Skip to main content

Don't you have meetings for these sorts of things?//Haylee Lynd

 


    I work at a church. I do a lot of behind the scenes work and I see a lot of the behind the scenes. There are so many meetings throughout the week to discuss what is going to be preached on Sunday, what songs will be sung, what words will be spoken in transitions, what is going to be posted about on social media, etc. Every discussion is important and every discussion takes place between a number of people so that it can be ensured that what we are doing as a church lines up with scripture and is making an impact for the gospel. So howwwww in the world did the Feast of Fools get started and how did it not get stopped sooner?  I mean, it's not like it was like really really close to scripture and easy to miss that it was unbiblical. It was extremely reflective of Pagan practice. Anyways, they should have had more meetings than they did. Someone in charge should have said and done something a lot sooner.


P.S. I commented own Braylan's and Leanne's posts.

Comments

  1. Lily CaswellMarch 29, 2021 at 11:25 PM

    You make a very good point, Haylee. It may have been one of those things that started out relatively similar to all the other festivals/feasts but over time became a parody of religious events. It may have also been that the Church thought that if the people had one day in which they could do almost anything, that it might draw people towards the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Braylan StringfellowMarch 30, 2021 at 9:10 AM

    I would think that churches have meetings like you said because of things like the feast of fools. The church and everything that goes into it should be taken seriously so that the gospel can go forward. Things like the feast of fools only hold back the gospel. So today much detail and preparation is put into stuff to keep things like the feast of fools to come back.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...
2 comments
Read more

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.
3 comments
Read more

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...
2 comments
Read more