness is in the inside, in the heart-attitude & character of a person or church. Even those of us who know this full well, as Tony must, can get an impression of holiness from the sights & sounds of ritual.

(On the other hand, I am not saying that those performing these rituals were then not holy. If any were holy, it is because of what Christ has done inside them, not what they did on the outside.)

Christians love to separate, that being technically defined as holy. But to me, holiness is of God. It is found in the birth of a child, the death of a saint. Creation screams of God’s holiness.

Yet, this week we visited a Free Presbyterian Church, which was founded by the Irish Radical Ian Paisley. His idea of holiness was to shout at Pope John Paul at the top of his lungs that he was the Antichrist.

Since that Pope is dead, Paisley was wrong, but he goes on shouting. His church is the most separationist I have seen in a while, yet I would not call that holiness. I would call it exclusive and self righteous.

Even so, I consider them brethren in the Lord. They would not say the same of me.

Ah! Well stated StuBob!

LOL - That line jumped out at me from this article and just struck me as funny.

Sorry for the bad sense of humor today, people.

Now, I’ll go back and slowly read the remainder of the article.

“The most ungodly sinner, familiar with the rituals (or with the latest praise chorus, for that matter) can seem holy.”

I guess I don’t understand why it matters if someone looks holy or not. I don’t think we should be looking around to see who looks more or less holy than others.