In writing about " The Church " posted on 24 Dec. I was left with a question. Had they become too extreme in the practice of their faith ? So extreme that they no longer had followers ?
The practice of faith is a highly personal subject. Each of us are free to practice in our own way. Another benefit of living in the good old U.S.A. Each of us must find comfort in our own way. When the practice of your faith becomes uncomfortable, is that a failure of the church or a failure on your part ? One could argue it was quite uncomfortable to be a Christian during the Roman times. Yet, the martyrs persevered. An ancient philosopher said, all religions must be tolerated, for every man must get to heaven in his own way.
In reading about the practice of their faith their customs didn't appear to be too extreme. Of course,I was just reading a synopsis of the basic tenants and I question how closely that parallels the actual practice. According to Google, there are only about 64,000 practitioners of this faith left in the country. Not a very large number. So I wonder why. Where are the descendants of those that attended that church ? Why would they abandon the faith (as practiced ) by their ancestors ?
The church has divided many times in the practice of worship. Seems like new divisions appear quite regularly. Some have disappeared completely, ie: the Shakers, and others are only practiced regionally. These division usually occur because of a difference in doctrine. A different interpretation. Political and social pressures also contribute. Congregations split on an issue or issues. A new sub division of the original is formed. The " primitive " baptists included that connotation in their title. Primitive at that time meaning or implying original or the purest form of something. Did this title lead to a portion of the downfall from favor ? As the meaning of primitive has changed over the years did people want to be disassociated with it ? It wouldn't be the first instance of vanity interfering with religious faith.
This particular division occurred in 1832 at Black Rock,Maryland. The black rock address laid out their position. They referred to themselves as Particular Baptists and the name Primitive came into use over the years. They opposed what they felt was a liberal and progressive approach to practicing the faith. Basically they adhered to " old school " principles and attitudes. Only males could be Elders of the church. The sexes were seated separately. Baptism is by immersion. The foot washing took place during the communion service.
My guess would be that the practice of this faith became uncomfortable for the congregation. Is that a failure of the church ? I would answer, no. Is that a failure of the person ? Again I would answer, no. All things change and evolve, the practice of faith is no different. The older folks generally want to hold onto the past and the younger want the new. A change in social attitudes and practices can have a profound effect upon this. If one were to look in the window during one of their services what would one see ? Men on one side of the church and women on the other. Spartan like furnishings. No piano,organ or other type of musical instruments. People washing each others feet. Now we have made it into the 1980's. Being associated with this may not be a popular thing. Would they not be viewed as chauvinist ? I'm quite certain from the outside this would look like a radical approach. The sect was formed to resist change. But change always comes and is inevitable. Those things that do not change are relegated to the past. A memory.
It is not so much how you practice your faith, as that you have faith. Going to the house of the lord should be comfortable. I don't go to another's home where I don't feel comfortable. Why should church be any different. Would I have felt comfortable attending their services ? I can't say. Time and circumstance would be the influencing factors.
The practice of faith is a highly personal subject. Each of us are free to practice in our own way. Another benefit of living in the good old U.S.A. Each of us must find comfort in our own way. When the practice of your faith becomes uncomfortable, is that a failure of the church or a failure on your part ? One could argue it was quite uncomfortable to be a Christian during the Roman times. Yet, the martyrs persevered. An ancient philosopher said, all religions must be tolerated, for every man must get to heaven in his own way.
In reading about the practice of their faith their customs didn't appear to be too extreme. Of course,I was just reading a synopsis of the basic tenants and I question how closely that parallels the actual practice. According to Google, there are only about 64,000 practitioners of this faith left in the country. Not a very large number. So I wonder why. Where are the descendants of those that attended that church ? Why would they abandon the faith (as practiced ) by their ancestors ?
The church has divided many times in the practice of worship. Seems like new divisions appear quite regularly. Some have disappeared completely, ie: the Shakers, and others are only practiced regionally. These division usually occur because of a difference in doctrine. A different interpretation. Political and social pressures also contribute. Congregations split on an issue or issues. A new sub division of the original is formed. The " primitive " baptists included that connotation in their title. Primitive at that time meaning or implying original or the purest form of something. Did this title lead to a portion of the downfall from favor ? As the meaning of primitive has changed over the years did people want to be disassociated with it ? It wouldn't be the first instance of vanity interfering with religious faith.
This particular division occurred in 1832 at Black Rock,Maryland. The black rock address laid out their position. They referred to themselves as Particular Baptists and the name Primitive came into use over the years. They opposed what they felt was a liberal and progressive approach to practicing the faith. Basically they adhered to " old school " principles and attitudes. Only males could be Elders of the church. The sexes were seated separately. Baptism is by immersion. The foot washing took place during the communion service.
My guess would be that the practice of this faith became uncomfortable for the congregation. Is that a failure of the church ? I would answer, no. Is that a failure of the person ? Again I would answer, no. All things change and evolve, the practice of faith is no different. The older folks generally want to hold onto the past and the younger want the new. A change in social attitudes and practices can have a profound effect upon this. If one were to look in the window during one of their services what would one see ? Men on one side of the church and women on the other. Spartan like furnishings. No piano,organ or other type of musical instruments. People washing each others feet. Now we have made it into the 1980's. Being associated with this may not be a popular thing. Would they not be viewed as chauvinist ? I'm quite certain from the outside this would look like a radical approach. The sect was formed to resist change. But change always comes and is inevitable. Those things that do not change are relegated to the past. A memory.
It is not so much how you practice your faith, as that you have faith. Going to the house of the lord should be comfortable. I don't go to another's home where I don't feel comfortable. Why should church be any different. Would I have felt comfortable attending their services ? I can't say. Time and circumstance would be the influencing factors.
"All things change and evolve, the practice of faith is no different. .......... It is not so much how you practice your faith, as that you have faith. Going to the house of the lord should be comfortable." - Ben Reichart
ReplyDeleteI think you got it nailed; practice evolves and changes to meet different times and needs; having some faith is more important than the style it exhibits. Religion somewhere it is said "should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable to be effective". Somewhere along that spectrum lies the comfort level of the practitioners of any religion. Sometimes comfort in afflictions is the need; just to show the mercy of God and maintain the best in humanity. And sometimes religion should afflict the comfortable; just to keep us all on our toes and striving towards the good. In the different houses of the Lord I have visited over the years I try to be as comfortable as I may deserve at the time and not worry about being comfortable. I can always be comfortable at home but church either provides more comfort or offers the opportunity to become more comfortable or challenges to provide more comfort for others; mileage will vary with age and experiences for others as it should for all. Merry Christmas.