Skip to content

Tag Archives for liturgical

A Tale of Two Churches

I went to two churches this morning, one at 9:00 and the other at 11.  One was a typical contemporary evangelical service, not unlike many others I’ve been to over the years. The other was the Episcopal church I’ve been attending for several months.  There was a vast difference in style, as one would expect. However, today I became aware of one distinction in particular which bears some reflection.

Church #1

First, I want to be clear that I am not saying church #1 is in any way a bad church, as evangelical churches go.  On the positive side, they really understand how to be welcoming.  We were very warmly greeted by people who seemed genuinely happy to see us (granted, one greeter was someone I happened to know).  Second, they started precisely at 9am.  They even had a TV screen in the lobby counting down the seconds until church started.  Even though most people were late, that didn’t stop the worship team.

Here’s the thing with church #1: The service, which was 90 minutes long, consisted of only two items, worship (that is, singing about 4 worship songs) and the sermon.  As far as the worship portion went, the band was very good (and loud), and the songs were for the most part well-chosen, including 2 contemporary versions of older hymns (including Amazing Grace, always a winner).  The pastor was a fair speaker, but talked way too long, and said virtually nothing that couldn’t have been said in under 10 minutes.  Then they did a quick offering during a reprise of one of the worship choruses.

Church #2

On the other hand, at St. Paul’s Episcopal we sang about the same number of hymns, not counting various liturgical choruses and a responsive chant of Psalm 111.  They read selections from the Old Testament, the Epistles, the Gospels, and of course the chanted Psalm.  There was a sermon – barely 10 minutes, but well thought-out and providing food for thought (a little pun… the text was John 6:51-58) on a very difficult text.

We also publicly confessed sin, received an affirmation of forgiveness, spent time in intercessory prayer, proclaimed our faith in reciting the Nicene Creed, corporately prayed the Lord’s Prayer, heard some amazing special music and celebrated the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist).

All that, in under one hour.

Food for thought

Again, I did not particularly dislike church #1.  But again, the contrast between my 2 church experiences this morning reveals something, I think, about evangelical Christianity.  I keep coming back to Marshall McLuhan’s concept “the medium is the message,” because I think it’s directly applicable to church. What we do – or not do – and how we do it reveal both our priorities and our beliefs.

It is easy to see in the Episcopal worship service what they believe and what they value: Scripture, worship of the Trinity, a commitment to the historic faith and the ever-present work of Christ as celebrated in the Eucharist.

In church #1, it was not so easy to discover what they believed. I presume – because I know the denomination – they are Trinitarians and believe in the authority of Scripture, but I wouldn’t know this from the service. It was evident that they valued contemporary music and a quality sound system, and that they valued the perspective of the pastor (the sermon took the majority of the service).  But, what does what is lacking in the service say about their beliefs and values?

I am not blaming church #1 for their rather featureless service; I believe they inherited a contemporary, anti-liturgical and anti-historical form and have taken it for granted. It possibly has not occurred to most of them that they leave the service with relatively little, and having done very little.  Fellowship, corporate singing and some teaching are, of course, not without value; the question is, is it enough?

Written on 16 August 2009 by me under Church, The Liturgy with 4 Comments
Tagged with , , , , , , ,

In defense of the Liturgy

Having spent 30 years wandering among various evangelical camps (referring to the “new” evangelicals, not the more broad definition that would include Lutherans, the first group to call themselves “evangelical”), I know that most Western Christians today suffer from a historical myopia, and are largely ignorant about the rest of the Church. There are many Christians who think they know about the liturgical church, but what they know is not only very small, some of it is more myth than truth. The Western Evangelical church, speaking in general terms, is not only myopic, but often adds arrogance to their ignorance. This is not true of everyone, obviously, but I’ve witnessed it on many of the evangelical blogs I have visited, as have witnessed it first-hand, not only by common-class Christians, but also by Pastors, who of all people should know better.  One of the more common issues concerns the liturgy itself, which is often seen as dry, lifeless, and lacking in any kind of personal spirituality. There’s an old joke that liturgy is there in case the Holy Spirit doesn’t show up. However, nothing can be further from the truth.

One of the primary complaints about liturgy is that everything is scripted for you; there is no room for spontaneity. This is, of course, true for the most part, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Neither is it that different from the typical non-liturgical church.  Most evangelical churches that I have attended follow the same basic format each week, so after the first couple of visits you pretty much know what is happening from then on.  For the first section of the service, there is music, whether a half hour of choruses, or a combination of performance and congregational singing. None of the songs are written by you, or chosen by you; that’s up to whoever is in charge. The words to the songs are all written down for you, whether in a hymnal or displayed on the big screen; unless you’re the worship leader, you have no ability to alter them.  At some point, there are announcements, probably an offering, and a sermon.  There’s probably an ending song of some sort, then you go home.  It doesn’t sound that spontaneous, does it?  Not only that, you really didn’t get to do much. Church is performed by professionals, for you.

The major difference between liturgical and non-liturgical worship is not that things are written down for you; the difference is in the content. I got tired of singing 30-40 minutes of songs, most of which contained little or no truth about God. Many of the songs express the personal feelings and experiences of the songwriter, and can’t possibly represent either universal truth or the feelings of everyone in attendance.

In a liturgical church, you would sing songs, all of which contain serious theological truths. You would confess that you are a sinner, acknowledge your forgiveness, recite one of the creeds, and pray a few well-conceived prayers, including the Lord’s Prayer.  Everything in the liturgy applies to everyone, at every time. Some of the liturgy actually dates back to the 4th Century, and the same words and thoughts have been said thousands of times by millions of Christians down through the ages. Besides being universally true, the liturgy connects us to the historical church (another element that is completely missing in most non-liturgical churches).

Besides that, you would have heard the Bible read, not just proof-texts to support the pastor’s sermon, but read with the intent of letting the Word impact you. You’d hear from the Old Testament, the Psalms, the Epistles, and the Gospel. There would be a short sermon based on one of the Scripture texts, and then you’d celebrate the Eucharist (i.e. communion). The entire service – with the exception of the 10 minute sermon and perhaps some special music by the choir – is participatory.

The liturgy is, in effect, a play, in which the pastor has a role (celebrant), as does everyone else; it is a dramatic reenactment of the Gospel. When you attend a liturgical worship service, you do not go to sit, you go to participate.  And, because the liturgy is so intentional, scripted and theologically sound, there’s very little a pastor/priest can do to hijack the service. It doesn’t matter if he has an off day; the liturgy remains as always. In fact, in a liturgical church, the pastor is easily replaceable, with little effect. And, you never have to worry about whether the pastor will have anything meaningful to say. In liturgical churches, it’s not about the sermon. The content is in the liturgy itself. If you pay attention to the liturgy, the truth will amaze you, and there will be no doubt that the Holy Spirit is present.  Furthermore, how you feel isn’t important. It’s not about how well you worshiped, or whether you felt spiritual; in fact, the point of the liturgy is that it isn’t dependent upon you at all.

There are scores of evangelicals, including seminary professors, who are joining the liturgical churches as they, too, are drawn toward the truth and power of the liturgy.  For a little more on what liturgy is all about, here is a nice little article that sums it all up.

Written on 07 January 2009 by me under Church with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , ,

The Church: simul iustus et peccator

Many years ago, concerned by friends leaving our church, I preached a sermon on the topic, “what is the church?”  I could not find a copy of my notes, but I am guessing that I probably would not agree with much of what I said back then.  After a few years as a church elder and dealing with a vast array of problems, I significanly revised my thinking on the church. If you looked back at some of my writing from this period, you’d note that I sounded quite emergent, before emergent existed. However, that, too, has passed. After many years of thinking, reading and writing about ecclesiological issues, I find myself almost full circle, coming back to a more traditional view of the church.

David Hayward has written recently about the nature of church, saying, “The truth is that it is basically a group of people in relationship with one another and with the spirit of Jesus.“  I would have to agree that this definition follows Jesus’ promise in Matthew 18:20, “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.“  There is an element of church that exists wherever Christians are in relationship, even if  no prior relationship existed between the individuals; our connection to Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit is sufficient for relationship, and church, to happen. However, I suspect that in many cases church relationships have become predominantly horizontal; that is, we no longer see our connection to the local church as based in Christ, but rather upon any number of extrinsic elements.  The invisible, universal Church is one thing; the local church is quite another.

One of the unfortunate results from Martin Luther’s rediscovery of the priesthood of all believers is that we see ourselves as somewhat independent and self-sufficient; it’s truly “me and Jesus.” However, what we fail to realize is that we are priests not just for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others, the local community of believers. We are truly dependent upon each other. This is seen most clearly in the administration of the sacraments – baptism and communion – something which evangelicalism has also lost. The sacraments, having lost any sense of incarnational theology, have been reduced to rituals, memorials or testimonies, rather than a true expressions of the work of Christ. When attempts are made to “spiritualize” them, the result is often akin to superstition.

For Luther, the church was an expression of the Gospel, and was in fact founded on the Gospel, that we are justified sola gratia, by grace alone. The church, in Luther’s mind, is also seen as a communal version of his anthropology, that we are simul iustus et peccator, simultaneously saint and sinner. That is, in Christ we are, as is often phrased today, in the “already and not yet,” sinners who have been undone and condemned by the Law, but remade and are being sanctified by Christ.

The Church is expressed locally when Christians gather in faith, with the common belief that we are simul iustus et peccator, sinners dependent upon the cross. There is no other basis for communion.  When we corporately respond to the preaching of the Gospel and respond in faith, the church itself is undone and reacreated. Therefore, “unity” is only possible through the work of grace in the corporate gathering. There is, therefore, no need for pastors to exhort followers to “get on the same page” or do anything else to create or preserve unity in the church; whatever these issues are, they are immaterial. Unity and the corporate expression of the Church is solely based in the Gospel and our shared faith in the Cross.

This does not necessarily make finding a local church easy; even within the various liturgical church denominations, there are varying expressions, ranging from “low” church expressions with modified liturgies to “high” church expressions with all the bells and smells. Style and personalities are a factor; however, when all is said and done, we are made a church not by any of these things, but because we are all simul iustus et peccator.

Written on 27 November 2008 by me under Church, Theological Musings with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , , , , ,