Calvary Chapel of Fort Lauderdale now promoting its Christmas Day service online after initially announcing a Dec. 25 closure
Posted on 12/19/2005 6:23:54 AM PST by NYer
With many large churches across the U.S. announcing they won't be open on Christmas Day, some pastors are defending their decision to stay closed, even going so far as to blast those who question their motives.
Among them is Jon Weece, pastor of Southland Christian Church in Lexington, Ky., who received complaint e-mails from Christians in all 50 states.
"I was deeply saddened by the knee-jerk response of the Christian community as a whole to give the benefit of the doubt to the media and not a church or a brother in Christ," Weece said in his Dec. 10 sermon. "I'm still troubled that more Christians in this community specifically did not stand up for us knowing what this church represents."
(Audio of the entire sermon is available here.)
Weece blamed Satan the devil for using the Christmas issue as a distraction, prompting Christians to bicker among themselves.
"People are not the enemy," he said. "The devil is, and it is obvious that he has been at work in this situation."
Weece said the services being offered on Christmas Eve were still technically the "first day of the week" if one went by the custom of starting days at sunset, which some believe was the case in Jesus' day.
He went on to note: "Christmas began as a pagan holiday to the Roman gods, and if we were to really celebrate the historical birth of Jesus, it would either be in January or mid-April. I'm only pointing out the historical technicalities not out of intellectual arrogance, but again because of the illogical, ill-informed and even hypocritical arguments that were aimed at me personally this last week."
Weece also said Jesus himself walked all over opinion and tradition: "Do not lose sight of the controversy that Jesus incited by turning traditions on their head. And always remember in the economy of Jesus, the one whose birthday so many are claiming to be so passionate about, Jesus placed value and emphasis on people over policy and procedure and protocol every single time."
Meanwhile, the largest Christian church in South Florida has reversed itself on its closure Christmas Day, and now says it will be open for a single service next Sunday morning, Dec. 25.
Calvary Chapel of Fort Lauderdale now promoting its Christmas Day service online after initially announcing a Dec. 25 closure |
Calvary Chapel of Fort Lauderdale originally decided to give its members and workforce a day off to spend with their families on Christmas, even though it falls on Sunday, its traditional day of worship. Instead, it had scheduled a slate of extra services for Saturday night, Christmas Eve.
 Pastor Bob Coy |
"I've been called a bad person and a shame to Christianity," pastor Bob Coy told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "It made me realize that many people misunderstood our motives."
But after an onslaught of negative public reaction from both inside and outside his congregation, Coy had a change of heart.
"Say it isn't so," read one e-mail, according to Coy. "You're shutting your doors on Jesus' birthday. I'm appalled at the message you're sending to the community."
Coy also was advised by some church members who said they wouldn't be able to attend services on Christmas Eve, and preferred to come on the actual holiday.
"Christmas is filled with unrealistic expectations," he said. "I don't want to fuel that. If people need Jesus on Christmas, I want to make Him available."
The entire issue has exacerbated the national Christmas controversy at a time which many believe is supposed to harken back to the Gospel of Luke's "peace on Earth."
"There is no biblical mandate that we meet on Sunday, only that we meet," writes Larry Baden in an online messageboard. "This is clearly a nonessential issue. Nobody's orthodoxy stands or falls on having a Sunday service. Nobody's salvation depends on having a Sunday service."
Minister Jeff Chitwood contends: "I think the issue centers on canceling worship on a day that is supposed to be centered on Christ. Too many times the church accuses the world of taking Christ out of Christmas but now the church is the one changing things because a day centered on Christ conflicts with schedules. What kind of message does it send to those who we have condemned in the past? At our church we are rescheduling service times but not eliminating the opportunity to worship on a day centered on Christ."
One poster said true worship is about much more than just singing or attending a church service.
"The way I greet my family when I go home from work is an act of worship. The way I talk to my co-workers. The dedication I give to my employer. The passion and inspiration I find in teaching or writing or editing or reading or mowing the lawn or ironing my shirts. ...
"Let's all just focus on God this Sunday. He's a big Guy. I'm sure those who look for him will find him – even if they don't set foot in a church building."
It's called "Conditional Worship", and it's scary how far it's infected the church.
I've heard people say thay won't go to church unless they can wear jeans. They won't go unless there's a day-care for the kids. They won't go unless they can get out by 11:00am. They won't go unless there's ______ .
Used to be that people, and society in general, conditioned themselves to work around the Lord's Day, and it was expected to see your neighbors and friends at church every Sunday morning. Now, there's virtually no recognizable difference.
This is what happens I guess when church is run as a business, and the congregants are viewed as "customers".
My teeny-tiny Episcopal Church in Rahway, NJ is going to be open Christmas morning. You won't see me there, since I am doing both services Christmas Eve and will completely miss spending time with my brother, who will only be in town for the day.
There was no Latin Translation of either your NT or that of The Church in 160.
Actually, the Itala had to date from some time shortly after AD 160, because Tertullian, the first Father to write in Latin, quoted the scriptures from the Itala in the period AD 180-AD 220. The Itala was also the origin of the Psalm translation still used in the Latin Mass and Breviary.
I am unaware of any translation of any Scripture, whether it ultimately made it into the NT or not which was translated into any Eastern European language other than Greek in 125 AD.
When did Tatian make his Syraic/Aramaic Harmony of the Gospels? I think it was a little later than AD 125 (AD 160?), and that was the first. The Coptic and Latin followed somewhat later.
Who told you this stuff??????????? There has been a liturgical calendar in The Church since at the latest around 75-80 AD. Even the heretical "independant groups" had liturgical cycles.
One of the earliest surviving Latin parchments is a fragment of the proper chants and prayers for a Marian Mass that dates back to the 2nd Century AD. A Marian Mass is prima facie evidence of a Liturgical Calendar that already was beyond the simple beginnings of Sundays, Easter, and Pentecost, and now also included feasts for the Saints. This is also testified to in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. AD 155), where his disciples resolve to keep his day of Martyrdom as a liturgical feast in the Church.
Because parchment and vellum were very expensive (paper was not yet invented), and literacy not at all widespread (90% of the Roman population were rustics in the countryside, another 5%+ were the illiterate urban rabble). Parchment and vellum were so hard to come by that oftentimes, when a new book was to be written, an old one would be erased, and the vellum leaves reused.
And why would you think they would not be translating them, too, as they went and did personal evangelism and mission work in regions beyond.
They did translate them, but that began much later than you seem to think. The first Germanic language Bible, that of Wulfilas, was not done until the mid 4th Century.
And why would you think that the Holy Spirit could not superintend the preservation of His word through such common believers who had no desire to build ecclesiastical or political positions for themselves?
The Holy Spirit certainly did a poor job then of preventing textual variants and errors in this copyign and translating.
Merry Christmas to you too, HC!
"Actually, the Itala had to date from some time shortly after AD 160, because Tertullian, the first Father to write in Latin, quoted the scriptures from the Itala in the period AD 180-AD 220. The Itala was also the origin of the Psalm translation still used in the Latin Mass and Breviary."
I think you may have misunderstood my point. There is no question that there were various writings around very early on which ultimately ended up as part of the NT which you and I use and even that used by the Protestants. What wasn't in existence was a discrete canon of the NT as we use it today.
"When did Tatian make his Syraic/Aramaic Harmony of the Gospels? I think it was a little later than AD 125 (AD 160?), and that was the first. The Coptic and Latin followed somewhat later."
Last I looked, Syriac/Aramaic were Semitic languages, not Eastern European, which was Free Baptist's assertion. :) I suspect the earliest translation of the NT into an "Eastern European language" was something done by Sts. Cyril and Methodios or their successors, who, as I recall, were sent out by The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and not some independant ecclesial assembly or group of vagantes roaming around the mountains and forests of Eastern Europe!
I think that the annual battle over Christmas has become part of the tradition of Advent. While we shouldn't fight against the secular humanists any less, we should look forward to the annual "Jousting with the Infidel."
It's sort of like in the Seinfeld definition of "Festivus", one of the made up traditions was "The Airing Of The Grievances." We should do it something like that.
Typical Baptist fantasy history. How exactly did the bishops of a Church which didn't exist come to be gathered into a council anyway? How'd they get to be bishops in the first place?
SD
Would a church close its doors on Easter Sunday?
I think not! Nor should it close on Christmas Day.
I agree with the first pastor quoted.
I wish we celebrated CHristmas in January!
"I was not connecting Syrian with the Indo-European strain of Languages, but early translations of NT MSS into European dialects as early as the 2nd century are on record in good manuscript evidence studies."
I am sincerely interested in seeing these, if they exist. Could you provide a cite to them either in cybher or book form?
"My point in all of this is that Roman Catholic (and now should I take it to include Orthodox Catholic???) will discard libraries full of manuscript evidence, if that evidence in any way appears to indicate that the Holy Spirit accomplished anything by common Christians who were never under the authority of their religious system(s)."
Unless you are referring to the various heretical sects which arose in the first 3 centuries of The Church, records from which are numerous and were mostly preserved by Eastern monastics not the Church at Rome, I would appreciate some cites to this manuscript evidence.
"I have gone round and round with Roman Catholics especially who, for their own authoritarian purposes, compress the the 2nd and 3rd centuries into oblivion -- that period between the death of John the Beloved and the Council of Nicea."
Any Roman Catholic who does that knows nothing of their Faith. Personally, I've never met such a person, certainly none here.
"Rome (What about the Orthodox??) cannot stand the thought that there were just plain common Christians who were personally leading more and more people to Jesus Christ -- that there were congregations of believers forming, and pastors arising, who were NEVER connected with bishops (or with their immediate predecessor) who went to Nicea for the Council."
Oh, neither the Romans nor the Orthodox, nor the Monophysites for that matter, deny that there were such groups running around. They were well known from the 1st century on. They were at the time and are now called heretics.
Your experiences here in the States and in China are touching and no doubt very real. As a Greek I can appreciate what the Chinese are up against. We spent over 400 years under the heel of the Mohammedans where the only way to teach the Faith was by night in the famous "Secret Schools". But throughout it all, we maintained the ecclesiological systemn and beliefs of the Apostles and their immediate successors. Kosta's people spent even longer under the Turks!
"This is why we often see the remark on this forum to the effect that the Roman Catholic Church was the originator of the Bible; that we would have no Bible if it were not for the RCC."
I think you'll find that the Romans assert, truthfully, that it was "The Church" or the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" which did the preserving and compiling...and they are right. They do not claim that it was the particular church at Rome which did this all alone. Because you know little about the actual history of the Church before the Reformation, I can see how you might misinterpret what the Latins have to say.
"This is why we see Roman Catholic contributors to this forum try to convince us that there were NO Christians except Roman Catholics in the 2nd and 3rd centuries."
Again, neither Rome nor Holy Orthodoxy state that there were not groups outside of The Church, which called themselves Christians. They were heretics.
"Rome (and perhaps the Orthodox???) would have us to believe that the fruit of the Apostles and those that heard the Apostles didn't include many, many such autonomous congregations in the 2nd and 3rd centuries."
Not at all. The teachings of the Apostles undoubtedly were preached in those heretical assemblies, but the fruit they bore was rotten and they died out.
"This kind of history is needed by them to help secure their own authority over their own members. But it is not true history; it's not even reasonable to believe that kind of history."
Here's a suggestion. Read the works of St. Ignatius of Antioch. They are all excellent, but pay particular attention to his epistle to the Smyrneans. +Ignatius was the successor but one to +Peter as bishop of Antioch; he was a friend and disciple of +John, knew the Mother of God and was the child who sat on Christ's lap. His late 1st, early 2nd century discussion of the structure of The Church and especially his definition of The Church, as well as his Eucharistic theology pose an insurmountable problem for virtually all of Protestantism and its revisionist history of the early Church. While you're at it, read the contemporaneous writings of +Clement of Rome and +Polycarp.
"If you read the histories written by Rome of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, you would think that there were only Roman Catholics and heretics."
Like I said, read the above Fathers.
"No, not till the Council of Nicea did there come into being a system that we know now as the Roman Catholic Church."
Do you know why the Council of Nicea was called, what it taught and who was there? Do you deny the teachings of the Council of Nicea? I think that's a fair question, FB!
Do you believe in the Nicene Creed? Is Mary the Theotokos? Does Jesus have one nature or two? Answer these questions and reveal yourself. "Heretic" is just a word that means one believes in something outside of the defined orthodoxy. Since you ally yourself with the ancient heretics, it is interesting to see if you actually believe what they did, or if you hold orthodox beliefs.
After all, if the Church you hold in contempt is correct in its beliefs, while your "forefathers" in rejecting the Church for individual autonomy were wrong, doesn't that mean something?
You need to protect your system as well. You are not a disinterested party. You have made many disparaging remarks about the Church and defined Her as outside of the true beliefs you hold. How is this any different from we indentifying what is orthodox and what is heresy? You do it too.
SD
The longer this thread goes the more interesting it becomes.
There is much to be gleaned ( and learned) from reading it!
Glad I could be of service (pun intended given the content of his sermon on service ;-)). Merry Christmas!!
We are aware of these people. They were the ones the Fathers described as the heretics, who had gone out from Mother Church and formed their own little sectlettes, each adhering to its own version of truth and quarreling with the others. And you are quite correct that they became the Bogomils, Waldensenes, Cathars, Albagensians, Macedonians, Montanists, Paulicians, etc., and any number of other groups going by their own quaint little label necessary to distinguish them from Holy Church.
The one thing these people definitely were not was part of the Great Church that encompasses the true luminaries of Christendom such as Sts. Jerome, Augustine, Basil, Gregory, and Cyril.
An old Chinese Christian sister who has suffered terribly for her faith opened an old storage chest in my presence, and took from there two old Gospel tracts that had survived since the 1920s although they had been mimeographed on paper about the same density as bathroom tissue. She had them in cellophane, and she also had Scripture portions there that she had copied by hand from memory during the Cultural Revolution while exiled to a farm. Am I to believe that there were not hundreds, perhaps thousands of common Christian believers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries doing the same thing?
Yes, because again, there was no paper until after AD 1100! Apparently you have no conception of the expense of vellum, papyrus, and parchment. A single parchment Bible, with perhaps hundreds or over a thousand pages, would take hundreds of sheepskins to produce, which then had to be soaked, dehaired and defatted, stretched and dried, and cut, then bound together, and the book written upon it by hand over a period of probably a year. The notion that everyone among these heretical sects was off reading their little bibles is just total nonsense, when you realize the enormous amount of money needed to just make one Bible for one family, let alone thousands. There is a reason there were so few books in circulation prior to the invention of the printing press.
Why then do secular Roman documents from the times of persecution before Constantine speak of the main body of Christians as an organized group, led by Bishops in every major city, with their head Bishop in Rome, and the second the Bishop in Alexandria? You are aware of legal rulings where property disputes among Christians were settled by the imperial authorities by granting the award to the group in communion with the Roman Bishop? Haven't you ever thought where Constantine came up with the idea of having recourse to Pope Sylvester's opinion onsome religious matters? Such as maybe, Roman legal precedent by his predecessors, the Emperors?
You know how Constantine knew about this group of Bishops? Because his mother, St. Helena, was an Orthodox Catholic, and that long before Constantine even converted himself or the Empire.
But biblically, it is wholly unnecessary to be be involved with it for us to have a walk with God.
Doesn't your Bible admonish you to "hear the Church" (St. Matthew 18?)
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.