Liturgical Christianity

[ViaCrucis]

Hi folks.

I am keen to pick you brains on a quandary I have.

I have had a vital walk with Jesus for the last 45 years.

I have attended a wide range of churches but recently been focussed on home based fellowship.

However, all of a sudden, I was woken from sleep a 2am with a surge of His presence through me accompanied by a deep conviction to expect a return to 'normal' church life and that there was an opportunity for ministry there. This came with a deep healing of rejection so profound that it took about three days for my mind to catch up with the change in my heart.

The last church I attended was disastrous and our whole family had to leave.

So my wife and I began to explore possibilities for fellowship.

Our first port of call was the Anglican church.

I appreciate how carefully the tradition has preserved the fundamental foundations of the faith and presents these in a liturgical format quite beautifully.

However attending a liturgical service was like visiting Mars. All the pomp and ceremony seemed to be devoid of the precious life in Jesus I have walked in for years.

Gentlemen assuming a priestly role that I have comfortably enjoyed for decades.

Knowing that these same men would dismiss for example precious and fruitful times I have has breaking bread with friends - given that in their eyes I am not 'ordained'.

On the positive side I get the impression that they are pretty embracing of whatever christian service one might assume to bring among them as long as their exclusive right to be elite is not challenged.

Now don't misunderstand me - I am open to what ever He wants and know that there is a Carl shaped space for me wherever He leads. There is some lovely and warm folks there and with my background in inner city ministry the fit may be made in heaven.

So the question is - are their folks out there that have been required to make this transition and what helpful advice would you give???

My first ~20 years of life were spent in non-liturgical churches.

My first time in anything liturgical was the one time I visited my friend's Methodist church with his family when I was maybe like 10 years old. At the time I had developed a resentment of anything formal or "old timey" based on certain experiences that I associated with all churches which sang hymns rather than contemporary praise music. Trying to explain that association is kind of complicated because I was a child and everything was pretty muddled in my mind; basically I associated the use of hymns and even the remote use of any kind of formality with my childhood church which kicked my family out on made up charges, and the extremely strict Baptist private school I attended from K to 6th grade. So in my mind Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians,etc were all the same thing.

Now, as I got older my understanding of things changed as I gained new information, and sorted out my past experiences, and the feelings associated with those experiences.

I began studying ancient Church history around the age of 17, something sparked by a conversation I had with one of the volunteer youth leaders that came along on one of the summer youth mission trips. Talking with him got me interested in Church history, the fathers, as well as studying the Bible more deeply, such as using concordances and lexicons.

That was one of the major sparks that got me motivated to learn more, which consequently eventually led me to finding religious discussion forums. My early involvement in such discussion forums meant interacting with Christians from a very wide array of backgrounds, far more diverse than anything I had experienced in my own small city bubble. Those early interactions prompted me to learn more.

To provide context for where I was at that time very specifically: I was doing a bit of "religious experimentation" for lack of a better term. At this very early time I had started digesting a lot of Messianic material, a lot of really diverse--even quite heretical--material, and at the same time I had accidentally stumbled upon some Oneness Pentecostal stuff, and because I really just didn't know any better became temporarily a proponent of the so-called "Oneness" doctrine. I also, at the same time, had just discovered the so-called "lost books of the Bible", and without having the proper understanding of these ancient diverse apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts became susceptible to websites which argued that some of these should be taken as scripture. So, confused is a good way to describe myself.

Fortunately I had the youth leader I mentioned who was able to do some very helpful course correction, answering questions and encouraging me to study harder and to think more critically. This coupled with many helpful and knowledgeable people on the forums I was visiting was also very instrumental.

But part of this also meant that there were times when I had certain ideas, beliefs, and presuppositions challenged. Things I took for granted that it had never even occurred to me to ask questions about, I was suddenly finding myself having questions asked of me, and wanting answers to those questions--initially just to try and defend my positions in debates online, but ultimately to actually educate myself more.

That's when certain cracks became exposed, and the beginning of an emerging, and ultimately lengthy period of not really knowing what I believed on a number of issues, and becoming more interested in the Christian beliefs and practices of the past. What was apostolic Christianity? What did the apostles believe? What did the apostles teach? How I read Scripture, it began to dawn on me, should be in regard to what the early Christians themselves actually believed and how they lived and practiced their faith. So it also seemed very natural to me that aiding in this endeavor would involve asking questions like, "What is the oldest, and most consistent views on this or that belief or practice?" Not as a kind of popularity contest, but on the rationale that if we see X in the historic record, going back all the way to the earliest days of Christianity, and this is certainly what Scripture itself seems to be saying, and so seeing this harmony in the language and practice of the ancient Church and what we see in the Bible seemed like very good evidence that, if nothing else, X is the historic, unanimous or nearly unanimous throughout two thousand years. That seemed far more substantial to me than simply someone telling me what they felt or thought the Bible meant--even if it had never been something anyone ever at anytime believed or even suggested.

It was this that really got me back on track in regard to the Trinity, and then I actually learned what the doctrine of the Trinity is. I learned basic Christian doctrines that, in hindsight, I really should have already known. But I didn't.

I began to look at the traditional hymns of the Church not as repressive and cold, but as filled with vitality and substance. So I increasingly found myself less enamored with more contemporary praise music, and found far more meaning and depth in traditional Christian hymnody. I began to learn bit by bit more about the various bits and pieces of traditional Christian liturgy. The history and reason behind things like vestments (not robes), paraments, liturgical colors, the lectionary, the days of the Church year. And more and more the building blocks of the liturgy made more and more sense, and I began finding in them rich spiritual depth that expressed beautiful biblical Christian truth.

But it wasn't until I really actually started to regularly attend a liturgical church that the discrete parts of the liturgy are far more than just what can be gained by reading and understanding their purpose. The liturgy is alive, it is saturated with Christian and with Christian teaching and confession. The liturgy cannot be appreciated just by reading about it, or studying it, or appreciating it merely "academically", the liturgy has to be experienced, it has to be lived. The liturgy isn't style, or form, it's not just some sum of its parts. The liturgy is a rich, breathing, living atmosphere where God and His people breathe together. It is a rhythm, a pumping heart beat, a back and forth of God in action and the Faithful in reception and in response. Here in the liturgy God's word comes alive, and it penetrates everything.

That's my story.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[seeking.IAM]

When I was looking to change churches, I wasn't necessarily looking for something more liturgical, or at least I didn't know I was. I was looking for a more reverential way of worshipping than I found in my former church that was devolving into modernism. It seemed that there was no sense to worship and every Sunday was trying to put on a better show than last week. Theatrical productions and multimedia presentations aside, worship was still focused on the sermon. I found that reverential worship style in the liturgy of The Episcopal Church. Similar to what CryptoLutheran wrote above, I found value and richness in elements of the liturgy itself and the Eucharist that overshadowed the sermon. Someone once said they have heard many a bad sermon, but they've never had a bad Eucharist. That pretty well encapsulates my view of it.

As far as the other thoughts in the OP, worship is the only thing that matters to me in selecting a church. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but where I fit in the life of the church is not something I have ever given consideration, nor do I care much about the fellowship aspects of the church. For me, it's all about worship. And, I suppose that is why I am not too concerned about some of the stances of my denomination to which some folks disapprove. The liturgy and worship is enough for me.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="Carl Emerson I think you are drawing a long bow to suggest such custom is biblical.

You said yourself that such developments occurred well after Pauline days and were an alignment with Roman custom.

It is quite biblical and there are reasons for the liturgical vestments. God establishes His authority in the Church. Uniforms are symbols of authority given. In the Old Covenant we see a very detailed description of how the vestments were to be made and their purpose, such as the ephod with the 12 stones in it to represent the 12 tribes of Israel.

Paul did not wear liturgical garb because the transition from Old to New Covenant was not completed at the time. The Apostles and disciples did not see "The Way" as something new and different from Judaism. They saw it as fulfillment and they recognized that in their day, the priests still were in positions of authority.

You must show something of a divine nature or writing which specifically states that special garments of men ordained to ministry ceased with the coming of the New Covenant.

Yes, from house to house with a shared meal - beautiful - and a far cry from the extreme formality being presented today.

Let's look at the "extreme formality" (as you put it) in an Orthodox Liturgy. It begins with the deacon chanting "Master, give the blessing." The priest then blesses in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. After that is the first set of litanies (prayers) in which we do that which St. Paul commanded when he said to offer prayers for all people. We ask God's mercy upon all the people of the world, the sick and healthy, the rich and poor, those in service to the country, those traveling, those imprisoned. Etc.

After that is the First Antiphon. It is either done in a Resurrectional Tone (there are eight tones) or special tones for feast days if we are remembering a saint or an event, such as the Elevation of the Sacred Cross. Another short litany follows, after which another antiphon is done.

Following this is the Little Entrance. The priest takes the Gospel Book, the Word of God, and comes out from behind the Iconostasis to the people. This symbolizes that the Word of God comes to us and not we to it. It is God every presenting Himself to us in love because in our natural state, we do not seek Him (Council of Orange AD 529)

The Gospel Book is replace on the Holy Table, accompanied by this chant: "Come, let us worship and fall down before Christ. Son of God, risen from the dead, save us to sing to you. Alleluia!"

After that the propers are chanted. They are called "propers" because they are the verses that are proper to the day. For instance, if we are celebrating Pascha (Easter) we chant Pascha propers.

When the propers are done, the Trisagion Hymn is chanted. You can find this in the book of Revelation. As the angels in heaven sing "Holy, holy, holy...." So we chant three times "Holy God, holy and mighty, holy and immortal, have mercy on us." Biblical. Yes.

The Gospel is then read, a homily is given, and then the Liturgy turns from the Liturgy of the Word (first half) to the Liturgy of the Eucharist (second half). In this part there are more litanies for individuals, the Creed, the Our Father, the consecration of the Eucharist (This IS my Body), closing prayers, and dismissal. There is a liturgical calandar which we follow which is the same every year, so that through an entire year, we will pray almost the entire New Testament and remember the many saints and events that are so important to our faith.

This is a far cry from the Wild West Show of Protestantism from which I came (which was nowhere near Anglicanism) where you had no idea what you would hear from one Sunday to the next. We left one "Bible Church" because we got tired of political sermons.

The Early Fathers of the Church developed this worship in order that the vast majority of people who couldn't read would still learn from what they observed. There is a reason that you don't see this pattern in the New Testament. The Apostles were still going to Temple as Jews and expecting the return of Christ at any moment. Only when the great division between Judaism and The Way became clear did they cease to go to temple and began to develope their own understanding of what was going on.

I prefer the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, but a properly done Anglican Liturgy is quite stunning. It lifts the senses to God. Proper worship is more than an exercise of the intellect, as in much of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. (scholasticism). It is experiencing God, and to experience God in the Orthodox Church, all your senses become involved.

I would suggest you try a couple of Orthodox liturgies. Go in, observe, and see if you can see what I am talking about here.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

So the question is - are their folks out there that have been required to make this transition and what helpful advice would you give???

Well I got lots of experience on the issue.

Raised Lutheran. Left it for the non-denominational Charismatic movement, then went to a local Episcopal Church (ECUSA) whose entire leadership as far as clergy and elders were charismatic. Did really well there but left when I was forced to move out of the area. Then a few year's later began looking into Orthodoxy.
I also have some experience with the Charismatic Episcopal Church etc.


A few observations

1) The ECUSA Church was probably the best, most supportive place to I have ever been. It was really good there being there in my 20s. Their really was a lot of irony about various Pentecostals looking down at it and other places as "dead religion" etc. because the people were just great as far as encouraging folks like myself to get into ministry while the traditional Pentecostal folks often were threatened by that sort of thing especially with things like education, and having a critical mind.
At the time, I went to the Episcopal church, I was not in love with the worship, but I did enjoy some pieces of liturgy, and I find the overall pattern of worship kind of comforting (I was use to charismatic worship leaders trying to stir up the people all the time trying to make things happen which at times seemed a bit manipulative).

But anyway if you have a bond with the people etc. not everything has to be right. etc.




2) My difference of finding Orthodoxy etc. was quite a bit different. Coming from the Charismatic movement I actually sort of had my mind against it. I went purely out of social reasons, I had a crush on an Orthodox girl.. But I had a very intense spiritual experience while I was there. I was very paranoid of the overt religiosity, and the icons, and I deliberately entered the sanctuary and took a place and took a seat (really a standing spot since almost everyone was standing) as close to the front door as possible. If things got to weird I wanted to slip out as quick as possible.

But when I entered the sanctuary I noticed the Acapulco melodies that were nice....and I kept moving upward.. and just found myself falling in love with it all. It kind of was like the emissaries sent from Prince Vladmir to investigate what Faith the country should convert to who said "they didn't know if they were in heaven or still on earth".


One thing I did notice with my various church experiences, this kind of worship is an art form. Some people don't like it because certain things called "chanting" in the west are not practices and well they often don't sound very good.

I also think that God can direct things if this is the direction for you etc. (While attending that Orthodox liturgy I had more sense of the Holy Spirit then in all of the big Charismatic conventions, and gathering I had been too, with various big names, and people who were suppose to be "prophets" and "apostles" etc).

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Whenever I have looked for a church in the past, I have just visited a few churches and sat through their meetings. The Holy Spirit usually lets me know what I can expect from that church.

Maybe just visit all the churches in your area, and see which one you like the best.

 

[zoidar]

Hi folks.

I am keen to pick you brains on a quandary I have.

I have had a vital walk with Jesus for the last 45 years.

I have attended a wide range of churches but recently been focussed on home based fellowship.

However, all of a sudden, I was woken from sleep a 2am with a surge of His presence through me accompanied by a deep conviction to expect a return to 'normal' church life and that there was an opportunity for ministry there. This came with a deep healing of rejection so profound that it took about three days for my mind to catch up with the change in my heart.

The last church I attended was disastrous and our whole family had to leave.

So my wife and I began to explore possibilities for fellowship.

Our first port of call was the Anglican church.

I appreciate how carefully the tradition has preserved the fundamental foundations of the faith and presents these in a liturgical format quite beautifully.

However attending a liturgical service was like visiting Mars. All the pomp and ceremony seemed to be devoid of the precious life in Jesus I have walked in for years.

Gentlemen assuming a priestly role that I have comfortably enjoyed for decades.

Knowing that these same men would dismiss for example precious and fruitful times I have has breaking bread with friends - given that in their eyes I am not 'ordained'.

On the positive side I get the impression that they are pretty embracing of whatever christian service one might assume to bring among them as long as their exclusive right to be elite is not challenged.

Now don't misunderstand me - I am open to what ever He wants and know that there is a Carl shaped space for me wherever He leads. There is some lovely and warm folks there and with my background in inner city ministry the fit may be made in heaven.

So the question is - are their folks out there that have been required to make this transition and what helpful advice would you give???

My home Church is a Lutheran church. I don't agree with everything in the Lutherdom, still enjoy the fellowship, the traditional aspects of the sermons. There is no perfect church. On weekdays I attend other kinds of churches. Maybe that's not the best to do, but I have found to appreciate the differences. I got no good advice for you more than to attend different churches until you find where you belong.

Really inspiring to hear about God's presence coming to you that night. God bless you for sharing!

 

[Anthony2019]

Hi folks.

I am keen to pick you brains on a quandary I have.

I have had a vital walk with Jesus for the last 45 years.

I have attended a wide range of churches but recently been focussed on home based fellowship.

However, all of a sudden, I was woken from sleep a 2am with a surge of His presence through me accompanied by a deep conviction to expect a return to 'normal' church life and that there was an opportunity for ministry there. This came with a deep healing of rejection so profound that it took about three days for my mind to catch up with the change in my heart.

The last church I attended was disastrous and our whole family had to leave.

So my wife and I began to explore possibilities for fellowship.

Our first port of call was the Anglican church.

I appreciate how carefully the tradition has preserved the fundamental foundations of the faith and presents these in a liturgical format quite beautifully.

However attending a liturgical service was like visiting Mars. All the pomp and ceremony seemed to be devoid of the precious life in Jesus I have walked in for years.

Gentlemen assuming a priestly role that I have comfortably enjoyed for decades.

Knowing that these same men would dismiss for example precious and fruitful times I have has breaking bread with friends - given that in their eyes I am not 'ordained'.

On the positive side I get the impression that they are pretty embracing of whatever christian service one might assume to bring among them as long as their exclusive right to be elite is not challenged.

Now don't misunderstand me - I am open to what ever He wants and know that there is a Carl shaped space for me wherever He leads. There is some lovely and warm folks there and with my background in inner city ministry the fit may be made in heaven.

So the question is - are their folks out there that have been required to make this transition and what helpful advice would you give???

The liturgy contains time honoured prayers that the faithful have used for centuries. Almost word for word they are taken from scripture and the creeds. I don't see them as prayers to be used in and of themselves, but as a structure and basis for our own prayers.

Why do we need this structure? Because the scriptures themselves tell us that as well as praising God, we are to publically declare our faith (as we do with the Creeds) and offer him thanks (through the various prayers of thanksgiving) , we are to confess our sins (eg. the Collect for Purity), we are to reconcile to one another (as we do during the Peace) and approach the sacrament of the Eucharist with humility and penitence (as in the Prayer of Humble Access).

It is of course possible to do all these things without using set prayers or an order of service, but I think the liturgy is very helpful in reminding us that we are meant to be doing them.

All too often I have visited churches where people start their services with loud and emotional praise and worship without first reflecting on the past week, praying to the Lord for forgiveness, or even remembering to thank Him for his provision for their lives. I have seen Christians who have fallen out with each other approaching the communion table without first being challenged to make peace with one another. How do I know this? Because even I have been guilty of doing it.

At home and in small groups, my approach to prayer and worship is much less formal than in church. We don't need the liturgy to speak to God. I have had personal encounters with the Lord at home without needing to open up a prayer book. At other times, I have felt myself drifting a bit, and turning to the prayers and liturgy have given me inspiration not only to pray, but to pray with the right attitude and for the right things.

 

[com7fy8]

That tradition Paul spoke of when he said "hold fast to the traditions you have been taught". The Liturgy has been handed down since,

But Paul is talking about traditions already given to Timothy, and there are liturgies which have been handed down "since" . . . which would be after Paul had handed down traditions.

One of our crucial traditions clearly stated in scripture is >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation," (in Philippians 2:13-16)

Also . . . part of our basic calling > "in one body" >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

I would think a very important tradition of God's people is we personally submit to how our Father personally rules every one of us with His own peace in our hearts. This is included in the basic calling of every child of God > "in one body" > not only certain specially called leaders or super-saints.

But this is basic.

And submitting to God ruling us is all the time, not only by schedule. This worship of God is all the time > we worship Him by staying attentive to Him and submissive always to how He rules us in His own peace being shared with us.

God's word says to be ruled in God's peace. When is ruling? All the time.

I would think a Biblical liturgy would have people read and feed on this, that basic Christianity includes submission to how God rules us in His own peace and this is to be 24/7, or else we need to actively seek our Father for His correction > Hebrews 12:4-14 > so we are corrected to get back into submitting to how He rules us in this peace. We are guaranteed His correction if we are His children > this is another tradition of Christianity.

So, confession is not enough, then. Correction the way God is able to change us is needed. This is another basic > Hebrews 12:4-14.

So . . . does a liturgy feed you these basic traditions which God's word commands?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Wow...

Some excellent responses and definitely matters to pray about.

I really appreciate the kind wisdom being shown.

Thank you.

There is a book you might be looking for without knowing it. That is Thomas Howard's 'Evangelical Is Not Enough'. It is NOT an attack on evangelicalism but a chronicle and analysis by Howard as he discovered liturgy. He found it fulfilled a spiritual need he had long felt unfulfilled in evangelical worship. Howard was evangelical and came to discover liturgy via the Anglicans. Full disclosure: he did eventually become Catholic, but I think that was independent of the liturgy issue, although doors were opened as a result of the liturgy issue.

He died just a few weeks ago. His book 'Christ the Tiger' is also highly recommended. His books are delightful and eye opening. His current publisher is Ignatius Press and his books are found here: Ignatius Press - Search Page

 

[LizaMarie]

I second Chevy's recommendation for Thomas Howard's "Evangelical is not Enough." I read that book myself and I highly recommend it. I was baptized and confirmed Missouri Synod Lutheran, quit attending church when I went to live with my Dad at 14, but started going to a non-denominational (Calvary Chapel) Church after high school with my boyfriend and rededicated my life to the Lord. I was there for several years and I still have many friends in that church and in evangelicalism(non-denominational) in general.They are wonderful Christians and love the Lord, but I felt these kind of churches are missing something, please don't be offended by my saying that. I became disillusioned with contemporary worship in a lot of ways(it's a long story.)
When I took a class on Christian history later on, it really opened my eyes.
I'm just going to give the short version now, but I went back to a Lutheran Church in the late '80's(the then newly formed ELCA) and now have married, moved to a different state and my husband and I attend a confessional Lutheran Church.
I agree with much of what Via Crucis and others say, as well, about the liturgy, vestments, etc. I am now studying Eastern Orthodoxy and the Early Church, that is another story.

 

[Carl Emerson]

There is a book you might be looking for without knowing it. That is Thomas Howard's 'Evangelical Is Not Enough'. It is NOT an attack on evangelicalism but a chronicle and analysis by Howard as he discovered liturgy. He found it fulfilled a spiritual need he had long felt unfulfilled in evangelical worship. Howard was evangelical and came to discover liturgy via the Anglicans. Full disclosure: he did eventually become Catholic, but I think that was independent of the liturgy issue, although doors were opened as a result of the liturgy issue.

He died just a few weeks ago. His book 'Christ the Tiger' is also highly recommended. His books are delightful and eye opening. His current publisher is Ignatius Press and his books are found here: Ignatius Press - Search Page

Thanks - much appreciated.

 

[Carl Emerson]

By way of example, I can relate to a lot of the people who post here, even though I don't think very much of what they have to say. I was once like them. There isn't much I read here that I haven't actually said myself at some time or another. Looking back on it I was childish. Thought I knew everything but every day I learned something new. Reached a point one day when I decided I was tired of being my own pope.

It is not up to me to decide where you should be or what you should be doing. But I recommend strongly that you try being a layman for a while and find out where it leads. It's just a friendly piece of advice.

Yes this is my intent...

 

[Carl Emerson]

Church "uniforms" came later and I fully support them. "Vestments" they're called. They are symbolic of Christ's conquering of the Roman Empire. There was a time when the Church met in secret for fear of persecution. After Christianity was legalized and bishops became prominent, those bishops assumed positions that rivaled the civil authorities.

Just wondering how you view the underground church in China, enormously fruitful but not 'traditional' or liturgical.
Would you expect the wearing of vestments to diminish should there be a world wide persecution of christianity in the future.
I guess behind the question is if this tradition is a pleasantry or a requirement by God.
Further behind the question is did Jesus become our One High Priest and the return to old covenant patterns is a subtle return to Law.

However if I perceive the leaders as fellow servants regardless of what they wear mutual respect is preserved. At the end of the day all are accountable to Him.

I am well aware that keeping these traditions has not maintained a 'perfect' church. It is what is going on in hearts that is paramount.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Just wondering how you view the underground church in China, enormously fruitful but not 'traditional' or liturgical.
Would you expect the wearing of vestments to diminish should there be a world wide persecution of christianity in the future.
I guess behind the question is if this tradition is a pleasantry or a requirement by God.
Further behind the question is did Jesus become our One High Priest and the return to old covenant patterns is a subtle return to Law.

However if I perceive the leaders as fellow servants regardless of what they wear mutual respect is preserved. At the end of the day all are accountable to Him.

I am well aware that keeping these traditions has not maintained a 'perfect' church. It is what is going on in hearts that is paramount.

I think there is a difference between a liturgical worship and 'church uniforms'. A priest in a prison uniform can worship liturgically without a 'church uniform'. A guy in a 'church uniform' can freestyle his worship so bad nobody can figure it out or which god he worships.

The underground Christians of China has included liturgical and non-liturgical expression. Of course, the main liturgical expression in China, which up to recently had both an underground and an aboveground mainfestation, has been sold out by the Vatican and it is not clear how they will survive without going underground again. Just saying that underground and liturgical are not at odds. They were not at odds in the catacombs either. The uniform may vary but the liturgy does not have to.

Actually, liturgies do vary. The Catholic Church accepts I think 23 rites. Even within the Roman rite there are variations, the newest being the Anglican usage. So these are liturgical, but not in lockstep. And do not have to be in lockstep.

The Liturgy of the Hours is something I should make mention of. It IS liturgical and maintained in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran settings. It can be done anywhere by any amount of people. Catholic priests are required to pray the Hours, but anybody can, from a family Night Prayer to a communal Evensong to a solitary Liturgy of Readings. In fact, you have probably already been praying in a way compatible with the Liturgy of the Hours if you are a praying person.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Church "uniforms" came later and I fully support them. "Vestments" they're called. They are symbolic of Christ's conquering of the Roman Empire. There was a time when the Church met in secret for fear of persecution. After Christianity was legalized and bishops became prominent, those bishops assumed positions that rivaled the civil authorities. The civil authorities dressed in garb that would be unheard of today. Those priestly vestments mimicked that garb and became symbolic of the bishop's authority. The bishop dressed as royalty, just as a governor or a prelate. The bishop assumed nearly the same power. It is all "biblical":

1Ti 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

Heb 13:7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.

In modern times, at least in the Western world, government officials wear suits and ties. Protestant preachers dress in suits and ties, just like the civil authorities.

I think some biblical balance is necessary.

Jesus did not judge by what eyes see and ears hear.

The scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses - do what they say but do not do what they do.

Giving honour to leaders without discretion and discernment has resulted in disaster and embarrassment to the church.

Leaders are human - subject to temptations like anyone else.

Blind submission is very dangerous and not biblical.

 

[bottoWordx]

Jesus took all our sin as the Lamb of God and High Priest, was baptized and crucified to pay the wages of all sin
What else can we agree on inwardly

 

[Junia]

Hi folks.

I am keen to pick you brains on a quandary I have.

I have had a vital walk with Jesus for the last 45 years.

I have attended a wide range of churches but recently been focussed on home based fellowship.

However, all of a sudden, I was woken from sleep a 2am with a surge of His presence through me accompanied by a deep conviction to expect a return to 'normal' church life and that there was an opportunity for ministry there. This came with a deep healing of rejection so profound that it took about three days for my mind to catch up with the change in my heart.

The last church I attended was disastrous and our whole family had to leave.

So my wife and I began to explore possibilities for fellowship.

Our first port of call was the Anglican church.

I appreciate how carefully the tradition has preserved the fundamental foundations of the faith and presents these in a liturgical format quite beautifully.

However attending a liturgical service was like visiting Mars. All the pomp and ceremony seemed to be devoid of the precious life in Jesus I have walked in for years.

Gentlemen assuming a priestly role that I have comfortably enjoyed for decades.

Knowing that these same men would dismiss for example precious and fruitful times I have has breaking bread with friends - given that in their eyes I am not 'ordained'.

On the positive side I get the impression that they are pretty embracing of whatever christian service one might assume to bring among them as long as their exclusive right to be elite is not challenged.

Now don't misunderstand me - I am open to what ever He wants and know that there is a Carl shaped space for me wherever He leads. There is some lovely and warm folks there and with my background in inner city ministry the fit may be made in heaven.

So the question is - are their folks out there that have been required to make this transition and what helpful advice would you give???

I am not sure about advice but I can tell you my own experience. I attend an Anglican church and they offer a 9am liturgical service, a 10.30am family service, a 5pm liturgical even song and a 6.30pm worship which is very spirit led and quite informal no set liturgy except when have communion. P prophecy healing words of knowledge etc very much encouraged in this service

 

[Junia]

I don't mind some liturgy sometimes but I love the 6.30pm service because it flows in the Spirit and combines the gentleness and grace based teachings of Anglicanism with the spirit filled flow of the more Charismatic churches. There is no extremism or hype, it all very relaxed and low key and I sense the presence of Jesus there.

At the same time it avoids the legalism and "you should/ought" muscular kind of christianity found in some pentecostal, evangelical churches which would not suit some of us like myself who need more a focus on love and less on "you need to do x y or z"


so it maybe your new church will have some non liturgical based services....in the UK this approach seems to be coming !it's common but I cannot speak for new zealand

 

[Junia]

Hi folks.

I am keen to pick you brains on a quandary I have.

I have had a vital walk with Jesus for the last 45 years.

I have attended a wide range of churches but recently been focussed on home based fellowship.

However, all of a sudden, I was woken from sleep a 2am with a surge of His presence through me accompanied by a deep conviction to expect a return to 'normal' church life and that there was an opportunity for ministry there. This came with a deep healing of rejection so profound that it took about three days for my mind to catch up with the change in my heart.

The last church I attended was disastrous and our whole family had to leave.

So my wife and I began to explore possibilities for fellowship.

Our first port of call was the Anglican church.

I appreciate how carefully the tradition has preserved the fundamental foundations of the faith and presents these in a liturgical format quite beautifully.

However attending a liturgical service was like visiting Mars. All the pomp and ceremony seemed to be devoid of the precious life in Jesus I have walked in for years.

Gentlemen assuming a priestly role that I have comfortably enjoyed for decades.

Knowing that these same men would dismiss for example precious and fruitful times I have has breaking bread with friends - given that in their eyes I am not 'ordained'.

On the positive side I get the impression that they are pretty embracing of whatever christian service one might assume to bring among them as long as their exclusive right to be elite is not challenged.

Now don't misunderstand me - I am open to what ever He wants and know that there is a Carl shaped space for me wherever He leads. There is some lovely and warm folks there and with my background in inner city ministry the fit may be made in heaven.

So the question is - are their folks out there that have been required to make this transition and what helpful advice would you give???

I

God bless you Carl and may you know His leading and guidance

 

[chevyontheriver]

I am not sure about advice but I can tell you my own experience. I attend an Anglican church and they offer a 9am liturgical service, a 10.30am family service, a 5pm liturgical even song and a 6.30pm worship which is very spirit led and quite informal no set liturgy except when have communion. P prophecy healing words of knowledge etc very much encouraged in this service

Interesting. But have you ever seen a liturgical AND charismatic service all together as one thing?