Formality in Worship
I frequently hear from people who are dissatisfied with the worship experiences at their church. Sometimes they leave the services dissatisfied, frustrated by what seems like a missed opportunity. But what is really wrong? Why is it so difficult for some of us to feel a connection to God in our singing, prayer, and sermonizing?
Is the modern American spirit of equality and informality to blame in any way?
Follow the links for a multipart discussion by Bill Gnade of Contratimes: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5. And, the discussion carried over to this post at the Sunshine Church of Christ site. Keep in mind that Gnade himself is an Episcopalian.
Some manifestations of the post-evangelical "emerging church" (including some in the younger Church of Christ set) are moving toward more high-church-type liturgical worship services. At the same time, others are moving toward even greater informality in worship. The latter is a continuation of our culture's current trajectory. Reading Bill's posts might help us get a grip on why some young people are going against the grain and looking for more structure, more pomp, and more formality in their corporate church experience.
I have found myself bemoaning the formality of traditional Southern COC worship services at times, but Bill's post has caused me to realize that what I had mislabeled as "stiff formality" was actually more of a bumbling informality.
In the churches of Christ, we tend to be militantly "low church," meaning basically that our worship is no-frills, stripped down to its most basic elements. This situation comes both from a theological preference for simplicity and a Southern rural cultural ambivalence toward fru-fru.
Sometimes I have heard friends complaining about the lack of spontanaeity in our worship. But in fact, our problem may be too much spontanaeity (or the wrong kind of spontanaeity). We have, for example, a different song leader each week, who is given no direction on which songs to lead. Some will get with the minster or otherwise plan in advance, while some just seem to pick from their favorite songs at random. Likewise, our public prayers can sometimes be unfocused, repetitive, or rambling.
If our worship was more directed, more structured, more formally integrated, then the songs, prayers, reading, and sermon could be planned to build upon each other. Our worship experience might be more "in spirit" if its elements had a clearer thematic link, or if they followed a logical progression of emotions before God's throne.
For example, many worship services in Christendom begin with awe and doxology toward God, then move toward contrition and repentance (in the sermon), and finally end on a note of thanksgiving. In this way, our conversion experience is recapitulated week after week, bringing us back to the life-affirming moment of our baptism.
So, our services may be somewhat "stuffy," but it's not necessarily because they are too formal. It's our lack of formality in the absence of thoughtful planning, direction, and training which leaves us wishing for a more vibrant experience in the assembly.
Read more on this topic in my follow-up posts ("Unhewn Stones" and "The Ideal NT Worship Service"), and at Sunshine Church, where Jason Coriell graciously accepted my challenge to "discuss."
Is the modern American spirit of equality and informality to blame in any way?
Follow the links for a multipart discussion by Bill Gnade of Contratimes: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5. And, the discussion carried over to this post at the Sunshine Church of Christ site. Keep in mind that Gnade himself is an Episcopalian.
Some manifestations of the post-evangelical "emerging church" (including some in the younger Church of Christ set) are moving toward more high-church-type liturgical worship services. At the same time, others are moving toward even greater informality in worship. The latter is a continuation of our culture's current trajectory. Reading Bill's posts might help us get a grip on why some young people are going against the grain and looking for more structure, more pomp, and more formality in their corporate church experience.
I have found myself bemoaning the formality of traditional Southern COC worship services at times, but Bill's post has caused me to realize that what I had mislabeled as "stiff formality" was actually more of a bumbling informality.
In the churches of Christ, we tend to be militantly "low church," meaning basically that our worship is no-frills, stripped down to its most basic elements. This situation comes both from a theological preference for simplicity and a Southern rural cultural ambivalence toward fru-fru.
Sometimes I have heard friends complaining about the lack of spontanaeity in our worship. But in fact, our problem may be too much spontanaeity (or the wrong kind of spontanaeity). We have, for example, a different song leader each week, who is given no direction on which songs to lead. Some will get with the minster or otherwise plan in advance, while some just seem to pick from their favorite songs at random. Likewise, our public prayers can sometimes be unfocused, repetitive, or rambling.
If our worship was more directed, more structured, more formally integrated, then the songs, prayers, reading, and sermon could be planned to build upon each other. Our worship experience might be more "in spirit" if its elements had a clearer thematic link, or if they followed a logical progression of emotions before God's throne.
For example, many worship services in Christendom begin with awe and doxology toward God, then move toward contrition and repentance (in the sermon), and finally end on a note of thanksgiving. In this way, our conversion experience is recapitulated week after week, bringing us back to the life-affirming moment of our baptism.
So, our services may be somewhat "stuffy," but it's not necessarily because they are too formal. It's our lack of formality in the absence of thoughtful planning, direction, and training which leaves us wishing for a more vibrant experience in the assembly.
Read more on this topic in my follow-up posts ("Unhewn Stones" and "The Ideal NT Worship Service"), and at Sunshine Church, where Jason Coriell graciously accepted my challenge to "discuss."




5 Comments:
In Ex. 20.25 God gives instructions about building an altar for Him. "...do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it." We look at dressed stone as an improvement while God looks at it as defilement. Any form of worship will become old hat soon enough. I believe it takes faith to believe that an all powerful God would be satisfied and even pleased with plain stones used for His altar. What we might consider plain, God might consider obedience.
Am I looking to worship God for my own pleasure and experience or to worship God to please Him? I have often wondered why there is not a "worship" chapter as specific as the "love" chapter is in 1 Cor. 13, telling us the importance of worship in relation to faith, works and knowledge; what worship is and isn't, what is done in worship and what isn't.
I believe the answer is found in the conversation with Jesus in Mark 12.28-34. The conclusion drawn by one of the teachers in verse 33 was that, "To love (God) with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
Jesus' reply in verse 34 is "...You are not far from the kingdom of God."...
James,
I was so stimulated by your post, I'm going to respond to it at length in a new post tomorrow morning. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify myself!
Dear Bren Hughes,
May I make a comment? I hope so. I do not want to infiltrate every discussion regarding formality, but I feel I should at least comment on James' remarks.
I agree with James: it would be nice if there was a Bible chapter dealing with worship. But there is a Church that has given us the Bible, a Church that has had some long held ideas on what worship should look like (this sentence I realize places me squarely in the Non-Reformed tradition, so to speak). I am looking squarely at tradition, and I think we've mistakenly laid blame on tradition when the blame should be directed (mostly) at us.
***
Let us not short shrift the Old Testament. There are two tendencies, I think, in OT exegesis/hermeneutics. One is to consider the OT as thoroughly passé, supplanted by the NT and the Church. The other is to accept the OT fully, but only with our lips, and not with confidence: we choose only parts of the OT that we like and ignore others that we don't. Obviously, both tendencies are wrong, and the truth is somewhere in between.
The OT is replete, nay, it is chock full of requirements and duties regarding the making and handling of holy things, and of priestly duties. Not only were there strict rules around worship, and the preparation of it, there were horrific consequences when those rules were ignored. Has anyone of us outside of the priestly caste touched the Ark of the Covenant lately? If so, I am sure I'll soon see the obituary in my daily papers. There were even tabernacle and temple artisans and craftsmen; there were people devoted to crafting things IN PURE GOLD for the tabernacle. How do we explain this, in the midst of Canaanite idolatry and God's apparent transcendence? The minutiae, the details, given to Israel regarding the tabernacle are mindboggling. (And many of those details reappear in visions of the end of the world.) Not easy questions to answer, to say the least.
Israel's issue was not with formality or the physical elements of worship: its issue was its irresistible slide into paganism, with its infatuation with more carnal gods, more malleable and approachable gods (at least in a way) than YHWH. It was not with the customs that God was displeased, but with the emptiness and inattentiveness with which those customs were performed. There was a complacency and indifference to many priestly and votive acts, aimed as they were not at YHWH but at some other vaguely- or politically-defined end.
I've mentioned already in the broader discussion at hand God, and Adam and Eve's clothing. Prior to the fall, clothing would have been deemed a sign of reprobation or apostasy. Amazingly, God fashions clothing after the fall, erecting precepts around it: that the clothed body was indeed a sacred thing, hidden from prurient and sacrilegious eyes. In other words, clothing, this side of the fall, is a "symbol" or "sacrament" of something wonderful, godly, holy and even emancipating. Doubt me? Have you and your family start walking to work and school naked every day. You will see rather quickly, I believe, that God has provided something wonderful in the concealment of what was once revealed.
Similarly, there is something majestic in the sacraments associated with Christian worship: there is something liberating in the accoutrements of liturgical worship. To think that Christ wants us to worship God only in our spirits is gnostic and buddhistic: we worship a risen Lord and we do so with our bodies (put your hand in my side, feel my pierced hands). And this is the very Lord who inspired the deposit of gold in a comely, homely manger!
I would take issue a little bit with James' suggestion that Jesus' citation of the two commandments is suggestive of the sort of thing that pleases God. Worship, as I wrote, is being honest with God, with Who He Is. This does not DO anything for Him: it is not really for Him at all (otherwise it suggests God lacks, something, ie. our praise.) Worship is indeed for us. Sadly, we are fixated on the image that we benefit by bribery: if I say "Praise You, Father" earnestly and often enough He must bless me. But it is the act itself which is the blessing: Kneeling sincerely before God is an-end-in-itself, a blessing of magnificent proportion. In following the disciplines of worship I conform myself to an image that is not of my own making: I submit to something greater than myself and become greater for it. And this gives God glory. (BTW: Does this mean God lacks glory?)
There seems to be only one commandment that is truly and purely Christian, and it is the new commandment, the mandate of Maundy Thursday, that speaks to us here: Love each other as I have loved you. How did Christ love us? Not in disembodied spirit, but in body, touching people with His bespittled fingers dabbed with mud, telling the blind to dive into a very formal pool; touching and teaching and being present to our very physical presences. Christ loved us with THINGS (words and parables are things we hear with real ears); He loved us with footwashings and bread and wine and ears of corn; He loved us with His blood and broken skin and matted hair. He loved us with the "Come forth!" at Lazarus' tomb; by drinking water offered by a Samaritan woman and accepting the hospitality of a repentant prostitute weeping at His feet; by frying fish for His hungry followers after a late night boat ride. Christ is a shepherd, not of sheep spirits, but of real sheep, full of flesh and blood and soul.
In other words, Christ is carnal, of the flesh: He is the Incarnate Creator, touching us with things that are all around us, the very things St. Paul declared reveal not only God's glory (the invisible attributes of God), but our very damnation.
I hope this helps.
Peace,
Bill Gnade
Bren,
Shame on me for not thanking you for including me in your discussions here. I am honored to have you mention my series. You are too kind. I apologize that these words were not the first words out of my mouth.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
There's lots of good meat in your comment there, Bill. It's true you come from a different liturgical background from your COC discussion partners here. You point out that your thinking is non-Reformed, whereas the founders of our movement were both Presbyterian, thus giving our theology a strong Reformed flavor.
I think what Bill is arguing at the beginning of his post is that the practices of the historical church throughout the Apostolic, Constantinian, Medieval, and Reformation period are voices which have a legitimate place in our ecclesiology. When the Radical Reformation (the forebears of the COC's Anabaptist strain) decided that Catholic worship had been corrupt and apostate for hundreds of years and became vigorously iconoclastic and minimalist in their approach to God, they may have in some way jumped the shark.
One of my quarrels with Reformed and Restorationist thinking is the disregard for the OT which Bill so lucidly identified. It was a major turning point for me theologically to realize that the OT really was the BIBLE of Jesus and the early church. Christ and the apostles all cite the Torah as the source of their authority. And, I was happy to see Bill point out how Jesus' teachings, by and large, were not anything new. Jesus acted like the other prophets before him, interpreting and applying the Torah to his generation with the authority of God's empowering Spirit. John 13:34 is the true "new commandment." What did Jesus add to the teachings of Genesis through Deuteronomy? He provided a living example of how true Torah obedience is to be done.
Of course, as Christians we also recognize that Christ's sacrificial death and resurrection rendered obsolete the sacrificial system of atonement and the centralized cultus of temple worship. And, as Paul argues, in light of Christ, Gentiles don't have to become Jews to become Christians. But they certainly have a lot to learn from the Jewish scriptures about the nature of God and our relationship to him.
I think a positive development in some recent Evangelical and COC thought has been a renewed realization of the continuity between the Testaments. When we begin to see the OT system as more than God's bait-and-switch stopgap religion, our minds become more open to forms of worship besides the low-church/free-church traditions of our historical Reformed/Anabaptist/Pietistic/Frontier roots.
I think Bill's fourth to last paragraph (on the sacraments) deserves reading and re-reading. I've argued elsewhere on this blog that our ritual immersion and communion are more than just symbols, and that our religion must be embodied (incarnated) and not merely intellectual. We get off track when we devote our time to dreaming about some immaterial future heaven. This physical world is exactly what God wanted, and someday he will redeem and restore this groaning earth, just as he will resurrect our groaning physical bodies (Rom. 8:18-23). God created us for action in the physical AND spiritual planes, and we cannot truly live in one without actively engaging the other.
Thank you so much for joining us, Bill. You are more than welcome to comment any time (to set me straight, etc.).
Bren
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home