Liturgical Worship Is Dead

"Liturgical worship is dead."

"God only likes extemporaneous prayer, not 'canned' prayers."

"Anglican worship is boring! Get up, dance, have some fun!"

I have heard every single one of these objections (and then some) to liturgical worship. When I was an evangelical Protestant, I probably would have even made some of these claims, despite the fact that I had never even attended a strongly liturgical church. My view of liturgical worship was pretty typical of other evangelicals: dead ritual. Yes, I thought liturgical churches were dead. To a non-Christian, the word “liturgical” might mean the worship is not lively, but as Christians, the implications are more serious. When someone calls a church "dead" they mean that the worship is not only boring or stale, but that it is not following the will of God, that it has turned its back on “true” Christian worship or worse again that God has turned his back on that church. Despite my strong opinions, I never even bothered looking into what liturgical worship was, nor did I even know what liturgical meant, let alone its history. For me, liturgical meant ritual and rote, and surely I would never embrace either of the two.

While I was reading and studying worship and Church history as an evangelical, I began to struggle with the reality that the style of worship I preferred was not only unknown until the 20th century, but was strikingly ritualistic. Even though I attended a "praise and worship" service, rote and ritual abounded. Even though we sang songs, we usually sang the same ones over and over again. Every Sunday, the service consisted of the same structure: welcome, song, reading, song, sermon, song, prayer, song. The minister read from the same book, the Bible, every week. The same people who clapped to the songs one week usually did the next, and those who stood still usually did so every Sunday. We met at the same time every week, and the same day. We never switched buildings, and the same people led the Church services. Many brought their Bibles to church faithfully every week by rote, rarely opening them on weekdays. Once I began to look for ritual and rote in my own tradition, I found them. Even when I visited my parents church which is in a more contemporary evangelical setting, itself suspicious of too much ritual, the same ritualistic pattern persisted, despite the claim that ritual and rote were at best signs of a "dead" church, or at worst, somehow evil. What I realized is that we are all traditional and ritualistic to some degree.

The only way a church can be free from ritual and rote is to do everything newly each week. I guess such a church might exist, but it would have to switch buildings, and even members, to be totally free from tradition and ritual. Imagine a church like that... newly composed hymns each week, new music genres and instruments, readings from all sorts of sacred texts, different members attending weekly, worship services on different days and times, and switching buildings. Even then, after awhile, the factors I just mentioned become rituals of their own. One could go crazy trying to completely escape ritual. I am sure many have tried hard, in an attempt to avoid those dreaded "R" words.

But as I have shown above, we can never truly be free from ritual. If you succeed in being freed from all ritual, let me know... I’ll buy you a coffee as a reward. Just be careful though, because if you do something well-enough to succeed, then it is likely that it too has become a ritual. The question then becomes, "what kind of ritual do I want to participate in?" This might boil down to a matter of personality style, personal history, etc. But well let’s face it, when all is said and done, if one is going to be ritualistic, one might as well worship in a well-grounded, biblical, and historical ritual that has been proved over the centuries. This is where ancient Christian liturgy comes in.

Among many Christians, Liturgical worship has gotten a terrible reputation. The problem is that liturgy has become synonymous with "boring." Many picture a handful of elderly individuals in an old church simply repeating prayers long after they actually believed the words to them – I must admit this is something that does worry me about the liturgy, because I often feel that some people who recite the words have little care for the meaning. Yet even with my worries I know that such a view of liturgy is not only a gloomy and inaccurate way to portray liturgical worship! In reality, liturgy comes from the Greek word meaning "work of the people," and it describes a form of worship, directed to God, by God's people. Going by that definition we could describe almost every worship service as “liturgical” (in one way or another), but obviously the worship of some churches involves more work of more people. Try this test sometime during your church service. Pay attention to how much you participate in the worship of your church. Pay attention to roughly how many words are spoken, how many prayers are said, etc, and then ask yourself about what percentage you actually participated in. Did the congregation say any prayers together? Did you sing together? Did you take communion together? Then consider the worship leaders or pastors. Think of a percentage of participation for them as well. The results might surprise you as to how little you actually participate, and how much you simply sit back and provide a passive audience for the worship leaders. Even if you consider your participation level high, ask yourself how much the people actually work together to worship. Does each person simply say his own prayers while the pastor prays his own prayer? Are the people gathered together a real community, or a group in which each does his or her own thing? For example, do you take communion from a common cup? Do you say anything as a group?

I applied this same test almost a two years ago in my old church. I paid close attention to how much the worship service was actually the work of the people. The services is turned out were almost entirely the work of the pastor. We sang a few psalms together, but after that our participation ended. Whenever prayer was said, the pastor said it all, the congregation just stood and listened. Even during a baptism, the pastor was the only one who said anything. The sermon was often very long, and in the end, I observed how the congregation really didn't do a thing; the pastor did. After that service, I left in a hurry to get some lunch, while the pastor and worship team probably felt revitalized. I started flicking through the Bible and reading random texts after the sermon went over 20 minutes, but the pastor probably left with a sense of hearing God's word. Why? The reason is that the pastor and worship team actually participated in the worship service, and I was merely a member of the audience, sitting back passively.

While it took awhile to work through old prejudices rooted in nothing but stereotypes and half-truths, I now know that liturgy is not dead. How could the work of the people worshipping God ever be dead? Praying common prayers like the Lord's Prayer, while not extemporaneous, are at least biblical prayers prayed by the people, and not simply to the people. Liturgy is not synonymous with rote either. Liturgy when done well, and done historically, leaves much room for extemporaneous prayers and petitions, as well as songs and hymns of different styles and ages, different colors, different church seasons, and scripture readings and this is really where Anglicanism has begun to shine. Liturgy can be traditional and less traditional, and all liturgy should not be judged by bad liturgy. In fact, the great variety allowed in liturgical worship actually rivals that of non-liturgical churches, whose colours, songs, and moods often remain the same the entire year. Think about it. Which is more repetitive, praise songs every week of the year, or worship that varies by the seasons? When does a non liturgical service indulge our need for awe? For Penitence? For reflection? – Rarely if indeed ever. Liturgical worship is also thoroughly bible-based. Most liturgical churches including the Church of Ireland have a lectionary, which means that over three years, 95% of the Bible will be read aloud in Church. Every Sunday, an Old Testament, New Testament, Gospel, and Psalm reading are read aloud. Also, the common liturgies of the Anglican, Roman and Eastern Churches are lifted almost entirely from the Bible. While worshipping in a Anglican church, if you know the Bible well, you will always be saying to yourself, "hey, that's from 1st Chronicles," "oh, Jesus said that in Luke," and so forth. The daily prayer services of the Church, called the Divine Office, also consist primarily of psalms and other hymns taken straight from the Bible.

Those of us who use a liturgy in our services participate in another important way: we often celebrate the Eucharist weekly or (like in Cathedrals) daily, continually observing Christ's command to "do this in remembrance of me." Eucharist, which most people over here probably call the Lord’s Supper or Communion, is the coming of the entire community to God's table to partake of Christ's body and blood and to remember his one sufficient sacrifice for our sins on the cross. For us communion is the main event in our worship, rather than the preaching. The sermon (called a homily though I am yet to hear anyone modern calling them this) is simply a 10-20 minute reflection on the gospel, occurring near the middle of the worship service. I am used to a 50 minute long sermon full of exposition but in the Anglican system this is practically unheard of. This is because the work of the people is the reason for the service rather than the Preacher’s sermons. Of course the Eucharist requires active participation by the community. No one can passively participate in the Eucharist, simply because it requires you to stand and sit, and at least leave your seat (although one can choose to simply remain still... and reflect).

This is not to say we Anglicans and our Roman and Orthodox brethren and sisters don't have a lot to learn from our more Pentecostal brothers and sisters who worship in a more "contemporary" way. Contemporary praise and worship services are full of enthusiasm, purpose, and a general excitement about one's faith. While all of these elements can be taken to excess – and can even be abused, we Anglicans could learn to be a little more enthusiastic and purposeful about our faith. Also, long sermons do provide a good chance for religious education and hearing the message of God and they can be of real benefit. When we begin to view the homily as insignificant, it causes us to miss out on hearing the word of God and maybe moving the sermon closer to the centre of worship could really increase Christian knowledge and encourage those in the ministry to take a more active role in the life of their congregations so that sermons and messages can remain contemporary, meaningful and relatable.

Now whenever somebody asks me if liturgical worship is dead, I explain to them what liturgical worship is, its basis in true Biblical Worship, especially in the worship of the ancient Hebrews, its celebration of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, its reflection of every emotion through the celebrations of the church year, and its use of common prayer to unite the community. I tell them that liturgy includes room for contemporary worship as well as more ancient forms and If they are curious, I invite them to a service, and I hope they will see that far from being dead, many of us liturgical Christians are very much alive in our faith in Jesus Christ, whose body and blood we partake of weekly, worshiping with Christians past and present all to the Glory of God.

Riots...

Following the mayhem on Ulster's streets this summer, we need to be reminded that it is the Christian's duty to submit to the State, even to a wicked state, which persecutes the church. That was the kind of state to which the apostles enjoined submission.

The Scriptures teach that all civil authority is ordained of God (Rom. 13; 1 Peter 2:13-14). 

To today's Ulster ''Protestant'' they would say, submit yourself to the Queen, the prime minister, the police  and all other delegations of authority through which they rule over you (including the parades commission), even if the aforementioned authorities make unjust and foolish decisions. The Heidelberg Catechism says we should "patiently bear with their [the government's] weaknesses and infirmities, since it pleases God to govern us by their hand" (A. 104). The Westminster Larger Catechism forbids "contempt of, and rebellion against" the civil authorities and "cursing, mocking and all such refractory and scandalous carriage [against them]" (A. 128).

Nero, the wicked and evil Roman emperor, was "ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1), as was that tyrant Pharaoh whom God "raised up" (Rom. 9:17). All such wicked men will give account for their rule to King Jesus on the Last Day. God even ordains the kind of government there will be: whether a democracy, or a dictatorship. God decides who is elected. Even men who come to power by deceit, violence or other forms of wickedness (such as Nero) are ordained of God. God will judge them for their wickedness, yet He still sovereignly raised them up.

Christians must also submit to their employers (I Peter 2:18). James describes the Christian workman who, instead of resisting his unrighteous employer (5:4-7), cries unto God (5:4) and is enjoined to be patient (5:7). Christians are not permitted to rebel against these authorities, with road-blocks, riots, shootings or civil rebellion of any kind. Christians do not have the power of the sword, the state does (Rom. 13:4). Our weapons are not carnal (II Cor. 10:4).

A Christian may, however, disobey the powers that be, but that is only when the state requires the Christian do something forbidden by the Word of God (Acts 5:29). Then the church disobeys that order, while remaining submissive, suffering persecution if God wills, committing her way to Christ, who alone gathers, preserves and defends His church. Even in disobedience, the Christian must display the submissive, meek and respectful attitude to the God-ordained authority that characterised Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (Dan. 3:16-18).

The Christian ethic is not to insist on one's own way but to do good and suffer, but never as a murderer, or a thief or as an evil-doer (I Peter 2:20, 4:15). Peter would not have excused the behaviour of rioters, and Paul warned that those who resist the civil powers "shall receive to themselves damnation" (Rom. 13:2).

Surely this is the spirit of Christ's teaching in passages such as Matthew 5:39-41: "Resist not evil ... let him have thy cloak also ... go with him twain."

Drumcree

During the 40 years wandering in the wilderness the children of Israel came to Kadesh.


 From there Moses sent messages to the King of Edom explaining their situation and requesting permission to walk The King’s Highway, the main arterial and trade route from the Gull of Aqaba to Damascus and beyond. The request was refused and threats of violence were even made against marchers. Moses repeated his request “We will pass peacefully, we will pay for anything we use – even the water.” Yet again the reply came back with a “NO!”.


And so "since Edom refused to let them go through their territory. Israel turned away from them" (Numbers 20.21)


It wasn’t through fear that they so compliantly re-routed, because the Bible is littered with military prowess and victories of the Israelites. No it was because Moses followed God, the same God who said "Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country." (Deuteronomy 23.7). By not only purporting to follow God but actually doing it, the Israelites avoided violence and bloodshed and ultimately made the right decision.

We often like to think that we are an improvement on the generation that came before us, yet in light of this simple story it is difficult for many of my fellow Orangemen to honestly believe that. Here were a nomadic people a few thousand years ago, little education (if any), surrounded in a foreign land by people opposed to their culture, faith and way of life and they chose to accept the wishes of others, swallow their pride and walk in an area where they were wanted.

In Drumcree it has been a number of years since the Order was told residents didn’t want the parade going along the Garvaghy road. We all know that tensions were high, we all know that history and tradition were big motivators in the decision that was made by the Order, yet I have to agree with the Israelite’s... the decision to mount a protest or force a parade down a road in spite of the local residents was wrong. Of course we know that the Order disagreed, instead choosing to mount a weekly protest march every Sunday. We also know that support for Drumcree has all but died away, no longer are there 1000’s on the streets, or discussions with the Prime Minister. Gone too are the busloads of Orangemen from every corner of the country (and further afield) heading to support their brethren “On the Hill”. Yet in spite of all this the Belfast Telegraph tells us of the Order’s plans to step up its weekly protest parade – making it semiweekly. On top of that there were the reports that this year the Order in Portadown may not even apply to the Parades commission for the main protest parade on July 10^{th  (}in protest at an illegal republican parade in Lurgan).  This would have meant that (as District Master Daryl Hewitt told the Belfast Telegraph) “next Sunday will be an illegal parade, and myself and other officers are liable to be arrested."


...Three days later and they have applied to the parades commission to walk.


 Of course this “Change of heart” (as the Newsletter described it) was really yet another monumental failure on the Order’s part. Rather than letting the protest fade into history and quietly moving on the Order seems intent on keeping this – arguably its most majestic failure and its most demoralising episode – in the minds of everyone.


True forgetting Drumcree, re-routing and moving on would be for many a loss of “dignity”, for others it would be “inconvenient” or even “unreasonable” but look again at the story of the Israelites. It is not the parallels between our situation and that of the ancient world that are of concern - it is the significance of the principles. Loyalty to God – like the Order claims to have - means exemptions to that loyalty are not granted despite indignity, inconvenience and unreasonableness. Love your neighbour as yourself (Mark 12.31). If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone (Romans 12.18). Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing (1 Peter 3.9). Submit to the governing authorities; he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves (Romans 13.1-2).


Those loyal to God's rules are bound by them and exemptions are not granted - even to District Orange Lodges.


Maybe it is time for some of us to move on and shift our focus away from parading and back to God?

Epistle to One and All

Just drawing your attention to a new tab at the top of the page entitled “Church Library” which is a new resource for you all to use. It is designed to provide clergy, students and those of us with an interest in theology free access to the greatest writings from throughout Church History. At present I am hoping to get all the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (presently Clement of Rome’s First Epistle to the Corinthians is live) revised and uploaded to the site before moving on to another period of Church History (Probably the Greek and then later the Latin Fathers). In time I hope the library will exist to provide anyone with an interest the opportunity to study the history and life of the church from Clement of Rome in the 1st Century to Luther in the 16th and even onwards towards Sproul in the 21st in what will be one of the most complete online theological libraries around today.

I must admit I had never even looked at the Church Father’s writings until a couple of months ago but I have found (even in such a short period of time) that the Church Fathers are a wonderful source of rich and rewarding material.

It is obvious from the New Testament that doctrinal confusion, legalism and even gnostic errors were beginning to confuse and separate Christians even before the canon was closed. Then over the first three centuries we see a long chronicle of doctrinal conflict, and I find it wonderful to be able to read what the Fathers had to say during such tribulations. If we stand on their shoulders, we can see beyond some of the obstacles that hampered their vision. The church of our generation has much to learn from these men who stood so valiantly for truth and fought so determinedly against error and I just hope that “A Wandering Pilgrim’s Church Library helps other learn about the amazing resources that are the Church Fathers.

So tell you friends and get the message out there!