Liturgy

[rlvaughn]

Link to article by Les Lampkin on Jonathan Aigner's blog:
But There’s No Liturgy in the Bible!

Is his reasoning biblically sound? historically accurate? currently relevant?

...James K. Smith argues that we are surrounded by competing liturgies; the liturgy of the Mall, of Higher Education, of the Sports complex.

The people of God have a liturgy. It may be a deliberate, biblically grounded, historical liturgy, or it may be a contemporary liturgy dictated to us by the commercially oriented pop culture.

There are no quick and easy Bible references. It requires a comprehensive cover-to-cover examination of the Bible, from creation to the culmination of history.

The first Christians, all Jews, continued to worship in the temple, but found in the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus the culmination, the fulfillment, of the sacrifices instituted in Leviticus.

For the next several centuries, the worship practices of the Church continued. The Church, as a human institution under the direction of the Holy Spirit, altered and corrected the liturgy as needed.

It wasn’t until 19th century American Revivalism that the church began to question the Biblical, historic liturgy of the church.

What think ye?

Thanks!

 

[Jerome]

The guy is Catholic for sure:

the time-honored practices of the church....historical liturgy....the Eucharist....I refuse to abandon the wisdom and learning of the Church Fathers

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It wasn’t until 19th century American Revivalism that the church began to question the Biblical, historic liturgy of the church

Not true! Many of the Puritans objected to the Anglican liturgy and in the time of the English Republic it was banned.

I don't necessarily have a problem with a Bible-based liturgy, but the difficulty comes when the thing is cranked out week after week and everybody knows it and recites it, and nobody is thinking what it's saying

 

[rlvaughn]

Yes, that blame on 19th century American Revivalism was one that caught my attention.

 

[Reformed]

I don't necessarily have a problem with a Bible-based liturgy, but the difficulty comes when the thing is cranked out week after week and everybody knows it and recites it, and nobody is thinking what it's saying

This can be applied to almost anything we do during the worship service. No matter how hard a church may try to be different, each church has its own habits. There is as much responsibility on the individual to prepare his heart for worship as there is on church leadership to make worship biblical. Plus, if we take the word liturgy by its definition, what church does not have one?

 

[rlvaughn]

...if we take the word liturgy by its definition, what church does not have one?

Agreed. Dictionary.com defines it this way: “1. a form of public worship; ritual. 2. a collection of formularies for public worship. 3. a particular arrangement of services. 4. a particular form or type of the Eucharistic service.”

I suppose we could argue that even the “unprogrammed” meetings of Friends/Quakers has a certain formula or arrangement -- even in its non-arrangement. And in
But There’s No Liturgy in the Bible, Lampkin posits that all churches have some kind of liturgy. On the other hand, he and most of us probably have some concept of liturgical vs. non-liturgical, if we move away from the literal definition to church practices. In his journal article, “The Liturgical Responsibilities of Non-Liturgical Churches,” W. S. Pratt explained it this way:

In popular speech “non-liturgical churches” are those whose theory and practice of public worship do not involve a fixed and prescribed ritual of language and action, such as can be set down in a prayer-book or similar manual. (The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Oct., 1901), pp. 641-665, University of Chicago Press)

Lampkin responds to the assertion “But there’s no liturgy in the Bible!” with his own assertion: “Ah, but there is!” By the end of his piece, I don't know what it is. Maybe that is just my slowness and lack of understanding liturgy.

 

[Jerome]

Lampkin responds to the assertion “But there’s no liturgy in the Bible!” with his own assertion: “Ah, but there is!” By the end of his piece, I don't know what it is. Maybe that is just my slowness and lack of understanding liturgy.

He says 'the Bible', but over and over turns to tradition instead (typical for a Roman Catholic):

time-honored practices of the church....historical liturgy....the Eucharist....I refuse to abandon the wisdom and learning of the Church Fathers

 

[rlvaughn]

He says 'the Bible', but over and over turns to tradition instead

That's the way I read it, also.

(typical for a Roman Catholic)

In the comments I found that he wrote this: "I realized that I was what I had always abhorred; a Bible-thumping Fundamentalist, one of those people who insist that the color of the carpet is somehow a non-negotiable. I ran. I ran out of my fundamentalism. I ran clean out of my Evangelism past. I'm still running. It feels like my end will run somewhere in the neighborhood of the Catholic Church!"

 

[Reformed]

Agreed. Dictionary.com defines it this way: “1. a form of public worship; ritual. 2. a collection of formularies for public worship. 3. a particular arrangement of services. 4. a particular form or type of the Eucharistic service.”

I suppose we could argue that even the “unprogrammed” meetings of Friends/Quakers has a certain formula or arrangement -- even in its non-arrangement. And in
But There’s No Liturgy in the Bible, Lampkin posits that all churches have some kind of liturgy. On the other hand, he and most of us probably have some concept of liturgical vs. non-liturgical, if we move away from the literal definition to church practices. In his journal article, “The Liturgical Responsibilities of Non-Liturgical Churches,” W. S. Pratt explained it this way:


Lampkin responds to the assertion “But there’s no liturgy in the Bible!” with his own assertion: “Ah, but there is!” By the end of his piece, I don't know what it is. Maybe that is just my slowness and lack of understanding liturgy.

I think I know what your real question is. When we think of a liturgy we envision a formal order of worship that is non-contemporary. Geneva-type Reformed churches probably fit that bill. Reformed Baptists churches typically are more liturgical than say your contemporary SBC church plant. Are these liturgical styles good, bad, or indifferent? To answer that question more information is needed. Is a church's liturgical style a symptom or a cause of that church's overall health?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[rlvaughn]

For myself, I wouldn't see it as formal vs. contemporary, but more formal vs. informal.

I find some agreement with Lampkin. For example, in the comments he writes:

My concern is the widespread replacement of the ministries of word and table with a commercially driven pop/rock liturgy that turns music into the new and only sacrament in the church.

With that in mind, I'd say the article is currently relevant to issues going on in churches. On the other hand, I didn't find his reasoning biblically sound -- didn't think he made a good biblical case. Also I don't think some of what he wrote is historically accurate (e.g., as noted above re 19th century American Revivalism).

 

[HankD]

Eh, liturgy is acceptable as long (as has been previously noted) as we don't fall into the rote rut.

HankD

 

[rlvaughn]

If liturgy be comprehended in its simplest definition (e.g. form of public worship; particular arrangement of services), our "liturgy" is found in our church position that "The sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and practice insists that our congregational gatherings be restricted to those elements that Scripture requires – praying, thanksgiving, praising, singing, Scripture reading, preaching/teaching, giving, observing the ordinances, ordination and sending, testimonies, greetings, reporting the Lord’s work, decision-making and church discipline."