A lot of attention has been focused on Pope Benedict XVI’s granting wider priveleges to those who wish to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass (often called the Tridentine Rite) that held pride of place until the promulgation of the Novus Ordo by Pope Paul VI in 1969. The latter, although orthodox in its orginal form, allowed a great deal more avenues for experimentation and in many ways cut the Catholic Church off from its musical patrimony that has developed over centuries. Church’s that had once been filled with the strains of Gregorian chant and Pallestrina would now succumb to nuns with folk guitars and songs that were banal even by praise song standards.Notice the correlation of each…
I choose the 1928 Book of Common Prayer for my authority of worship. I do this for a number of reasons, some of which support the use of the 1662:
- 1. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer represents the Anglican Church in America as it was in its orthodox state; the last official Prayer Book to be received by the entire American Anglican union prior to the modern division of the church. It was also a revision that was authorized by both the American bishops as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury (1789). The 1928 is also more ecumenical to the East, which, to me, is an important part of the future of Christendom.
- 2. Because of the statement above, the 1928, to me, represents the unity of the Anglican church of America. I think that the new revised Prayer Book put out by Rev. Toon, is a bold attempt for a new type of unified Prayer Book (as was the REC Prayer Book), but only time will tell if it will be able to sustain. If it was to become the leading Prayer Book, I would likely use it, but with some reluctance.
- 3. The 1928 has maintained the Elizabethan language, which is important for a number of reasons: It prevents the standard of worship from drifting into “ghetto” formats of language, as time within America has proven itself to drag various liturgies into; it brings the Christian to the linguistic roots of the Prayer Book, which in turn opens the door for great appreciation for the Reformation; and finally the Elizabethan language is a very “poetic” language, and so enables the Christian to separate themselves from the loose language of everyday life and take up a language that is rich in meaning and melody, exemplifying ones worship experience.
- 4. The 1928 contains the Apocrypha within the liturgical calendar. This is important for a variety of reasons, one being that Article 6 states that the Apocrypha is to continue as a part of the Church, as opposed to what the Anabaptist believed. The Article states: “the Church doth read [the Apocrypha] for example of life and instruction of manners…”
- 5. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer, in the Holy Communion, begins with the Our Father. This, to me, is a very “biblical” way of beginning a service. Also the latter part of the Holy Communion is placed nearer to the end of the service, with a greater anticipation and building up to the distribution. In the 1662, it seems as though the distribution is done a bit too prematurely, with the Our Father and Oblation done after, rather than before. Although there is a short type of Oblation and Invocation within the Prayer of Consecration, it does not seem to make the impact that the extended version of the 1928 makes.
- The differences between the 1928 and the 1979 are far too many to list in this page. Overall, the 1928 is more Reformed in character/doctrine, confronting the Christian with their sin and depravity, whereas the 79 is much softer on sin and depravity. Many Anglicans believe the 1979 Prayer Book to be unorthodox.
There is no neutrality within the spiritual realm, and this includes the use of clerical attire and liturgical vestments. If one does not choose to wear, say, an alb, to minister in, why does he choose a suit or a polo shirt? A modern pastor may say that he is attempting to “become all things to all people,” as if St. Paul used that statement for a license of some sort. And where does this philosophy end? If the majority of the culture is, for instance, wearing bathing suits, does this mean that the pastor should do the same? Or is there an actual moral standard to be met? If there is, then what should this standard be? Has the all-things-to-all-people concept really done the Church much good? Is it effective for creating a conscience within society? Does the more modern concept demonstrate modesty and sobriety?
I am “high church” in my choosing of vestments and I currently wear what my current priest requires me to wear, which is the white alb, as a postulant. As an ordained Anglican, my priest uses a black cassock with a surplice. I understand that the black cassock is traditional to the Church of England, but I prefer the alb with either a stole or a chasuble, depending on the Eucharistic duties, of course. Early writings of the fathers show that the priests were required to wear all white, signifying the purity of Christ. The white alb also seems to be more accepted by today’s culture - not that that is the standard, but it is always nice when we can be traditional and accepted! The alb is a little sleeker than the cassock - with the thin white surplice, and the alb, to me, seems to make a bolder statement.
Jesus Wore Clerical Attire
If it is such a noble thing for a pastor to compromise his standard of dress to appease the modern culture, then one has to wonder why Christ did not do such a thing.
Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?” They said, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” - John 1:38
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” - Mark 10:17
The question that arises from these passages is just how the people knew that Jesus was a Rabbi. It can safely be assumed that they knew he was a Rabbi due to his rabbinical attire!
The following verses show that people did not immediately recognize Jesus as a Rabbi, but this was due to his need to go to the feast “in secret.”
However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.” But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews. Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the Temple courts and begin to teach. The Jews were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learning without having studied?” - John 7:10-15
Clerical attire, such as the collar, sets a man apart for his service, and keeps him accountable to the public. One of the very problems with the Church today is that they refuse to take dominion - as commanded by God - of the culture. When a priest or deacon wears his collar in public he makes a statement to the public that the Church is alive and well, and the Church is available for their needs. Not wearing clerical attire, for a pastor, is like not wearing a uniform for a police officer. No one can reach out for help if they do not know whom to reach out to.
The clerical collar, as well as the liturgical vestments, prevent the people from judging the pastor according to his style; whether or not he is fashionable or “cool.” Clerical attire can also help set a conservative tone within the church. However the pastor dresses, the congregants will dress a step or two below. For example, if the pastor wears jeans and a Hawaiian shirt, the congregants will likely wear shorts and flip-flops. Clerical attire sets standards, and sinful man needs standards to be set, especially from the clergy.
Clerical attire is apostolic. The apostles dressed in robes. This is an important standard to follow, not because robes are holy in and of themselves, but it is important because the apostolic standard, which was in place for hundreds of years, prevents the Church from fully embracing modernity, which is a slippery slope to liberalism and other New Age heresies. Clerical attire can help prevent apostasy.
I will conclude this discussion by mentioning the fact that the future of the Church, according to the Bible, involves the wearing of robes, the attire we use to anticipate this glorious state of the Church:
Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns of gold on their heads. - Revelation 4:4 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed. - Revelation 6:11 [ A Multitude from the Great Tribulation ] After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands…” - Revelation 7:9Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?” - Revelation 7:13
He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. - Revelation 19:13
And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. - Revelation 19:16
For all of you who are uncomfortable about kneeling while praying to and worshiping God, here is an article by a well known pastor - whose name I will not mention, in order not to stumble the weak hearted. Great clip! Hope you enjoy.
I love the way St. Paul describes Christians as “bondservants.” Other translations besides the NKJ use the word slave, but bondservant seems much more appropriate since it is not associated with modern slavery. To be a bondservant of Christ means that we are indeed bound to our servant-hood. We are not slaves in the modern sense of not having freedom, but we are slaves in the spiritual sense of having freedom yet under the certain care and tutelage of Christ.
Speaking of Evangelicalism and liturgy - I was listening to the radio the other day (I do a lot of driving) and there was this interview on the Christian station with some Olympic snowboarders. One of the snowboarders stated that when they snowboard they are at their best worship with God.
There seems to be some confusion as to just what “worship” is and is not. Although our lives are indeed a worship experience, we need to be careful what we identify as our “worship experience.” The climax of our worship is not when we are experiencing our favorite sport or even just enjoying the splendor of God’s beauty within nature, perhaps at the beach or within the mountains. St. Paul warned us in Romans by explaining that many have fallen to worship the creation and not the creator.
I’m not saying that this snowboarder is worshiping creation, but I am saying that this is the typical Evangelical error of over-realized eschatology. The climax of our worship experience, here on earth, is when we first kneel before the Lord our maker on Sunday. This may sound shocking, but if you are not throwing your entire life at the throne of the living God during your worship within the Church, then you will not experience an abundant life the days after. Our worship experience in life begins with the Eucharistic celebration of the Lord’s Day and dovetails from there, not from our favorite hobby.
If your worship experience is not where it should be, then make it so. If you are living in a house of cedar - as King David put it - but your God is dwelling in a tent, then obviously something needs to be done. No Christian should be complaining about their worship service unless they have first offered themselves to the ministry of Church; whether it be through service or finance.
The worship service of the Church, and not our favorite hobby, should be the pillar of our psychological well being. When disruptive thoughts come to mind, think of how you worship, and those thoughts will likely turn and run; unless your worship is disruptive or you rarely worship. I am absolutely convinced that contemporary, liturgicaless, Psalmless (not singing them as God commands), and Eucharistless (not including the Eucharist on the Lord’s Day service) worship is harmful to the Christian and the Church as a whole. If it were right, then the Church would have been partaking in it for the first 1800 years of existence prior to the Enlightenment.
Something to think about.
O GOD, who makest us glad with the yearly remembrance of the birth of thine only Son Jesus Christ; Grant that as we joyfully receive him for our Redeemer, so we may wit sure confidence behold him when he shall come to be our Judge, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world with out end. Amen.
Collect for Christmas Day - Book of Common Prayer 1928
According to the 2001 Census, more than seven in ten people in England consider themselves Christian. But a recent church census by Christian Research found that fewer than one in ten of the population actually go to church.”
The Church and her ceremony are vital, even to salvation. In all the confusion about who is in the covenant and who is out, who is of God and who is not, we must not be tempted to draw a line based on our sins against man, as if people who practice a lesser kind of sin against man were in and people who practice a greater kind of sin against man were out. Regarding justification, sin is sin; all sin, no matter what the severity, separates us from God’s redemption. To determine who is in need of salvation and who is not, we must determine who or what a person is worshiping. We should not discern the need of salvation by a person’s degree of sin against man but by their degree of sin against God. The sin I’m referring to is idolatry. But is there a litmus test to determine whether or not a person is in a lifestyle of idolatry and not worshiping God?
The one thing I love so much about the Anglican church is that it actually has a standard: The Book of Common Prayer. I first began my more serious studies at a very staunch Reformed Presbyterian seminary that taught the validity of the Old Testament laws and their application to modern times - via New Covenant philosophy of course. But the irony of this particular theology is that it holds to no standard of worship! They speak of what is called the Regulative Principle, which essentially teaches that if it is not found in the New Testament it cannot be practiced. But this would limit the theology of worship to a completely fragmented state (also it would mean that no musical instruments could be used). The New Testament was not given to us in a propositional form. There is no New Testament Leviticus. The truths of the Bible were meant to be handed down to bishops and pastors, as St. Paul explains. Like all modern ethics, there must be a theological standard set in order for the standard to maintain its form through generations. And it was precisely the bishops and pastors of the Church of England (with the help of other Reformers) that were able to set this standard for us in these confusing times of moral relativism.
The question is: Does your church have a theological standard for worship? Or, can the pastor make up whatever he wants, whenever he wants? Is he bound to the history of the Church? Or, can he submit to the trends of modernity? If he can’t conform to modernity, who says that he can’t? Is there any historical succession of ethical standard within your authority structure? What will happen to your movement in three or so generations from now? Will your “conservative” worship survive?
To conclude, I would like to refer my readers to what I believe is the result of standardless worship in the Church, known as the Emergent movement.
Once a Christian has been liturgical (we used to be able to say “Reformed” when referring to tradition) for a significant amount of time they begin to see some things differently, especially when it comes to worship and the arts, and just how and where these two are to properly intersect. Those Christians that are steeped within the baptistic/evangelical world simply cannot see what the liturgical folk see. I know that may be offensive to some, but whoever said the Christian faith and the pursuit of sanctification would please everyone?
When one becomes cultivated by the singing and chanting of the Psalms, the richness of historical hymns and the power of the symbolic, one cannot help to notice how very silly and backwards modern pop-culture is. I believe today’s pop-culture is feministic - close your ears all you passive men…no, I mean open them ;)
Turn your radio dial to the newest pop-culture Christian station and listen to the songs and the dialog. The songs, for the most part, are feminine. They require one to perch their head out and embrace their lighter side as if singing to a female lover or a baby! But God is not a baby; nor is He female. God is masculine in nature and mature as He can be.
In Deuteronomy 27-28 and Joshua 8, we can see how the people of God worshiped. They did not sit in a circle, hold each-others hands, and then sing the latest love poems - which they did have - with changed lyrics to accommodate the Bible. No, one tribe shouted from one slope of Mount Gerizim and the other shouted from the slope of Mount Ebal. This was passionate, deliberate, and robust proclamations toward a God that delivers from the enemy! Rhythm and melody where not the main thrust, but the voices and masculine passions of the people were.
Ancient liturgy cultivates one to be a warrior. It brings one to a point of submission and reverence to a mighty God that has sustained throughout all history. Our God did not ‘catch his second wind’ sometime in the early 70s. He’s not a Baby Boomer ;) Our God is an ancient God that has been through tremendous battle. He does not want to be lullabied or romanced. He wants to be worshiped.
Here is a great post from Alastair Roberts of Scotland:
Liturgy is so important, precisely as borrowed language. People complain about praying someone else’s words rather than their own in the liturgy, but that is the precise point of liturgy. By ‘borrowing’ the language of the Church which has been handed over to us (in tradition) we hand ourselves over to God and to each other (Peter Candler explores this well in his latest book).
The ‘heroic pose’ that Keillor speaks of is one in which the speaker presents God with his own words, deeming his own vocabulary to be sufficient. The reasoning behind such an approach is that the most authentic way of being is that of spontaneity as opposed to imitation. Prayers of spontaneity, no matter how rhetorically brilliant they are, will always fall short of truly public speech. True public speech is shared language, where the words are not the speaker’s own. Spontaneous speech always falls short, drawing attention to the speaker, who often has a desire for people’s praise.The language of liturgy is public language, precisely because it does not belong to any one particular individual. It has been handed over to all of us and we are given to participate in it. Such language has a pedagogical purpose. As Candler puts it: ‘To enter into this pedagogy is to entrust oneself to a language which is not one’s own, yet which transforms one’s language and orders it to God.’ Such language is a gift and not our own possession.
I recently attended a Baptist service for a seminary assignment. This was quite an experience as I was taken back by the difference in the liturgy as well as the overall culture of the people.
Arrival
When I first arrived, a fellow with shorts and sandals greeted me with a smile and a genuine tone. I walked into the church and observed many electronic gadgets, including a soundboard, huge speakers, drums, amps, and a video screen.
The people were dressed in a beach-type of attire and were all carrying Bibles. They appeared to be middle class and most of them were Anglo. There seemed to be a strong leadership from the women, as they were the most talkative and proactive in the service.
Precession
The precession of the service included some CDs of a Christian rock band and at 10:05 sharp, the choir (I think they call it a praise band) set up and the leader made some jokes. Everyone laughed. This was the beginning of the extemporaneous nature of the service.
The Service
These types of people believe that if the liturgy is extemporaneous than they are being led by the Spirit. But I did not see the Spirit leading; rather I saw comedy, and technology leading.
After each song the people clapped. Most of the people did not sing, though. I think they may have been clapping at the performance of the band. A couple songs passed and then a woman got up and began to state how the church is giving supplies to a local public school. Then, the pastor got up with his shorts and sandals and for about 10 minutes went on about all the fun activities available for the people during the week.
The band played a couple more songs and then the pastor began his sermon sitting down on a stool, pointed toward the video screen. The video screen publicized his Scriptures that he was expounding on, but it also, during the songs, flashed the crucifix along with other ancient symbols. This I thought to be very strange. From a psychological perspective it seemed like they were getting some sort of appeasement, some sort of legalism to prove to themselves that they do not hate the ancient, like a quick insert to say “look we too are symbolic.” But they were not symbolic in the ancient and biblical sense. Their symbol was the cool pastor, the modern music, scantily dress, and the plain walls.
The sermon was actually very good. The pastor preached on Psalm 23 and tied in the sovereignty of God and how we should not worry about our circumstances. I was quite impressed.
The Sacraments
Uh…yeah, there were none. You know where Jesus and Paul say in the Bible to take and eat of His flesh and drink of His blood? Well, there was none of this and no reference to it. We know from historical records that the Church practiced communion every service (see the Didache, ch.14) but they obviously are unaware of this scriptural command.
The sermon lasted about 30 minutes and then after a couple more songs the service was over. That was it: a couple jokes, some announcements, some songs and a sermon. Oh, they did pass some silver paint cans around at the end of the service. People were putting money in them, so I guess it was some sort of offering. I just can’t remember them making any sort of pronouncement or declaration to God beforehand. The service was very entertaining and I did enjoy both the songs and the sermon. But there were times that I felt almost sick to my stomach.
What’s Wrong?
What made me so disturbed was that Christ was not glorified in this service, man was! I’m sure the people believe they were glorifying Christ; I know - I used to serve in a very similar church. But the fact of the matter is that they were pleasing man. The argument is that they are evangelizing the lost, but what is really happening is that they are appeasing the lost. I question as to whether the lost get found at churches like this. I know that may sound harsh, but what if it is true? Are we entitled to draw a line and finally say this is enough? I think we can and I don’t think we have to be bishops to make such a judgment. Our families count on our good judgment so we therefore cannot afford to be ignorant.
Are people that go to an assembly to be entertained on a certain and ecclesiastical path of redemption? This is the question. I can hear good preaching at any conference or simply on the radio. In fact, the whole service could have been done via media.
The Ancient Way
The ancient way of worshiping God is entirely sacrificial. God says that we, as His people, are to be ‘living sacrifices’ for Him (Romans 12:1). This means – as the early church has taught us – that when we worship God on Sunday we are primarily there to be giving in a sacrificial way. This means that there will be reverent and majestic overtones that are not filled with adrenaline boosting technology and jokes. This means that there will be liturgy that has come directly from the Apostles, and a Eucharistic meal that was commanded by Christ! To have a service of living sacrifice means that there will be gestures of humility such as kneeling, like Christ did in the garden, or that Revelation says we will do in the future. Being sacrificial means to give up the things that we are typically entertained with during the week. It means giving our money for the sake of the Kingdom, and giving our voices as God calls ‘the fruit of our lips’ (Hebrews 13:15). It means responding with heart-felt motives to the word that is read over the lectern by a layperson.
What would happen if the movie screen and the electronic noises were halted? Would there be any fruit of the lips? What would happen if there were no jokes? Would there be any joy? What would happen if the people had to humble themselves to the point of believing in a piece of bread and a cup of wine; that it would be a spiritual blessing to the soul (1 Corinthians 10:16)? What would happen if people had to recite their responses to what the pastor said? Would their hearts still be in it? Or would they need to psychologically be convinced that the Spirit is moving spontaneously by responding to the extemporaneous sounds of the pastor and his leaders?
Many know of the more Catholic/Anglican way of worshiping. It involves the ancient liturgies, the Eucharistic meal, the singing and chanting with little instrumental accompany, the ancient vestments, the natural elements of candles and even incense, and the voices of the entire people singing and responding to the reading of the Scriptures. This is all where creation meets covenant! This is where man sacrificially gives his reverence and humility to the Almighty God, where he is not as entertained as he is focused and humiliated.
Many will say that this Catholic type of service is dry and gloomy. But what they do not account for is that through many tears man is made truly joyful (Psalm 126:6). The ancient worship is designed by God to begin the Christians life for battle. This means that they must enter into the gates of splendor with humility and awe, so that they may leave with joy and strength, not adrenaline and happiness. Happiness is circumstantial. Joy is spiritual. One must be humbled to receive this joy, and I believe it is difficult, if not impossible, to find at these types of services.