I was having a conversation with a friend about the possibility of having a Sunday school class on the Cap. Fathers. I couldn’t convince him of the fact that that would enrich his or his fellow congregants lives’ and wanted something more “practical”. All that to say I’d be on board with what you described, but right now I feel in the minority of the typical mainstream evangelical thought process.

Hi Scot,
May I ask the reasons that you are an Evangelical and not a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox? It seems that you?re very aware of the merits and defences from both sides of the body of Christ. In light of the exclusive claims and dogmas of the Catholic church, what resonates with you so that you remain Evangelical?
Your response would be a big assistance to many on this journey who aren?t as well read. In your response, I would appreciate if you could touch on one dogma in particular ? the Real Presence in the Eucharist (or Transubstantiation). How would a young evangelical balance his questions about the Real Presence (that would arise from an honest search of scripture and church history), yet not take the plunge into RC or EO?
Daniel.

Great thoughts here, Scot. I like the connection you make to the Great Tradition. We need to be in the word, with (not through) the Great Tradition, as you say in “The Blue Parakeet.”
I wonder if someone could come up with a work for evangelicals, emergents- whatever, like Phyllis Tickle did from prayer books, using lectionaries. Maybe an empty thought. Is there a lectionary out there which covers all of Scripture in say three years? And may or may not refer to the Apocrypha- but for sure covers the 66 books. And we need to see the value and beauty in the work of those who have gone before us such as Augustine and many others.
I do wish we had more of the liturgical interwoven with spontaneity or local, timely expressions of the faith for the hour.

I have been using the St James Daily Devotional Guide for one year now. Many in my church raise their eyebrows at my recommendation of it, but I really appreciate the juxtaposition of different verses intentionally orchestrated by Reardon and find his commentaries challenging as they come from a somewhat different perspective from those that have taught me in the past.

Good series, Scot. As I shared with Ben Witherington in our blog debate last week, a great number of Christians are leaving American, conservative evangelical churches and are either moving toward more liturgical denominations (as you?ve stressed in this series) or toward more organic church forms. What I find especially interesting is that the *theology* of the liturgical churches (Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican) is what organic expressions of the church are squarely rooted in. They just believe that when that theology is carried out fully in *practice*, the expression will look very different than a graded, hierarchical clergy/laity system. (This was the center of my discussion with Ben.) Even so, both organic church forms and liturgical church forms are on the rise. The face of the church is indeed changing. And by my lights, it?s an exciting time to live.

My husband and I use the St. James guide as well. It’s a great devotional resource.

Scot, I wonder if those suggestions will really do anything, in that the heart of at least some of the Liturgical Turn is a desire to see Church as more than the sermon – more than the personality of the pastor. Having a gifted pastor adjust his sermon topics isn’t going to fill that holistic void.

One thought comes to mind as I read your list of suggestions, Scot. They focus on how to tie contemporary teaching and preaching back to the whole historical church.
Although that is valuable, if not indispensable, I think we desperately need to invest a serious amount of energy in regaining a healthy sacramental view of the liturgy itself. If we do not create actual spaces in the Christian community where individuals know – and learn over time – that they can come and have real encounters with God, our teachings will lack transformative impact.
In addition to knowing about God’s history with his people we must, on an individual basis, experience that God is real, that God cares, and that God both uses and changes broken lives. If we do not ALSO tap into the sacramental potential of the liturgy, we can teach and preach all we want. It will lack substantial and long term impact.
Anette

We visit a Wesleyan affiliate congregation every now and then (my best friend’s church) and they use the lectionary, have three readings, and holy communion every Lord’s Day. They also meet in a warehouse and have contemporary music (drums and all). An interesting mix and a great blessing to me – I think they do well what you seem to be hinting at. I am a conservative Mennonite on the outside, a liberal Mennonite on the inside, grew up and met Jesus in the Episcopal church. When I need a dose of the Grace of Christ, I go visit my friend’s church.

very interesting. I am a Salvation Army officer. I grew up Roman Catholic. I even graduated from a Catholic High School,so I am very familiar with the liturgy. Of course now I have now become part of a movement that is non-liturgical. I found Jesus in The Salvation Army. I wonder about this fascination with the liturgy.Everytime I go to a Catholic service, I am reminded of some of the reasons I was attracted to the Army. I am very interested in the writings of the Church Fathers though and though I heard about them growing up , I don’t remember alot of what we were taught.

Anette,
What do you mean by sacramental view of liturgy? How is this achieve? A big question, but maybe a small example would help.

Or: How is this achieved? (to avoid the red, green, or purple editor’s pencil)

Not to worry, RJS. I have given up all my red, green, or purple editor’s pencils for the Jewish holidays.

Although I have never seen a red, green, or purple editor.

Wonders,
Good push back; there is too much of the sermon in my suggestions. The first point about teaching was not about pastors, but the emphasis is lopsided.
I would also add that there needs to be teaching and an ongoing developmental awareness of aesthetics, sacred space, and why we do what we do — and creating things that embody what we believe and how we are to live.

Unfortunately, I am late to this liturgical conversation. As one who ministers in a multi-ethnic environment in the inner-city, correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t this liturgical turn from low-church evangelical to RC and OC more of a white middle-class phenomenon than something that spans all of evangelicalism? I am not seeing my African-American and Latino evangelical brothers and sisters turning to RC and OC churches in droves like I have seen several of my white friends. In fact, I see just the opposite, especially among my African-American friends who avoid RC and OC like a plague.
Scott, very good conversation and very good suggestions in how to tie the story of the Bible with the story of the church.

Bob,
Ah for the clarity of mathematics over the obsurity of language. I would say: (red, green, or purple) (editor?s pencil) to make it clear.

I would make a slight modification. The first point before teaching/preaching should be reading.
First ask for weekly oral reading of large chunks of the Bible.
Then Ask for teaching and preaching that covers the whole Bible ? thus, think about whether the lectionary just might be good for your church for a few years.
These two need not be tied – and I think we desperately need the first.

Scot,
I commend the rediscovery of extended, oral reading of the Bible. Simply put, the Spirit begins to attach and reconnect our lives to God’s narrative. I noticed Richard Foster’s recent book does a fine job of explaining this phenomenon.
I notice also that whenever I have cited in teaching and preaching any of the early church people, e.g., Irenaeus, most of the students and some of the church folk express their astonishment and surprise at the discovery that any one so ancient could speak with contemporary relevance to their community and context!

RJS #11. An example of how we can achieve a more sacramental view of the liturgy? Fair enough.
In the church service, let us first confess our sins, then receive the bread and the wine, and then let us have the concrete opportunity for personal prayer with the laying on of hands. Let us make this prayer an actual opportunity for God to touch us with his presence in SPECIFIC areas of our lives.
Doing this would increase the sacramental value of the communion experience. That is, communion would become a place of actual impartation of God’s presence into ourselves. Ultimately, it would also strengthen us in our daily lives when we serve others and the world around us.
Anette

I recently made similar suggestions to our pastor. Our church is very “contemporary” and has a lot of people with conservative Mennonite backgrounds. His fear was that introducing liturgy into worship would have negative connotations for those former Mennonite?s to whom conservative equals head coverings, etc. Any suggestions?

Worship Connect » Blog Archive » More on The Turn

[...] This morning, Scot McKnight suggests we respond to the liturgical turn among low church evangelicals, and he offers some particulars in his third post on this topic.? [...]

Anette #20-
Went to a service last Friday night that did close to just that. However, the response of those wanting to be prayed for was so overwhelming that they went ahead and performed communion/Lord’s Supper for the rest of us in the meantime. Then those people getting prayer took part in the communion/Lord’s Supper once they were done.
It’s a mega-church, and unfortunately as is common with such churches, it does not perform such sacramental services real often (or often enough in my opinion).
I am curious how a church such as Willow Creek would (if they don’t already) start to incorporate liturgical services (gradually? quickly? a separate service?)

Rick #22: The size of the response at your service says something about the need, does it not? I am excited to hear that. Anette

I’ve got sympathy with Joel Shaffer’s point – the liturgical turn has as much to do with class, educational levels and culture as it does with spirituality. That’s not to say it’s invalid – reconnecting with the historic riches of the Church’s worship tradition can be wonderfully refreshing. But there’s always the danger of ecclesiastical snobbery – looking down on low church Protestants. We should recognise that God uses populist styles of Christianity that might make us cringe. If the Church is to be for all people, it needs to be a mixed economy.

John C,
This is the rub isn’t it. I was told by a pastor I respect that he had to hold back and avoid the kind of references that Scot suggests. Otherwise he was considered an intellectual snob out of touch with the common man (my paraphrase).
In other words – none of the changes Scot suggests and I would like to see are actually appropriate for the average church.

Rick (22). I think a mega church can incorporate Scot’s preaching/scripture suggestions and other arts in worship in any worship service, and many do. Since most mega churches are already working effectively with and within pop-culture, they are in a good position to use historic liturgy as Scot suggests. Scot is careful to qualify his suggestions. He’s not saying, “Let’s get back to real worship.” He’s encouraging us to to do the work of synthesis that Jesus, Paul and he or she who wrote Hebrews has done. In my experience, the process of planning and leading such preaching/worship is the same process in any kind of church: rural, urban, mega, plant, established, mainline, free… Someone wrote earlier: It’s an exciting time to be in Church.

I’m wondering with Joel (#16)to what extent this is a white middle class phenomenon. I’ve noticed a trend in Asian believers to be more modern evangelical. Meanwhile, I am home for a few months from working in Thailand and have been enjoying the liturgy of an Anglican church. The preaching also seems more exegetically correct than what I’ve often heard in the evangelical churches.

Thanks again Scot,
I think we need to be connected not only to our history of the Church but the story of all scripture is the story of the mission of God. I enjoy some of the move toward liturgy. It not only connects us to our story it also meets a cultural need for community and structure. In troubling times people want to feel secure and safe in some part of life. When I became a Christ follower in 1969 the move was toward spontaneous uncontrolled gatherings. I like the cultural move toward more liturgy.
Rich in Seattle

RJS (26.): If not you, then I am driven crazy by the dismissal of “the changes.”
In other words, and for me this often gets to the heart of the troubles for our “average churches”, our evangelical symbolism and rituals are trusted because we rely more upon the enlightenment and modernity than the Bible and the early traditions of the church. While I’m not sure what paleo-orthodoxy means, what I do observe is that some of “the changes” discussed here refer to what I might call a reverse contextualization.
Now, I would also need to bring the observations of Joel (16.) into this as well. I have some very limited experience preaching in a black church: regarding the Reformed tradition the church is part of, they did not want to jettison or change: except only to deepen. In other words, they wanted the liturgical shape of worship to inform their faith and lives together. I mention this as a hunch that ethnic diversity has yet to be well-assessed within any supposed “changes” that are discussed: but, it’s really the elephant in the room, is it not?

RJS: I threw the term in “paleo-orthodoxy”, and I was thinking that some of what is described in the changes suggests that kind of theological perspective: but, I’m not sure what kind of attention it deserves, or how it is substantially different from what Scot has proposed, or from Robert Webber.
I believe the guy Thomas Oden is a well-known proponent of paleo-orthodoxy. But, I am still not sure that if it represents something substantially different from our current discussion.
Sorry about that inclusion: mea culpa!

Music to my ears!

Hey, here’s a solution: in Dallas there’s a very large Methodist church (George W. Bush’s church) which has five different kinds of services. There’s an old-time gospel service, a contemporary service, a Bible-church-style lecture service, a high-church liturgical service and their traditional Methodist service. The contemporay one (twice on Sunday mornings) draws the most people. Heck, they even throw in an excellent Taize service once a month that I attend.

I have to say that there is a world of difference between a) walking down a particular path, and b) letting everyone know you are walking down that path by waving signs, blowing horns, and telling everyone else they are on the path to hell!
I have been a part of two churches over the last decade or so that would both be considered quite ‘emergent’ in approach, yet, rarely (if ever) use the language of ‘emergent’ or ‘postmodern.’
The same is true of the conversation surrounding liturgy.
(Incidentally, this is part of why the ‘we’re the only true church’ language seems so off point to me.)
We don’t have to tell people ‘Hey, we’re going to try and be more like the RC, and the EO,” or even, “We are going to be experimenting with liturgy this year;” instead, just do it, and explain along the way how it connects to who we are as followers of this other Kingdom, and bridges the gap between the centuries of Christian experience and today’s world.
I also echo the observations made by Joel (# 16) as I am in a similar context, and see similar trends. However, I would interpret them slightly differently, and take them in different directions…
The ‘post-christian’ affluent, caucasian, (and some first generation immigrants) city dwellers love liturgy. The urban poor, and the minority communities steer clear of it.
However, I don’t think people have a problem with liturgy, I think they have a problem with an unreflective approach to liturgy (and have not yet seen a reflective approach modeled for them), and an attitude that says ‘hymns are better than gospel,’ or ‘formalized corporate responses are superior to shoutin Amen.’
But I also believe that it is God’s heart for His church that we would not shy away from the terribly difficult task of taking people of diverse backgrounds and forging deep bonds of community amongst them. I am currently in a community where we are struggling up against the different ways in which people engage in community life, prayer, service, and worship. The excited guy who wont stop clapping who interferes with the contemplative’s ability to meditate, but he can’t understand why they won’t worship!!! Cultural issues, religious background, etc.
I would love some help with resources and networking with people doing legitimate multi-cultural church (not just multi-racial).

Ask for teaching and preaching that covers the whole Bible ? thus, think about whether the lectionary just might be good for your church for a few years. Ask for weekly oral reading of large chunks of the Bible.
I’m a huge fan of using the lectionary. In fact, I’ve recently been asked to contribute lectionary reflections to the Presbyterian Bloggers site (effective this Saturday). But it’s worth noting that one common criticism of the lectionary (well, I’m thinking specifically about the Revised Common Lectionary, but think this is true of all the others, too) is that it doesn’t cover the whole Bible. That is to say, it doesn’t cover every word of the Bible. It does make an effort to give a more-or-less representative sampling of all the Bible’s parts.
But even so, there are obvious gaps. Sections dealing with controversial issues are often skipped, for example.
Having said that, I do think that the lectionary is a good (if imperfect) tool that I wish more churches used. And I wish that more churches that used it used all the readings assigned for a given Sunday during worship. The church I attend right now, for example, only tends to use the Gospel reading, which is usually the basis for the sermon (if another text is used for the sermon, it is the one that is read instead). The Old Testament reading, the Psalm, and the reading for the Epistles aren’t even read out loud.

I agree with those in this discussion are emphasizing corporate worship as a key to renewal. Over the past two weeks I have worshiped at: (1) an evangelical non-denominational church that basically presented a musical stage show and a message, and (2) a Lutheran church (ELCA) that followed a liturgy, but in such a relaxed, joyous, gracious and hospitable way that my wife and I felt right at home and thoroughly refreshed in spirit.
The non-denom church building had the feeling of an auditorium, used audio-visual, and the sanctuary was dark with no natural light and felt more like a big living room or concert hall. The acoustics were such that you really couldn’t hear the congregation singing, only the well-lit and amplified musicians and leaders on stage. As I looked around, few in the “audience” were singing with any enthusiasm. There was no call to worship, confession of sins or absolution, creed, Scripture reading (except with the sermon), greeting of one another, intercessory prayer or communion. The audience was just that–we mostly watched and listened.
In contrast, the Lutheran church was flooded with natural light, and the design of the sanctuary directed ones attention upward, but also helped one feel connected to those encircled around in the congregation. The congregation participated throughout the entire service, with delightfully melodic sung responses as well as the hymns, responsive readings and going forward for the Lord’s Supper. The Scriptures were read from all portions of the Bible. Children were welcomed to the altar for a message. The sermon was thoroughly Biblical and kingdom-oriented. People in the congregation gave the announcements about areas of ministry in which they were involved. The pastor led but was not predominant. It was a congregational experience of worship, Word and Table.
Who ever would have thought that this middle-aged evangelical and long-time pastor would actually prefer worship in a mainline church? In fact, I hesitate to even call what we experienced in the non-denom church “worship,” though I say so with a heavy heart, for I have led many services that were just like that one.

B-W (33.),
Re: gaps. Agreed. My assumption is that you intentionally
fill those gaps. I’m not sure what the practice is of others. I can recall some parts of the RCL in the Gospels where there are gaps, or even some “leaps” are made in one lection. I just retrieved the texts, and, viola: no more gap. I have had a “hit and miss” understanding of why those gaps were generated, but nothing stands out in my memory of why that should be a privileged way of generating a lectionary.

Joel (16),
You’re not the first in these discussions to make exactly that observation. I have similar questions as one who works in an inner-city. I personally enjoy a lot of what Scot is talking about here, but I don’t see it going anywhere in my chief community.
These are great suggestions, though, Scot (and great additions in the comments). Scot, I will add that in our (inner-city) community’s “workouts” for 2-4 people, I can see a lot of potential for the kind of prayer patterns you’ve advocated in your books with a use of a few Psalms, the Lord’s Prayer & the Jesus Creed, for example.
Maybe that’s one angle on this that should be considered: we tend to think chiefly in terms of “the service” regarding this liturgical turn. I tend to think that the liturgical rhythms are most valuable at the ‘micro’ level–using the BOC or some other daily rhythyms with others.

Forgive me if I am restating anyone else’s point here (I confess I skimmed some of the comments), but it seems to me (my experience is split between Lutheran and “3rd wave” churches) that the chasm is more than just a matter of form, but of theology. Many evangelical churches are overtly anti-sacramental, and some movements treat communion as a superstition. To borrow language from Webber, evangelicalism to a large extent is theologically anti-historical.
I agree that there can be a mid-way point (I’ve just started attending an evangelical church that seems to be moving in that direction), but it seems that it needs to come from a sort of theological conversion.

Alden, I agree. However, not just Biblical, systematic or historical theology, but also practical and pastoral theology. Having tried to teach in the setting for 30 years, I just don’t think many non-denominational evangelicals (for example) understand what worship is. Just as Phyllis Tickle, Scot and others have performed a wonderful service for us by breaking down prejudices against written prayers and private liturgies, we need a host of Robert Webbers to do the same to help us understand the meaning and ways of corporate worship.

In defense of “gaps” in the lectionary, I believe the argument is that many of the passages read in the service are not going to be analyzed, only absorbed, and some problematic passages need explanation or contextualization too much (like the notorious smash the babies on the rocks passage of Ps 137) to used in worship.
It may be that in the process of selection there is some excessive timidity, but the principle that the liturgical use of scripture is not the same as study and brings certain pastoral constraints seems justified to me.

Much good can come from the structure of historical liturgy and the inclusion of the creeds, an emphasis on confession and a more meaningful and regulare expression of communion.
Yet there are other issues to be cautious about if one is an evangelical Protestant. At some point an emphasis on liturgy can lead to a tension between the authority of scripture and the authority of Tradition. At some point an emphasis on sacrament can lead to a question of whether sacraments are effective apart from or independent of personal faith. At some point the language of certain liturgies opens up the possibility of the Eucharist being viewed as an offering to the Father for the Remission of sins.
Folks need to be careful that in a search for a more meaningful experience they don’t unwittingly embrace a soteriology that is different from what most evangelical denominations would hold. Liturgies are written in a theological context and reflect the theology of the writers. Failure to wrestle with that can lead to a lot of confusion and can have very negative consequences.

Folks need to be careful that in a search for a more meaningful experience they don?t unwittingly embrace a soteriology that is different from what most evangelical denominations would hold.
To the extent that I consider myself an evangelical, I agree. I certainly don’t want to sacrifice “truth” for something that “feels good” or is “convenient.”
However, I also think that we need to hold tightly to only a few essential “truths” and be willing to dialogue on the rest. I may disagree with some tenets of Catholicism (I assume that’s outside the bounds of what you’re calling “evangelical denominations”), but if a Christian converts to Catholicism, I still consider that person a sibling in Christ. I do, of course, wish for them to treat my Christian beliefs with the same respect….

Riffing off Dan, just above and Alden, more above.
There’s also the question of the “symbolic world” and how that figures in to the world view (story, symbol, praxis and identity questions) of liturgical vs non-liturgical folk. I’m not talking about individual elements in worship that are symbolic of something, but more like what the whole symbology of non-liturgical churches adds up and contributes *to*, over against what the whole symbology of liturgical churches adds up and contributes *to*. Anti-historicism (is that a word?), for example, contributes something to the wholeness of a kind of world view, just as sacramentalism contributes something to another kind of world view.
As I am exploring EO, istm that among the major (and minor) branches of Christianity there are differences in world views that are deep divides that still separate after 500-1000 years (though some slow movement has been made by liturgical branches). I think we can and should find common ground- the Jesus Creed is an excellent example. Over all, we need to put on love. I’m just not sure that selectively importing liturgical elements into a non-liturgical milieu (even with good teaching about them) is going to be completely satisfactory over the long haul, because of the pull of this world view thing.
I may be wrong, but this is my experience. Maybe I just lack imagination about what’s next in the development of the church. I’m looking forward to reading P. Tickle’s book.
Dana

Scot said,
“Ask for teaching and preaching that covers the whole Bible ? thus, think about whether the lectionary just might be good for your church for a few years. Ask for weekly oral reading of large chunks of the Bible.”
I pastor a Methodist church of around 100 regular attenders. It is in a small community that is undergoing rapid growth as it morphs into a bedroom community for a large nearby city. The church is 125+ years old. I decided to use the Revised Common Lectionary and see how it would go. I offer a several reflections that come out of my experience in a small mainline church.
–At my church people have not been trained or encouraged to read and engage the bible on their own (this has changed big time). They are used to the pastor being the interpreter of scripture and are comfortable with that. The reading of large chunks of the Bible did not connect and “took up time” in the service.
Realizing this I put together take home bible study guides on the lectionary readings for the coming week so that those who chose to could prepare a bit. A small number of people took advantage of this resource.
–When reading large chunks of scripture the quality and skill of the liturgist is important. A flat reading of the scriptures can be boring. A skilled liturgist helps as does dramatic readings with different voices for each part of the story. One of the highlights of my life was listening to a reading of Revelation. Very powerful!
One of the largest challenges I face as a pastor is helping people learn to appreciate and read their Bibles on their own.
– The use of a lectionary is not a solution in itself. Many of the mainline churches use the lectionary with little biblical knowledge as a result. I guess just hearing the scriptures each week does not necessarily lead to knowledge and encounter of God or transformed lives. Forgive me if I sound a bit pessimistic or cynical. I am all for the reading of scripture and liturgy and yes our church has changed over the last 25 years and I am excited about how God is moving through us now and into the future.
Derek

Dan: Folks need to be careful that in a search for a more meaningful experience they don?t unwittingly embrace a soteriology that is different from what most evangelical denominations would hold.
If the soteriology of most evangelical denominations doesn’t give rise to meaningful worship practices, then maybe there’s something wrong with it.
I completely agree with you about the need to wrestle with the theological assumptions behind our practices.

Dana, I think you are right, especially with regard to the EO; while externally it seems that liturgy is liturgy, there are, I think, major worldview differences that especially divide East from West.
I do believe that the evangelical church can do much by incorporating elements like the recitation of the creeds and making the reading of Scripture more central to worship. However, I think the “sacramental divide” will be a major worldview issue that would need to be addressed.

#5 “What I find especially interesting is that the *theology* of the liturgical churches (Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican) is what organic expressions of the church are squarely rooted in. They just believe that when that theology is carried out fully in *practice*, the expression will look very different than a graded, hierarchical clergy/laity system.”
Yeah, this is where I am. I really dig Catholic social teaching, Eastern Orthodox theology, and some of my favorite writers (C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright) are Anglican. I love that my (emerging) church celebrates the Eucharist every week (unlike the SBC church I grew up in where we did it once a quarter). But in ecclesiology I’m with Yoder.
I get why people are leaving evangelical churches. I get why people are joining the RC or EO churches (there’s a lot to like). But those aren’t the only options.
Scot, at some point in the past you mentioned “local church integrity” as an alternative to “autonomy”. Can you expound on that a bit? I have a feeling it relates to this discussion, because a turn to liturgy (or historically liturgically churches) is also a turn to hierarchy.
My church is 3 years old, is a mission of a nondenominational Bible church, and has partnerships with (historically black) Baptist churches and Spanish-speaking congregations and Mennonite groups, not to mention various nonprofits. We’re not part of a centuries-old denomination, or a historic episcopate, or anything of the like. Yet I think we’re very connected, organically, to the rest of the universal church.

I can appreciate Derek’s post #45, people may hold up using the Lectionary as ideal but other things have to take place in the discipleship process that leads people to read their Bibles on their own – perhaps a relationship with God is community based but it is also individually based and these are not necessarily the same thing. Like the old Keith Green saying goes “Going to church makes you as much of a Christians as going to McDonald’s makes you a hamburger.” So lectionary or not does the service connect people to God or not?
I wonder if one’s response to liturgy is based on how much understanding one has of the process and why – its easy to just go through the process and it seems many do – there are also many who seem to get something out of the liturgy and others don’t – what gives?
Having said that I can appreciate Scot prompting is to think differntly about these things and encouraging the need to root a church and it’s people historically as well as theologically.
That said how can I find out more about using a lectionary since I come from a tradition that barely knows what one is.
Thanks

I think we need to remember that everyone has a “liturgy” in the sense of an order of service. In fact, many “low church” services are far more set in stone than those we might call liturgical. The question is whether or not the liturgy is a good one that facilitates worship. The “liturgy” in the evangelical non-denom church that I described above did not. The story and experience it called me to enter into was that of professional performers entertaining an audience of consumers, whereas the Lutheran congregation modeled a community of faith entering together into the story of Jesus, the Gospel and the Kingdom.

Travis and Brian … #48 and #49 … thanks so much for these thoughts. You’ve both given me a lot to think about. Travis, I think you’re right on. To my mind, Yoder was 200 years ahead of his time. And I too love much of the theology of Wright, Lewis, et al. How that theology gets *expressed practically* is a very interesting and open question. Getting back to Scot’s original post, there are more ways to wed high church with low church than trying to sprinkle some liturgical elements into an evangelical worship service. So it seems to me anyway. (By the way, thanks for the Keith Green reference. I cut my spiritual teeth on his music. It’s good to remember …)

Mr. McKnight, I would like to echo a question that someone asked above, and I don’t think you replied to it (unless I missed the answer, in which case I apologize.) The question is: why are you still an evangelical, and not Catholic or Orthodox?
The reason I ask is this: much of what you say resonates with me big time. About being connected to the history of the church, of the inadequate ecclesiology of low-church evangelicals, etc. But the solutions you seem to be offering seem more superficial than anything else to me. You seem to be saying: “Let’s try and imitate all these traditional, liturgical things, without joining them. Let’s dress up like them, without joining them.” But how does that get us anywhere? How is that a better ecclesiology than low-church evangelicalism? How is that not simply everyone doing what they please?
I have tried to incorporate traditional practices in my life. And I find myself simply playing with things that I don’t understand, and which largely make no sense because they have been ripped from their ecclesial context. “Praying with the church”, which I now practice largely thanks to you, means very little when you are part of a congregation where most of the people have never even heard of it and would just regard it as a personal preference if they did. Fasting regularly means very little when you are simply doing it by yourself, with no community practice. It becomes simply another individual choice among many. I in essence become my own church, a church of one. Completely alone and cut off.
I want to be a part of the Church which does not need to recover that which was thrown away because it never threw it away in the first place. I have become convinced that there is a church which has continued with unbroken continuity, preserving the faith that was handed down, since the days of the apostles, and that that church is the Orthodox Church.
I have not yet made any concrete moves towards converting, other than speaking with some people (including pastors) about it. Making such a switch is not so easy. But I have already made up my mind. I don’t think we can have anything like a healthy ecclesiology so long as we continue to pretend that endless division and optional submission to the body of christ is all fine and dandy. In a nutshell, I no longer believe in the validity of Protestantism.
So again, my question: why are you still Evangelical? How and why do you still hold on to it?

David and Daniel,
Yep, it’s a good and fair question. I think once or twice I’ve gotten close to answering this question on this blog, but I promise to strive to answer it next week.

Mr. McKnight, I look forward to reading your answer!

To Joel: I think that’s a stretch. I am a first generation African-American and I am currently converting to Anglicanism. I was baptized one, but was raised Pentecostal. I eventually parted ways with that, and became a non-denominational Reformed Christian of sorts.
Now, I’m about to be confirmed as an Anglican.
It’s not about class for me. My family in Nigeria is traditionally Anglican on one side, and Catholic on the other. Why people associate class (and ethnicity) with liturgical churches I will never know. I’ve noticed that there is a fear of liturgy, due to misunderstandings of theology and our view of the sacraments, but I know other African-Americans moving towards liturgy. A friend of mine is in the RCIA classes right now.
But back to topic. Scot, you raised very good points. I would love there be a marriage of the two. I’d say that stereotypes have to be faced and broken first.

Go full bore into the lectionary and use the rubrics of the BCP. It’s flexible enough that you could change it up with art, interactive elements, full on “contemporary music” (if that’s your thing), video renderings of the scriptures (from Work Of The People), etc. It’s really one of the best worship tools ever created. Thank God for Thomas Cranmer!

i say all that because I have used the BCP in an evangelical setting exactly that way, didn’t say things were from the BCP, explained the value of certain “responsive reading” type elements and have had anti-any-high-church-liturgy evangelicals eat it up.

Scot,
I have enjoyed reading your thoughts for some time now and am truly grateful that less-schooled pastors like myself have such a privilege of sitting at yours and many others feet.
As a senior pastor for the past 11 years the goal of “learning to do the things that Jesus said and did” has lead us back to a more focused worship time on Sunday. Focused in that we are asking God to help heal us from the “wifm”(whats in it for me) mentality and rather humbly find ourselves on Sunday worshipping God as a natural response to all that he’s done, doing and will do.
We point people to Jesus. We encourage people to respond to the Trinity’s invitation to join the divine romance. We worship with music, with reading of Scripture, with fellowship, with preaching and with communion. But after reading your thoughts and comments I get the feeling that we could be doing a better jog in the teaching…:(
With that said, we have never had more saints responding to Gods invitation to be his hands and feet then we do now. Our folks are not just talking about how to join God in putting things right but are actually leading in this. They are reorienting theei lives and habits around Jesus’. However, beyond simply Gods grace in our lives, most of these responses seem to be wrought by simple obedience to the call and the accepting of the invitation to follow Christ, and not by making sure we are offering better teaching opportunities like the ones you mentioned above (which i am sure we could use).
So my question(s) would be, do you think that if we had even more information sharing times that this would produce even more obedience? If so then we would welcome it. But is it possible that each community can find its own rhythm of how to participate in His-story even if we might not have as many teaching events as you suggested. Or if we are not as organized as you are suggesting(lectionary, adult sunday school et al.).
Again, I’m sure these are great things and perhaps this will be where we end up, but my concerns are found in what sounds like a value for more information than participation in that which most churched folks already know but don’t do.
Thanks again for your investment into guys like myself who are able to eat from your blogasmorg table. Keep the meals coming.

Not to be unecumenical, but does anyone think that these moves to ‘high’ churches on the part of evangelicals is problematic? I’ve been struck at how little criticism of such a move that Scot’s posts seem to have provoked. I’m deeply committed to and grateful for the Church and its tradition, but I think this is at least a major pastoral issue, and likely at times simply a problem. Partly a problem of anemic evangelical churches, but also often enough a problem on the part of reactionary church-hoppers.

Ndidi (55),
Actually I was referring to RC and OC, not Anglicanism. The theological type of liturgy might matter as well. My primary experience is with young adult African-Americans within the hip-hop culture and though I have seen a tiny movement towards the Episcopal church in the Bronx, the movement that I am seeing among hip-hop African-Americans is mostly towards Reformed evangelical theology. That would be another topic I suppose…

#59,
It seems to me that the point of this post to acknowledge the reality that exists (whether it’s considered a “problem” is a matter of opinion), and to ask if there’s something that “anemic evangelical” churches can learn from it. That’s not to say that evangelicals necessarily should become more “high church,” but if they’re failing to meet an actual need that people are leaving their churches to go to these other groups to have met, there should at least be a response.

Hey Joel (60), I actually agree with the Reformed bent. Reformed theology is making a movement in hip-hop, with artists like shai linne and the Lampmode label, and rappers like Lecrae, Trip Lee and Tedashii.
To Matt (59), I don’t think it’s problematic, per se. I had nothing against the last two churches I attended. They were sound in doctrine, active in the community, preached the gospel – what more could a girl ask for? But when I realized that I attended my first church because of friends, I felt convicted and left. The second one was great as well, but it was around this time last year I felt God calling me to an Anglican church. How could I say no?
If anything, I can say that the liturgical worship style is more beneficial for me than that found in low churches.

???”Expect your pastor to connect his or her sermons to Ignatius, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, etc ? not just to Luther or Calvin but to the whole Church”???
Not all of us have that kind of time. Where is the time to read Ignatius, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin. Hardly have the time to connect with the people who are in the pew.