Anonymous asked: Hey! about that wedding ring stuff, I want to confirm that in some cultures (mine, for example), NOT wearing a wedding ring can be an offense to your spouse (if you're married of course) and SDAs usually wear them. They are the symbol of marriage, just as the crown is the symbol of royalty (just a comparison, we don't have any royalty). Of course, they are not fancy and do not attract attention. And by the way, this site is awesome :)

This is in regards to our multipost on jewelry and its section on wedding rings. Thank you, Anon, for the input!

~Yvonne

Thanks for the question! Now, as far as I’ve been able to tell, the concept of the Holy Trinity is a very biblical thing, but I’m gonna hedge that and clarify that the word “trinity” itself is NEVER used in the Bible at all. The concept of the Trinity is used to explain a large number of passages that indicate that God exists as either three separate entities, or three different facets of a single entity, or something else that we’re completely unable to understand because He’s God and we’re not.
God is spoken of as singular in many places. For example, in Exodus 20 (the ten commandments), God refers to Himself in the singular - “I am the LORD your God” (not “we”), and “You must not have any other god but me” (again, not “us”). However, God also refers to Himself in the plural, such as in Genesis 1 - “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us”, but in the following verse says that God made them in HIS own image. 
Simply put, the Catholic church didn’t just pull the Trinity outta their hat. It’s a way to explain the relationships between the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If you would like a more in-depth answer to your question, this site has plenty, and they’re accurate as far as I can tell. They even reach into the original Hebrew on some points.
Anyways, it’s a good question. It’s a good idea to know where your preconceptions came from and whether or not they’re true. I pray this satisfies. God bless.
-Howie

Thanks for the question! Now, as far as I’ve been able to tell, the concept of the Holy Trinity is a very biblical thing, but I’m gonna hedge that and clarify that the word “trinity” itself is NEVER used in the Bible at all. The concept of the Trinity is used to explain a large number of passages that indicate that God exists as either three separate entities, or three different facets of a single entity, or something else that we’re completely unable to understand because He’s God and we’re not.

God is spoken of as singular in many places. For example, in Exodus 20 (the ten commandments), God refers to Himself in the singular - “I am the LORD your God” (not “we”), and “You must not have any other god but me” (again, not “us”). However, God also refers to Himself in the plural, such as in Genesis 1 - “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us”, but in the following verse says that God made them in HIS own image. 

Simply put, the Catholic church didn’t just pull the Trinity outta their hat. It’s a way to explain the relationships between the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If you would like a more in-depth answer to your question, this site has plenty, and they’re accurate as far as I can tell. They even reach into the original Hebrew on some points.

Anyways, it’s a good question. It’s a good idea to know where your preconceptions came from and whether or not they’re true. I pray this satisfies. God bless.

-Howie

 

Hello, and welcome to our jewelry (and dancing) multipost. We’ve received a few questions regarding jewelry (see above), so we decided to lump it together in one easy-to-see post. We (Howie and Yvonne) are writing this one together, but if we have a specific difference in opinion or thought, we will clarify who is speaking.

Now, before we get into the questions, we’ll give the church’s official stance on jewelry. In 1972, the General Conference voted on this issue and then issued that:

That in the area of personal adornment necklaces, earrings, bracelets, jewelled and other ornamental rings* should not be worn.  Articles such as ornamental watches, broaches, cufflinks, etc., should be chosen in harmony with the Christian principles of simplicity, modesty and economy. (source)

This was implemented based on Bible verses such as 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:3-6, emphasizing modesty in dress. This was also commented on by Ellen G. White in several places, such as Messages to Young People, where she said:

Christians should avoid display and ‘profuse ornamentation.’ Clothing should be, when possible, ‘of good quality, of becoming colors, and suited for service.’ It should be chosen for ‘durability rather than display.’ Our attire should be characterized by ‘beauty,’ ‘modest grace’ and ‘appropriateness of natural simplicity.’ (source)


—————————————————————————-

Now, as far as the questions we’ve gotten go, it’s pretty dang solidly assumed that the issue of jewelry is a controversial topic. Whether it should be or not isn’t entirely relevant at this point, but I’ll leave that one untouched for now.

On the question posed by koriru on Adventists wearing jewelry: as per the opinion of myself, Howard Von Howardstein, the point is that jewelry has had plenty of meanings throughout our religious history. In Daniel 5:9, Belshazzar gave Daniel an extremely gaudy outfit (purple dyes were ridiculously expensive to obtain) and a gold neck-chain as a mark of office. In Luke 15:22, the Prodigal Son’s father sent for a ring, likely a mark of familial association, at the same time he sent for shoes.

In Ezekiel 16, God talks about Jerusalem as though it were a person - a woman. Among other things, He bedecks her in jewelry and gives her the finest food to eat. Some might look at this and think that means that jewelry for the sake of beauty is acceptable… I look at this and think “well… it’s GOD. He doesn’t exactly spend a lot of money when he’s giving someone gold and gems and silver and whatnot.” The point of the whole thing was that God was showing Jerusalem’s status by taking her as His queen. Now… as Christians, as romantic as it might seem, it’s rather preposterous for us guys to treat our girls as though they were actual royalty. We’d be broke within a week. And even if we were super-rich, jewelry still seems like it’d be out-of-place. Jewelry doesn’t make us beautiful… it makes us enviable. It draws attention from the person to the money, and that’s not where the beauty is. Beauty and value, especially as Christians, should come from God and not anything physical. This could be said about jewelry or houses or cars or hairstyles.

It seems to me (still Howard Von Howardstein) that as long as you’re not using jewelry to augment your looks and it actually serves a purpose (be it symbolic, functional, or sentimental), it should be fine. Anyone that says that it’s plainly written in the Bible that jewelry shouldn’t be worn… it’s true. Somewhat. But not entirely. The history of jewelry in religious context is… complicated.  My opinion is that the act of wearing jewelry isn’t an issue… it’s the thoughts behind it, and that one should just make sure their heart’s in the right place.

As for my opinion, Yvonne Who-will-not-add-a-silly-last-name, I mostly agree with Howie’s standpoint. However, I am not sure how I feel about modern Adventists wearing jewelry for pure ornamental reasons. Being raised in a somewhat conservative household when it comes to that aspect, I didn’t even give wearing jewelry a thought, but after going to an Adventist college, I realize that it’s more of a thing that I grew up believing. After some time, I came to the conclusion that I do think that we have no true need for ornamental jewelry and that our worth and beauty should come from God, but different people are at different places in their lives and spiritual walk, so I don’t have the right to condemn anyone.

—————————————————————————————————

Moving onto the inquiry posed by at-least-close-the-blinds. This is Yvonne again on this topic about wedding rings….

image

But in all seriousness, the topic of wedding rings has been tacked by the church before. Ellen G. White herself said in Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, In countries where the custom is imperative, we have no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring; let them wear it if they can do so conscientiously”, yet, she did not think missionaries needed it to increase their influence. (source 1 and 2)

Back in the 70s when the General Conference did the vote on jewelry, they advised ministers not to perform ceremonies with wedding rings because it was judged as a non-“imperative” custom for North America. This is probably where wedding watches became a thing. In 1986, however, this stance was revisited again, and they voted:

To recognize that in harmony with the position stated in the Church Manual (pp 145, 146), some church members in the North American Division, as in other parts of the world, feel that wearing a simple marriage band is a symbol of faithfulness to the marriage vow and to declare that such persons should be fully accepted in the fellowship and service of the church. (sources 1 and 2)

Now it is said in the Church Manual:

In some countries and cultures the custom of wearing the wedding ring is considered imperative, having become, in the minds of the people, a criterion of virtue, and hence it is not regarded as an ornament. Under such circumstances we do not condemn the practice.

So, according to the church and Ellen G. White, wedding rings (and other symbolic wedding jewelry for other cultures) is considered a-ok.

Just a tack-on from me (Howie)… Wedding rings are symbolic of marriage - they can also function to deter people looking for potential dates, and they’re usually extremely sentimental. Going for the $7,000 wedding ring with celtic knotwork and a dozen 8-carat diamonds (I know nothing of jewelry, just throwing junk out there), though, doesn’t help any of those points. It’s needlessly extravagant and frivolous. It goes beyond serving the function, sentimentality, and the symbolism, and kinda ends up rolling towards being “bling,” as they say.
—————————————————————————————————

And onto the dancing aspect of your question.

In doing about a half-hour’s worth of research on Mrs. White’s writings as well as various debates/arguments/explanations on the internet. As far as I’ve (Howie) been able to discern, the problems surrounding dancing are focused on why it’s done. This typically boils down to two things - the sensual arousal that’s brought on by “fashionable modern dance,” and on the nature of the environments in which one typically dances.
It’s important to note, however, that Mrs. White has a far higher standard for Seventh-Day Adventism than we seem to have currently. I’m not going to say that her standard is right or wrong. I’m saying that whatever the case for the individual, her advice will almost always stand as being useful. If one wishes to gain a better understanding of what’s good for us, both physically and spiritually, one could do a lot worse than to read what she has to say on various matters, as long as one doesn’t take her writings as cannon.

It is yet to be ascertained that there is any good to be obtained from these amusements. They do not give vigor to the body nor rest to the mind. They do not implant in the soul one virtuous or holy sentiment. On the contrary, they destroy all relish for serious thought and for religious services. It is true that there is a wide contrast between the better class of select parties and the promiscuous and degraded assemblies of the low dance house. Yet all are steps in the path of dissipation. (The Adventist Home, p. 516.3)

To be clear, Mrs. White has said good things about “dancing in joyful praise to God,” and has made distinctions between this and “[dancing] associated with folly and midnight reveling.” What most people might think of “dancing” is dancing to music, however it moves you. People like dancing. It’s a pleasure, and God made us capable of feeling that pleasure. I believe it is Mrs. White’s belief that dance should be reserved for praising God. Do I think poorly of the dances usually seen in clubs or parties? Yes, but then again, I wouldn’t enjoy them myself. But then, I don’t condemn people for that. I’m just the kind of person who wouldn’t be exactly comfortable in that setting.

…I do seem to go off on tangents, don’t I?…

In answer to your question of “what’s wrong with dancing,” the most definitive point I’ve come across is this: there are two different kinds of dance - “The one [tends] to the remembrance of God and exalted His holy name. The other is a device of Satan to cause men to forget God and to dishonor Him” (TAH p. 517.1). However much weight you put on EGW’s writings, the Bible’s set precedent for a different issue that I believe still holds wisdom for this issue:

 It is better not to [engage in controversial activities] if it might cause another believer to stumble. You may believe there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God. Blessed are those who don’t feel guilty for doing something they have decided is right. But if you have doubts about whether or not you should [partake in] something, you are sinning if you go ahead and do it. For you are not following your convictions. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning. (Romans 14:21-23, NLT) [altered for both accuracy and associative purposes]

——————————————————————

I’m going to close this here. Yvonne and I have been working on this post pretty much all day, from about 11:30 (an hour after I got up… confounded time change and all that) to now what is about 10:30 at night. I offered to finish this post up as she’s got things to do tomorrow before class, and needed to turn in early. She’ll look over things before she puts it up, but I felt a need to explain why you haven’t had her input on that last point we’d made.

Regardless… I pray our answers have helped the askers as much as they need. As always, we’re open to input from everyone else, but please keep things constructive. Lately, we’ve had a lot of questions that, being controversial as they are, spark a lot of responses from people who’ve got different opinions. Unfortunately, although these responses tell us that there’s a lot of people who are passionate about what they believe and tell us that we’re getting heard, we’re honestly getting a tad bit worn down. We’re not likely to respond to every question that’s asked of us these days, especially as Yvonne’s working hard with her last semester in college and I’m struggling in school myself. But trust me when I say we’ll do what we can while maintaining our collective sanity. God bless, tumblr community, and good night.

Anonymous asked: Isaiah 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." In every decision we make as a church, this verse needs to be ingrained in our consciousnesses-- no excuses If we even stray a *little bit* from the Bible, then we are going towards darkness. " God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." 1 John 1:5

Thank you very much, anon.

Key phrase here being “To the law and to the testimony.” This verse does’t apply to everything - merely to everything related to those two points. Pretty much saying this goes with decisions related to the church as a whole.

Thanks for the biblical support, Anon :)

-Howie

Anonymous asked: Yes I understand what you mean but I couldn't really explain my self fully with the limited space I get with the ask box. I don't really mean that having fun is a bad thing, its actually something good for the members of the church. But sometimes the fun that we bring in to church takes the whole meaning of being in church out.(I'm not sure if I make sense) Anyways God bless

I understand your meaning, and I agree. Anything to be changed about the church service should be considered before being implemented. So long as the changes don’t overwhelm what the service is meant for, I don’t see a problem. Otherwise, it might be more appropriate to set up another service.

Thank you :)

-Howie

Anonymous asked: Just wanted to share. We had this problem in our church. A mother anounces that her daughter is bored in church and doesn't want to come anymore. Here wasmy response, Church is not a boring thing if you have a great relationship with God, I can come to church every sabbath and not truly love God then of course its going to be boring. But when you get that true relationship with the Lord, Church doesn't become 'boring', church is a place to continue your life with the lord and not for 'fun'..

I appreciate your input, but I fear I may have been mistaken. I’m not saying I want church to be fun. I’m saying I want church to be meaninful, and the way church has been for me for the majority of my life, the rite and ritual of the “standard” church format feels like it drains out almost all passion and honest praise, even if it doesn’t. It feels insincere. In addition, without that passion, I lose interest in whatever message is being conveyed by the pastor or the sabbath-school leaders, especially when said people have the idea that since they’ve been in the church longer, they know more and if you disagree with them they assume you’re wrong. Especially if they’re wearing a suit and you’re in a polo and jeans because anything more than that feels either tacky or otherwise uncomfortable. Personal experience, here.

Personally, I’ve been completely shut down because I questioned something that’s typically taken for granted in our church, something that’s assumed true because the Bible supposedly makes reference to it. I’ve looked through a lot, and I honestly believe that the Bible doesn’t mention it at all. And yet nobody’s willing to support their right to force that stance on others by backing it up with biblical fact. This has happened more than once with me.

Also, carrying off what I THINK was our original point, church is a place where not only people who love God attend, but also a place that other people can come, frequently early-on in their journey to Christ. It’s not just a place to continue your life with the Lord, but also a place where many people start taking steps in the right direction. 

I’m not saying that every church out there has all these issues, but I’d be happy to find any that didn’t have any of them. I’d be depressed to find one that had all these issues. But the point is that these issues are out there. Every church has its issues, yes. But is that excuse to ignore them? Church being “boring” is an issue that can turn away potential brothers and sisters in Christ, and it doesn’t have to be “fun” to change that.

Even so… is it wrong for church to be fun? Does fun actively counter the meaning of a weekly assembly of (mostly) like-minded christians? Does it hinder the learning process? Would God look down on those who smile and laugh in His presence? The argument that church should not be fun simply doesn’t make any sense to me…

Thank you for your sharing, though, Anon. I apologize if I get a little ranty. Tends to happen every so often.

-Howie

wheretheroadlies asked: I would just like to respond to the anon who said "It's very dangerous to take things into our own hands to try to change the church to make it more exciting/fun." Since when does the same old typical Adventist semi-evangelical worship service hold a monopoly on the Holy Spirit and Truth? If we are going to make any advancement for the church in this generation, we have to stop debating 1980s issues and start asking 21st century questions.

You know, I agree with you on this one. However, I believe the anon was referencing the fact that a “more exciting/fun” format of church service wouldn’t change the fact that it’s the Holy Spirit that brings people to Christ…. which, to be honest, is true. Conversely, a boring or grating church service can push people away.

As for what issues we should be talking about - we still struggle, as a church, with a lot of the same issues. Coming up somewhat soon is a piece Yvonne and I are working on in response to three people who asked about jewelry and dancing. Those are old issues, but they’re still completely valid.

It’s not that we need to stop debating old issues - it’s that we need a definitive stance and a solid resolution to those questions. Because there’s not always a solid answer to be had, and those that do have solid answers typically have different circumstances surrounding them that makes the old answers seem to have less hold on us in today’s world.

The differences in opinion come in when people disagree on how seriously to take the Bible and on whether or not circumstances warrant exception to the rules.

Always try to remember that everyone thinks that they’re right about how things are, unless they’re actively looking for what they think is right. I honestly don’t believe in the idea that our church has the “Truth”, because that’s far too absolute. I think we have a lot more of it than anyone else, but that’s irrelevant. We’re not right on 100% of things. Even the disagreements between our members shows that. If we’re all completely right, we wouldn’t argue or debate or any such thing. Our church wouldn’t be divided on things, and we wouldn’t have debates that decide our organization’s stance on various controversial issues. To say we have the “Truth”, capitalized and with the word “the” in front of it, implies that we’re right and anyone who disagrees with us isn’t.

Not coming down on you. Just explaining that I REALLY don’t like the use of that term. I believe it begets ignorance and belligerence. That’s all.

In regards to the original comment though, I agree. I feel like there needs to be a change, but that’s because while I do occasionally see a great amount of kindness and love for Christ, the worship and praise and everything along those lines seems stale, rehearsed, or merely by rote. And that bothers me. It’s brought on by the fact that everything tends to be scheduled. I don’t feel like it’s right to say “Okay everyone, we’re gonna sing some worship songs now. Time to sing praises to God even if you don’t really feel like it right now!” I feel like praise and worship shouldn’t be prompted by people, but rather a spur-of-the-moment thing that, honestly, kinda saps the heartfelt genuineness from the church service as a whole.

-Howie

Anonymous asked: yo your religion is bull-shit. You ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN. HOW CAN YOU PUT A FUCKING PSYCHO LADY AS A PROFIT AND SAY SHES AS GOOD AS THE BIBLE? why can't you be a normal every-day christian and just follow God and not anyone else? Good-day you crazy psycho cult. Retards~ idiots like you make me sad.

You know… this showed up in our inbox today. I’m sad to admit that we do have a small bit of hate-mail, but… I’m guessing that everyone has this kind of thing, and it’s not entirely unreasonable that we have some opposition, considering what Yvonne and I have been trying to do with this Tumblr.

Anon… I’d like to mention some things to you. See… As a religion, we don’t hold Ellen White to be on the same level as the Bible. Sure, there are some of us out there that take her words as canon, but… as a whole, we know that’s not how things are supposed to go.

Also… by definition, we are Christians. We endeavor to be like Christ in our standards, our dealings with people, and our relationship to the Father. Christians first got their name when people were trying to insult the followers of Christ. They were trying to be like him. To be honest, your verbal assault… simply isn’t Christ-like. Between the two of us… who’s Christian?

We do follow God and not anyone else. EGW’s had visions (nothing of which contradicts the Bible), and has had a great deal of good advice. She’s not God. She’s just had more insight than most of us have had.

And… let me be completely honest here. I do consider Mrs. White to be a crazy-awesome person. She held a fifty-pound Bible over her head with a single hand, reading it without seeing it and pointing to her place with her other hand. That means her one arm was at least bent, and considering how she had a rather sickly frame at that time in her life, that’s rather impossible for her without supernatural help. Whether you believe that spiritual assistance was divine or satanic, that’s up to you on what to believe. But either way, that’s outright awesome.

Also… we’re not quite a cult. I point you to several distinctive differences between a cult and a religion. We qualify as a religion, by these standards.

…As for your comment on “idiots like you”… I’d be surprised if anyone spent any amount of time with me and figured me for an idiot. I refuse to believe something blindly or groundlessly. I have my reasons for believing what I believe. I promised Yvonne I wouldn’t be snide in my response (and I honestly don’t mean to be…), but honestly… you misspelled “prophet.”

…Next time you feel the need to throw insults at us or call us out for something, PLEASE moderate your language. We really don’t condone that kind of thing here. And also, please send us your complaints without witholding your name, Anon. I would honestly have preferred to answer this privately.

I’m sorry you feel this way… you can feel free to talk to us privately, still. We can clear up any misconceptions between the two of us. God bless.

-Howie

wheretheroadlies asked: Actually I'm not very excited for all the attention Ben Carson has been getting because of Nation Prayer speech because I respectfully disagree with large portions of his reasoning and opinions. In fact I'm rather disappointed in the same way religious liberty personnel Jason Hines is. I think we have limited ideas of the repercussions of this. Do we want the world to think Adventists are another bunch of conservative right wing evangelicals who vote in blocs for the Republicans?

For anyone tuning in, this ask is regarding this graphic we posted.

Hello,

I guess the first thing that I’ll say regarding this is that this tumblr isn’t for political views. Howie and I really don’t want to talk about politics on this blog. That being said, the submitter, litlass, had an optional tagline that added “even if you don’t agree with his political views”. I decided to omit it because I didn’t think that politics would be that much of an issue. However, I will add that in now.

~Yvonne

Anonymous asked: It's very dangerous to take things into our own hands to try to change the church to make it more exciting/fun. In terms of curing boredom and making things more interesting, there's a chance that we may cross the line from Godly to Satanic worship. It's important that instead of taking things into our own hands to change the church services into what we feel is the most exciting thing, we have to pray to God. Remember, the TRUTH, and HOLY SPIRIT brings people to the Lord not us.

For those tuning this, this seems to be in response to this earlier ask.

I’m gonna take this, once again, on a point-by point basis, if that’s alright… Easier to comment on the whole ask that way.

You’re right, it IS dangerous to change the way church is being done - but conversely, it’s equally as dangerous to leave the typical church service the way it IS with most congregations. The majority of the churches I know are formatted in such a way that makes church at least seem to be mostly ritual. To my experience, the way things are tends to make teenagers and young adults feel out-of-place, bored, and generally makes them not want to attend. It becomes a chore, and eventually you end up with little but lip service.

In terms of curing boredom and making things more interesting… what do you call “Satanic” worship? If we’re taking it literal, I can easily say that that’s never going to happen. If we’re merely changing the format for our worship of God himself, there’s no way that can be anything but “Godly” (taking the inverse of “Satanic”) as long as you avoid the things that you know upset God (child sacrifice, graven images, orgies, etc.) and as long as it’s heartfelt. As long as you are moved to praise God, you shouldn’t let common convention stifle your method of doing so - the Bible is a guide for what forms of worship God does not like. Consider that David danced in front of the Ark of the Covenant in a “vulgar” manner (2 Samuel 14, 20). In the presence of the most holy relics of that time, God still accepted that praise. Now, would that pass for “worship” these days? Not terribly likely. And I’m not saying that we should all go dance naked in church. What I’m saying is that God accepts more various forms of worship than we give him credit for, and because we have such definite views on what the church service should be like, we end up stifling that in the ritualistic pattern that church has become. Imagine if we decided to change things up a little… for example, instead of the typical church service, what if we had a service that incorporated larger amounts of praise and song rather than including the ever-present children’s story and sermon? I would love to see a more conservative church that didn’t dismiss the idea completely out-of-hand. And I’ll be honest - the songs that are sung in my church are so slow that - I kid you not - I actually can’t sing along without my throat being pained.

Spent a lot of time on that point… continuing on…

You are right on this point, though - we should always pray before taking things into our own hands. But keep in mind - God very rarely takes events into His own hands, in the manner of crossing-the-Red-Sea. He most often uses human beings to accomplish His will. Now, that doesn’t mean that every human being who feels they can accomplish His will is doing so… that’d be as impossible as saying every religion’s right. And… by my way of looking at things… God usually only steps in and steers us (as a religion) in the right direction when we’re so screwed up we’ll never be able to get out of the rut we’ve dug just by ourselves.

And yes, on this last point, you are completely right. The truth and the Holy Spirit are both crucial in bringing people to the Lord. But I personally don’t feel like having a boring church service that drives away the youth is going to help at all. That doesn’t mean we have to re-make our sanctuaries to be all grunge or have strobe lights during praise songs. That might be a bit overboard (it’d drive away anyone that doesn’t like such things), but that’s taking one extreme over the other. 

…My problem is that church is now typically uniform, without much variance, and in some cases almost completely lacking any energy or passion. The point is that when this happens, church becomes stale. To people that HAVE that energy and passion (as youth converts generally do), that environment is not nuturing… and for those of us youth who have been in the church for a long while, that rigidity and structure typically becomes boring and repetitive. I’d go so far as to name it a large reason the Adventist church loses a lot of its youth.

Now forgive me if I come across argumentative… I merely disagree with your views on some things. The core of it is important though - Christ has to be at the heart of our worship. To change our church services to exclude God but focus on merely energy and passion, we’ll have lost the actual purpose of our worship. But inversely, if our worship is stale, old, repetitive, and rigid, our energy and passion are leeched from it and it’s hardly worth being called “worship” in the first place.

Thank you for this submission. It wasn’t a direct question, but it was a comment on something I’d said that actually raised a bit of a valid point. 

-Howie