I am starting this post even as I finish reading this article called “A Deeper Relevance” on Christianity Today’s website. It’s by Mark Galli. Oh, it’s so what I’ve been wanting to say about liturgical worship!
If you need some teasers, here are a few quotes:
“The liturgy begins … as a real separation from the world,” writes Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann. He continues by saying that in the attempt to “make Christianity understandable to this mythical ‘modern’ man on the street,” we have forgotten this necessary separation.
…the first thing this liturgy asks us to rethink is what we mean by “relevant” worship.
Why this liturgy? Why this form? Because not only its content but also its shape have ushered people into a transcendent culture, where they meet the Trinitarian God and take their first baby steps in his kingdom.
I’ll let you click over and read the rest for yourself, but I welcome comments here. I also encourage everyone to get CT’s daily emails; they send you links to tons of great articles, some of which will not be found in the magazine.
May 2, 2008 at 2:37 pm
thanks for this link…
May 2, 2008 at 2:53 pm
You’re most welcome!
May 2, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Thanks for the link Tom. A very interesting article. I come from a background that holds liturgical worship, as a vehicle for worshipping God, in high esteem; and have often struggled a bit when taken out of that familiar comfort zone. I find it incredible when you get a real sense of the numinous presence of God, in a service where the words and actions are more or less the same as they have been for centuries. That isn’t to deny that it can happen in a less formal, spontaneously led, service; I’ve been lucky enough to be present on some amazing occasions. But, for me, mostly, I find the liturgy a great help in worship, and the informal services more of a hindrance. That is, though, a very personal view. I know several people who feel strongly the opposite way around to me. One of the advantages to having many different types of Church, is that they can cater to many different types of people.
May 2, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Nice article… I like his point about how the ancient liturgies, because of thier “irrelevant” nature, lead us away from ourselves and into God and God’s Kingdom, something more ultimately relevant.
May 2, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Yeah, I think that some people are just so ingrained in a negative view of liturgy that they will never see the majesty of God into which it is meant to draw us (and, to be honest, some clergy make liturgy so dead that people actually think it’s always that way! Sad!).
But there are elements that are given to us by our shared liturgical heritage that all churches should really explore; one is the fourfold pattern of worship – the Gathering, the Service of the Word, the Service of the Table and Thanksgiving (Eucharist) and the Sending Out – which can draw any congregation into the presence of God, feed them on the Word and Sacraments, and then send them out into the world to love and serve the risen Christ. Robert Webber (I am like a broken record with his writings) promoted that as a universally beneficial model that would be as much at home in a Pentecostal church as it would in an Anglican fellowship.
But I ramble…
May 6, 2008 at 3:01 pm
A friend went to a different Church on Sunday, and found it really quite difficult. She struggled with the lack of structure — Tom’s fourfold pattern — to the service. She is a member of our Church so is used to relatively formal structure of the C-of-E liturgy. The main comment she made was that, when it came to the Eucharist, she just didn’t feel as though what preceded it had prepared her for it. I have felt much the same when attending different Churches, so could really sympathise with her view. It’s odd how we get so used to one way of doing things that we find it difficult to change.
May 6, 2008 at 8:26 pm
My priest, Alan, said two things that leapt into the front of my brain when I read your comment:
“The Service of Holy Communion has basically two peaks: the service of the Word and service of Table”. A lot of churches don’t see that rising and falling that really brings movement and meaning to the worship.
Second, as I was getting more involved in the church and questioning a lot of the liturgical worship and the traditions: “Once you go Anglican, Tom, you’ll never go back”. He said it with tongue in cheek, but my! How right he was! I could probably go the other direction (Anglo-Catholic, Eastern Orthodox if everyone could take the Eucharist with me), but I don’t think I could go non-liturgical (as if there’s such a thing, but that’s a comment for another post).
Paul, you keep prompting new posts in my mind… I’m gonna have to get cracking and do some writing this week!
God’s blessings to you and yours.
May 8, 2008 at 3:48 pm
A really well led non-liturgical, or informal, service can be a joy; but I don’t think I could cope with it as a regular diet. In the same way, I enjoy the really ‘high’, anglo-catholic services, such as I experienced at Walsingham — they would make St Peters, Rome, look positively ‘low’ church — but I think I would find it over-powering for regular fare. At Godmanchester, I guess we would be considered on the high side of ‘middle of the road’ — a strong liturgical tradition, but without all of the twiddly bits (as a friend of mine calls it) of the really ‘high’ churches — and that suits me just fine.
One of the advantages, to my mind, of the Anglican Church, is that there is room for all flavours of churchmanship to exist side by side. That, coupled with the ease of transport for most people, at least here in the UK, has gone a long way to turning us into pick-’n'-mix worshippers. People are much more likely, now, to cross parish boundaries to go to a church of their choosing, rather than their own parish church. I do that myself, though only a couple of miles, and to the church I’ve always been to — since birth.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I’m not sure. It’s a question I keep coming back to. And I have tried other churches; but they’re just not Godmanchester.
May 9, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“One of the advantages, to my mind, of the Anglican Church, is that there is room for all flavours of churchmanship to exist side by side.”
Amen. One aspect of the Anglican Mission in America, to which we currently belong, lifts up the various “streams” of the Church: Evangelical, Charismatic, Liturgical… It reminds me of the book “Streams of Living Water” by Richard Foster. Good book.
That diversity, that openness, is why I love and harp on the term “blended worship” so adamantly. A lot of people and churches limit that term to music, but it is so much more than that!
And I also question whether going to the “church of your choosing” is a good thing. People benefit from being out of their comfort zones.
I ramble. Time for dinner. Chau for now.