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.

Posted in Church | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

A word to the wise

… from the Naked Pastor:

Posted in Church | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Between two worlds

“Between two worlds.” That’s a bit how I was feeling this morning, as I drove away from St. Paul’s Episcopal to attend my second worship service of the day at Salem Evangelical with my family.  As I’ve probably written before, my wife and I have been “Vineyard” for over twenty years, attending 5 different Vineyard churches over that period.  Besides the fact that my oldest was baptized in the Presbyterian church that my in-laws attended, and that we visited there 2 or 3 times over the years, the Vineyard is the only church that my kids have known.  For those of you not familiar with the Vineyard, it’s about as relaxed and informal a church as you can find; so for my children, any church where you can’t walk around or talk during worship is formal.  I have to say that at this point in my life, I have some regrets about that.

I was raised Lutheran, so liturgy is not new to me.  I’ve also visited Orthodox churches several times, so I’ve also been exposed to “extreme” high church.  For many years, I was completely content – even happy – with my informal church setting, never dreaming that I would someday start missing the liturgy.  But, the more theology I read, the more I became aware of how empty most contemporary worship services are. I won’t go into that any further now; I’ve dealt with some of that in some earlier posts.  At some point I began to realize that for me, the Vineyard was just a shallow veneer laid over the top of my richer church background and theology, but for those who have no background in theology (or Bible, for that matter), a veneer was all that there was. Most contemporary churches offer no theology, not even a hat tip to the creeds or Lord’s Prayer. The hymnology – if you could call it that – was also greatly lacking any real theological content.

So, now I find myself in search of a richer, more historically rooted worship expression, and I’m thrilled to have found a couple of good Episcopal churches in the area.  I still visit Lutheran churches on occasion, however I’m disappointed with how watered-down the liturgy seems to have become, especially when “special,” more relevant liturgies are used. I’m becoming quite fond of the Episcopal liturgy, so I will probably become more of a regular at St. Paul’s. However, there’s no way I’m expecting my family to attend with me; so, I have resolved to attend early services at Episcopal and Lutheran churches, then attend the local Evangelical church with my family.

They haven’t fully decided on Salem Evangelical either, however my neighbor is the pastor, and we respect him a lot. We all have a bit of a hard time with it culturally – it’s a bit like watching one of those televised services full of shiny, happy people – but they are both sincere and intent on what they do; and, it’s a pretty solid church.  They always have a public prayer time during the service, and have recently started giving place to the reading of Scripture – something not found in most contemporary churches.  And, they’re very involved in missions, always having teams off to one place or another.  So, while I cringe at the middle-aged choir singing “up-beat” choruses, the rest of the service, along with the message, is quite solid.  It certainly sets a better example of what it means to be a Christian than our old church.

But, it’s not enough for me.  I’m finding that I crave the historical church experience – the confessions, the prayers, the Lord’s Supper – enough to get up for the early services.  However, I can’t see ever becoming any more than a regular guest at any liturgical church, as I won’t join a church by myself. And, I can’t see at this point becoming part of the Evangelical church, although that could change, as long as we were all up front about my “alternate lifestyle.” But, in all this I am finding myself in 2 worlds, but at the same time not really in either one. I am between two worlds, and I’m not really comfortable there, either.

Posted in Church | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Thoughts for a New Year: perhaps we really are special?

Just when we think we know something, we find a twist that could unravel it all.  This morning I ran across an article from the November issue of New Scientist that challenges current thoughts on cosmology:

IT WAS the evolutionary theory of its age. A revolutionary hypothesis that undermined the cherished notion that we humans are somehow special, driving a deep wedge between science and religion. The philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for espousing it; Galileo Galilei, the most brilliant scientist of his age, was silenced. But Nicolaus Copernicus’s idea that Earth was just one of many planets orbiting the sun – and so occupied no exceptional position in the cosmos – has endured and become a foundation stone of our understanding of the universe.

Could it actually be wrong, though?

Nearly everyone accepts the thought that our little corner of the universe is the same, more or less, as the rest of the universe. While some claim that Earth is uniquely designed for life, they still accept the thought that the universe is more or less homogeneous. The homogenous principle, along with the isotropic principle (that the universe looks essentially the same from any angle), are necessary to make Einstein’s theory of relativity work. As the article also states,

They were introduced into cosmology not because of any observational evidence, but to save face. In 1917, Albert Einstein had applied his theory of gravity – general relativity – to the dynamics of the universe. Without the simplifying assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy, Einstein’s fiendishly complex equations proved impossible to solve.

Author Marcus Chown goes on to explain how cosmological models had to change to incorporate new information, including inventing “dark energy” to make the pieces fit (an “energy of the gaps” theory), only to find that dark energy doesn’t really work, either.

That is grounds enough, says George Ellis, a leading cosmology theorist based at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, to take a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it. “If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start questioning the Copernican principle.”

An interesting thought.  An alternative model has been suggested by Ellis, that Earth could be sitting in what is essentially a large bubble of less density than what is outside of the bubble.  And, to explain for the seemingly apparent isotropic universe that we can see, Earth would have to be very near the center of the bubble.

Here we go again.   The full article is here.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment