reform1509
Puritan Board Freshman
Any comments on ways in which liturgical ideas creep into evangelical worship today? Any thoughts? What are some dangers, trends, or blind spot?
Your input is appreciated.
Your input is appreciated.
How does liturgy impact your church?
- Thread starter reform1509
- Start date
- Status
Matt,
I'm guessing you mean by liturgical ideas, the introduction of various "high-church" practices into what we might characterize as historically "low-church," or puritan-esque churches. Because these categories are intentionally amorphous, and not tied to a specific tradition, answers to your query must be varied in nature.
Some churches adopt certain practices, because (rightly or wrongly) they are seeking to "recover" something from some time in the past in their own tradition's history. A practice went out of vogue, and now it seems desirable to revisit the question of whether losing it was a good idea.
Some churches have (literally) no historical mind to them whatever. They began doing church in a manner that was consistent with patterns around them, or possibly with a view to be "different" from what was common around them. At some point the present pattern feels dull, or what once was "edgy" now seems ordinary. So, in a quest for something new, something "old" catches the eye. No one is doing that anymore, so maybe it's more "authentic" (not like all the religious pretenders around here!).
It's possible that there is actually plenty of faux-religiosity in the churches generally. Church as a "production," complete with stage, individually miked stars, and makeup, is nothing if not superficial. But the answer to SandiPatty wannabe soloists in a spotlight isn't necessarily candelabras and Gregorian chanting sounding vaguely Buddhist. The former is only about as relevant as the Baby-boomers; but the latter, while liturgical, isn't necessarily better worship. Both (it seems to me) are instances of "experience" driven worship investigation, searching for the 21st century euphoria.
And I suspect that a desire for a new "high" is what many of those drifting back into ultrahigh-church, smells-and-bells format are after. That, and connection to something bigger and more "real" than the shallow materialism and digital enhancements of modern life; pieces of which are often absorbed into the church's worship, consciously or unconsciously.
There's also the luxury of rote-behaviors. A minimum of set-forms can be a good thing; it was Jesus who gave his disciples the model-prayer. Songs are best sung to set words and music (and by everyone). But the church came up with entire services regulated to the minute and to the syllable, much of it performed by the actors at the front. Now, the last half-century of modern worship has included--as a kind of foil to the performance model--the engagement model, in which the attendees get emotionally and sometimes bodily exercised by the experience of worship. But the drawback is that such exercise is exhausting.
If the reality of my worship depends heavily on my emotional state, then at some point I'm tempted to "fake it till I make it." People get burnt out when they have to gin it up every Sunday. And then, the [-]preacher[/-] motivational speaker gives them self-help tips to help them succeed starting on Monday. But by Tuesday (or at most Friday) all this week's resolutions have been broken by all. Well, except for pastor-Joe, who's cooked up a fresh batch of tips on how adding a dash of Jesus to everything will make my whole life taste better. Just pray real hard, and truly mean it this Sunday...
That's a killer-workout. But a church-calendar means that I only really need to get into that mindset for forty days, once a year. And I can just get onto the religious ferris wheel every so often, and let it carry me up and over and let me off on the downside, and that's a relief--after all those years and fruitless efforts and hypocrisy in evangelical-land.
**************************************
Those are some ideas. There are lots of reasons why people may be searching for a deeper, more serious and meaningful religious expression. Liturgy (of any kind) implies that someone, somewhere, has given some thought to this thing called worship. There are lots of people who desire something other than either entertainment or bland, pointless mumbo-jumbo, that might as well be in Latin for all the good it does the attendees.
Some recovery may be necessary, even for those who intentionally worship in "the plain style." What is needed is really not a return to old or even ancient patterns, per se. What is required is a theology of worship that creates its own, biblically shaped, NT directed worship pattern. This is what the Reformers attempted to do. They made a recovery, and passed it on to their heirs. And their heirs have in many situations let that pattern go decrepit, lose form, or (almost as bad) maintain the form while losing the theology, or forgetting the intention behind what was restored by way of liturgical pattern.
I'm guessing you mean by liturgical ideas, the introduction of various "high-church" practices into what we might characterize as historically "low-church," or puritan-esque churches. Because these categories are intentionally amorphous, and not tied to a specific tradition, answers to your query must be varied in nature.
Some churches adopt certain practices, because (rightly or wrongly) they are seeking to "recover" something from some time in the past in their own tradition's history. A practice went out of vogue, and now it seems desirable to revisit the question of whether losing it was a good idea.
Some churches have (literally) no historical mind to them whatever. They began doing church in a manner that was consistent with patterns around them, or possibly with a view to be "different" from what was common around them. At some point the present pattern feels dull, or what once was "edgy" now seems ordinary. So, in a quest for something new, something "old" catches the eye. No one is doing that anymore, so maybe it's more "authentic" (not like all the religious pretenders around here!).
It's possible that there is actually plenty of faux-religiosity in the churches generally. Church as a "production," complete with stage, individually miked stars, and makeup, is nothing if not superficial. But the answer to SandiPatty wannabe soloists in a spotlight isn't necessarily candelabras and Gregorian chanting sounding vaguely Buddhist. The former is only about as relevant as the Baby-boomers; but the latter, while liturgical, isn't necessarily better worship. Both (it seems to me) are instances of "experience" driven worship investigation, searching for the 21st century euphoria.
And I suspect that a desire for a new "high" is what many of those drifting back into ultrahigh-church, smells-and-bells format are after. That, and connection to something bigger and more "real" than the shallow materialism and digital enhancements of modern life; pieces of which are often absorbed into the church's worship, consciously or unconsciously.
There's also the luxury of rote-behaviors. A minimum of set-forms can be a good thing; it was Jesus who gave his disciples the model-prayer. Songs are best sung to set words and music (and by everyone). But the church came up with entire services regulated to the minute and to the syllable, much of it performed by the actors at the front. Now, the last half-century of modern worship has included--as a kind of foil to the performance model--the engagement model, in which the attendees get emotionally and sometimes bodily exercised by the experience of worship. But the drawback is that such exercise is exhausting.
If the reality of my worship depends heavily on my emotional state, then at some point I'm tempted to "fake it till I make it." People get burnt out when they have to gin it up every Sunday. And then, the [-]preacher[/-] motivational speaker gives them self-help tips to help them succeed starting on Monday. But by Tuesday (or at most Friday) all this week's resolutions have been broken by all. Well, except for pastor-Joe, who's cooked up a fresh batch of tips on how adding a dash of Jesus to everything will make my whole life taste better. Just pray real hard, and truly mean it this Sunday...
That's a killer-workout. But a church-calendar means that I only really need to get into that mindset for forty days, once a year. And I can just get onto the religious ferris wheel every so often, and let it carry me up and over and let me off on the downside, and that's a relief--after all those years and fruitless efforts and hypocrisy in evangelical-land.
**************************************
Those are some ideas. There are lots of reasons why people may be searching for a deeper, more serious and meaningful religious expression. Liturgy (of any kind) implies that someone, somewhere, has given some thought to this thing called worship. There are lots of people who desire something other than either entertainment or bland, pointless mumbo-jumbo, that might as well be in Latin for all the good it does the attendees.
Some recovery may be necessary, even for those who intentionally worship in "the plain style." What is needed is really not a return to old or even ancient patterns, per se. What is required is a theology of worship that creates its own, biblically shaped, NT directed worship pattern. This is what the Reformers attempted to do. They made a recovery, and passed it on to their heirs. And their heirs have in many situations let that pattern go decrepit, lose form, or (almost as bad) maintain the form while losing the theology, or forgetting the intention behind what was restored by way of liturgical pattern.
reform1509
Puritan Board Freshman
Very thoughtful and entertaining read. Thank you! 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
reform1509
Puritan Board Freshman
Good points.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
Fantastic responses! Thanks for taking the time, Edward and Bruce. I'm saving this one
reform1509
Puritan Board Freshman
Indeed. Thnx.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One blind spot might be the quest for something new. There is a paradigm among some that new is always better. Therefore, anything that is 'new' liturgy is good liturgy.
Another blind spot might be coveting anything that is old. There is a paradigm among some that old is always better. Therefore, anything that is 'old' liturgy is good liturgy.
What needs to be avoided is the attitude of 'that particular liturgy did not work for me'. That is pragmatism. Pragmatism is the blind spot that is common between the two paradigms.
The church needs to worship according to the RPW...week, after week, after week. It is not the 'experience' that a Christian has on one particular week that matters. It is a life regulated by the weekly worship of God that matters.
Another blind spot might be coveting anything that is old. There is a paradigm among some that old is always better. Therefore, anything that is 'old' liturgy is good liturgy.
What needs to be avoided is the attitude of 'that particular liturgy did not work for me'. That is pragmatism. Pragmatism is the blind spot that is common between the two paradigms.
The church needs to worship according to the RPW...week, after week, after week. It is not the 'experience' that a Christian has on one particular week that matters. It is a life regulated by the weekly worship of God that matters.
- Status
