Thoughts on liturgy and church

A couple of posting ago I put up some thoughts about bad taste liturgy. These are some of my reflections.

I really appreciated the thoughts about bad taste. I think however we need to be careful. I spent some time with some youth leaders in Nelson who were appalled by Marva Dawn and her anti-modern modern /Hillsong+ Parachute style music comments. If you have read some of my comments, you will know I am not a big fan either, but I think there is a difference between my comments and hers. Most were left wondering if the Anglican Church has anything to offer them and the young people we work with.

So instead of being anti something, I liked the comments about re-connecting with the tradition, and letting that expand. The group I worked with really took to that. In the end, my bad taste is another’s art. So we do need to be careful not to end up being cultural snobs, but ready to embrace, and to let that speak to us, as I would hope what we love speaks to what they offer. Then we will create liturgy that is big enough.

Last weekend I helped run a liturgy workshop for Toru, The Anglican Centre for Youth Ministry Studies. The numbers were a bit low, and for good reason the seminar of the Friday night was cancelled. None the less, it was great to see some young people engaging at some level with creating liturgy that is accessible and rooted in our Anglican Tradition. I think this is one of the most important things we need to do.

Comments

Anonymous said…
OK I'll bite! ;)

Can we safely assume that the early New Testament church had no liturgy? I have certainly never seen any evidence that one existed, other than certain cultural traditions that were morphed into the emergent church.

Can we also safely assume that the early NT church represented Christianity in what was probably a fairly raw, but almost certainly highly vibrant and deeply involving way? That the power and excitement of those times has seldom been seen since, and has certainly never been seen in either 20th or 21st century NZ?

And yet there was no liturgy, no Bible (as we know it), and certainly no mass communication or music festivals. Not many televangelists either...

So my question is this. Why is it that we, as a church, do not seek what the early church had? Why do we seek to replace that quality with others that are essentially man-made, and in this category I include liturgy, ceremony, CCM, Christian self-help guides, and all the other paraphenalia of faith in the modern era?

I am not against liturgy per se, but I am certainly against it when it becomes the end rather than the means. I suppose that I have become weary of seeing churches where the liturgy, and ceremonial forms, take pre-eminence over the simple, heart-led worship of God. That includes a pre-occupation with modern forms of worship.

I would hazard a guess that the reason so many Christians deliberately choose to NOT attend a church in these times, is that they find it increasingly hard to find any relevance in the forms extant in those churches. Or maybe they get sick of church politics...

I find, worryingly, that the Christians I come across who are deeply committed to evangelism and discipleship, are also increasingly disillusioned with the established church.

So, for me, the answer is not in liturgy, as useful as that form may be. We need to go a bit deeper than that.

However... I am always up for a good argument...!! ;)

Popular posts from this blog

Simply Sent

Youth Camp

The Way