Excellent Bite Simon
I am not sure about your assumptions. In fact I think some of them are wrong (if I may be so bold). The early church, especially the church that came out of Judaism would have had liturgy. Even the gentile church did. Some of that can be found in the New Testament. And they did have scripture - the first or old testament.
But, I don’t want to get hung up on the liturgy thing. I think when done well liturgy offers us an entry point into a whole different way of being and of seeing the world. It allows us to breathe scripture, and to connect in a quite deep way with how Christians have met and worshiped for 2000 years. I think that that is profound and very life changing. It invites simple heart felt worship
But I am not wanting liturgy as we have always done it at all costs.
I think what the early church did was to read the scripture as they had it, and as it developed (with Paul’s letters, other letters, and then the beginnings of the gospels) they also told stories, and used some of the above as music. The reconnected with the story of the people of God, and placed their story in the middle of it. They remembered by breaking bread and sharing a cup - badly at times according to Paul. From Paul we get a more honest picture, and less romantic. Yes at times it was raw and powerful. Some times it was just bad.
I have been at services with a simple liturgy where the worship for me any way was heart felt. I have been in non liturgical worship where the music was powerful and I was moved to just leave. It was contrived crap.
So, I think Simon and I are saying similar things in some ways. We need to find new and engaging ways to be church, and to worship as church. And there are no simple answers we can import. We need to do the work for ourselves.
But, I don’t want to get hung up on the liturgy thing. I think when done well liturgy offers us an entry point into a whole different way of being and of seeing the world. It allows us to breathe scripture, and to connect in a quite deep way with how Christians have met and worshiped for 2000 years. I think that that is profound and very life changing. It invites simple heart felt worship
But I am not wanting liturgy as we have always done it at all costs.
I think what the early church did was to read the scripture as they had it, and as it developed (with Paul’s letters, other letters, and then the beginnings of the gospels) they also told stories, and used some of the above as music. The reconnected with the story of the people of God, and placed their story in the middle of it. They remembered by breaking bread and sharing a cup - badly at times according to Paul. From Paul we get a more honest picture, and less romantic. Yes at times it was raw and powerful. Some times it was just bad.
I have been at services with a simple liturgy where the worship for me any way was heart felt. I have been in non liturgical worship where the music was powerful and I was moved to just leave. It was contrived crap.
So, I think Simon and I are saying similar things in some ways. We need to find new and engaging ways to be church, and to worship as church. And there are no simple answers we can import. We need to do the work for ourselves.
Comments
I wholeheartedly agree with you on finding new ways to worship and celebrate liturgically (sorry Simon)...and like you too [from what I pick up from your other blogs] is that our new ways of worships can be found in our tradition.
The Liturgy of the Hours is an avenue not fully tapped at present, which has all kinds of potential applications in worship.
The psalms are very adaptable in the ways they can be presented and if done in the right way - could be very attractive for young people.
The added bonus with the Hours is that it is essentially an Ecumenical Liturgy due to the lack of Eucharistic consecration [which sadly still is an impediment to Christian unity today].
We live in hope!
Bye now.
Matt
I'm sure that the early church had some forms that they adopted from, or shared with, the synagogue. Humans, creatures of habit that they are, tend to cling to the familiar rather than explore the new. This is one reason that the established church is dying a slow death (in the first world, at any rate).
I remember those long-ago days of St Marys, and how I thought at the time that liturgy was a two-edged sword; good, because it brings to our minds our core beliefs, the articles of our faith, if you will; bad, because the endless repetition of them quickly renders them mundane and habitual.
The Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has always taught the need to have an intimate relationship with God, one that does not rely on the constant repetition of forms that may not even be understood by the believer. To me, it is a bit like coming home to the wife, and tuning out whilst saying "yes dear" occasionally to convey the impression of interest. The alternative is to engage in actual conversation - speaking, listening, responding, moving ahead.
Personally, I find the concept of liturgy restricting and limiting; less than satisfying. But that is just me. I don't speak to my family in ceremonial forms, and I prefer not to speak to my Father in those terms either.
Of course that is not to say that liturgy has no value, or isn't satisfying to others... but it doesn't spin my wheels.
More to the point, if we as a church are to ever effectively reach the youth of the nation, we need to discover new ways of doing so. The old ways patently don't work, and even the relatively open methods of YFC and others are only effective now when they contextualise themselves into the language of the generation... hmmm that was a clumsy sentence, but you get my drift.
The key word is "heartfelt", and that can clearly be the case in many different forms of worship. Modern music-based expression doesn't hold all the answers, but at least it is moving things on. For the great majority of un-churched young people, any level of organisation is likely to be objectionable, and I seriously doubt that any identifiable liturgical form would be effective.
Me, I do it adopting elements of modern youth culture, such as modified cars, dirt bikes, stuff like that. It gives me terms of reference that make me at least acceptable to my target audience.
So yes, we are saying similar things in some ways. Not too similar I hope, hard to have a decent discussion if we agree on everything! ;)
I have often wondered if the role of Liturgical Music has a place outside of a worship environment [which is connected to the institutional Church you - and many others - find restricting].
Is there a way of touching people's hearts using music without them sitting in pews..?
Some might say...'Liturgical Music in non-Eucharistic settings'...or 'Liturgical Music expressed in settings outside of Eucharistic Liturgy'...
It's an intriguing thought, no?