'Altars' in 'Christian' churches

[Asyncritus]

ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!

Webb, I had composed a response to your post that was so eloquent, so concise and so enlightened, it would have forever put to rest all questions and confusion over the matter.

Or, maybe not...at any rate, I clicked the wrong tab and lost it. Now I don't have time to rewrite.

:bigfrown Hate that when that happens!

It might be tomorrow before I can rejoin this very stimulating and thought provoking conversation.

:toofunny

 

[Asyncritus]

Hi [...] As I stated before though the location doesn't really matter - you can pray in the same manner while kneeling at your seat in a Church building. But as I said, the front of the pulpit (where the steps are) provides a common area to gather and pray - and I see nothing wrong with that in and of itself. It's always a heart issue either way - which is why I said only righteous prayer would be effectual.

God Bless,
~Josh

Hi CJ

You're right - a lectern and a pulpit aren't quite the same thing as an altar.

And again you're right, 'the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands, but with him that is meek and of a contrite spirit'.

So why all these fancy things, which take up a colossal amount of time, ingenuity, and worst of all, money - which could have been used to feed the poor if nothing else?

Just think what OXFAM could do for those Somalian refugees with the proceeds of the sale of, say, Lambeth palace! Did you know, BTW, that the anglican church is the largest land owner in the UK?

Just think... which is more in the spirit of Christ? Owning that lot, or feeding the poor? And treating their diseases? And fixing their homelessness and contaminated water supplies?...

Which?

 

[felix]

Please provide Scriptural support.

Church building is not a Temple to have an altar. We are the church built with living stones sacrificing ourselves in the altar of God acceptable to God.

Ref: 1Pet 2:4-5, Rom 12:1.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi Asyncritus,

Hi CJ

You're right - a lectern and a pulpit aren't quite the same thing as an altar.

And again you're right, 'the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands, but with him that is meek and of a contrite spirit'.

So why all these fancy things, which take up a colossal amount of time, ingenuity, and worst of all, money - which could have been used to feed the poor if nothing else?

Just think what OXFAM could do for those Somalian refugees with the proceeds of the sale of, say, Lambeth palace! Did you know, BTW, that the anglican church is the largest land ownerin the UK?

Just think... which is more in the spirit of Christ? Owning that lot, or feeding the poor? And treating their diseases? And fixing their homelessness and contaminated water supplies?...

Which?

The Church in England (and similar situations exist in mainland Europe) has almost always owned the majority of the property in the England since the Middle Ages, and the Anglican Church particularly since the 1500s (since Henry VIII). You might be interested to research a little into John Wycliffe's idea of dominium or 'lordship' which (in the feudalistic society of the day) essentially posited that God is the owner of all things and all property and men are only temporary stewards of it. So, he says, if men sin (even the clergy or the Church) then they forfeit their rights to own property. So in a sense he condemned the Church for hoarding riches of propery and architecture to the neglect of the things which are good and righteous to do, and even encouraged the Church to relinquish some property to the King of England.

You can read about it in depth here: Wycliffe's Political Philosophy.

A relevant excerpt says:

The central idea of Wyclif's political philosophy is that the dominium defining God's primary relation to creation justifies all human dominium, whether it be the mastery of a king, a lesser civil lord, or a priest.
...
Because, following Augustine, private property is a direct result of the Fall of man, the ideal state is one of communal ownership. Since the Church is the re-established ideal state, grace does not provide for its just ownership of any property whatsoever. Because Wyclif saw the fourteenth-century church enjoying the lion's share of property ownership in England, he argued that the king was bound by God to relieve the church of its property, and to rule over it as a divinely appointed steward.

Also from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Wycliffe:

Fitz-Ralph had been himself an opponent of the "mendicants", but Wyclif found in his theory of "lordship" a convenient and a novel way of formulating the ancient but anarchical principle that no respect is due to the commands or the property of the wicked. "Dominion is founded in grace" is the phrase which sums up the argument, and dominium it must be remembered is a word which might be said to contain the whole feudal theory, for it means both sovereignty and property. "Dominion", then, or "lordship", belongs to God alone. Any lordship held by the creature is held of God and is forfeited by sin, for mortal sin is a kind of high treason towards God, the Overlord. Fitz-Ralph had used this argument meaning to justify the distinction between "property" and "use" which the moderate Franciscans had adopted and the extremists had rejected. Wyclif, however, brought it down into the market-place by applying it to clerical possessions. He even went further than the argument authorized him, for he came to hold that no monks or clergy, not even the righteous, could hold temporal possessions without sin, and further that it was lawful for kings and princes to deprive them of what they held unlawfully.

I guess the overall point is not to put the things of earth over the things of God.

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[Adullam]

Our bodies are the temple and our hearts are the altars. Anything else would be either pagan or a denial of the new and living way in Christ, it would seem.

 

[childeye]

Our bodies are the temple and our hearts are the altars. Anything else would be either pagan or a denial of the new and living way in Christ, it would seem.

Interesting post here. Judging from your other posts, I would give credence to the thought that you know something about this. How exactly do you equate the heart with the altar? For we know the sacrifices were made on the altar in the temple of Soloman.

 

[Asyncritus]

Hi CJ

This guy Wyclif seems to have been a bundle of spiritual dynamite!

Bet he wasn't overly popular with the church!

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi CJ

This guy Wyclif seems to have been a bundle of spiritual dynamite!

Bet he wasn't overly popular with the church!

Wycliffe was a very influential thinker (and eventually deemed a heretic) of his day. And you are right, he certainly wasn't popular with the established Church at that time. Wycliffe attended and taught at Oxford and actually had the fortune of being supported by (as a patron) and protected politically by Sir John of Gaunt, the uncle of King Richard II, so that prevented Wycliffe from being burned at the stake (during his lifetime anyway - but in 1428 about 44 years after his death his bones were dug up, burned, and the ashes thrown into the River Swift - see more info & a picture/woodcut of it here).

Wycliffe was called the morning star of the Reformation and (among other things) he had condemned transsubstantiation as being false 100 years before the Reformation (which contributed to his unpopularity). His ideas and writings reached mainland Europe, specifically to the country of Bohemia (by means of Bohemian exchange students visiting Oxford and eventually returning with his writings), and they influenced a Rector at the University of Prague named Jan Hus who later, in fact, was burned at the stake. Jan Hus' teachings and legacy in turn influenced Martin Luther almost 100 years later who became convinced that Jan Hus was falsely accused and was wrongly burned at the stake. Pope John Paul II actually apologized for the death of Jan Hus in 1999 saying, "Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on Jan Hus" (source). It was a turbulent time for sure, and admittedly not all Wycliffe's ideas were "orthodox", but it's interesting to see how John Wycliffe and Jan Hus were forerunners of the Reformation.

 

[handy]

Truly not ignoring the thread here. This bug I've got is just keeping me from being able to focus clearly on anything...brain candy alone for me today...

 

[handy]

The whole "that was a waste, the money for it should have gone to the poor" argument was dealt with in the Scriptures several times...notably when women would pour costly perfume on Christ...that always got someone to grumbling about the money going to the poor. Jesus' response, "The poor you will always have with you".

I think one would look in vain for a text that shows giving God the best is a sin. Now, it never has nor ever will get "brownie points", but then if one thinks that furnishing our assembly halls with thrift store junk and giving the money to the poor is going to get us "brownie points", that's mistaken as well.

I think the Catholic church, which has some of the most ornate of all church architecture is the single biggest private supporter of charitable enterprises in the world. Add to it the rest of the denominations and giving of Christian individuals...I think that the Church out strips all other groups when it comes to giving. Feeding the poor, free medical clinics, providing for the homeless, schools and educational facilities...if one looks at what entity is behind the majority of all these charities, one will find the Church. Of this, I'm speaking of private institutions and individuals...not governments. If the money comes from taxes, it isn't "given".

My point is that charitable giving and a beautiful church building are not mutually exclusive nor does Christ condemn giving to God very expensive things, unless done with the attitude then that God "owes" one for the giving, or that one is buying favor from God.

You wrote: ''IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, WE ARE COMMANDED TO ASSEMBLE ( HEB.10:25 )---BUT THRERE ARE NO COMMANDMENTS AS TO WHEN---" Well, Acts 20:7 reads: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread--", this is the Lord's supper. Of the contribution we read: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the chiurches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you laiy by in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come" I Cor. 16:1,2. There is the approved example, and if not, why not?

I agree that this constitutes an "approved example" of when we can gather for worship. It is an excellent example as to why we should not argue amongst ourselves over the Sabbath day...but to say that because the early church had the habit of assembling for communion on Sunday that we then are "commanded" to do so...I don't know about that. It's customary to be sure, but there also is nothing wrong with assembling of Saturdays, Wednesdays, or any other day of the week. Paul's instruction was more due to the fact that he didn't want money changing hands while he was there...he wanted it all gathered and ready to be sent off by the time he got there.

It is an "approved example" in that we certainly can worship on Sunday...but it's not a "command" and I spoke of "commands".

You wrote: ''CERTAIN THINGS ARE MENTIONED---THE GIVING OF THANKS, THE SINGING OF PSALMS, HYMNS AND SPIRITUAL SONGS, AND THE TEACHING OF GOD'S WORD---BUT NO COMMANDMENTS AS TO HOW THE INDIVIDUAL CHURCH IS TO INCORPORATE THESE SPECIFICS INTO WHAT IS KNOWN AS 'WORSHIP' ". God gave the specifics of worship leaving us to the order of them. There is an order given however in the taking of the Lord's supper. Jesus said to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature ( Mt.28). The go is specific, how we go is left to us (walk, ride fly, sail etc). You understrand that, I know.

I do understand. It was what I was getting at. We can fulfill Matthew 28 by walking, riding, flying, sailing, even getting online... We can fulfill our commandment to not neglect assembling together in a house, or a cathedral. We can worship with psalm and song by singing a cappella, accompanied by an organ or piano or a full orchestra or rock band. We can fulfill our command to help the poor by individual giving and by combining our resources to build hospitals, schools, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and adoption agencies...even when worshiping in a cathedral or church or in someone's house.

You ask if one church has an altar and another church does not which one is holding to doctrines of men? My answer is, do you find in the NT a command for an altar? Do you find in the NT an approved example of the NT church having an altar? Do you find in the NT a necessary inference for the altar? If none, that to me answers the question as to which church is following the wishes and desires of man.

But now you seem to be arguing against the very point you just made. "God gave the specifics of worship leaving us to the order of them." Where in this is the need for a command, approved example or necessary inference?

The altar in most churches that have them is the table from which communion is served. Sometimes the table is a very beautifully crafted piece of art, reflecting the majesty of Him whose body and blood we are about to partake. Sometimes, the altar is nothing more than a table that stands slightly higher than waist high. Sometimes the table is called a "table" and not an "altar". The specific is the elements of communion that sit upon the table. The "order" whether communion is served from an ornate altar or a simple table...left to the congregation. The altar at our own church was built by hand by one of the charter members of the church. He was a highly skilled carpenter and owned his own cabinetry business. He built the altar by hand, un-paid, as a labor of love for his Lord. Since the 1920's, when our particular church building was built, it has stood in the forefront of the church, holding the elements of communion. Communion in our church is served at every worship service and is a very sacred and solemn time. The altar reflects the attitude that our church has about communion.

The Nazarene church that I had attended before moving to Idaho...they had communion about once a month and it was served by the ushers passing little trays with the wine and bread to the congregation much the same way the offering was collected. It had a different attitude about communion...one that was far more "individual". Not a better attitude, nor a worse attitude, but a different one.

Their way was not the only way, nor is ours. However, their way is the "right" way for them, and our way is the "right" way for us. For who are we to judge another individual or another local church body in how they choose to honor God during communion in their assemblies?

I guess this boils down why I'm so involved with this thread...because it does smack of being judgmental. It's one thing to look at the way a local church conducts itself during worship and decide that it doesn't speak to one's own spirit. But, it's another thing to say, "YOU ARE WORSHIPING GOD THE WRONG WAY!!!" when they are not doing anything that violates Scripture.

Again, we cannot argue from silence...or at least we shouldn't. If there is were a commandment regarding this issue...then we would need to follow it. But, where there is no commandment...then there is freedom. I know "freedom" is a scary thing to some Christians...some have a great need to fence in the flock...but nonetheless "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."

 

[francisdesales]

The whole "that was a waste, the money for it should have gone to the poor" argument was dealt with in the Scriptures several times...notably when women would pour costly perfume on Christ...that always got someone to grumbling about the money going to the poor. Jesus' response, "The poor you will always have with you".

I think one would look in vain for a text that shows giving God the best is a sin. Now, it never has nor ever will get "brownie points", but then if one thinks that furnishing our assembly halls with thrift store junk and giving the money to the poor is going to get us "brownie points", that's mistaken as well.

I think the Catholic church, which has some of the most ornate of all church architecture is the single biggest private supporter of charitable enterprises in the world. Add to it the rest of the denominations and giving of Christian individuals...I think that the Church out strips all other groups when it comes to giving. Feeding the poor, free medical clinics, providing for the homeless, schools and educational facilities...if one looks at what entity is behind the majority of all these charities, one will find the Church. Of this, I'm speaking of private institutions and individuals...not governments. If the money comes from taxes, it isn't "given".

My point is that charitable giving and a beautiful church building are not mutually exclusive nor does Christ condemn giving to God very expensive things, unless done with the attitude then that God "owes" one for the giving, or that one is buying favor from God.



I agree that this constitutes an "approved example" of when we can gather for worship. It is an excellent example as to why we should not argue amongst ourselves over the Sabbath day...but to say that because the early church had the habit of assembling for communion on Sunday that we then are "commanded" to do so...I don't know about that. It's customary to be sure, but there also is nothing wrong with assembling of Saturdays, Wednesdays, or any other day of the week. Paul's instruction was more due to the fact that he didn't want money changing hands while he was there...he wanted it all gathered and ready to be sent off by the time he got there.

It is an "approved example" in that we certainly can worship on Sunday...but it's not a "command" and I spoke of "commands".




I do understand. It was what I was getting at. We can fulfill Matthew 28 by walking, riding, flying, sailing, even getting online... We can fulfill our commandment to not neglect assembling together in a house, or a cathedral. We can worship with psalm and song by singing a cappella, accompanied by an organ or piano or a full orchestra or rock band. We can fulfill our command to help the poor by individual giving and by combining our resources to build hospitals, schools, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and adoption agencies...even when worshiping in a cathedral or church or in someone's house.



But now you seem to be arguing against the very point you just made. "God gave the specifics of worship leaving us to the order of them." Where in this is the need for a command, approved example or necessary inference?

The altar in most churches that have them is the table from which communion is served. Sometimes the table is a very beautifully crafted piece of art, reflecting the majesty of Him whose body and blood we are about to partake. Sometimes, the altar is nothing more than a table that stands slightly higher than waist high. Sometimes the table is called a "table" and not an "altar". The specific is the elements of communion that sit upon the table. The "order" whether communion is served from an ornate altar or a simple table...left to the congregation. The altar at our own church was built by hand by one of the charter members of the church. He was a highly skilled carpenter and owned his own cabinetry business. He built the altar by hand, un-paid, as a labor of love for his Lord. Since the 1920's, when our particular church building was built, it has stood in the forefront of the church, holding the elements of communion. Communion in our church is served at every worship service and is a very sacred and solemn time. The altar reflects the attitude that our church has about communion.

The Nazarene church that I had attended before moving to Idaho...they had communion about once a month and it was served by the ushers passing little trays with the wine and bread to the congregation much the same way the offering was collected. It had a different attitude about communion...one that was far more "individual". Not a better attitude, nor a worse attitude, but a different one.

Their way was not the only way, nor is ours. However, their way is the "right" way for them, and our way is the "right" way for us. For who are we to judge another individual or another local church body in how they choose to honor God during communion in their assemblies?

I guess this boils down why I'm so involved with this thread...because it does smack of being judgmental. It's one thing to look at the way a local church conducts itself during worship and decide that it doesn't speak to one's own spirit. But, it's another thing to say, "YOU ARE WORSHIPING GOD THE WRONG WAY!!!" when they are not doing anything that violates Scripture.

Again, we cannot argue from silence...or at least we shouldn't. If there is were a commandment regarding this issue...then we would need to follow it. But, where there is no commandment...then there is freedom. I know "freedom" is a scary thing to some Christians...some have a great need to fence in the flock...but nonetheless "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."

A good post. I couldn't help but think about Judas Iscariot and his complaint when the woman poured the expensive oils on Jesus when I read some of these other posts...

Just one thing to add. One is hard-pressed to find an ancient Christian church that DIDN'T have an altar... That is because even in the first century, the Eucharist was seen as a sacrifice, (Didache and Ignatius of Antioch mention this explicitly) which is offered on the altar, a sacrifice that we participate in (as Paul wrote to the Corinthians...) Early Christians WORSHIPPED God, they didn't just preach and sermonize. It would seem incredibly anachronistic to take away the central piece of worship, the altar, from ancient Christianity, just to make one feel good about their present state of affairs and opinions.

Regards

 

[ajaxnumber9]

Follow Jesus, and do what he told us to do. Go to the world and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the father son and holy spirt. The gathering of believers is a part of our walk with God, and is important, but if we concentrate all of our time worrying about alters and whatever else we may need to have physically in church we may be missing it a bit. Jesus told us he was going to send for us the counselor, the Holy Spirit, to live inside of us. Scripture also tells us that the same spirit that raised Christ from the dead also lives in us. The word also says that a time is coming when we will worship in spirit and in truth. Where we worship, pray, and connect with God can be many places, an "alter" could be in our closet at home by our self, or at church, or in the car, I think the main thing is that God wants to connect with us, and he wants to, and has empowered us by the Holy spirit and through the Word, show the world around us what Christ is really about. Love, Peace, Patients, Kindness, Gentleness, Self control ETC.
Jesus is King! Let him guide you, spend more energy on changing people who don't know Jesus than trying to change people that do. Lets encourage each other to run this race that we are called to!

God bless you all!! I know he already has

 

[felix]

Ok, let's cut the crap.

The real question is, whose altar is it, and what are they used for? If it is the one true Christian God's altar, why is it not built the way God wants as in Exo 20:24-26? If it not an altar, but just for a building structure, then why call it an altar and make the living God's Words void?

I think it is a 'BIG' lie by some churches to all christiandom to call something building structure an altar. Let's call it 'front stage' and not altar. When anyone does something not according to God's word and call it by what God called, they blaspheme His Word and make His Word void.

 

[Stormcrow]

Ok, let's cut the crap.

The real question is, whose altar is it, and what are they used for? If it is the one true Christian God's altar, why is it not built the way God wants as in Exo 20:24-26? If it not an altar, but just for a building structure, then why call it an altar and make the living God's Words void?

I think it is a 'BIG' lie by some churches to all christiandom to call something building structure an altar. Let's call it 'front stage' and not altar. When anyone does something not according to God's word and call it by what God called, they blaspheme His Word and make His Word void.

The Law of Moses has been abolished (reference the Book of Hebrews for varification of this). What this means, in practical terms, is that we are all individually and corporately free to worship God as the Spirit leads. Christ made clear the condition for His presence in the Kingdom of God: where two or three are gathered in His name. Whatever you call it or whether you even have an altar at all makes no difference.

Only legalists get hung up on such trivialities, IMHO.

 

[felix]

The Law of Moses has been abolished (reference the Book of Hebrews for varification of this). What this means, in practical terms, is that we are all individually and corporately free to worship God as the Spirit leads. Christ made clear the condition for His presence in the Kingdom of God: where two or three are gathered in His name. Whatever you call it or whether you even have an altar at all makes no difference.

Only legalists get hung up on such trivialities, IMHO.

What is that spirit which leads into creation of altars to worship God, which the Spirit of God abolished in New Covenant?

 

[handy]

What is that spirit which leads into creation of altars to worship God, which the Spirit of God abolished in New Covenant?

Where does it say that God abolished altars in the New Covenant?

Hebrews 13:10 specifically states that we have an altar from which they who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. Why would the writer say we have an altar if God abolished altars?

 

[handy]

Ok, let's cut the crap.

The real question is, whose altar is it, and what are they used for? If it is the one true Christian God's altar, why is it not built the way God wants as in Exo 20:24-26? If it not an altar, but just for a building structure, then why call it an altar and make the living God's Words void?

I think it is a 'BIG' lie by some churches to all christiandom to call something building structure an altar. Let's call it 'front stage' and not altar. When anyone does something not according to God's word and call it by what God called, they blaspheme His Word and make His Word void.

There is no lie. It's not a "front stage" so why call it that? It is that upon which sits the broken body and shed blood of the Lamb, which is the One true sacrifice. It is the altar from whom those that serve the tabernacle (who want to go back to the Law of the Old Testament) have no right to eat.

 

[felix]

Where does it say that God abolished altars in the New Covenant?

Hebrews 13:10 specifically states that we have an altar from which they who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. Why would the writer say we have an altar if God abolished altars?

I was speaking about the building structures - 'creation of altars to worship God' in church buildings. The altars built are used for sacrifices in old covenant and these rituals are abolished by God and Christ Himself is greater than the temple and we are to give ourselves as living sacrifices to Him.

There is no lie. It's not a "front stage" so why call it that? It is that upon which sits the broken body and shed blood of the Lamb, which is the One true sacrifice. It is the altar from whom those that serve the tabernacle (who want to go back to the Law of the Old Testament) have no right to eat.

So, this one true sacrifice of Christ was made on the altar of all churches in the world? The altar in new covenant has nothing to do with any church building.

 

[handy]

I was speaking about the building structures - 'creation of altars to worship God' in church buildings. The altars built are used for sacrifices in old covenant and these rituals are abolished by God and Christ Himself is greater than the temple and we are to give ourselves as living sacrifices to Him.

The altars built are used for sacrifices in old covenant and these rituals are abolished by God....

Umm...name one Christian church that has an altar used for old covenant sacrifices. I really need to see you do this before I can respond, because that doesn't make any sense to me...so I must be misunderstanding what you are getting at here.

There is not one single Christian church that has old covenant sacrifices on their altars. Not one.

So, awaiting clarification.

 

[Asyncritus]

Handy

Lk 18.22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Isn't that an instruction that a 'church', which possesses multi-billions, should obey in a world crammed with the desperately poor?

Note the words 'ALL THAT THOU HAST'. Nothing held back.

So, what about these gold bars, paintings, buildings, lands, diamond-studded gold crucifixes, censers, etc etc then? Are they included in those instructions?

I think the Catholic church, which has some of the most ornate of all church architecture is the single biggest private supporter of charitable enterprises in the world. Add to it the rest of the denominations and giving of Christian individuals...I think that the Church out strips all other groups when it comes to giving. Feeding the poor, free medical clinics, providing for the homeless, schools and educational facilities...if one looks at what entity is behind the majority of all these charities, one will find the Church.

The story of the widow's mite is very apposite here.

Lk 21.1 ¶ And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

You quote Mary's action in giving the family's gift to Jesus (something like £15,000 worth of perfume in today's terms), as if that is somehow relevant to this discussion. It is.

Sure, we should do the same to Him today - but we can't.

But we can, you know:

Mt 25.40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.

Not to a church building.

I don't know what He's going to say to these churches about these things when He returns. I'm not sure I particularly want to find out.

But if the above is anything to go by, it won't be anything good.