Comments on: Christian Worship – What is its purpose? What is its form?

By: John

John — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:21:01 +0000

You said >>it is not that the doctrine is wrong, but that we have become wedded to a particular expression of it that just does not speak to the culture today.<< Are you suggesting the possibility that the liturgy itself could one day be declared outdated? What about the creeds? Liberals use language as a tool for change. E.g., the “War on Terror” is now the “Overseas Contingency Operation.’” So, who can we count on to safeguard the liturgy in a climate of change?

By: Parson Brown

Parson Brown — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:31:36 +0000

I’m really speaking about the culture at large. The emergent church conversation and words such as post-christian get thrown around a lot and what I think most of them describe is the church’s state of exile or estrangement from the culture at large. For centuries, even in times when the preaching of the gospel was weak and heresy strong, the church defined the boundaries of the culture both high and low. In most “Christian” countries, parliaments and governments gave a pinch of salt to their authority being derived from God whether directly or through the people. That authority came with responsibility and granted the church a teaching role in the larger culture and even in govenment. As late as the 1950′s/60′s it was the preacher Martin Luther King who could reference St. Paul in prison when he wrote A Letter from the Birmingham Jail. The cultural conversation about communal values and shared understandings if not explicitly Christian was implicitly formed by the church. MLK could have the impact he did because he was pointing out the gap between religious confession and cultural expression and urging people to live up to their confession.

Today that implicit forming has turned into at best outright denial (i.e. the debate regarding the redefinition of marriage to include same sex brides/grooms) and at worst almost no voice at all and complete irrelevancy (i.e. the hollywood/entertainment industry). And I am most definitely not arguing for a Christian ghetto or a sub-genre as that just deligitimizes the message that is to go out to all peoples. We do not have a spirit of weakness, but one of strength. The church has important things to say and not to a small niche. To be effective at that communication requires people gifted with creativity. Too often our doctrinal filters have filtered out those people, or refused them a voice with the church instead of ecouraging faithfulness while admiring the creativity. And it is not that the doctrine is wrong, but that we have become wedded to a particular expression of it that just does not speak to the culture today. The absurd reduction argument is why don’t we read the Greek New Testament in our churches? Yes, we don’t speak Greek, but that is the original language and culture of the Scripture.

The culture asks certain questions or has certain felt needs – presenting problems. Too often the church never even attempts to answer those instead retreating inside comfortable words and patterns and casts out those who do try to engage the culture.

None of that speaks to worship itself though. I’m going to put up another post walking through some of that.

By: John

John — Tue, 26 May 2009 12:23:30 +0000

oops. The quote didn’t seem to be included. Let me try again. Excellent post, Parson Brown. Could you explain better what you mean by, “The church used to set the tone of the culture. It found places for the creatives of society and gave them the challenge of faithful cultural worship and the expressions of the faith. Too many churches of the reformation since at least the 19th and 20th century have lost those creative people.” Are you speaking about the church’s overall impact on the culture at large or are you speaking about the church’s artistic expression, e.g. the Roman Catholic preservation of good art and music?

By: John

John — Tue, 26 May 2009 12:19:54 +0000

Excellent post, Parson Brown. Could you explain better what you mean by <> Are you speaking about the church’s overall impact on the culture at large or are you speaking about the church’s artistic expression, e.g. the Roman Catholic preservation of good art and music?

By: Orthodox Protestant

Orthodox Protestant — Tue, 26 May 2009 00:40:06 +0000

Thank you for the very thorough and compelling reply. I did not mean to say that we give anything to God in worship other than our obedience in doing so. I absolutely agree with you that everything in the worship service is for the worshiper’s benefit; the reading of our confession, the absolution, the prayers, the preaching and the sacraments, all are for our benefit. Worship should be a humbling experience before God that is pleasing to Him. You are correct. There is a difference between the Lutheran and the reformed traditions. You stated the Lutheran position as <>. The reformed tradition is much more rigid and restricts worship to only what we see revealed to us in scripture, nothing more. Can you imagine Luther and Calvin debating the issue? But even with freedom in worship, I am still not happy with the contemporary-style worship in many evangelical churches where so-called worship bands distract from worship and heighten emotions. Much of the music is cheesey anyway.