Letter to a Fellow Pastor on the Great Commission

This is an M.Th. assignment for my studies at Cambridge Theological Seminary. Let it be an encouragement to Clergy and Laity alike.

My Dear Pastor Friend:

Grace and peace to you from God the Father and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

We are all called to be fishers of men and the love that Christ poured out for His people in His death and resurrection is the motive for proclaiming the gospel. Christ, the One who has all authority in heaven and on earth, who commands His people to go and make disciples of all nations.

It is amazing that Jesus’ last words to His disciples were about evangelism. The basis of discipleship is teaching all the commands of Jesus. His commands are beacons of light that will guide us throughout the course of our lives. On the other hand, every conflict we have in life can be traced to the neglect or violation of one or more of the commands of Jesus. This is why He placed such a high priority on them, even to say in 1st John 5:3, “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous”.

Christ is the great example of carrying out the commission. He went around doing good, proclaiming His message of redemption, and seeking and saving the lost. Just as He taught and preached the good news of the kingdom, so His disciples, all of us, should teach and proclaim Jesus and His resurrection.

We are Jesus’ disciples. We are the offspring of those select few disciples who spent the last three years of Christ’s life on this earth under His teaching . Those whom you disciple will be your offspring and the offspring also of Christ’s disciples. By the way, that is where the term of affection of “father” comes from in the orthodox traditions. In 1st Corinthians 4:14-16, Paul writes the church saying, “I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father in the gospel. I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me.”

Getting back on subject, the great commission is the final point Jesus made to His disciples. It appears that He regards evangelism as the very reason for their being, immediately following worshiping God and enjoying Him. The call to evangelize is a command of Christ. Having accepted Jesus as Lord, we have brought ourselves under His rule and are obligated to do whatever He asks.

Christ said, “If you love me, you will obey what I command,” in St. John 14:16. He told us, “If you are my friends you will do what I command” in St. John 15:14. So if we truly love the Lord, we will carry out His call to evangelize. It is not an option in our lives. Evangelism is the way you carry yourself as you go about your daily business. And when you carry yourself in a Godly way people will begin to see Jesus in you. And then you plant the seed of salvation in conversation. You tell them that you are the way you are because of what Jesus has done for you. You also go out of your way to speak to new people in the neighborhood, at the grocery store, where you buy grass seed. You make your entire life a billboard for Christ.

The disciples were not sent out on their own strength, and neither are we. Jesus prefaced His commission in St. Matthew 28:18 with the statement: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Having all authority, He commissioned each of us as his agent. You and I are commissioned agents of Jesus Christ. You are hereby promoted from your current job of just being a pastor! Our jobs are 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. We have the most profound, exciting and rewarding jobs anyone could want. And with great benefits!

Notice the extent of the great commission. It is all-inclusive in St. Matthew 28:19 Jesus speaks of “all nations” and in Acts 1:8 He gives specific instructions: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth.

This is two fold -- you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. You cannot witness and evangelize if the power of the Spirit is not in you. You will not desire to witness to or evangelize others. The Holy Spirit’s indwelling and power are essential for the commission to be effective, for it is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin, who is the author of regeneration and who enables people to confess Jesus as Lord.

With the help of the Holy Spirit, we will see the need to carry out all the commands of Christ in all areas. Our family, our church and other people. Before we can disciple others, we must carry out the commands of Christ in our own lives. The first place the disciples were called to evangelize is Jerusalem. This was the most difficult place for the disciples to carry out the great commission because everyone knew them. If they were getting drunk and brawling down at the Via de la Rosa Tavern, or had an unpaid bill at the Temple Street Kosher Deli that they refused to pay, nobody would listen when they talk about the risen Savior.

We see how difficult it is to carry out the commission in our own homes. The people who are closest to us are sometimes the hardest to reach and evangelize. They have seen our failures and our past. This sometimes makes it extremely difficult to carry on a conversation with the lost in your own family. This is where we truly have to act like Christ in all our actions. This is why many pastoral search committees interview the wives, children and associates of a candidate for pastor instead of taking a vote at church for their calling to the position. What would the people that I know the best say about me? What would your friends and family say about you? This is where you find the true measure of our character. We can evangelize to family members best by being a living example of Christ.

The second calling to the disciples was to witness in “all Judea.” This area was south of Jerusalem and was mainly inhabited by Jews, Judean Jews at that. This proved to be a much more positive environment for the disciples to witness and carry out the Great Commission. These were God’s chosen people like the disciples and they were like minded. Consequently, fulfillment of this part of the commission would result in the establishment of additional congregations.

I view this as our witnessing to and evangelizing our community members. We are like minded as were the people of Judea. But not quite so close as our families to grate on our nerves by knowing every nasty little detail of our lives.Within the church each of us has the obligation to carry out that part of the commission. Carry it out through discipleship, mentoring, training, encouragement, praise, love, patience, listening, coaching, spurring, and peace for the love of Jesus and His commands to us.

Establishing small groups in fellowship and Bible study, worshipping as we sing, confess and pray in unison, gradually weaning the new disciples from the milk of sweetness and light that many spiritual babes experience and getting them onto a diet of meat and potatoes (and bread and wine).

The disciples had earnest love for the people of Judea. I can say that I truly love each and every one of my congregation, as I’m sure you can. If the Spirit of God was not in us, we would not have this love. We are all children of God, and we are all worthy of nothing but serving our Lord. My love is sincere because the Spirit is in me and it leads me to encourage you.

Perhaps the most distasteful part of the commission for the disciples was the third part -- “in Samaria.” This took them to the people whom they found most difficult to love, and who would probably be least receptive to their message because of it being carried by Jews. The Jews and Samaritans had been in conflict for a long time. The friction dated back to the time of the Jews’ return from Babylonian captivity. The Samaritans were the product of intermarriage of those Israelites left behind by the Assyrians, and various foreign colonists whom the Assyrians had sent in to help repopulate the area.

When the Jews returned from Babylon and began rebuilding the temple, the Samaritans offered to help, but their offer was turned down. From that time on, there was friction between the two groups. So you see the challenge to the disciples in carrying out the commission to the land of Samaria. But we are to love our neighbor, period. So who is our neighbor? Anybody that is outside the length of your arm.

Isn’t it amazing the Jesus wrote the parable about the Good Samaritan, the very people that Jews viewed as half-breeds, both physically and spiritually? But, in St. Luke 10:29-36, Jesus asserts that love knows no national or ethnic boundaries. The Samaritans are people with whom we have contact everyday. Our boss, our geeky guy at work, the drive-through teller, the relative with whom our relationship is strained. Our mission is to evangelize in our town and beyond. At work, in Wal-mart, in the post office, at the bank, on the golf course. We need to get as much exposure from each moment of the day as is possible. How do you begin a conversation with the lost of “Samaria”? We help and encourage the beggar on the road. God has placed that person in your path to witness to them.

The people that you come across may be the least likely for you to have fellowship with on a regular basis, but Jesus said, “you will be my witnesses in Samaria,” in other words, outside your inner circle, outside the church, on the bad side of the tracks.

Finally the disciples were to bear witness “to the ends of the earth.” There is no geographical restriction on the great commission. We are to take the message everywhere, to all nations and to every type of people. We cannot accomplish this on our own. We need to support Godly ministries that are accountable with our financial gifts. The commission extends to those who are very much unlike us. And it goes beyond our immediate sphere of contact and influence.

In a very real sense, local evangelism, church extension or church planting, and world missions are all the same thing. The only difference lies in the length of the radius. When we accomplish the mission of evangelism, disciplining, and teaching the word of the Lord we will have the rewards from our Heavenly Father. God will reveal Himself to us. We will abide in God’s love. Our prayers will be answered. We have assurance of our love for God. And our love for the Body of Christ will be revealed.

“This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out His commands.” – 1st John 5:2. Our love for the body of Christ is revealed in all that we do. Our attitudes, our actions, our speech and our demeanor all reveal the Glory of the Lord. We must carry out His commands in order to reap the reward of Christ Himself.

As God reveals Himself to us through our keeping of Christ’s commands, we will have a greater capacity for worshiping Him for who He really is. The more we understand His character, the better we are able to give Him the praise and glory due His name.

May God bless and keep you by His grace.

Reverend J. David McGuire, Pastor,
Christ Church Anglican, Claremore, Oklahoma

The Joy of Driving

by Reverend J. David McGuire, Pastor of Christ Church Anglican, Claremore, OK
A Parable about the Difference between Evangelistic Meetings and Worship

I love driving. I love taking my wife for day-trips around the Green Country region of Oklahoma. I love long road trips in a nice car, whether it has a soft cushy ride or a tight suspension that allows me to feel every bump in the road – one that “talks back to you”!

I had a dream the other night. I dreamed that I had entered a sweepstakes to win a Ferrari, and I won it! I was, as I’m sure most middle-aged guys like me would be, totally ecstatic.

The camera flashes were going off in a blinding array. A band was playing some rousing celebratory music and there were cheers from the onlookers and slaps on the back as I was guided onto the stage at Sweepstakes Headquarters to sign all the paperwork. Now remember – the Ferrari was totally free, but I had to get the title transferred, the license registration filled out, and the insurance policy placed into my name. Yes. They even gave me free insurance for the car. In my dreams, right?

By the time I was done, the lines of fine print were beginning to blur together. I must have been at the sweepstakes place for three hours before I could leave. I was so exhausted that all I could do was go home and get into bed. But I could hardly sleep at all. All I could think about was the next time I could take a day off work.

I’d get up early in the morning and take this fine machine out to the switch-back curves in the Ozarks, or the wide-open, straight-as-a-bee-line route to Dallas – the old road, of course! And, what the heck, I have a free insurance policy with no deductible, and I’ve always wanted to experience the thrill of a race. Why not take the Ferrari out to a road rally. My plans for fully enjoying my new prize were still whirring around in my mind when I finally fell asleep.

It seemed like my one day weekend would never arrive. The work at the plant is so far behind that my boss replied, “Not if you want to keep your job!” to my request for a day off. We have to produce six days a week as it is, and since man cannot live by muscle car alone, I thought I’d better hang on to the job. All week long I’m constantly day-dreaming about that beautiful piece of machinery nestled in the garage. What a thrill it will be to slip into its jet-fighter-like cockpit and be molded into its Recaro bucket seats and become one with the most powerful, the most awesome set of wheels in the state!

Finally, Sunday morning has come! I jump out of bed and pull on my slacks and polo shirt. On the way out the door, I grab the key ring with a gold shield bearing a black horse. I let loose with a hoop which I’m sure will wake all my neighbors.

Suddenly the phone rings. The caller I.D. reads “Sweepstakes HQ”. My mind starts rushing to conjure up all the possible reasons they could be calling. I imagine them telling me “There has been a mistake. The Ferrari was supposed to have gone to someone else.” Or, “There has been a recall on that particular model. It is totally unsafe to drive until it is repaired.” Ten negative possibilities flash through my brain during the four rings it takes for me to answer the phone.

“Is there a problem,” I asked.

“No, we just need you to come down to the Sweepstakes Headquarters for a little ceremony.”

Still puzzled, I gingerly back the sleek, beautiful example of automotive engineering out of the garage and into the slow city traffic, the only environment in which I absolutely detest driving, and make my way back to the headquarters. The shiny red hood vibrates as the engine lumbers along in traffic, seeming to be sobbing out loud for the open road.

When I walk into the big room, there is all the same clamor as when I had won my Ferrari. Cameras flashing here and there, crowds cheering, committees of prize counselors congratulating the newest winner of a brand new Ferrari just like mine!

I edge my way through the crowd toward the front to find the chairman of the counseling committee that had called me back in today. I locate him over by the band talking to the drummer.

I asked him, “Why did you have me come back here today? I was set to go out on the road to see what kind of tricks my new pony can do!”

“That’s just the way it’s done here,” he replied. “We’re all about getting the new winners signed up. Nothing at all about tricks or ponies in the fine print that you signed!”

I was stunned. Why couldn’t they do all the sign-ups and paperwork and number-crunching during the week and let the winners jump into a real driving experience on the only day of the week that we have the time to do so. But, being the good “winner” that I am, I joined the others in the crowd who were intent on bringing in as many winners as possible at every weekend gathering, seemingly caring nothing at all about the deep desires that some of them have for actually experiencing what they have won. The possibility of a great relationship with the most awesome and powerful thing on the market.

Maybe it was never meant for me or any of my fellow winners to experience the great joy of such a relationship. Maybe our lot is to transport ourselves back to the Sweepstakes Headquarters every weekend to cheer on new winners. To initiate them into the family of winners that never gets to enjoy their winnings, unless you enjoy stop and go traffic.
I think I’d much rather be able to hand out entries for the sweeps every day on my job or when I shop or go out to eat. And maybe, every once in a while, a person could scratch off the stuff that always gets under your fingernails, to find that they too are a winner. And all this on a Monday or a Tuesday or a Friday, leaving the weekend free for all of the winners to get together for a great race or rally.

If I had the power to change things, I would add to the fine print of the winners’ agreement that the Sweepstakes Headquarters will be used only for the meeting place for events that bring the greatest joy and fulfillment to the winners. Joy and fulfillment from experiencing the relationship with what they’ve won. And then I’d add another line of fine print that requires the winners to GO OUT to all the places around them to tell others about the sweepstakes and have them scratch off the winning tickets right where they are in the office or the grocery store or where they live down the street.

Wouldn’t that be a great group of Winners to be around!

------------------------------------- + -----------------------------------------

If you’d like to be a Winner of the absolutely most powerful and awesome Prize you could ever imagine, the gift of eternal life, AND be able to enjoy that Prize during worship that has an audience of One, where we truly commune with the Father and not fill that special time with the tasks that we are to do daily, then call Christ Church Anglican at 918-740-1885 or 918-283-2263. Someone is ready to give you the good news that you have WON!

Photos of Christ Church Reforming

Worship Renewal

Worship Renewal in Christ Church Reforming

Objections to Liturgy/Ritual in the Church, by Dr. Rich Lusk

“Liturgical” worship is highly “ritualized.” But in the last 250 years, some Protestants have viewed ritual and ceremony with suspicion. Several arguments against ritualized, liturgical worship are offered:

1. “Old Covenant worship was full of rituals and ceremonies, but Christ’s coming abolished the ceremonial law. We are free from such strictures in our worship. Our worship in the New Covenant is ‘spiritual’ – spontaneous, inward, and simple.”

Christ did not actually abolish the ceremonial system; he fulfilled it (St. Matthew 5:17), and in doing so transformed it. Thus, the categories of temple and sacrifice are still used to describe New Covenant worship in the New Testament. Jesus and the apostles established new rituals and ceremonies (baptism, the Lord’s Supper, new prayer forms, new songs, etc.) for the new era.

The New Testament is not opposed to ritual per se, but to doing the wrong rituals, either because (a) they belong to the old age (e.g., circumcision), or (b) they are human inventions inconsistent with biblical principles (e.g., some Jewish oral law washings).


2. “Ritual leads to dead orthodoxy and dead formalism. It kills the freshness of New Covenant worship and quenches the Spirit. If we do the same things routinely, we’ll just go through the motions.”

This is a false dichotomy. Often, churches which favor “spontaneity” and “freedom” become stale and dead themselves, as many ex-charismatics attest. While dead formalism is a problem we must guard against, ritual per se is not the real danger. If ritual is so dangerous, why did God give an entire ritualized system to Israel that allowed virtually no variation? Surely God would not tempt His people this way!

Rather, the real issue here is the heart of the worshippers. If we really love God, the “liturgical routine” should never be dull.

God’s own life is one of tireless repetition. God is a ritualized being. He moves through His divine life in an orderly, habitual way. The creation account, with its repeated patterns, is very telling: Even when God is at His most original, He acts habitually. We are made in His image, and so we are “creatures of habit.”

3. “Liturgical worship is ‘high church.’ It is elitist and snobbish. It leaves out the common man.”

Snobbery is a problem, but not unique to those who worship liturgically. Extreme Puritan Worship minimalists and free wheeling charismatics can also take undue pride in their worship. Actually liturgical worship is the most “common” style of all, in the sense of being accessible to anyone. (It was called the Book of Common Prayer after all!)

The vast majority of Christian worshippers over the last 2000 years (just like the Israelites before them) have been mostly common folk and yet they’ve learned to recite creeds and prayers, chant psalms, kneel and stand at appropriate times, and so forth.

The irony in the above mentioned objection is that until rather recently in history (with the invention of printing and the rise in literacy rates), worship had to be highly ritualized (and therefore memorized) for the people to participate at all!

Ritualized liturgy is actually far friendlier to children, the elderly, immigrants, etc. than other forms. For example, many traditional Presbyterian and Puritan forms of worship are really only accessible to college educated, middle class “thinkers.” As a result these kinds of churches end up with a very unbalanced membership and become distorted, disfigured manifestations of the body of Christ.

4. “Liturgical rituals, ancient prayer and hymn forms, etc. simply aren’t intelligible in our modern culture. We need more contemporary styles and forms to reach people today.”

This objection smuggles in several false assumptions. For example, some argue for “intelligibility” from 1 Cor. 14, but they badly misread the text.

The way this objection is sometimes stated, it presupposes confusion between liturgy and evangelism. In evangelism, intelligibility is critical. In worship, other concerns come to the fore. Worship is only indirectly evangelistic; the primary audience is God Himself.

This objection also assumes that worship should come easy. We have to teach kids how to tie their shoes and ride a bike, but supposedly worship should come “naturally!” Surely the King of the universe is worthy of more effort!

Worshipping well is a skill that has to be acquired (cf. references to musical skill in the Old Testament). This skill is learned over the course of a lifetime through practice and repetition.

This objection assumes the symbolic character of ritualized worship forms is unintelligible to moderns. But surely this is false, even if moderns are symbolically impoverished compared to their ancestors. Consider recent examples: flag burning in the U.S.; tearing up statues and billboard pictures of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Symbolic actions are still intelligible!

The real reason many American Christians object to liturgical worship is laziness! We don’t want to have to learn the “grammar” or “language” of historic, biblical worship forms. We put our personal convenience and pleasure above honoring God. This is idolatry!

Given the broad scale idolatry of American culture, the church simply must stake out her ground as a counter-culture. This means liturgical worship! So what if it’s weird?

5. “Liturgy and ritual lead to Rome.”

Two can play at this game. Rejection of ritual leads to Pennsylvania ... and Amish country! The fact that Rome does something is not, in itself, an adequate argument against it. After all, Rome believes the Trinity, incarnation of Jesus in human form, the Virgin Birth, etc.

This objection forgets that the Reformers themselves wrote liturgies that were to be viewed as “fixed forms.” In fact, prayer books were a Protestant invention, along with the clergy shirt! Among the Puritans, liturgy was generally accepted early on in their movement, but when worship forms got entangled in church-state issues with the British crown and persecution began, there was a backlash against anything that smacked of Anglicanism or Catholicism!

There is no reason to follow the Puritans in this area today since our cultural situation does not include trying to differentiate ourselves from a state-run church. The strict non-liturgical/Puritan Worship which came out of the Puritan interaction with the crown was a human innovation, or “strange fire in the nostrils of God”, as J. I. Packer, author of “A Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God”, has pointed out.

The irony is that the Roman Catholic counter-reformation has implemented more of the liturgical reforms that Calvin desired than Presbyterians have! The early Reformers wanted weekly communion in both kinds (Body and Blood) for the congregation, a lot of corporate participation rather than “spectator worship,” etc. The Reformers were actually closer to medieval Catholic worship than modern Reformed!

Arguments in Favor of Ritualized, Liturgical Worship Forms

The traditional Christian liturgy balances form and freedom. It features both ordinaries (numbered Sabbaths) and propers (special Sabbaths and feasts) – elements that remain fixed and elements that vary. Life as a whole is this way. In fact, biblically sound rituals will encapsulate life.

A good prima facie case can be made for liturgy from several places in Scripture. We could argue covenantally that if Old Covenant worship was ritualized, New Covenant worship will be as well, albeit with new forms. We could point to the worship of the synagogue, with its regular structures and patterns. Jesus participated in this worship, “as was His custom”, even reading the scheduled lectionary passage from the scroll rather than “following the lead of human innovation” (St. Luke. 4). Paul clearly desired orderly, regimented worship (1 Cor. 14; Col. 2:5).

Perhaps the best argument for liturgical worship comes from the book of Revelation. The entire book is an unveiling of the heavenly liturgy and follows the same basic pattern as temple worship in the Old Covenant. John, as a representative of the church is in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day and enters into heaven to witness and participate in this worship service. If there is “Spirit-led” worship anywhere, surely it’s in heaven! And what do we see?

We can’t survey the entire book here, but consider a few details from Rev. 4-5. The worship is corporate, as the actions of the worshippers are clearly coordinated together. There is no individualistic spontaneity. The worship is scripted, and apparently memorized. It is orderly and routine. The angels do not tire of singing the Sanctus – “Holy, holy, holy”; it never becomes “vain repetition.”

It is bodily. There is physical movement, standing and kneeling, to show reverence and humility. It is symbolic, e.g., the worshippers wear special clothing. It is not minimalistic.

Towards a Biblical Theology of Ritual

1. We should not think of rituals as specialized ceremonies tacked on to ordinary life.

Ritual – and therefore symbolic action -- is pervasive. Intensified forms of ritual – “ceremonies” – give shape to life as a whole. Ritual is inescapable in God’s world, though rituals are never neutral. Our entire lives have a ritualized flow to them, as image bearers of the

Ritual God. Sometimes, we highlight the ritualized dimensions of behavior more than at other times, e.g., weddings. But without an overall ritual character, our lives would be chaotic and meaningless.

Sin wrecked human life, taking it out of its God ordained rhythm; God uses ritual to re-establish His pattern for human life. These rituals are microchronic encapsulations of what human life should be. Ritual in everyday life is simply a matter of habit. We have various ritual systems, or “mini-liturgies,” we employ all the time, e.g., greeting protocols, manners, etc. These become “second nature” and virtually invisible to us. Society cannot run smoothly without these ritualized patterns of action.

We move through day-to-day life ritually; we also surround important events, such as birth, marriage, and death with more specialized rituals. Interestingly, most people know better than to trust their spontaneity and intuitions on such momentous occasions.

2. Ritual both expresses and stimulates emotion.

Contrary to the claims of some, ritual does not kill feeling or emotional freedom. Rather, it shapes and guides our emotions in proper ways. Of course, sometimes, we go through the rituals of daily life without much feeling. This is precisely why ritual (or habit) is so important. If we only showed signs of love, friendliness, manners, etc., when we felt warm and fuzzy, we’d be very unloving! Faithfulness to “the routine” is actually a demonstration of love.

Proper everyday rituals structure life in such a way that I show love towards my neighbor whether I feel like it or not. It’s the same with weekly worship. You cannot experience a “revival” 52 Sabbaths a year. Nor can you, Quaker-style, wait on God to move you inwardly before you obey what you know to be God’s commands to worship Him in spirit and in truth. (His truth, not ours!) Do the rituals and the feeling will follow in due time. Bodily actions can shape the heart outside-in. Performing rituals inscribes character and inculcates virtue. Proper rituals generate appropriate theological concepts.

3. Ritualized worship provides the best possible cradle-to-grave pastoral care for the Christian community.

Liturgy forms personal and corporate identity. It gives us a sense of who we are. It gives us a sense of belonging. It creates and sustains bonds of covenant life and communion. Rituals mold us into a body. Liturgical rituals engrave certain habits into our hearts and minds, forming our character in a virtuous fashion. Ritual begets character.

The liturgy gives us a world-view and world-praxis, a certain way of viewing the world and being in the world. It gives us our symbolic matrix or grid, through which we interpret reality in terms of which we take action. Liturgy and ritual disciple us as a distinct people, or counter-culture, in the world. These patterns form us into “God’s army” – the Church Militant!

Liturgy gives us a way of celebrating and coping – it enables us to express joy in constructive ways, it enables us to channel grief appropriately, and it allows us to die well.

4. Rituals transform human consciousness. They are performative.

5. Rituals can serve as microchronic enactments of all of history and life.

6. Proper rituals are necessary to generate and sustain Christian culture.

7. A proper ritual theology holds together the equal ultimacy of mind and body, doctrine and praxis, the individual and community.

We at Christ Church Reforming hope and pray that you will join us in our quest to learn to worship God they way He desires to be worshipped, not the way we happen to feel like doing it. While God may not strike us down as He did the sons of Aaron when they committed the seemingly insignificant offence of offering up the smoke of their own special recipe of incense, I am sure that He is not pleased with the “strange fire” of so-called worship being offered up to Him today.

If you have questions, or would like to join a study group on Worship Renewal, please call Rev’d J. David McGuire at 918-740-1885 (Cell) or 918-283-2263 (Home).

Rev’d J. David McGuire, Founding Pastor; Sammy Norwood, Deacon; Kathy Sue Foxall, Elder; Kenneth Huston, Elder; Robert Williams, Elder; Ted Collins, Chairman of Board of Elders.
Reformed, Orthodox, Congregational, Liturgical, Uplifting, Involved, Worshipful, Word, Sacrament, God-Centered!

“Baptist Worship in the Charleston Tradition”

“Baptist Worship in the Charleston Tradition”
Knollwood Baptist Church
September 8, 15, 22 2004
Dr. Christopher C. F. Chapman

Historical Roots and Biblical Ties

I want to begin by giving you a bit of background on these lectures. Last year I was invited to present the N. C. Denson Biblical Lectures at the Dermott Baptist Church in Dermott, Arkansas. It is a small town church that I did know before in a part of Arkansas where I had never been. I didn’t even know the pastor and, to be honest, to this day I am still not entirely clear as to why they invited me to present these lectures. But in the final analysis, the only thing that matters is that, largely due to the pastor’s leadership, they have come to embrace a more liturgical, Charleston-like approach to worship, they wanted to deepen their understanding of its roots, and for some reason they ended up inviting me to present the lectures.

I won’t speak for the good folks of Dermott, Arkansas, but for me it was a wonderful experience. They were warm and loving people, they even allowed a stray Wildcat comment or two there in Razorback country, but my greatest joy was in preparing for the lectures, doing the study, taking time to reflect upon why we do worship the way we do and how we might strengthen our approach. After the experience, and after reflecting upon some conversations among our folks about our approach to worship, it seemed appropriate to present these lectures here, slightly adjusted for our needs. I have made every effort to be as objective as possible as I have approached this subject matter, to bring some sense of academic discipline to the task at hand, but I must confess that this has been a challenge. I am not objective, I am in no way a disinterested third party. Rather, I am an advocate of and believer in not only worship but a certain approach to worship that I have found to be meaningful time and again. Yet I must also confess that how important worship has become for me and that a particular approach to worship matters are both surprises.

When I started out in ministry twenty-two years ago, it never occurred to me that worship would become the central driving force in my life it has become nor did I anticipate how significant a certain approach would become. I cared deeply about worship and was nurtured in my first setting by inspired music, challenging preaching (which I did not do there), and meaningful liturgy. I was simply more focused upon pastoral care issues and social concerns. Understanding people and helping them understand themselves, confronting injustice in the name and Spirit of Jesus, these were the things that energized me then! They still do, but over time, worship has become more and more central to my faith.

I have done a good bit of reflection upon this shift of focus and I do not claim to understand it fully. It has something to do with planning and leading worship week after week, and much to my dismay, I must acknowledge that getting older is a factor as well. But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the primary explanation is tied to my need to ground everything I say and do in something or Someone beyond myself. Understanding people and pursuing justice are worthy callings, but they are too large to be approached from a human perspective alone. These tasks require a broader perspective, they need to be grounded in a larger purpose. This is what all genuine worship of any style does, and for me the kind of worship we characterize as being in the Charleston tradition does it best of all.

This having been said, I must say that leading worship in this tradition in this day often leaves one feeling a bit like a fish headed upstream… The majority of literature one reads, the majority of conferences on worship trends, the majority of church conversation centers around what is most commonly called contemporary worship as opposed to traditional worship, or casual worship as opposed to formal worship. I don’t want to spend much time talking about other approaches because they are not my concern here and because I believe that different approaches are valid, but I cannot pass by this subject matter without noting that the term casual worship seems to me the ultimate oxymoron.

One liturgical scholar has said that much contemporary worship simply replaces the ossified with the trivial. Or to quote a retired minister in Winston-Salem, “It seems (to me) that when people come as they are to worship, they tend to leave as they are.” Again, I don’t want to linger here too long, and I want to say very clearly that what people wear to worship is not the most important thing in the world. It’s simply the language of being casual before God that troubles me. Our faith proclaims belief in a God who is both transcendent and imminent, Holy Other and present friend. If we are not careful, in our modern desire to make worship more “user-friendly” we may attend only to our Buddy Jesus and never to the Almighty God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Spirit who moves over the face of the deep and comes to comfort and guide us into a greater appreciation of Truth.

Enough of this aside, my point is that the trend has been toward contemporary forms, though this is starting to shift in larger urban areas, I will speak more about this in the last two lectures. But the trend has been toward the contemporary and there are many who genuinely believe that it is not possible to reach out to and connect with younger generations without moving in this direction. Again, there is much evidence to the contrary, and our experience at Knollwood confirms that a more formal, liturgical approach is an inspiring and challenging approach for many younger people, but this approach is not for everyone.
A co-worker of Dana’s in another setting, a woman who belonged to a charismatic church in that city, when she found out I was a Baptist minister, said with much displeasure, “Oh, you are the people who just sit there in worship!” She was speaking about her perception of all Baptists, though she clearly had not attended any of the African-American Baptist services I have been a part of! Others, when they visit our very formal, quite liturgical Baptist service with ministers in robes, much scripture and liturgy read, sins confessed and forgiveness proclaimed, communion shared at the rail with members kneeling, offer a much more focused word of critique. They say something like this, “You call yourselves Baptist?!”

Of course, we have a well-rehearsed comeback to this sort of critique, “At Knollwood we like to think of ourselves as being Episcobapterian.” It is a bit smug, I know, and I both love the comeback and struggle with it. The part I love about it is that it says that we unapologetically borrow from other Christian traditions, and this is a good thing. I hope and pray the majority of Baptists have moved past the place of believing that we are the only folks on this planet moved by God’s Spirit. There is a world full of folks from whom we can learn and are learning. And the truth is that our church, like most churches today, is made up of folks from many different traditions. So, we are Episcobapterian in make-up as well as in our worship form.
So, what do I not like about this comeback? It seems to indicate that maybe we agree with the attack behind the question, “You call yourselves Baptist?!” In other words, “You are not really Baptist!” This I do not like. For you see, as ecumenically minded as I am, I do not want us to lose our Baptist heritage, and I strongly believe that the way we do worship, in the Charleston tradition, borrowing from other, more liturgical traditions, is very Baptist. Can I back this statement up? Sure I can and that is the task to which I will now turn.

I want to begin with an examination of the very early forms of Baptist worship because the Charleston tradition must be understood in the context of these early forms and their evolution over the first century or two of Baptist experience. In some settings I might find a debate about our beginnings as Baptists, but I trust not here. The groundwork was laid by people like by the so-called “Ana-Baptists” of the sixteenth century and English Separatists just after that time, but most scholars agree that the first clearly identifiable Baptist communities started in England in the early seventeenth century. I’m going to talk just a bit about what we know of their worship, which is not that much, but I will hasten to say that, while these first Baptists might not recognize our worship in the Charleston tradition, nor would they recognize any other Baptist worship today. Add a good bit of emotion to a Quaker meeting and you might have a chance at recognition!
Anyway, here is what we know. To set the stage I quote church historian, Tom McKibbens (who was by the way one of my ministers when I was a youth):

Imagine a small group of people gathered around a central
log fire in a large, half-timbered room. They are early
seventeenth-century Separatists, and they have gathered in
the manor house of Sir William Hickman of Gainsboro,
Nottingamshire, to participate in an illegal worship service.
To assist them in worship they have no printed order of
worship, no hymn books, not even a copy of the Bible.
What they have is themselves – ‘ye Lords free people,
joined… (by a covenant of the Lord) into a church estate,
in ye fellowship of ye gospell, to walk in all his wayes,
made known, or to be made known unto them, according to
their best endeavors, whatsoever it should cost them, the
Lord assisting them.’ (Review and Expositor, vol. LXX,
No. 1, Winter, 1983; Thomas R. McKibbens, Jr. p. 53;
The Works of John Smyth, ed. By W.T. Whitley,
Cambridge University Press, 1915)

As McKibbens notes, this little band of dissenters, not yet Baptists, would migrate to Amsterdam and then return to England to found the first Baptist congregation. John Smyth, a Cambridge graduate, would lead this congregation dedicated to what he will called “spiritual worship” and their worship became the most recognizable distinctively Baptist form. Again, our knowledge is limited here, but in essence, this worship was very informal, very non-structured, and very Spirit-led. Two church members, Hugh and Anne Bromhead, described a service with these words in a letter discovered in 1912. The letter contains at least one bit of information that conflicts with what John Smyth said about the service, namely that no written materials were used, but otherwise is believed to be fairly accurate:

We begynne with a prayer, after reade some one or two
chapters of the bible, gyve the sence thereof, and coferr
upon the same, that done wee lay aside oure bookes, and
after a solemne prayer made by the .1. speaker, he
propoundeth some text out of the scripture and
prophesieth out of the same by the space of one hower, or
the Quarters of a hower. After him standeth up A .2. speaker
and prophesieth out of the same text the like tyme and place
sometyme more sometyme lesse. After him the .3. the
.4. the .5. &c as the tyme will geve leave. Then the.1.
speaker cocludeth wth wth [sic] prayer as he began with
prayer, wth an exhortation to cotribution to the pore, wch
collection being made is also cocluded wth prayer. This
morning exercise begynes at eight of the clock, and
cocludeth until twelve of the clock, the like course and
exercise is observed in the afternoone from .2. of the
clock unto .5. or .6. on the clocke. Last of all the
execution of the govermet of the church is handled.
(Whitley, Works of John Smyth, p.268).

I know it is difficult to follow some of this language but the basics are clear. The service was very informal and free from structure. As a result, it was also very long! I read this passage last fall and noted the time frame for Ian and he gained a new appreciation for the brevity of our services! But, kidding aside, the key here is the freedom from all forms and traditions, indeed all readings entirely.
Yet this freedom must be seen in the context of Anglican worship of the time which was very rigid, indeed, locked into cement by the Book of Common Prayer which prescribed everything up front. Scripture, prayers, sermons, benedictions – everything was read word by word from a book. In fact, anyone who dared to depart from the script was subject to punishment as prescribed in The Book of Discipline of 1584. Hence the language noted previously of “illegal worship.”
Early Baptists were responding to the rigidity of their context and therefore, it should come as no surprise that their response seems like a bit of an overreaction at times. For example, John Smyth actually goes so far as to say that the mark of the beast referenced in Revelation 13:16 is nothing other than the baptism applied to infants in false churches such as England and Rome. However we view infant baptism, I hope we all agree that this language is a bit extreme. What it expresses is outrage at the overemphasis of the communal aspect of faith to the neglect of the individual’s need to respond to God for him/herself. Over time, not that much time, in fact, many English Baptists would moderate their view on Baptism. In similar fashion, they would moderate their views on worship but not at the beginning. What was wrong was all wrong, dead wrong. “Go ahead and throw out the baby with the bath water and burn down the bathroom while we’re at it!” was the philosophy (borrowed from Robert Fulghum).

To illustrate this reality I would underscore two basic facts I have named already – no printed scripture was to be read and no hymnals were allowed. In fact, one of the earliest Baptist controversies, of which there would be many to follow, was the controversy over hymns. The controversy was started by troublemaker Benjamin Keach, pastor of the Horsley Down Baptist Church in Southwork, who published a hymnbook in 1691 entitled Spiritual Melody which actually contained hymns that people had written in devotion to God (as opposed to musical settings of psalms). In the year the hymnal was published, Keach wrote a defense of hymn singing entitled “The Breach Repaired in God’s Worship” which provided a response to “A Discourse Against Singing” written by a Mr. Isaac Marlow. Yet the controversy raged, and in 1693 twenty-three members of the Horsley Down Baptist Church were so offended that they left the church and joined the Bagnio Church led by Robert Steed. In the end Keach agreed to lead hymn singing only after the sermon, so that the early non-hymn-singers could leave without being offended!

Hearing all of this, you may be wondering how in the world we ever got to the Charleston tradition! I’m getting there soon. Hold on just a bit longer. Change happened rather quickly but, before noting this change, I want to point to three principles that guided early Baptist worship as summarized by McKibbens, principles that formed the groundwork for what would follow. These three principles were – openness to change, openness to the leadership of the Spirit, and freedom of conscience. Smyth once wrote, “We will never be satisfied in endeavoring to reduce the worship and ministry of the Church, to the primitive Apostolique institution from which as yet it is so far distant (Whitley, 271).” In other words, these early Baptists did not want to move away from one kind of rigidity only to lock themselves into another kind of rigidity. They did not want to move out of one box into another. Rather, they wanted to remain open to change and responsive to the Spirit, and they were willing to die (in fact some did) for their freedom to respond to God in their own way and order worship as they felt led, even if this meant very little order at all.

A part of the message here before we go any further, therefore, is that any way a local congregation freely orders its worship in the manner it feels led by the Spirit honors these earliest Baptist principles, and it was the general principles and not the specific forms that they were willing to fight for, even die for when necessary.

So, this much noted, how long did it take for these early rebels reacting to too much structure and order to swing back toward the center and seek some order again? Not very long! Many factors influenced various congregations but a key turning point was when George Fox began what would become the Quaker movement in 1647. His focus on an inward light, even less structure, and even more freedom, seemed to cross a line over into chaos. And some Baptists joined this movement while others not only did not but returned to their Baptist folds with a desire to restore some order and structure to worship. In particular, reading scripture at the very least seemed like a good idea. Some eventually came to tolerate hymns. Not everyone left the Horsley Down Church led by the radical heretic hymn singer Keach! And before long much Baptist worship included some liturgy and structure as designed by the local leaders. Preaching remained a key emphasis in even the more ordered British Baptist worship. The reading of scripture became a centerpiece as well. And the principles of freedom and responsiveness to the Spirit remained.

So, what does all of this have to down with Charleston? Well, that it is a long story, and a not so long one really. The bottom line is that British customs in general found their way over to the colonies. This was true of the most mundane matters of life as a Winston-Salem chef recently wrote these words in a club newsletter article about Low Country food (you know what low country food is…?), “At the center is Charleston, a place where culture and fine dining came of age early. In the 1700’s it was natural for residents of Charleston, not far removed from the British monarchy, to imitate genteel customs of their homeland. And when the confluence of cultures and exotic spices and foods that flowed into Charleston were combined with the region’s bounty, its yield was a strikingly earthy and original Southern cuisine named Low Country (Forsyth Country Club Foresights, October, 2003; Chef Mike Mort).”

What was true of mundane matters was true of religious experience. These early colonists borrowed from British tradition and the dominant British form of Baptist worship had a good bit of order and structure to it. As food customs were blended with local influences (And thank goodness for that! Even my English father complains about English food…), worship traditions were shaped differently here as well, but the British forms significantly shaped early Baptist worship in the colonies.

One center of this tradition was in Charleston, South Carolina. Oliver Hart, who preceded Richard Furman at First Baptist Church, Charleston, preached a sermon in which he spoke of the dignity and order Baptist worship ought to have. Worship was to be “carefully set, and maintained in order; for it is of so much importance, that there cannot be an orderly gospel without it (Oliver Hart, “A Gospel Church Portrayed, and Her Orderly Service Pointed Out, Trenton: Printed by Isaac Collins, 1791, p. 28).” Church historian Walter Shurden says that the worship of this church and area encouraged the adopting of a confession of faith, the education of ministers, and cooperation in associational life. Specifically about Charleston worship, Shurden says this.

It represented a style in public worship that was ordered
and stately, though pulsating with evangelical warmth.
The ordinances were more important to these eighteenth-
century Baptists than to many of their successors. Worship
appeared to be neither spontaneously charismatic nor
primarily revivalistic. It was directed toward heaven, not
earth. The object was to praise God, not entertain people.
(Walter Shurden, “The Southern Baptist Synthesis: Is It
Cracking?” Baptist History and Heritage, April, 1981, pp
2-10)

What exactly did these services involve? We don’t have a great deal of detail but our best guess is that they generally followed an order somewhat like that suggested by Morgan Edwards, a former pastor of First Baptist Church, Philadelphia who traveled through the south, namely:

A short prayer, suitably prefaced
Reading of Scripture
A longer prayer
Singing (congregational)
Preaching
A third prayer
Singing
The Lord’s Prayer (on appointed Sundays)
Collecting for the necessities of the saints
Benediction
(Morgan Edwards, The Customs of Primitive Churches,
Philadelphia, 1768, p. 100)

It is also possible that some services leaned on the older Geneva Order developed by Calvin which followed the pattern of Isaiah 6 with a gathering for worship, a confession of sin and assurance of pardon, the reading of scripture, prayer, singing, and proclamation, followed by a collection, prayer, communion, and a benediction. The specifics varied but the general forms sought order and dignity. Robes were worn as a sign of reverence and, to be honest, to point to the educational level of the clergy, and liturgy was used in some form, if only the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.

Clearly there were other forms of Baptist worship. Something very different emerged on the frontier as the revival movement began. Sandy Creek, as in Sandy Creek, North Carolina is noted as a center for this basic approach as Charleston is considered the center or a center for a more formal, liturgical approach. And both traditions have merit and validity, both have strengths and weaknesses. But, contrary to the assumptions of many, the Charleston approach is older. It does have links with British Baptist worship both in its expression of the general principles of that worship and the specific forms of the late seventeenth/early eighteen century. Thus, it is very much a Baptist tradition in every sense of the word. That it is viewed by some to be simply a new accommodation to the contemporary ecumenical movement is further evidence of how little awareness of our longer history many Baptists in this culture have.

The remaining question is, “Is it Biblical?” and the answer is, “As Biblical as any other approach to worship.” Scripture does not give us a specific template for how to structure worship services, and even if it did, we would have to adapt the basic principles. The Christian Testament does give us a few hints of the kinds of elements we might include in worship. Acts 2 describes the early church as a community where worship in some form is the center of community life. All we know that is that these early believers in Jerusalem are devoted to teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread (communion) and prayer. Though I would add that their concept of fellowship included taking care of each other financially. Fellowship was not just about tea and cookies (though as the son of an Englishman, I love tea and cookies!). In 1 Timothy 4:13, Paul urges Timothy to devote himself to the public reading of scripture. Preaching and teaching are also strongly suggested. Singing is later described in numerous places including Colossians 3:16.

A congregational amen is referenced in 1 Corinthians 14:16 (Thank-you Lee Hill for helping us recover this!). A collection is noted in 1 Corinthians 16:1,2. Numerous references are made to a holy kiss (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:26). And the celebration of Lord’s Supper was clearly a frequent focus of worship.

So, we know a bit about what happened in the early church, though I would hasten to note that there was not one early church nor would we want to copy everything any of these churches did. But we can catch a glimpse of the elements and our forms echo these. There is no specific push to worship in a formal, liturgical way or any other way, but there is certainly nothing to suggest that the Charleston style is out of synch with the biblical witness.

Perhaps the strongest tie we can find is found in the Hebrew Bible. The narrative of Isaiah 6 presents a wonderful model of worship and I will explore this model in more depth next week, but the basic movement of awareness of the holy, confession of sin and assurance, listening for God’s voice and responding with a willingness to serve is well embodied in the Charleston approach to worship. The frontier model, the Sandy Creek Model, the more revivalistic model, is a much more anthropomorphic model. That is to say, its primary focus is upon humanity, our need for conversion. The Charleston approach is more focused upon God, and I would contend much more analogous to the experience of the Isaiah. Again it is not a matter of right and wrong. Human beings need conversion; the goals, expressed or not, of the Sandy Creek tradition are valid and significant goals; but so are the goals of the Charleston tradition. We have a need, a calling, to honor God, to do something that is first and foremost about God, and not about us, and worship in Charleston style can help us to do so.

I am reminded of an old episode of E. R. in which Dr. Carter has held back information about the prognosis for an elderly lady. She dies and her husband is taken by surprise and thus is angry with Carter. Realizing his error, Carter goes to the lady’s funeral but arrives late. Yet, still feeling badly and having a need to do something, he approaches the disgruntled widower after the service and begins an apology, but the widower stops him midstream. He does not look comforted, but rather seems even more disgruntled. Dr. Carter, he says, this day is not about you!
How much God must feel like this about many of our conversations about and efforts at worship! Worship is not first about us. It is about God, it is for God, and it is shaped first not by our tastes and perceived needs but by the character of God.

The irony is that we find our deepest needs met when we shift the focus away from ourselves to God. Because underneath all of our needs and wants is a deeper longing to know the One who made us, to receive the acceptance and hear the calling of our Creator, and then to respond in service. Augustine said that our hearts are restless until they rest in God. So they are. Genuine worship, an authentic recognition of and response to the Holy, enables us to rest.

No one style moves us in the direction, but as I said at the beginning of this lecture, I have had this experience time and again in worship in the Charleston style. Thus, my passion and bias for it. Is it Baptist? Yes, absolutely, in principle and form, though I am still comfortable with the term Episcobapterian. It is it Biblical? Yes! As biblical as any other form or style. But does it work for people in this day and does it have a future? These are questions for future lectures.

If These Drums Go -- I Go!

A Critique of "Contemporary" Worship
By David Bennett

"If these drums go, I go..."
I was a junior in college, and I attended a church that was solidly "contemporary." Everything, the modern praise songs, long sermons about personal change, white walls, and, yes, the drums, signaled that this church was on the cutting edge of worship. In fact, the main reason I attended it was that super-trendy local para-church leaders highly recommended it. As a young college student I, like a magnet drawn to metal, had to like this church, or so everyone told me. It was at a parish meeting that the pastor spoke these words, "if these drums go, I go," suggesting that he would never stay in a church without drums, in a church that practiced "traditional" worship.

Let me start from the beginning. After I re-dedicated my life to Christ during my junior year in college, I started looking for a campus church to attend. So, following the recommendation of Campus Crusade for Christ leaders, my brother and I went to visit this particular church. Everyone was very kind and welcoming, and the week after the initial service I visited, two girls showed up at our dorm bearing cookies, inviting us back to the church. Impressed by this act of kindness, we did return.

Having been raised in a more traditional evangelical church, this church's worship style was new to me, but it was a standard contemporary service. We sang praise songs for about 30 minutes, shared some personal stories, and then sat through a message, usually about personal transformation through Jesus Christ. After the service, almost everybody left to eat at one of the local restaurants. During the first few weeks, what I experienced was thoroughly positive. I proudly called my parents back home, feeling self-satisfied that I had found a new church experience that made short work of the soon-to-be-irrelevant traditional style of worship.
However, the honeymoon quickly ended. Over a year's time, the initial positive feelings I had were being replaced by a sense of doubt and despair. What actually made the church a strong initial choice gradually made it appear in a much different light. First, let me say at this time I was studying the Bible thoroughly, as well as reading many materials from the ancient church. It is within this context of study and development that I write.

One ministry, in which my brother and I participated, was to welcome "seekers" to the church, by participating in the cookie delivery ministry that had welcomed us to the parish. We, like others in the parish, bent over backwards to make sure that new people felt welcome. However, we were ignoring another group of seekers: members of the church. Let me explain. Deciding to follow Christ is the beginning of the journey, not the end, and after deciding to follow Christ, we still need the Church's help becoming more like Christ. It seemed as if once we began attending this church, and we were another butt upon a seat, another membership statistic, the mission of the church had been fulfilled. Getting "saved" was the goal, and once that was attained, it was as if the church leaders called another number, and the older converts were to return to the proverbial waiting room. The support, food, and attention given to new arrivals never made their way to long-term members who often had to fend for themselves. This led to a high turnover rate, and the members that did stay often knew very little about basic Christian teaching. In fact, church leaders clearly stated that worship services should be designed for the benefit of non-Christians, not church members. This "seeker-friendly" model had the effect of creating a church that was a mile wide, but an inch deep.

Gradually, the worship began to become less exciting, and less meaningful. The praise songs began to repeat themselves, and hardly seemed "contemporary" anymore after we had sung them ten times. The time of sharing was nice, but it seemed as if the same people were delivered from the same problems each and every week, which I now attribute to the lack of stable support by the church for long-time members. The sermons seemed to resemble self-help seminars, except that unlike most self-help seminars, the pastor read a few verses of Scripture beforehand. In fairness, the sermons were generally engaging and helpful, but I did not find them very theologically deep, but then again, this church was purposely reaching out to seekers, not those of us who were already Christian. Nonetheless, I began to wonder why it was worth getting up early on a Sunday morning to hear a sermon that was specifically designed for non-Christians.

Another thing I noticed was that people often quit coming when things turned boring, showing no loyalty to the local body of Christ. Like seeking a drug, many left for more "contemporary" settings, where people even danced in the aisles, which made the church I attended seem "dead," no better than a traditional church. During a rather long sermon series many of the regular members just quit attending. This is not surprising given the emphases of many leaders in the church, because God's kingdom had already been reduced to "quiet times" with God. In many ways, the assembly of believers was superfluous if one had meaningful quiet times.

The white walls also became rather boring and meaningless. The stained glass was hidden behind doors. The church, the setting for encountering the Holy, did not feel any holier than a conference center, and other conference centers certainly had more amenities, bars where you could go if the conference became boring. This church had no connection to the past either. Actually, the church was eager to shed any past connection it could, because as it goes, college students wanted the new and exciting. History and tradition, no matter how ancient, simply either got in the way of Christ's mission, or at best, was a curious artifact of the past, like big band music.

This church constantly emphasized being emotionally "happy," and, for lack of a better word, "peppy." My faith was often questioned because I did not "get into" the music and worship like others did, which meant that I did not always clap my hands, wave them in the air, or smile constantly during worship. My girlfriend at the time was questioned by her Bible study leader because she didn't seem "happy" enough. It became apparent to me that this church's obsession with contemporary worship was deeply intertwined with its theology. The basic premise underlying both was that worship should be emotionally happy and exciting, just as we, as good Christians, were supposed to be emotionally happy and excited. The bottom line is that this church's worship and spirituality were reduced to an emotional experience, and the experience of only one emotion (happiness) at that. I never accepted the premise that we were created to feel one emotion, or that worship was meant to appeal solely to one emotion.

A funny thing happened while I attended this church. What was new, contemporary, and exciting in the autumn, was ritual and rote by the spring. What was exciting in 1998 was routine by 1999. Despite the church's criticism of ritual, most sang without hearing the words, and sat and stood at the same time each week. Many of us clapped to the beat even if we didn't pay attention; it could have been a praise song or a classic oldie, it did not matter. In other words, we soon fell into the so-called trappings of traditional worship.

I eventually stopped attending this church regularly, because what worked at one stage of my Christian journey was inappropriate for the next. I moved on to a less contemporary setting, but one that is more enduring. I guess part of the problem lies in trying to be contemporary. The problem is that the people who decide what is contemporary, i.e. "cool," are advertising executives, corporations, popular musicians, television networks, sports stars, and a whole host of other sources that can hardly be described as thoroughly Christian. I have no problem with the entities mentioned above. In fact I listen to (post)modern music, watch TV, and play sports. The issue I have is that the church is never going to be a key influence in determining what is "contemporary." In fact, what some churches usually embrace as contemporary is often just stale and recycled pop culture. For instance, many "praise and worship" songs are more throwbacks to early 1990s adult contemporary music than anything cutting edge. If I am listening to the newest alternative-country song in my car, why would I be impressed with a church that is trying to appeal to the same desire, only doing so in a very outmoded way.

Unfortunately, whenever a church tries to be current, it looks as if its M.C. Hammer's comeback attempt. It's no wonder. "Contemporary" churches are usually run by baby boomers, not by the same people that actually set trends in our society. My point? Churches will never win the race to be contemporary. They will always be beaten before they even leave the starting gate by the culture that actually determines what contemporary is. Perhaps this is why most Christian T-shirts are no more enduring than the brand images they rip-off.

In the end, the gospel and message of Jesus can never be contemporary as certain contemporary churches wish it would be. For today's churches, contemporary is often synonymous with "trendy," "popular," and "easy-to-appreciate." The story of Christianity is one of the poor Jewish God-Man preaching repentance, poverty, and spiritual suffering among the dregs of society. Jesus was rejected by his own people and then crucified. These factors can hardly be considered "cool," and following Jesus could lead to dejection and isolation when lived-out seriously. When Jesus rose from the dead, the situation became no better for Christians, as many were martyred, tortured, and expelled from synagogues for their faith. Even after the death of the apostles, early Christians were killed by wild beasts, burned alive, and forced to freeze to death, unless they would deny Jesus as Lord. The gospel for which many saints died, can never be cool in the modern sense, and it can never be mass-marketed. On the contrary, if the gospel is thoroughly preached and lived, then fewer butts are likely to grace the bottoms of seats. In fact throughout Church History, what was "contemporary" was usually novel, heretical, and spiritually dangerous in comparison to the timeless truths derived from the Apostles. And while contemporary doctrines and practices often appealed to the masses (as did the ancient Arian heresy), they were deviations from the timeless gospel truth.

I do believe that worship itself can actually be "cool" although I prefer the term "meaningful," but it should always be beyond any label we would put on it. After all, worshiping is entering into the presence of the almighty God of the cosmos, and not about our personal entertainment. The ancient Church did not sing songs or read scriptures that appealed to only one emotion, such as happiness, but through the Church calendar they worshipped God within a wide range of emotions, emotions that we all have at various times. During Advent we, as members of the Church, wait for Christ's second coming, during Christmas we celebrate Christ's birth and incarnation, and during Lent we enter into Jesus' suffering and death, thereby exploring our own suffering and making sacrifices to connect to the sacrifice of Christ. At Easter we celebrate Christ's victory over evil through his resurrection from the dead. Humans are emotionally complex individuals, and simply appealing to our desire for happiness (with year-round contemporary praise music) succeeds for a short time, but comes up empty, and even seems patronizing, when we suffer, mourn, or have doubts.

In conclusion, I think the church should always strive to teach and worship in a way that effectively renders the timeless ancient beliefs and worship of the Church into a culturally relevant form. In other words, there is nothing wrong with using newer songs (all songs were new at some point) and updated language in worship. However, these, I think, should be blended with ancient worship forms and classical language. Many Christians today are worshipping in a way that blends ancient forms and practices with newer elements. This position captures the richness and meaning from our past and utilizes newer contributions from Christians in the same living tradition. Thus, I don't really have problems with drums after all so long as they are used appropriately, that is in non-Eucharistic services. My real problem is when the use of drums, or some other trendy element of worship, becomes the litmus test for true worship, taking center stage simply because it is the newest thing. Musical style does not determine true worship (although the music we choose for worship often reflects our theology). Whether Christ is present in the worship is what matters.

When we let secular trends fully shape our worship, the Church becomes an inert, tamed-down, and outdated version of the culture it supposedly wishes to be distinguished from. We neither succeed in living the gospel, nor do we remain "contemporary," when the state of being "contemporary" fluctuates almost daily. What endure are the living teachings of Christ, preserved through God's community, the Church. And while Eucharistic worship, extensive scripture reading, iconography, common prayer, meditative prayer, service to the poor, and Christian holy days may not be inherently "cool" to a culture that appreciates only the new and exciting, they will endure, perhaps tweaked and shaped for different contexts, long after any trend originating in the year 2003. In the end, I have no judgment of those who worship with a contemporary style. However, many become disillusioned with such worship and do not know where to go. Many of us have sought out liturgical churches, in my case the Catholic Church, where worship is less "contemporary," but consistent and meaningful. I will not shed a tear if the drums go; if the presence of Christ, and the meaning his presence brings, goes, then I go.

But Isn't Liturgical Worship Dead?

Article by David Bennett

"Liturgical worship is dead.""God only likes extemporaneous prayer, not 'canned' prayers.""Catholic 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 might mean the worship is not lively, but as Christians, the implications are grander. Being called "dead" means that a church's worship is not only boring, but that it is not following the will of God. 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 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 contemporary "praise and worship" service, rote and ritual abounded. Even though we sang "contemporary" songs, we usually sang the same ones over and over again. Every Sunday, the service consisted of the same structure: praise singing and sermon. The pastor 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 "contemporary" tradition, I found it. Even when I returned home to a more old-fashioned 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.

As I have shown above, we can never be free from ritual. If you succeed in being freed from all ritual, let me know. Just be careful, because if you do something well-enough to succeed, likely it 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. However, 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 proven by time. This is where ancient Christian liturgy comes in.

Liturgy has gotten a bad reputation over the years. 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. In reality, liturgy comes from the Greek word meaning "work of the people," and describes a form of worship, directed to God, by God's people. In some ways virtually every worship service can be called liturgical in some fashion, 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 and 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 or her 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 instance, do you take communion from a common cup? Do you say anything as a group?

I applied this same test a few years ago when I visited a church I used to attend. I paid close attention to how much the worship service was actually the work of the people. It turned out the service was more presbyturgy, or the work of the pastor. We sang a few praise songs together, but after that our participation ended. Whenever prayer was said, the pastor said it all. Even during a baptism, the pastor was the only one who said anything. The sermon was very long, and I lost interest and my mind drifted. In the end, I observed how the congregation really didn't do a thing; the pastor did. After the service, I left in a hurry to get some lunch, while the pastor and worship team probably felt revitalized. I counted the tiles on the ceiling 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. 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 colors, 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 praise and worship service indulge our need for awe? For Penitence? For reflection? Rarely.

Liturgical worship is also thoroughly bible-based. Most liturgical churches 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 Catholic Church and Eastern Churches are lifted almost entirely from the Bible. While worshipping in a Catholic or Eastern 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 weekly prayer services of the Church, called the Divine Office or Liturgy of the Hours, also consist primarily of psalms and other hymns taken straight from the Bible.

The liturgical churches are participatory in yet another important way: they have Eucharist services weekly or daily, continually observing Christ's command to "do this in remembrance of me." Eucharist, also called the Mass or Communion, is the coming of the entire community to God's table to partake of Christ's body and blood under the species of bread and wine. The Eucharist is the main event, not the preaching. The sermon (called a homily) is simply a 7-20 minute reflection on the gospel, occurring near the middle of the worship service. In this system, the work of the people is the reason for the service. Eucharist requires active participation by the community. One cannot passively participate in the Mass, simply because it requires you to stand and sit, and at least leave your seat (although one can choose to simply remain still...but why even go?). Also, do you find sermons over 20 minutes hard to follow? Well, you can be relieved to know that it wasn't until the 1500s that the sermon became the main event of the worship service.

This is not to say we Catholics and Orthodox don't have a lot to learn from our evangelical 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, we Catholics could use 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. When we Catholics begin to view the homily as insignificant, it can cause us to miss an educational exposition of the gospel.
Now whenever somebody asks me if liturgical worship is dead, I explain to them what liturgical worship is, its basis in biblical worship, especially in ancient Hebrew worship, its celebration of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, its reflection of every human emotion through the celebration church year, and its use of common prayer to engender community. I tell them that liturgy includes room for contemporary worship as well as more ancient forms. 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.