All Comments for: A Deeper Relevance | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > May

Christianity Today, May, 2008 |

A Deeper Relevance

Why many evangelicals are attracted to that strange thing called liturgy.

Mark Galli | posted 5/02/2008 09:41AM

A recent book on the missional church argues that we need to "reinvent the church" in "revolutionary" ways so that we can "incarnate the gospel within a specific cultural context."

I found one example ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 44 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

David L

Posted: May 15, 2008 5:31 PM

Keep in mind that the Liturgy protected the theology of the church for two thousand years. There are many contemporary churches today that hardly mention the Triune God as opposed to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which is full of references and prayers to the Trinity. It is sad that some have never taken the journey to learn of their Christian ancestors and their worship, matrydom, etc.

eyrl	Posted: May 14, 2008 10:12 PM

Good article. I grew up in a liturgical church and now attend one without a liturgy. The liturgy has little meaning for me, but the music at the non-liturgical churches draws me into worshipping God with great meaning. Choir practise is also a time of worship. But not everyone in my extended family agrees. As long as the church glorifies Jesus Christ, the true Word of God is preached, and people are growing in their faith, love for one another and God, and practising their faith the other 6 days of the week, it is relevant. Without the basics, no matter what kind of music or "show" is presented, it is not relevant.

Deborah Solomon

Posted: May 09, 2008 10:23 AM

I believe many times we as Christian people spend far too much time believing everyone must worship and go to a church just like each of us. Churches that are upholding and proclaiming the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ do not all worship in identical ways. That does not mean everything about the church where I worship is right and the church where you worship is wrong. The more time we spend focusing on being salt and light in the culture and truly bringing change in peoples lives the more actual positive impact we will have. May we each learn to not spend so much time nitpicking with each other and turning our energies outward to a world that desperately needs salt and light.

Eugene M. Wiese

Posted: May 08, 2008 3:35 PM

Liturgy and worship are two aspects of our desire to approach God. One influences the other, and ideally they include much, much more. I like liturgy because it allows me to focus on why I am worshipping God. "Free form" worship to me is distracting, because it never allows me to truly worship. Liturgy allows me to focus my attention on what God has given me, and allows me to bring my life to Him. Liturgy changes over time, but an attempt to change it all at once is doomed to faillure. There is tremendous difference in any century, indeed any decade, of the liturgy we use, but those changes are normal and organic. I pray all the time. I talk to God while I am working, driving my car, shopping at the market, or doing anything else. And I am constantly asking Him what is the next thing He desires me to do. Worship is when I want particularly to listen more closely to His reply. Liturgy helps me do that.

RandyT.

Posted: May 08, 2008 2:00 PM

Having spent time in non-liturgical churches for the first seven years of our marriage my wife and I in 1985 became Lutherans for the many reasons Mark outlines in this article. We had seen too many times our worship of God sidetracked by preachers with their own agendas. For the past ten years we have attended two Lutheran churches in and near an affluent area of N. Texas. We do not see: "Few churches that consciously seek relevance want to clear the way to church for the poor, the homeless, welfare moms, drug-addicted men, or those trapped in nursing homes and convalescent hospitals.” Because they have moved into marketing their audiences. Once I mentioned obtaining a bus to run into an area of low income apartments. Elders looked at me like I was crazy. This was a very rich church so money would not have been the issue. So in that the liturgy has become a crutch and folks do not want to dirty their hands with bringing His Word to all - nor helping those in need.

by grace through faith

Posted: May 07, 2008 11:51 AM

In response to Paul Cat and Dan. We live in the age of Grace. Liturgical and Non-lit. ways of worship are not wrong, evil, or sinful in and of themselves. Nor should it bring a divisive us against them mentality. "We do it right... they do it wrong". It is really a manner of preference. Both have strengths and weaknesses. You also say cont. worship songs are forgettable... do you remember all the prayers and readings in your liturgy. With regards to sermons, I am a pastor and some of my sermons are forgettable no doubt. I don't even remember them. But I also don't remember Oswald Chambers writings or Luther. Even though I don't remember are they forgettable? I appreciate liturgy as long as they are seen as means to help mature one's faith, and not become the means to justification. Also, what liturgy did Christ participate in, Luther, Book of Common Prayer? Which response hymns did he use? I am glad you like liturgy as long as we agree that salvation is by grace through faith alone.

Chris

Posted: May 07, 2008 11:03 AM

Churches like "Relevant" become Irrelevant when they are so much of the World. It is not the World that should shape the Church, but rather the Church that should shape the World because of the WORD. I thank God for the MASS and the DIVINE LITURGY which have survived for 2000 years because they don't try to be relevant, they simply try to adore and worship God the way God wanted to be Worshipped. The Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, passed down a specific rubrics of worship to their successors the Bishops and today almost 2000 years later we still have those rubrics of Liturgy that are explicitly obvious in the Mass and Divine Liturgy. For your church to survive, it is not about being "seeker friendly" it is about worship being God inspired. It is only through Christ that the Mass and Divine Liturgy have endured for so long and now many people are finding that the STyle of worship of the Apostles is the Best.

Johann

Posted: May 07, 2008 6:50 AM

Great article. I'm not familiar with "evangelical" worship per se, (because "evangelical" is a meaningless word that applies to myriad denominations) but I know Pentecostal "worship" and it's just sad. At best, you might get a good sermon in between all the crass entertainment and appeal to the sensual, but at worst it's just a joke, which is what it usually is. Their whole idea of worship centers on how much fun they can have, what kind of emotional high they can get from the music, the dancing, the anarchic stupidity. All the while some ignorant, egomaniacal preacher is prancing around (affecting a black accent) telling jokes like some standup comedian in a nightclub. Yet all this isn't a problem for Pentecostals. Their only worry is that they might become "irrelevant" and start losing fannies in the seats.

Dan	Posted: May 06, 2008 12:12 PM


This article expresses exactly what I have been sensing after years in mainline evangelicalism. I'm about ready to start looking for a traditional liturgical congregation where I don't have to learn a new song every Sunday that won't even be remembered a year from now. Ditto the sermon.

JAM	Posted: May 06, 2008 11:22 AM

While it is true that wherever Christ is, there is the Church, it is also true that the Church of Jesus Christ exists in its entirety in the historic Roman Catholic and Orthodox Communions. Liturgy that is not rooted in and shaped by the historic Christian Church is pretend. Introducing elements of the Mass or Divine Liturgy into Protestant worship may improve it, indeed, in most cases improves on the entertainment one finds in especially evangelical churches, but it doesn't authenticate them, doesn't thereby make them "real." The real problem goes back to the nature and authority of the Church, given by Christ to His apostles and their successors. If you accept it, you make sure the seven sacraments are part of your life. If you do not accept this authority and its legitimate disposition of the sacraments, then whatever you import from the historic Church is not going to make your worship more pleasing to God and you may risk eating and drinking unworthily and to your damnation.

Richo

Posted: May 05, 2008 7:48 PM

As some one who is part of a church that considers themselves liturgical one of the big questions that liturgical fantatics fail to answer is how does such worship bring before us the incarnational God of the scriptures we see in Jesus Christ. The liturgy and many liturgical churches often fail to bring Jesus Christ down to people, instead it expects people to meet certain expectations, go up to Jesus, gain certain language understandings and like a certain style of music and this seems so far removed from the incarnational approach that Jesus takes. The framework and scructure of the liturgy has much value...however maintain ancient tongues that come from around the 1500-1800s do not...BTW when did Jesus say thy...behold...or verily..

Northwest Pastor

Posted: May 05, 2008 5:30 PM


An old "southern expression" seems to fit. "If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

Michelle

Posted: May 05, 2008 10:29 AM


Any Evangelical wanting liturgy shouldn't just wait for their churches to fumble around and reinvent the wheel. They are more than welcome to attend any Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox Church. I went and couldn't imagine going back to the Evangelical world after that.

Tom	Posted: May 05, 2008 12:58 AM

Liturgical versus non-Liturgical presents a false dicotomy. Liturgy is just the form and order of worship. Every religious group has liturgy. In the rush to emulate the best of Catholic liturgy, one might also note how much of Protestant practice has been reclaimed by Catholicism in the past decades. The Priesthood of all believers, women participating in distribution of communion, removal of statues, worship in vernacular, more relaxed dress for priests, practical softening of idea that Jesus is literally sacrificed at each mass, contemporary music, freedom to study the Bible on a personal basis - all these things are recent innovations straight out of the confrontation with evangelicalism and especially the charismatic renewal. Catholicism has grudgingly learned much from Protestants. We can certainly learn some good things from the Catholic tradition as well. It really is a two way street.

Mala'khi

Posted: May 04, 2008 6:25 PM


If you must go back to meaningful roots of our Master then go with Messianic Judaism. Its where we came from and what we are going to do when He returns.

ChristianFriend

Posted: May 04, 2008 6:15 PM

Ah the Anglicans, God's "frozen chosen", many of whom are always craving a grand religious performance replete with bells and smells, chant, and gilded vestments. Never quite knowing who they are, but thinking that if they could just get Rome to recognize them, Nirvana would be at hand. Yet, this is a denomination which ranges from those who are more high church than Rome, and as low or lower than Methodism. Is it any wonder they fight and devour themselves?

Dave	Posted: May 04, 2008 5:48 PM

Our church's director of evangelism used to comment that churches who did not write down their liturgy often had the most fixed liturgy of all, which I consider a shrewd observation. Being a non-conformist working in an Anglican context professionally I have extensive experience of a variety of Christian traditions of worship, and well planned written liturgy can help preserve us from the self-centredness of much western evangelical (consumerism influenced) corporate worship. The Holy Spirit can be as much at work in the planned as in the instantaneous.

David S

Posted: May 04, 2008 12:17 AM

Justin Martyr describes an old jewish liturgy... a sader meal or as we Christians call it Passover, the same form used by faithful jews for 2000 years, was Christ not a faithfull Jew? Christ said, " I come not to abolish the law but rather to fulfill it" as on the road to Emmasus "they recognized him in the breaking of the bread" again I allude to an old jewish liturgy ewhere man meets GOD and his promise of redemption, Passover/Calvary and union with Christ. He told the good thief "today you will be with me in paradise", This is the mystery of liturgy and being relevant at the same time. How can we be in heaven and on earth at the same time??? In the liturgy. For all things are possible with GOD.

George T.

Posted: May 03, 2008 9:27 PM


Liturgy is not "new."It is the oldest tradition in keeping a communion and working relationship with God.

A Potter

Posted: May 03, 2008 9:12 PM

The pope believes liturgy renders 'tangible the Totally Other'. He also believes in purgatory, the veneration of Mary and so-called saints and their relic, that salvation requires works and faith, the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wine who dies again at each and every mass, papal infallibility, that traditional is equal to the scriptures and the need for priests to stand between us and God. The pope thinks he is head of the church - I always thought Jesus Christ was. As a heretical cult I have no interest in their or any other groups liturgy.

Chris

Posted: May 03, 2008 5:05 PM

James White ("Protestant Worship") notes that non-liturgical churches become as rigid or even more rigid in their order of service than liturgical ones. So, many evangelicals end up attending churches with a rigid order of service which has had little thought put into it. It should be no surprise that people are migrating to a real liturgy which has centuries of thought and approval than a thrown together but rigid order of service that has only been around for a century.

John K.

Posted: May 03, 2008 1:56 PM


Your star rating doesn't work, and in the process lost might great, thoughtful response! Sorry, next time. My time for this is gone. (If this gets through...)

curtis

Posted: May 03, 2008 12:49 PM

I understand and respect those who appreciate a deep liturgical tradition. Sometimes it has to do with physical beauty and feeling grasped by a strong sense of God's presence during worship. What I hope is not forgotten, however, is that not all of us who eschew churches with high liturgy do so on the grounds that we are a part of or seeking to worship in churches that are trying to be relevant. Historically, the early American Baptists and Methodists were regarded by their Congregational and Episcopalian neighbors as too antiworldly and not deeply rooted enough in the pleasures and everday practices of this world (not relevant perhaps). Baptists had their own forms of liturgy: footwashing, communal prayer and various forms of discipline. Why must we always attribute nefarious motives to those who don't see things from our perspective? I have never been comfortable in high liturgical churches. I can give many reasons for that, but it has nothing to with the issue of relevance.

coffee

Posted: May 03, 2008 12:09 PM


I don't understand: what I notice is that every church trying to be "relevant" has a great emphasis on drums and guitars and all of the latest "worship music." Is the movement toward ancient worship doing music that sounds ancient--like Gregorian chants and definitely acapella?

Karen

Posted: May 03, 2008 10:19 AM

It's sad to see some Catholics using this as yet another way to bash Protestants. Ever since Jesus offered us salvation, we humans have been trying to set limits on it (my church is the only way, my way of baptism is the only way, etc.). All worship - liturgical and non-litergical, Catholic and Protestant - is valid as long as it's heart-felt. Now, if you disagree with my words, I do believe there is a tradition of burning dissenters at the stake.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment