The solution to a dry liturgy isn’t “cheap carpohydrates” in the form of banal praise and worship music but of a liturgy which is vibrant and dynamic.
I don't really feel that Contemporary Christian Music is a "cheap carbohydrate." I was just acknowledging that the Jesus People of the early 70s, for example, were young converted hippies who had a limited Christian vocabulary after finding Jesus.
The lyrics of their songs were all "find Jesus, and you'll have the answer." Obviously, the Scriptures develop the Christian life well beyond this elementary message.
I think we should be tolerant with young Christians, allowing them to speak somewhat freely, if even imperfectly. At least they will learn to express and give public voice to their new Faith. There are biblical grounds for allowing an early foundation in Christianity and advancing progressively with maturity...
Heb 6.1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so.
Please note that in vs 3 the author relies on "God" to determine the steps that need to be taken. Many of those allowed to testify early in their Christian lives have gone on to become ministers, pastors and teachers, well grounding in the Scriptures and able to speak to more "mature" Christian issues.
I lament the harm that was done to Western churches by the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae, which not only took away most of the mystery and beauty of the traditional Catholic mass, and resulted in the “wreckovation” and replacement of many beautiful Roman Catholic churches, but prompted the mainline Protestant churches to file suit.
When I moved out of the Lutheran Church and into Charismatic and Pentecostal churches, I came to view the older high churches as "spiritually dead." Having grown up in a virtually "dead" Lutheran church, I was in no position to question this common line among Charismatics and Pentecostals. The Lutheran I came to admire was Larry Christenson, and the Episcopalian I came to admire was Dennis Bennett.
But from the time of my "conversion" to the Charismatic Movement until now I've come to recognize that there remains spiritual life in the older churches. John Michael Talbot was a contemporary Christian musician who converted to Catholicism, and I love his music. A close friend of mine is a Lutheran pastor, and I'm sure he still uses the old Lutheran hymnals.
If you'll look at the history of this "spiritual movement" I speak of you can trace it from Lutheranism, through to Lutheran Pietism, to Wesley's Methodism, to the holiness churches and their "sanctification experience," and finally to the "Spirit Baptized" movement in the 20th century with acceptance of "all of the gifts of the Spirit."
So, what difference is there between Luther's warm spiritual experience and today's Pentecostal "Spirit Baptism?" It seems to me that those who embrace this experiential spirituality have remained the more fervent Christians among those who claim to be true to the Gospel?
Changing the form of the Mass can be like changing your clothes when it's still the same old *you* living in those clothes? It's not the form, in my view, but the cooperation between our will and God's will. It is a spiritual compact, and the willingness to live out walking with God. I don't see how we can disagree on this?
And now the type of music I lament is just as likely to be found in a Catholic or Episcopal parish as it is a non-denominational parish, the only thing that differs being the way people react to it.
The Methodist parish in which I was baptized still has beautiful stained glass windows, but the organ has been silent for over a decade, and only hideous praise and worship music, poorly performed, is heard. I can’t pray in that environment, and nor can a great many Christians.
Indeed when I spent a year in the last conservative Episcopal parish in Southern California, because their director of music frequently included “contemporary” elements, what attracted me to it was the Said Service, where I and a few elderly members of the parish, including a very refined gentleman of the sort who characterized the conservative Protestant Episcopal Church that began to perish in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly after the failure of their hierarchy to depose Bishop Pike of San Francisco after the latter challenged the Trinity and other essential doctrines with the absurd quip “we need fewer beliefs and more belief”, a worthless plattitude, a soundbite posing as spirituality, which then accelerated towards the ordination of women, the marriage of homosexuals and the open persecution of the remaining traditional Episcopalians which characterized the vindictive tenure of the disgraced former bishop of Los Angeles, who resigned in disgrace after being caught receiving kickbacks from a developer - he had evicted several conservative congregations from their parishes, and then had arranged to sell the real estate (in one case it turned out this was illegal because the land had been deeded to the Episcopal Church for use as a church only, and could not be sold, but rather would, if they ceased to use it after having forced the traditionalists out, it would revert to its prior ownership).
Okay, we can reference the despicable Bishop Pike and the many cases of weak Christians within all of the denominations. That has been my experience, as well. That doesn't prove anything with respect to those who have tolerated the moral and theological failures. They may eventually vomit them out?
I'm conservative in my belief and practice, and have annoyed more than a few of my fellow church elders by taking a strong position against tolerating corruption. Simple praise is not "banal," in my view, nor is it "corrupt." What is "corrupt" is the tolerance in the ministry towards theological and moral corruption--not the acceptance of various religious forms that we may personally dislike.
At any rate my point is - if the liturgy is bad, fix the liturgy.
Well yea--if the confession is corrupt, the church will follow suit. I'm not against liturgies, as such. I valued in my Lutheran upbringing the congregational confession of the Creed and various beliefs, the reading of the NT Scriptures and the reading of the OT Scriptures, and other formal practices.
I've also become a strong believer in participation, by the congregation, in more thoughtful processes within the worship service. Just assigning an elder to read a Scripture, or having an elder help serve the Communion, is treating people as if they are spiritual children. All in the congregation should be encouraged to "grow up" and exercise their minds with a true understanding of the Gospel.
But most importantly for me is having a leadership that exhibits a true Christian relationship between the ministry and God--not just going through the motions. For 20 years all I saw were the motions. I discussed the Holy Spirit with our pastor, and he just gave me a book called "Peace, Joy, and Love." I think he was afraid members of the congregation would jump out of their seats during the service and give a "prophecy!"
And he confessed that at least once in his ministry he felt the presence of the Holy Spirit while giving a sermon. I find that sad and pathetic! He should know the power of the Holy Spirit regularly if he is to minister spiritual life to his congregation!
The liturgy at the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople was so good it resulted in the conversion of all Ukrainians and Russians to Holy Orthodoxy, because the envoys sent by Grand Prince Vladimir to find a new religion for the people of Kievan Rus, after visiting Karaite Jews, Muslims, and a schismatic Christian group, and possibly a small Roman Catholic church not able to fully represent the splendor of the Roman rite when celebrated properly, came to the Hagia Sophia, which at the time had a choir of hundreds and over 40 deacons, and said of the liturgy “we knew not whether we were in Heaven or on Earth.”
Yes, but those were different times. There is a big difference between the operations of a State Church and churches, great or small, who operate independent of the State.
Since that time, Turkocratia forced the Orthodox to figure out how to do a beautiful liturgy in a very small church as well, and some of the most beautiful Orthodox services I’ve been to have had a priest, a reader and a choir of four. And I’ve been to some lovely services with just a priest, reader and cantor. The Roman Rite is also very adaptable to small groups. And the relatively small congregation of the Temple Church in London is my favorite, although now that they are replacing their boys choir with a mixed choir that is unlikely to remain the case - the tragedy there is the Temple Church was the only church in the UK that streams its services, has a good boys choir, and a good music program in general, and also is not at times uncomfortably liberal (although this year the rector did give a cringeworthy sermon on the Annunciation where he questioned the ability of the Virgin Birth to inspire modern piety, which left me feeling nauseated; clergy have to understand the emotional harm they can cause when they betray the piety of their congregation).
I've been to a few small churches, mixed with minorities, in the UK--my wife is English. I think they are looking to find a kind of "refuge" away from the official Church of England where they are not controlled by tradition that they may not have even been raised with, that are the preference of a particular race.
Christianity is, by nature, spontaneous and controlled by God--not men. However, I would think that it is the responsibiity of men, given by God, to maintain a reasonable order. What order that is must be determined by God--not by our "preferences."
We are to meet the need of individuals--not just try to meet the need of our own "preferences." If it helps to use an African style of music to make African Christians feel more comfortable, as they seek to grow in Christ, we need to be flexible.
Thus, I can understand and sympathize with the reasons why you went the route you went in terms of worship; if the alternative was a “dry liturgy” in a liberal mainline church with clergy who engage in offensive theological statements rather than preaching inspiring sermons or homilies - the result would be alienating, and anything might seem like an improvement.
That was not, however, the case. The Lutheran Church, at the time, was not "liberal." It was simply spiritually "dead." People may have had a more corrupt lifestyle apart from their Sunday attendance at church. This tends to "kill" Christian spirituality. Nothing can be hidden from God.
There was no enthusiasm in the church--just rote readings and repetitions. About the only good thing I could say about the singing of hymns was my father played the organ--he was quite good, in my opinion.
However, we did not see much obvious moral corruption. In the end, well after I left, the church became more liberal in its theology, and corrupt in its membership. My parents ultimately left, though they were very loyal to Lutheranism. All of my grandparents came from Lutheran communities in Europe.
The tragedy is what you were deprived of, and while what you have now might work for you, it is not an ideal replacement for what was - as witnessed by the fact that it completely alienates large numbers of Christians, myself included, to the point where some of us put up with dry liturgies or liberal clergy just so that we are not subjected to loud music that interferes with our concentration during prayer.
As I said, we are all different. Some churches are inflexible, and indicate they are not receptive to God's guidance. I suggest you help a communion where God is allowed to speak, and where the ministry actually responds to God's voice and to the various needs of all individuals. Nobody should be *required* to endure loud music.
I made the mistake of aligning myself early in my career with the attempt to fight back against liberalism in the United Church of Christ, which was a bad decision because as a congregational church, those congregations which were conservative were able to simply leave and enjoy better conditions outside, and meanwhile the UCC began acting as a magnet for the most heterodox churches in the US, like the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas. As a result of that I was too tormented by liturgies both dry and intolerably liberal - liturgies where the phrase “father, son and holy ghost” was avoided for being sexist, of all absurdities, and I am at a point where I can no longer tolerate anything but the most beautiful liturgies done in the most solemn way possible, with the most solemn music.
I truly respect you for getting out of that. I too am too "soft," and tend to stay too long in a dead environment where people refuse to embrace true orthodoxy and practice. In some ways, it is like God to give people opportunity even until it is past time to leave. God doesn't want to judge anyone.
As St. Paul said, “let everything be done decently, and in order.”
Amen. Thanks for your cordiality and understanding. Have a good day.
www.foxnews.com
