Margaret Barker, The Lost Prophet, and 1st temple worship...

I recently discovered that, as a member of staff at the University of Edinburgh, I have access to the New College library, one of the biggest theological libraries in Europe. So rather than waste that opportunity, I went and borrowed some books.

The first one I read, largely because it was the slimmest of the books I borrowed was "The Lost Prophet" by Margaret Barker. I've previously read her book "The Great Angel" and found it fascinating, and really want to read her first book "The Older Testament", but sadly New College don't have that, so I settled on this.

The book is an examination of the ancient book of 1st Enoch. Exactly how ancient it is is one of the conundrums of the book. It is in five parts, four of which were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, making those parts pre-Christian. The other part is only found in later, Christian, documents, so it is unclear if this bit is pre-Christian or not. This is a bit annoying as this part contains a lot of material about a character called "The Son of Man". If this could be shown to be pre-Christian then this book might yield understanding of what Jesus and the early church meant when they used the phrase.

Conventional thinking about this book is that it is later to, and derivative of, the Old Testament writings. Barker makes the opposite case, that the book of Enoch could be contemporary with some of the Old Testament books, perhaps even earlier. She makes a good case for, at the very least, not assuming the priority of the OT books, just because they're in the canon. The OT books, like Daniel and some of Isaiah, could basically be products of the same kind of thinking that also gave us the book of Enoch. That is to say, in evolutionary terms, that they share common ancestry. 

Barker claims that if we read the New Testament through the lens of this Enochic view of the world, then we can gain insight into many parts of the NT, not just Jude and 2Peter, which refer to it explicitly, but also all the Son of Man stuff in the gospels and some of the thinking of the epistles.

Its all interesting stuff, and might give insights on a few obscure passages, but its not going to set the world on fire...

What I am much more interested in, having read this, is the content of her earlier book, and the thesis contained therein. You see, Barker claims that the stories, rituals and beliefs, etc. of the pre-exilic period in Israel and Judah have been deliberately modified and rewritten with a different agenda in the post-exilic period when the OT was compiled. The Old Testament, she claims, misrepresents the first temple period and, essentially, rewrote history saying that what they did back then was the same as what we do now...

Barker believes otherwise. She seems to hold that the first temple worship was directed to more than one divine being, and that the King was considered by his people as divine and literally the Son of God.

Its frustrating reading this between the lines of this book when, I guess, she makes her full case for this in her earlier book. Must read it.

Anyway, I've also listened to a couple of talks by her on YouTube. Here she implies the same sort of ideas, again without fully spelling them out. One of the most fascinating ideas that she mentions in the talks and also in this book, is the idea that the Adam and Eve story is a relatively new addition to the OT, and that this picture of the origin of the world, sin, etc. was not part of first temple thinking. She points out something surprising - after the first few chapters of Genesis, Adam and Eve are never mentioned again in the OT. This is one of the things which suggests that this is a late story, even though it comes first in our book. She suggests that all the Abraham and the patriarchs stuff is much older.

But her main thesis is that the system of worship from the first temple period has been written out of the bible, and only teasing hints remain. I think her basic thinking goes like this:

The 'reforms' of Josiah's day changed the Jewish religion. The rewriting of the story, as told by post-Josiah and post-exilic writers, says that God instructed Moses in a particular system of monotheistic worship, in the tabernacle, which was later set in stone, as it were, in Solomon's temple. But Solomon and those who came after him allowed 'foreign' worship of other gods into the temple, which corrupted the original, pure monotheistic system. So Josiah's reforms were, as seen from a 2nd temple viewpoint, the restoration of the old ways and the expulsion of the foreign gods.

Barker claims otherwise. She notes that in 1 Enoch, it is the 'reformers' who are portrayed as the bad guys who corrupted the original system. Not the original Mosaic system, which may be a later invention, pushing 2nd temple thinking back into a fabricated history, but rather the original Abrahamic and Messianic system of worship where the King was The Lord and The Lord was the King, and where the divine goddess of wisdom, Ashera or Astarte, was worshiped alongside Yahweh and his anointed one, the King.

Barker goes on to claim that these ideas, while written out of the priestly history books, were not written out of public belief, and that these ideas formed the basis of Christianity, with Jesus as the divine messiah, wisdom personified as the Holy Spirit, and the temple 'rebuilt' out of the living stones of believers. Its a shocking thought.

But where Barker doesn't go, is to explain why this way of thinking gets lost from the New Testament. Why don't we know this stuff? Why do we not believe what Barker claims the early Christians did believe? Here's where I have to speculate. What if this stuff got written out again in the 2nd century during all the battles between orthodoxy and heresy? The 'catholic' Christianity that emerged at the end of the 2nd century seems to be a fusion of different strands which went before - what happens if you try to fuse a Christianity based on 1st temple thinking, with a 2nd temple Judaic way of thinking? Something would have to give. Something would have to get left out, or changed, or rewritten. We might very well end up with what we have now.

Of course, nothing is proved here, this is all speculation, but it is fascinating speculation...

Second hand revelation

Continuing the current stream of doubting...

I go to a church where people regularly have 'words of knowledge' or 'pictures' or other apparent direct revelations from God. Some have apparently had dreams conveying meaning from God. And while they don't generally do this in the main church service, I know that many of them speak in tongues.

I have never had any of these experiences.

The only time I ever came close was when I was on a SU camp many years ago and was talking with someone who was going through a hard time. We were out in the hills and I remember looking across the valley and seeing a tree on the far side of the valley. It was a tree, standing on its own, on an otherwise featureless hillside. It was a windy and cloudy day, with the sun breaking though only occasionally and transiently, and the patches of sunlight moved and changed rapidly. Except, as I looked, the sun broke through the clouds and the lone tree was bathed in a patch of sunlight which seemed to remain on the tree and not change or shift for a couple of minutes (may have been less than that, but it seemed a relatively long time). Seeing that 'vision' (of something that was actually there) gave me an idea for the right encouraging word to say to my companion. I've always kind of interpreted that experience as a kind of 'vision', but maybe it was just part of an active imagination, while seeking to find the right words to say to a friend going through a rough patch.

But that's the extent of my experience. And yet I know people who apparently get 'pictures' or 'words of knowledge' on a weekly basis. Sometimes these seem to be specific and aimed at a particular person or situation, sometimes they are more general. But rarely (if ever) is there a way of testing these 'revelations' to see if they have a divine source. If someone says something like:

"I've got a picture of a tap, and its turned off, I think there's someone here who is feeling spiritually dry and needs to turn the tap on again..."

then it might be genuine revelation, or it might be a random thought that just occurred to them, but if its stated in a large enough Christian gathering, there's a fair chance that somebody there will be feeling spiritually dry on that day, and so will take this to be a message for them.

This is the problem I see, if a 'picture' is described, and there is somebody there who relates to it, then its taken as a message from God and boosts the faith of both the picture receiver and the one to whom it relates. But if there isn't someone who connects with the message, it is rarely taken to mean that the picture was wrong, misinterpreted or just imagination. There is no negative feedback loop - only a positive one or a no-effect one. So, basically, whether or not these pictures come from God, so long as somebody does this often enough, the net effect will be to boost their faith, not only in God (who may have had nothing to do with the process), but also in the 'picture' ability.

In addition to that, the interpretation of such pictures is always (in services that I've been at, at least) positive and encouraging. Even if the picture is of a raging torrent of water, the interpretation is never that someone is going to be swept away and smashed on the rocks, the interpretation will be something about the power of God to break into some situation or other. So, even if the pictures do come from a divine source, perhaps the interpretation is derived from church culture rather than from above? In the Old Testament, some of the prophets had no problem issuing dire warnings based on their interpretations of the revelations they apparently received, but maybe that was just part of the cultural filter of the day? I fully expect that in some Christian sub-cultures, in some parts of the world, revelations from God are still interpreted in such a manner. But not in our culture. As far as I can tell, the culture shapes the message. If that is the case, is there any need for a divine origin for the message?

My point is this. How can you know if any claimed revelation is genuine?

Someone receives a picture and interprets it that they need to open your arms and embrace their neighbours. Is that from God? Well, at least it is consistent with some bits of the bible. So maybe it is? Revelation which is consistent with culture is endorsed.

Someone else receives a picture and interprets it that they need to kill their neighbours. Is that from God? Well, that too is consistent with some parts of the bible. But I doubt that most churches would endorse this. Culture trumps revelation.

Both pictures there could be the product of an active imagination. Or both could be from God. But both are filtered through at least two interpretation layers - that of the person seeing the picture and that of the culture. So if someone shares a picture with you, how on earth can you know what to do with it?

I believe in the Holy Spirit

I believe in the Holy Spirit.

"Good" I hear some of you cry. "Finally, after all that doubting, a sound post with a positive declaration of faith..."

Erm, well, sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't that post.

I'm wrestling with the whole area of faith vs experience at the moment. I'm working on a longer blog post on faith, which I'll post eventually, but I just realised this morning what it all boils down to. And that is this:

All my Christian experience leads me to believe, or rather to know that the Holy Spirit is an ever-present reality. (Hallelujah!)

I've seen the presence of the Spirit in my life and in the lives of others, I've experienced the promptings of the Spirit in my experience and I've even seen (minor) miracles and healings done in his name. Of course, I have heard tale of greater things than those, but I'm a skeptical sort, so I'll stick with "That which ... we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched" (1 John 1v1) rather than second or third hand reports.

The problem, or the doubt, is this:

While I know the existence of the Spirit, I don't (and can't) have equivalent experience of God the Father or of God the Son. Both of them are purely taken on faith. And that faith is built on things that were written thousands of years ago, by people possibly unknown to us. It takes a lot of faith to believe the words of that book. And when you doubt some of it (as I do, and have) you soon find that quite a lot of it unravels and falls apart.

Faith in the bible is (almost) an all or nothing stance. You can't have your cake and eat it. Life would be so easy if I could believe that the Bible was completely inspired and therefore infallible. But I've scratched at too many flaky bits to believe that anymore. But if bits of it are not infallible, or if bits of it are not inspired, then how can you decide which is which? And beyond that, how can you know if any of it is inspired, or indeed, if there was an inspirer?

The thing is, if you start with that which you can see and experience and go from there, I don't think you can ever get to the edifice of faith that is biblical Christian belief. Christian belief is a mixture of the experiential and the unverifiable written stuff. Most of which is just unquestioningly taken on board.

But if you start from the experiential and don't take on board the unverifiable, you end up in a radically different place to most Christians. Indeed, you end up closer to Pagans than Christians.

Confused? Yes I am! But still looking for the light.

The dynamics of prayer...

There is a strange dynamic in corporate prayer. Maybe you've noticed it yourself, or maybe its just me.

Every now and again in a corporate prayer setting, like a prayer meeting or - in the specific instance I'm thinking of here - during 'ministry time' in a church service, an odd thing happens.

I don't know about you, but for me in a corporate prayer setting, I never jump right in straight away when someone else has finished praying, I usually leave a gap. And during this gap I generally formulate what I'm going to pray for when I open my mouth. And quite often, someone else will start praying before me, and - weirdly - will start praying for the exact same thing I was about to pray for.

This has happened to me too many times for it to be coincidence. Clearly there is a dynamic going on in prayer beyond me just phrasing the words to say and saying them. Something external to me inspires me to pray certain things.

Of course, I'm assuming that this external factor is the Spirit of God.

It happened on Sunday morning this week. I was praying with two others for a guy in the church. During a moment's silence I decided that I would pray for God to bless the guy's business - which was not really connected to the things we'd just been praying for. And just as I was about to open my mouth, one of the other guys jumped in and started praying for the profitability of the guy's business.

So what I'm noticing is this - in a corporate prayer setting, the Spirit of God inspires you to say certain things to God. In other words, God decides what we ask him for.

So who benefits from such a prayer? If God knows what we're going to pray for, because he Himself decided it, what is the point? Why bother involving me in the process?

I once heard it said that when we pray, we move the hands of God. But if we're moving the hands of God to the place that he decided to move them to anyway, what is our involvement in it worth?

Is it for the benefit of me - the person doing the praying, or for the benefit of the guy being prayed for? Indeed, I have had this experience in settings when we've been praying for people far away, so I guess its - in part - for the benefit of the person doing the praying.

But I find it an odd dynamic.

Anyone else have this experience? Anyone got any insight?

What happens when you die?

What happens when you die? I mean, where do you go?

The bible seems to imply that you go directly from death to the judgement, but it also implies that the judgement is at the end of all things.

If time is linear (and I'm not altogether certain that it is), then where do you go between death and judgement? Does anyone actually hang around as ghosts?

My default belief up to this point was that when you die, the part of you that survives the death of the body is somehow taken out of space-time directly to the judgement and the start of eternity, whatever that is. But this is not explained in the bible, this was just the position I came to from various chats and thoughts over the years.

But. Something odd happened a few weeks ago which challenged this view.

Last month, an elderly relative of mine died. The following week three inexplicable things happened to three of her close relatives. Basically in each of the three cases, at night, in locked-up houses, while the folk were asleep, things were moved in inexplicable ways. Each of the three events was totally consistent with the character of the lady who had died. Those involved are quite certain that their Granny came back to visit them.

The thing is, as one relative put it: "If anyone is going to heaven, she is" - she was a committed, faithful and prayerful Christian.

I have always been skeptical of the notion of ghosts. Or rather, I have always been skeptical that the phenomena labeled ghosts are the disembodied spirits of deceased people. Sure, there may be spiritual beings around, but I have never believed that they actually were dead people. But when stuff like this happens in your family, you have to wonder.

What does happen when you die?

Omnipresence

Psalm 139 is one of those classic 'proof texts' for the omnipresence of God. But I just read it and it isn't...

Psalm 139v7-16:

Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me," even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

This is an amazing statement, and I know many, many believers can testify to the truth of it, but it doesn't actually speak of the omnipresence of God. What it does speak of is that God is always with his people - wherever they go and whatever they do. The Psalmist doesn't speak of God being in places where he is not, but only says that 'wherever I go, He is there...'

Of course, Proverbs 15v3 ("The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.") extends the concept a bit further, saying that God is able to see everyone. But nowhere in the bible does it claim that God is everywhere. Why should he be between the rings of Saturn, or at the bottom of the Marianas Trench or in the heart of the Sun? (sorry for that last link ;o)

Also, 'the Lord dwells in the praises of His people' (can't seem to find the verse at the mo) which kind of implies that there are places where he isn't. He is always with us, but not always everywhere.

I believe in an everpresent God, but not necessarily an omnipresent one.

Backslider?

A long time ago (16 years to be precise) I was on the 'exec' committee of the University of St Andrews Christian Union (CU). In order to be allowed to be a member of that committee I was required to sign a 'declaration of faith' document. This 'declaration of faith' was (and still is) the one used by the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF) - an evangelical organisation to which the majority of university CUs in the UK are affiliated.

At the time I had no major issues with any of the beliefs expressed in the document and was happy to sign it (I did have minor issues, see below). If I was presented with such a document today I don't think I'd be able to sign it with a clear conscience. There are some things in there that I do not believe are fundamental to the faith and, furthermore, I simply do not believe them to be true.

Does this make me a 'backslider'?

Here I will list the UCCF declaration of faith and comment on each of the articles in turn:

The doctrinal basis of the Fellowship shall be the fundamental truths of Christianity, as revealed in Holy Scripture, including:

1. The unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Godhead.
   Yes, I think I can still agree on this one. It doesn't use the phrase 'trinity' which I am beginning to question, but I think 'Unity' is a perfectly acceptable word here.
   
2. The sovereignty of God in creation, revelation, redemption and final judgment.
   More or less, yes. This doesn't actually use any words beginning with 'omni' which might cause me problems. It also doesn't insist on any particular meaning of 'creation' which might also bring me to the point of dissent.
   
3. The divine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture as originally given, and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
   No! This was my only minor niggle before - the word 'infallible' - but now I really can't agree with all of this. The divine inspiration of Scripture - yes, OK, I believe that much of the bible is in some way 'inspired'. But I can't go as far as 'infallible'. The Scripture Union basis of faith is very similar to the UCCF one, except it speaks of the bible as being "God-breathed" and "fully trustworthy in all that they affirm, and are our highest authority for faith and life" - this is a much better starting point than claiming the 'infallibility' of a book which asserts that it is possible to get two of every kind of animal on the planet into a reasonably small ship.
   
4. The universal sinfulness and guilt of human nature since the fall, rendering man subject to God's wrath and condemnation.
   I do have a problem with the concept of 'God's wrath' against mankind. I accept that there is a problem of sin and that it needed dealt with, but the whole idea that a blood sacrifice was required to appease an angry God goes against my world view.
   
5. The full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God; His virgin birth and His real and sinless humanity; His death on the cross, His bodily resurrection and His present reign in heaven and earth.
   Most of this, yes. Jesus is God, yes. He was a man, yes. He was crucified and rose again, yes. Virgin birth? Is this in any way an essential doctrine? It may have happened, but I remain in doubt over this one. I don't really see the need.
   
6. Redemption from guilt, penalty and power of sin only through the sacrificial death once and for all time of our representative and substitute, Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and man.
   Most of this, yes. However, I don't think we truly understand what Jesus did by dying on the cross. I certainly don't think his death was simply his dying instead of us - let's face it, we're all going to die anyway - but something else was achieved there which we still can't see or understand. Maybe in eternity...
   
7. Justification as God's act of undeserved mercy, in which the sinner is pardoned all his sins, and accepted as righteous in Gods sight, only because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, this justification being received by faith alone.
   Yes. There is nothing we can do to reconcile us to God. That is why Jesus died (although, as I say, I don't think we understand what exactly his death achieved).
   
8. The need for the Holy Spirit to make the work of Christ effective to the individual sinner, granting him repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ.
   Yes.
9. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all those thus regenerated, producing in them an increasing likeness to Christ in character and behaviour, and empowering them for their witness in the world.
   Yes.
   
10. The one holy universal Church, which is the Body of Christ, and to which all true believers belong.
    Yes.
11. The future personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge all men, executing God's just condemnation on the impenitent and receiving the redeemed to eternal glory.
    Mostly, yes. Although there is much about 'heaven' and 'hell' which I think we have completely misunderstood.
    

See, I'm not as heretical as you might think... ;o)

Charge / Discharge

This post is not a doubt or a question. But some folk (hello Chris!) have occasionally commented on the lack of positives on this blog, so here goes...

I was at St. Mungo's church on Sunday night. It was all in all a truly amazing church experience (if you happen to be in Edinburgh, go along on a Sunday evening, 6pm, Balerno High School, it is always good). The worship was excellent, the sermon was spot on (download it here - should be online soon, I guess called '2007-02-18-pm.mp3', for a limited time only) and, most importantly, God was there and active.

In St. Mungos they have a ministry time where everyone gets prayed for (unless folk choose to opt out and sit at the back) and during this time, two folk prayed for me. Occasionally when people pray for me I feel like I am being filled up or recharged. On this occasion I felt much more charged up than 'usual' - I was almost unable to sit or stand still afterwards, I was so full of the Spirit. I was buzzing. (And folk who know me will know that I am not usually that animated - I am generally very able to 'chill' at every opportunity). I knew I was being charged up for a reason - but what did God want me to do?

Mere moments passed and I noticed that the person next to me (who I know quite well) was not buzzing. Not even looking very happy. Quite the opposite in fact. As the worship turned from 'intimate' to 'celebratory' this person was clearly not in tune with what was going on. Out of the blue they asked me a really profound question. I can't go into details here becuase all of what was said here was private. But over the next twenty minutes or so (as the worship went on around us) we had a very significant conversation. And the Spirit of God discharged through me. I can't really put it any other way. After 20 minutes I was completely discharged!

Amazing.

You see, God can still use doubters like me. Hallelujah!

Ministry time

Over the last week, for various reasons, I've been in three different churches, with three different styles of 'doing church'.

The most noticeable difference between the three approaches was in the way each of the three offered ministry - that is, the opportunity to have someone pray for you or pray with you.

In the first (the most traditional), the opportunity 'to have someone pray with you' was offered right at the end of the service. As most of the congregation went to get a coffee, three folk remained near the front, one who wanted to be prayed for, the other two to pray for her. The 'prayer ministry' was carried out seated, with the lady who was to be prayed for explaining what her need was before the other two proceeded to pray for her.

In the second, after the sermon, the pastor said 'we want to pray for you' and explained how, in the next section of the service, the various (badged) members of the prayer team would circulate round the congregation and pray for everyone - if you didn't want prayer you should make your way to the back of the room where a couple of rows of chairs were designated as a 'no go' zone for the prayer team. During this ministry time the band played quiet worship songs, but the words were not up on the screen, so it was clearly not intended for the congregation to join in the singing, even though several folk did. During this time members of the prayer team would approach people (of the same gender) and simply start praying for them - they didn't ask for any particular need, they mostly prayed that the person would experience the Spirit more. There was quite a lot of shaking going on, some falling over and other external phenomena. At the end of this time the pastor asked if anyone who wanted prayer hadn't had it yet, and those folk were prayed for before the band returned to leading the congregation in worship.

In the third, after the sermon, the pastor simply said (with no explanation for outsiders) that it was 'ministry time' and asked the congregation to stand. He then 'invited the Spirit to come' and made a few (brief) comments about 'the Spirit of God drawing near' and about receiving from Him. Shortly after this, a few members of the congregation went to the front and spoke, quietly, with the pastor. After a moment of silence the pastor named two folk in the congregation that he 'sensed the Spirit was resting on'. Then the six folk who had gone to the front, in turn, explained the 'pictures' they had been given and suggested an explanation which may be relevant to one or more folk in the congregation. The pastor then invited folk from the congregation, who felt the 'words' might be relevent to them, and the two folk he had named, to come forward for prayer. The folk at the front prayed for those who came forward, standing. There was no significant external phenomena (shaking, tongues, etc.). Then the pastor declared that the service was over, although several remained at the front in prayer for a while.

I have mixed feelings about each of these approaches. In many ways, I prefer the latter two because they both have an expectation of God's presence and an expectation that he will actually do something, whereas the first seems to want to distance most of the congregation from actually interacting with God - prayer ministry is only for the few, and only for those with specific needs. But I'm not sure how I would feel about taking a non-believer into either of the latter two settings. Without a lot of pre-explanation (which would probably be off-putting) I don't think a non-believing visitor would be particularly comfortable in either setting.

In the third church, the clear expectation was that 'God will have something to say to us (through the medium of 'pictures' or 'words of knowledge') at every service'. But what if God said everything he wanted to through the preacher? And how can we know if the 'pictures' or 'words' expressed by the members of the congregation came from above or simply out of an active imagination. Indeed, one of the 'pictures' shared this week was of a car advert - one that is on tv fairly regularly - it wouldn't take the involvement of the Spirit to bring that picture to mind, merely an aimlessly wandering thought process. If God wants to speak in such a way to that group of people on a weekly basis, does he also want to say such things to the first church, but they're not listening? Or is He not speaking loudly enough?

I'm not totally trying to dismiss seeing pictures or having words of knowledge - I have experience of receiving both myself - but not on demand or on a weekly basis. How can we be sure of the origin of these words?

Words and pictures were also shared in the second church (indeed, I have heard them occasionally shared in the first church too, but not every week or even every month) but there they seemed more like an added bonus rather than an expectation. The attitude there was much more 'we expect to be filled with Your Spirit, and if You choose to speak to us we will be listening'.

One of the things about the third church that was notable was that there was no music or other emotive thing going on during ministry time. People were not coerced into any particular state of behaviour. I liked the fact that nothing was forced, but I actually found the silence uncomfortable. In the second church it is much easier to claim that there is some emotional manipulation going on in the environment (gentle music, dimmed lights) and that some of the phenomena could be a purely emotional response, although there is certainly real stuff going on there too. Here, at times, the noise was uncomfortable.

Having recounted all this, I don't think I really have a point to make. I certainly am not saying that one way is 'right' and the others are 'wrong'. All three have some value, but I can see negative aspects of all three too. I couldn't even say which style I preferred (although I might incline slightly towards the second, due to the fact that everyone is prayed for and due to the music). This is just me thinking out loud. If anyone reading this has any insights I'd love to hear them.