Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 8/1/2002 8:42 AM (GMT -6)

What are some of the implications (positive, negative, ambivalent) of a church that worships in, say, an old K-Mart building (e.g. Woodland Hills Church) vs. a cathedral? I’m hoping that Empiress can offer some of her expertise on this subject.

Also, for those of you in St. Paul, what does St. Paul’s Cathedral signify to you? (For those of you outside St. Paul, St. Paul’s Cathedral is a very large, ornate cathedral located right in the heart of our city.)

Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 8/1/2002 9:47 AM (GMT -6)

Brief and incomplete initial thoughts...

CHURCH IN A K-MART BUILDING:

Positive:

---Investing in the eternal, not the temporal.
---Concerned about the internal, not the superficial.
---Social status of attenders is irrelevant.

CHURCH IN AN ORNATE CATHEDRAL:

Positive:

---Our most beautiful creations, architecturally and otherwise, should be dedicated to
the worship of our Creator.
---Aesthetics are powerful tools to train the heart on things above.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

churchmouse522
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 163

Posted 8/1/2002 12:13 PM (GMT -6)

Just some initial thoughts...I love this topic.

I was brought up Catholic and was baptized as an infant in the cathedral in St. Paul. I can still remember going there with my dad and lighting candles and praying. It was awe-inspiring and so beautiful.

I think there are dangers and advantages no matter how you choose to worship. The high church draws attention to the transcendence and power of God. (The numinous) The low church draws attention to the immanence and accessability of God. Either emphasis risks ignoring the profound truth of the other. I would not want to go back to a high church environment, but sometimes I miss the ritual and beauty.

Mouse

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 8/1/2002 1:59 PM (GMT -6)

Imagine if we were all physically blind. It wouldn't really matter, would it! Blindness, then, sometimes does trancend sight.

Something to think about.

Starkman

churchmouse522
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 163

Posted 8/1/2002 6:24 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Starkman,

Even if you were blind you would know the difference. It permeates everything they do. The smells, the sounds, everything is radically different. As a matter of fact, the differences kind of beg the question: do high church and low church worship the same God? Or maybe it proves the creativity of God that worship of this particular diety could result in such diversity of forms.

Mouse

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 8/1/2002 6:56 PM (GMT -6)

Ah, but remember, to a blind person, there are no preconceived ideas about high or low worship via the building. There would only be that which is associated (smell, sound, etc.) with the service, not the building. In other words, if you never told a blind person that he/she was in a high or low setting, it would only happen that the smells and sounds would bind themselves to the service, not the building. This isn't to say that the building isn't used as a vehicle to create those associations, but different buildings smell different, and that would allow for the creation of new associations though set in the same liturgical atomosphere.

This is what I'm thinking, but am I off here?

Starkman

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/3/2002 5:35 PM (GMT -6)

Lets say K-Mart never fell into its difficulties -- that Target hadn't invented GreatLand. What then.....

What if you did what the Romans did?

What if you met some times in a catacomb? One of those underground small rooms with stone shelves for bodies carved into each of the four walls. A ceiling short enough for a basketball player to touch; at least jumping. You would worship with those you always did. Don't many of our old hymns talk about both the saints on earth and saints in heaven. The living and the dead. Some members would be there promptly, stay the whole service, and never miss a meeting. Interior design would not be done by Martha Stewart! Pictures of worshipers with up-raised arms. Reminders of the story of Jonah's three days! Peacocks that speak of resurrection hope. Anchors. Fish and Loaves, and wind-blown cloth, and thrones. How would THAT shape worship?

You would all worship in a circle. The ceiling would even be the curving structure of a gradual dome -- to hold up the room above it. Draw a circle on the ceiling making sky. Just like in palaces. Draw reminders of the Four Gospels in the corners of the room's square around the outside of the circle. You worship freely under the sky of heaven, and are surrounded by the Gospel.

Some of your worship services HAVE to be held there. Dress in white. The service is like a wedding -- actually is. Your loved one died. You lay down the body that boar them. That IS them. That will actually be resurrected by Christ; the same Christ who holds them -- in who's arms they are now . . . and participate in reality what they will with all present participate in fully when the fullness of time has come. None of the words of the service are abstract. Not any Sunday. Couldn't be. And the closeness and the sounds echoes during reading, sermon and song penetrate to through your bones. Calcium to calcium.

What if.

And what if you worshiped instead in a court house building? A large government hall. Not a store. Not a market. Not a mall. What if you took over a court house with its raised judges seat, its wide open and high center that enveloped effortlessly all who could possibly come? You would remove the statue of the magistrate. You have your own magistrate who judges you, and at who's mercy you gather. Each end of the building has a half-dome connected to the curving half-barrel shaped ''vault'' that holds out the sky, or makes a new one. Those half-domes are joined to the central space by a pillared mass supporting a ceremonial arch. The Arch-de-Triumph of Paris (or Rome) brought inside -- for fanfare! But instead of Caesar, or Hitler parading through it, every time you gather, the benevolence bread of the people is gathered by the deacons and carried up the steps where the judge would sit, and is placed on a humble table. Unworthy though it is, it is blessed and then given in the other direction.... This time to the people. At the top of the arch, this arch of authority, place a picture of the Prince of Peace. No matter what other pictures, place his portrait at the top and in the center. For this is who's court building you worship in. At weddings, watch the bride enter the hall from the outside on one end. past the Font where she was immersed, dying to the old life and being born into the new. Past all the people who have been her whole life -- or whole new life -- the Church, Christ's body. Entering and being swallowed beyond view by their massive number. Proceeding supported; as she has been her whole life. And with their blessing mounting through that arch of rightful judgment un-judged. That happened a long time before, on the other end of the room. Three times, wet. Up front, three Persons are asked for their consent. Her, him and God. And each signify yes. A piece of the Kingdom of God is present, and declared so.

The line of faith's movements have meaning, and tell a story.

Finally, what if you have no such buildings. Someone has a big house. It has rooms with patio roofs that surround a bit of open space which is open to the sky. (An atrium) it is a mini-mall. But it is a big house. A spacious house and a gracious house. It has many rooms. Not everyone who comes there feels comfortable. Some just come to find out about this belief. Some may be trying to get information to feed gossip. The many rooms accommodate this. Communion and even Baptisms are handled in a mass of joined rooms on one side of the compound. Seating for new comers is across the way in other rooms. It is an open feeling; but provides definition according to commitment and familiarity. This relative "distance" of proximity protects some from being on the spot, and others from having their most important commitments being pried into. And when the new learners had their time to go, those who would stay longer or who visited as traveling guests could remain and meet. (During persecutions this was very necessary.)

These are three kinds of worship-house structures, ALL of which were eventually married into the Basilica church that St. Paul's Cathedral is a prime example of. The long storytelling horizontal was married with the center-producing dome, and metered by a semi-permiable transition-enticing definition of spaces.

When you visit there, next ... or at St. Mary's in Minneapolis ... look for these three old friends. They are there.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/4/2002 3:52 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome aboard Al2Si2H4O9 (you COULD have chosen any easier TAG.

Great to have you. I like the way you think!

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/4/2002 4:20 PM (GMT -6)

Doc: you COULD have chosen any easier TAG
?????: Oh great. I gave myself a tag that even I have to drag-and-drop.

But seriously ... I'll probably check back on weekends.

Parting, here is a Paul Simon song:

quote:
A man walks down the street...
...
There were incidents and accidents
There were hints and allegations

{Refrain}
If you'll be my bodyguard
I can be your long lost pal
...
You can call me Al

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/05/2002 09:57:33 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 8/4/2002 5:46 PM (GMT -6)

OkayAL, that song was interesting. Not exactly sure what you're saying (that I'm "soft in the middle? heh, I'm 45.), but it WAS interesting.

Look forward to hearing from you on the weekend.

In the mean time, I'm just "slip sliding away." (One of the saddest Paul Simon songs he ever wrote).

but I'm slip sliding into my truer destination.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/5/2002 5:22 AM (GMT -6)

The point of my three stories is that worship is made to exist in time, space and movement. No setting was neutral -- from or in each something was found that became part of the worship: closeness of space and 'reverb' of sound; linear story telling; semi-permiable transitions. But by themselves none of these settings 'is' worship. Nor does worship happen automatically in them.

Starkman is half right and half wrong. I track with him where he talks about what does not matter. I'd educate him in what "high church" is versus low. (You could do high church on a ball-park pitchers mound. Its the liturgy; not the ornateness of the space.)

Here's something to chew on......

quote:
(from a short paper by John H. Armstrong, called, "Thinking Out Loud (Again) on Worship" in which he is deeply indebted to N. Wolterstorff and J. Witvliet)

Whatever style of worship you employ (and musical style is NOT the real issue at all) you should ask, "Does this worship recount the history of God's gracious saving action in this world and proclaim that our hope both now and forevermore is to be found in Jesus Christ alone?" Does worship bring the people into a participation in God's divine activity, past and present? Is there a word of hope for the future based upon what God has said and done in the past? In the words of a familiar hymn: "What more can he say than to you he has said, to you who for refuge to Jesus have fled?"

The great danger here was just as common in "traditional" evangelical worship patterns as it is in "modern" ones. We settle for petition, thanksgiving and proclamation that is almost completely focused upon the present moment and our present feelings. John Witvliet helpfully concluded his article on worship by writing:

Perhaps this is the inevitable result of lives and churches that are content with the status quo. Our songs, prayers, and sermons emphasize God's immediate goodness and even the vitality of our intimate experience of God. For us to live into the riches of fully biblical worship, our prayer, praise, and proclamation should be carried out as if we stand before a cosmic time line of God's actions, fully aware of divine faithfulness from the creation of the world to its full restoration in Christ. It is this vast and specific awareness that grounds our hope when days are difficult and that leads us beyond immediate concerns of our little egocentric worlds.

Three themes must run through our public Christian worship. John Witvliet says that these are: (1) liturgical integrity, (2) covenantal renewal, and (3) historical recitation. I must agree with his cogent arguments. If you lead worship then ask yourself where these three themes are in your worship? If you worship in the congregation, then ask yourself if these three are happening in your life week-by-week? The grand flow of biblical history, indeed of divine revelation, argues that the story line of the Bible is found here and that the worship of the church should be renewed here each Lord's Day. If this is true most churches have a long way to go to begin renewing public worship regardless of the style they employ.

I'd imagine that a good exercise for thinking about what kind of worship, and what kind of worship space your church might have, you might begin by imagining yourselves in the middle of a frozen Lake Milacs (with no ice houses -- add them as necessary). Or a 640 acre mown hayfield. Then think about how time and space and movement are going to be use. But work on learning how to use them to gather the body and focus as a body (not just individually!) on the: "historical recitation" of "God's gracious saving action in this world"; the "covevantal renewal" of "participation in God's divine activity"; and the "historical recitation" of "what God has said and done in the past."

Maybe anything else is distracting.

Ice or stubble: pick your building site.

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/05/2002 10:31:19 AM

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 8/5/2002 7:40 AM (GMT -6)

Oh! Great topic starter Electra...I'm only now getting a chance to check the board.

The reason I'm so very interested in architecture and worship space is because I'm interested in theology...and our worship conveys theology loudly and powerfully. So we ought to be aware what we're communicating. I feel that I'm fairly opionated on the subject so I'll give my perspective, both pro and con! People can slam me later!

Some underlying theology behind low church buildings and worship:

I mentioned a week ago Sunday at Woodland Hills that one of the points being communicated by low church buildings/worship (in K-marts and strip malls) is that prayer and worship is a part of everyday life, ie, that one doesn't need special "space" to pray, it can be done anywhere. I think this is an important point. It also emphasizes functionality/utility over and above aesthetics. Many low churches (modeled on Willow Creek for example) are like streamlined, smooth running auditoriums. The seating is set comfortably, the lights dim at just the right moments and the music kicks in at just the right point during an altar call, etc.

Low churches also emphasize the fact that the "Church" is not a building, it is the people. Rather than focusing on the building, we have only other people to "look at" and this reminds us that the Body of Christ are the people around us, not the building around us.

For those who believe the Church is no longer relevant in the 21st century, strip mall churches challenge people's old view of Church and demand to be seen in a different light. (Whether or not they are relevant is another question, but at least they can't be dismissed as easily, although as this style become more typical, that too may change.) In general it's been found that those of the Baby Boom generation or those who are reacting to traditional church upbringing respond more favorably to casual, low church worship environments. The building and feeling of the worship says: "come as you are," "be yourself," "be comfortable, casual," etc. The space itself feels safe and comfortable...nothing challenging or unusual or different than a typical movie theater. In that sense, it sends an evangelistic message inviting people into unthreatening territory.

criticism:The fact that there is a total lack of religious symbols is a very starling and glaring fact to traditional church-goers. This total lack of symbology can theologically be traced back to Puritan impulses, Calvinism, and the iconoclasts. (Although how many low-church folks are aware of this, I don't know.) I believe there is a fundamental fear "of the flesh" and even some gnostic tendencies behind this stripped down form of worship in which the senses are disengaged. The emphasis is to worship God in "spirit" and not through the senses (visual, tactile, etc.) because the fear continues that our flesh will fall prey to idolotry and worship the image/symbol/experience rather than God. We remove any and all potential pitfalls by removing anything that aids the senses in worship. While I see what the point behind this is and agree it is something to safeguard, I don't believe the method is a good one because education can remedy this. I also believes it denies our humanity in some very important ways because it does not treat people holistically. It demands a spiritual non-fleshly brand of worship because it mistrusts the flesh or sees it as somehow 'less spiritual.' This is where the gnostic tendencies creep in.

But the main objection I have to this particular low-worship style is that in creating an environment comfortable and centered on the individual, it loses the objective of worship which is God-centered rather than people-centered. I believe we already have a model for the way in which God desires to be worshipped, and that model is found in the Biblical concept in the building of the Temple. It is a very earthy, fleshy, incarnational way of worship in that it engages the senses in every way while at the same time emphasizing the radical holiness of God. We lose a theology of God's holiness when even the pinnacle of our worship fails to communicate this in any clear way. While our personal relationship with God is a close, intimate, and perhaps "casual" one in many ways, I don't believe our worship of God should lose the sense that God is holy-Other too. And so it is imbalanced. Worship is not about our comfort, it is about extolling and praising God, particularly in God's holiness.

So clearly one of the chief theological disagreements between low church and high church worship is simply what the purpose of a Sunday service is. Is it a means to evangelize and teach, or a means to worship God in God's holiness?

Some underlying High-church theology:

As a high-Anglican, I can speak from mainly from that perspective. We believe that that a casual approach to God comes more appropriately during small groups, Bible studies, and through personal relationships. But we believe our chief purpose as a corporate body is worship of God...worship of "body, mind, and spirit." Worship is not about the individual and their comfort, it is about God. And the more fully we are worshipping God, the closer we are to our objective. Worship is holistic, therefore we worship with our bodies through standing, kneeling, crossing ourselves, going forward every to the altar, and touching and eating the Eucharist every single Sunday. We worship with our sense of smell with incense, our eyes with visual aids such as windows, architecture, and art. We worship through touch with holy water and chrism/unction, with our hearing and voices through music, and with taste through reception of the Eucharist.

And this leads to a major theme of high church worship: incarnationality. Because Jesus came as a human being in the Incarnation, we are now called to fully embrace our humanity and to continue to proclaim God through incarnational means. Just as Jesus comes to us incarnationally, so God comes to us incarnationally through the Sacraments and through senses. High-church worship is extremely Incarnation-centered...it is earthy, fleshy, and bodily in every way.

By continuing to design buildings with great emphasis on beauty in its architecture, we focus on God and God's attributes. We see it as evangelistic in a different sense: it testifies to God's presence and attributes. In a city with it's secular buildings, traditional church buildings stand out and demand to be seen as living witnesses to God's presence...and this can only be accomplished when the building is radically different from those around it.

It is generally or often the case that those from Gen X (like myself) and Gen Y are drawn to more liturgical, high-church worship. Here's my theory: In reaction to a society where everything is “new and improved,” trendy, cheap, assessable and devoid of meaning, these groups identify with the elements from the past that contain inherent worth, mystery, and sacredness; those things that transcends the current trends of a capricious contemporary culture. They are drawn to the historic and ancient ways of life, worship, and philosophy. (This is one of the reasons why paganism has been reinvigorated within the culture.) They hunger for authentic and time-honored practices and rituals. Ancient and religious imagery abound in their music, dress, books, movies, and dance clubs. They desire to re-connect to a past that seems to be more relevant and meaningful than the modern world we live in. In a fast food, mini-mall, suburban-sprawling culture, they sense that awe and mystery has been stolen from them and they deeply want it back.

High church theology sees worship space as a teaching tool. For instance, most baptismal fonts are located in the entry of the Church to demonstrate that baptism is the entry into the Body of Christ. The focal point in high church worship is the altar which puts the crucifixion and resurrection (the Eucharist) at the central point of our doctrine. We demonstrate what we believe in the surrounding art and architecture....everything from teaching Jesus' parables in the stained glass to teaching the the story of the crucifixion in the stations of the cross. High church worship wants to emphasize that God is BOTH Other and above us (transcendent) and close to us (immanent) by creating sacred space that proclaims God's holiness and at the same time giving us tangible sacraments to touch God. I believe it is more balanced theologically and more Biblical.

criticism: Some negatives to high church worship include the fact that many people simply don't feel comfortable in such worship spaces...whether it is due to their background or whatever. High churches can be intimidating! It can also become something a person depends on, ie, they become dependent on having all their senses engaged in order to worship God. We can actually go too far and emphasize God's holiness and Otherness to the detriment of God's immanence and presence. We may also do a disservice to people's prayer life if they believe that God can only be worshipped and prayed to in a "holy" space. Historically high-churches often fail to effectively evangelize and teach because they put all their eggs in one basket: worship. This is a huge mistake! Effective teaching and proclamation of the Gospel needs to take place in addition to worship. The preaching is often very poor in high churches for this same reason. Low churches have much better sermons! These factors need to be changed in high-churches through education and intentionality.

A Synthesis?

I personally want to see aspects of both high and low church form a synthesis of some kind! Taking the best of both, I think we have the ability to create an extremely powerful worship and evangelistic/teaching Sunday service every week...I have a lot of ideas of what that would look like, and it's not anything I've seen any church do yet, but that's for another post!

I also want to say that people are different. Clearly different people need different types of worship space. Whatever "works" for someone should be embraced. That is not to say we should not ever challenge or stretch ourselves. But on the whole, I want there to continue to be low-churches even though I don't feel like I can worship in such contexts because I know some people can ONLY worship in those contexts! We're diverse beings and need different things...so praise God for our diversity!

So..what do people think?

Pax,
Empiress

Edited by - Empiress on 08/05/2002 2:02:14 PM

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 8/5/2002 8:25 AM (GMT -6)

Empiress says:

quote:
I believe we already have a model for the way in which God desires to be worshipped, and that model is found in the Biblical concept in the building of the Temple.

Exodus 26:33 "You shall hang up the veil under the clasps, and shall bring in the ark of the testimony there within the veil; and the veil shall serve for you as a partition between the holy place and the holy of holies.

Matthew 27:51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.

Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy,innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;
27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
28 For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

Don't you think the mission of the Temple was fulfilled? Why model our worship after the Temple when we have a better way in Jesus?

peace and love, don

"It's time to wipe the tears from our eyes time to stop questioning why, 'cos every clipped birds gonna fly the Healing has begun" T.S Taylor

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 8/5/2002 8:29 AM (GMT -6)

Great post, Miss E. You are rightly concerned, as I am, that many "low" churches are so "seeker-sensitive" that they are more concerned with comfort and non-confrontation than they are with authentic, challenging worship. However, I would just like to point out that the desire for informality does not always stem from a "seeker-sensitivity." At Woodland Hills, for example, the goal is definitely not to make people feel comfortable or complacent in their religiosity. For many, the "low church" atmosphere actually enables a greater capacity for the authentic worship that "high church" has so wonderfully provided for you. Church is stripped of its formulaic, ritualistic mechanism, which for many people (not all!) merely provides a false sense of spirituality. [By the way, I write this in agreement with what you wrote. You said this very well, I think.]

I'm writing this quickly, so please don't hear me saying that "high church" attenders are always inauthentic. As I mentioned in my previous post, I see very positive aspects to the "high church" way. Whatever works in each of us to focus our attention on Him is great, as far as I'm concerned.

For some, it will be an ornate cathedral, with liturgy that binds them to a tradition of worship that has existed for centuries. For others, it will be a run-down K-Mart shopping center, with a new and unique brand of worship that revels in its spontaneity.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 8/5/2002 8:42 AM (GMT -6)

Don wrote:

quote:
Don't you think the mission of the Temple was fulfilled? Why model our worship after the Temple when we have a better way in Jesus?

Yay! I could hear the objections to what I wrote as I wrote it and I'm thankful you brought it up. What do you think the "mission" of the Temple was by the way?

First, I think the Temple is obviously not to be imitated in some exact way, because obviously we don't do animal sacrifices and our entire worship is different. However, the spirit behind the construction of the Temple which is one that emphasizes God's holiness, is not something I believe should be thrown out entirely post Jesus. God is still a Holy God.

Second, I believe high-church worship more CLEARLY demonstrates the connection and fulfillment of Jesus in light of Temple worship because it centers so fully on Jesus' sacrifice as the paschal lamb, who has torn down the curtain between us and God making it possible to walk right up to the altar of God and recieve him in the Eucharist every time we worship. Jesus' purpose is so clearly demonstrated, I really can't concieve of a better way to demonstrate it. Does that help answer your question?

Brett said:

quote:
At Woodland Hills, for example, the goal is definitely not to make people feel comfortable or complacent in their religiosity.

I agree, I didn't mean to imply that their theology in general seeks to make people feel complacent! Not at all, rather the environment is a more inviting one in an evangelistic sense; they challenge people through preaching as opposed to context. Thanks Brett!

Pax,
Empiress

Edited by - Empiress on 08/05/2002 1:43:08 PM

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 8/5/2002 8:59 AM (GMT -6)

Follow up to Don and Brett...

I wrote a long entry on liturgy for an outreach I was doing, and here's a quote from it that address your questions!

"2. Liturgy is Biblical

When we look to the many models we have of worship in Scripture, we find some common themes. First, we see that God’s people took seriously the *holiness* of God in their worship. Often in our western expressions of worship, we have lost a sense of God’s holiness in our well-meaning attempts to make God more approachable. This is where we need to make a distinction: God is indeed approachable through Jesus Christ because Jesus has mediated salvation and forgiveness to us. (“Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have access to God in boldness and confidence through faith in him.” Eph.3:12). However, God is still God and deserves to be approached with awe, reverence, and deep respect for His Holiness and Other-ness in the context of worship. “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). Hebrews 12:28-29 reminds us, “Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe; for indeed our God is a consuming fire.”

Old Testament worship, as well as early Church worship, was liturgical. It included liturgical elements such as ritual and decorative, beautiful surroundings. In God’s commands to build the Temple, it was to be decorated ornately with golden cherubs, lamp stands, carvings, dishes for incense, fine linens of blue and purple, crimson yarns, looping blue curtains, sacred vestments, bells, anointing oils, perfumes, etc. (See Ex. 25-30). These passages shed light on how God deigns to be worshipped by his people; we can apply the spirit of such worship in our worship environments today.

This tradition of taking seriously the holiness of God continues in the New Testament. Notice that Jesus was raised in the context of the fullness of Jewish worship. Mary, Joseph, and Jesus participated fully in the liturgical celebrations and rites of the Temple and local Synagogues. Jesus never spoke against the form of worship itself, but he did speak out against the legalism and hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his day. Jesus upheld the idea that God’s house is to be a place of reverential prayer and worship; the only account we have of Jesus being greatly angered is when he encounters the money changers in the Temple. The people were not taking seriously the sanctity of God’s house and had turned it into a market place and “den of robbers.” This is a serious sin.

One of Paul’s major concerns regarding worship was that it be “done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40). Paul wanted everyone to participate fully in worship, his only concern was that order and decency be upheld, “for God is not a God of disorder but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:33).

The book of Revelation also offers us a vivid picture of worship as it takes place in heaven. In it we find the elders falling down on their faces before God, we see an ocean of people and creatures paying homage to God day and night without ceasing. We hear the refrain of angels singing, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God the Almighty, who was and is and is to come” (Rev.4:8) before God who is seated on the throne. All focus and praise is on God and God alone. If we truly believe and understand that we are in the presence of the Lord of Lords, our worship ought to reflect that!

Of course, taking seriously God’s holiness does not negate the joy of worship. If anything, it should increase our sense of joy! Worship should be joyful because it is celebratory! We are in the presence of the Holy Victorious King and have the privilege of worshipping and glorifying him!

Liturgy in the church today is directly related to Jewish worship. Liturgy has the intent of taking seriously the holiness of God through its ordered structure and ancient refrains. That is one of the reasons why the early Church incorporated liturgical forms of worship. There is a time and place for everything, but worship is one of those times when we approach God in a spirit and form of true, deep reverence, acknowledging His Holy presence among us.

But doesn’t liturgy and ritual eventually become empty and meaningless?

Possibly, but all forms of worship run this risk. This is more of an indicator of the state of one’s heart than the form of worship. In fact, most churches do have some kind of “ritual” in their worship even if they don’t call it that, i.e., it follows the same form week after week: sing songs, give announcements, pray, hear a sermon, and conclude with a song. Anything we do and any form of worship can become empty and meaningless when it is not done in the right spirit…it will become merely acting out a part rather than participating with our hearts, minds, and spirits. But if our worship is truly Spirit-filled and our hearts are open to God, then our worship will glorify God. The key to authentic worship is having a heart and attitude of praise and reverence that seeks to earnestly glorify God. Liturgy seeks to facilitate true worship.

There is no absolute “right” or “wrong” form of worship, in fact, it may be that certain forms are more assessable to some people than others. But worship that seeks to glorify God (and not merely to make the individual most comfortable or stimulated) will strive to create a worship environment that is utterly pleasing to God, whatever form that may take. We take our cues from the Bible in the worship mandated by God in the Old Testament and the clear picture we have of heavenly worship in the book of Revelation.

Another pitfall in modern worship is that it has the tendency to become pastor-centric and teaching-centric. The focus of the worship service becomes one person and their sermon. The service literally rises or falls on the individual and their sermon. But this is not the model of worship Scripture gives us. Rather, worship is joyful service we give to God because we owe God our abundant praise: it is entirely God-centered and God-focused. Teaching and learning have their own essential place in the life of the Christian, but worship is not the same as teaching. We need to return to authentic forms of worship to help us re-learn how to worship today."

I'm afraid you guys have me going on one of my favorite topics...beware of long-windedness!

Peace,
Empiress

Edited by - Empiress on 08/05/2002 2:03:58 PM

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 8/5/2002 9:36 AM (GMT -6)

Empiress says:

quote:
Yay! I could hear the objections to what I wrote as I wrote it and I'm thankful you brought it up. What do you think the "mission" of the Temple was by the way?

Deuteronomy 12
5 "But you shall seek the LORD at the place which the LORD your God will choose from all your tribes, to establish His name there for His dwelling, and there you shall come.
11 then it shall come about that the place in which the LORD your God will choose for His name to dwell, there you shall bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution of your hand, and all your choice votive offerings which you will vow to the LORD.

Seems to me the Temple was about a place for His name to dwell. And a place to offer the those things commanded of the Lord. The design was to further that goal.

Now, God dwells in us, and rather than desiring worship out of a sense of duty as required by the Temple, He desires worship out of a heart of flesh ( no longer a heart of stone ) . By continuing to model on worship on the Temple design, we continue to foster a sense of duty.

We take a boat out to an island, then get out and walk around on the land. Continuing to model our worship after the Temple is like trying to drag the boat around on the dry land of the island instead of just walking around.

If I recall correctly, Exodus 25 records the design for the tabernacle that they carried in the wilderness. This had very exacting requirements directly from God. On the other hand, the Temple was David's desire for God's dwelling place. In other words our idea of how God should be approached, of course based on tabernacle specs.

2 Samuel 7:1 Now it came about when the king lived in his house, and the LORD had given him rest on every side from all his enemies,
2 that the king said to Nathan the prophet, "See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent curtains."

John 4:20 "Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."
21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.

I think you can substitute Temple for Jerusalem.

I admit, I'm in process about the whole idea of NOT basing worship on the Temple model.

peace and love, don

"It's time to wipe the tears from our eyes time to stop questioning why, 'cos every clipped birds gonna fly the Healing has begun" T.S Taylor

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 8/5/2002 9:47 AM (GMT -6)

Don wrote:

quote:
Now, God dwells in us, and rather than desiring worship out of a sense of duty as required by the Temple, He desires worship out of a heart of flesh ( no longer a heart of stone ).

I agree with you...but only half so! I believe God exists both in us (ie we are Temples)and outside of us...both imminent and transcendent. Therefore we approach God in both manners.

quote:
By continuing to model on worship on the Temple design, we continue to foster a sense of duty.

Proper New Testament (and even OT) understanding realizes that God desires our hearts foremost, as you said, however it is clear where the disagreement is here because I believe we do still have a responsibility or "duty" to offer God praise and worship...even when we don't feel like it! And that is why the rocks themselves will cry out if we don't...God is glorious and ought to be worshipped by his creation.

Thanks for the good discussion!
Empiress

Edited by - Empiress on 08/05/2002 3:06:43 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/5/2002 9:54 AM (GMT -6)

Good discussion, guys!

I think that Miss-E answered the Temple question well. And some could be unfolded about how the Temple prefigured Christ--which makes the question about its relevance moot. Instead, then, of how we approach the temple, becomes how we approach Christ (repentance, etc.) both initially and in our whole lives, both individually and corporately.

A mighty significant point Miss-E made was about the teaching role of items or "temple." I'd like to comment too. And to do so I want to make one simple distinction. Much of what we say about churches is from our own contemporary view: the churches are already here, and we divide them into groupings in accord with how we relate to them, calling some "high church" and some "low church." That's how we group things now. The other way to group things is according to how they came about. And different names would be given to the same things. But those names might surprise us, and suggest a thing or two.

Initially churches were small. That didn't make them "low church" necessarily. Christian liturgy came directly and uninterrupted from the two forms available: the Temple and the Synagogue. (I won't go into the liturgical forms.) But what is relevant for our consideration is that the services were PRIVATE. The Church was the church in a city; and that might mean that not all of it would take place in one place. But they were liturgically linked. (When church business got big and public, the whole city would parade in song from the major church to the neighborhood church named after a particular Feast Day--like "Church of the Resurrection.") Think small. Pre-"official religion." Most people were well initiated/educate, so comfort level was up, and the education process was no problem--even in easing in newcomers.

When the "official religion" days came churches had to think carefully about the educational task. Can anyone say "academic?" (Its one thing to learn wood skills from your carpenter-dad at home; its another to take wood shop in high school. Things seem abstract for a while!) The BIG churches had big programs, and complex educational programs. What started as a short period of piety, fasting for maybe a week before Pascha/Easter grew over time to the 40-day Lent we now know. What was at stake was trying to make a program that would both help individuals of varying needs and to affect the society around those initiates, to help them? Education and discipleship.

Not everyone likes academia. Not everyone liked the new big churches.

Some disliked them so much they left. Off the desert. Monks!

So while the big churches (Lets not call them "high church" yet.) were busy thinking about the issue of what had to be considered and devised to help the needs of all, and not leave any unhelped ... the monks were fighting for the very 'heart' of Christianity. In fact, it was the spiritual life of these 'decenters' that God used mightily.

We need to get a handle on this, so that we can relate to in a simple way, from our own experience.

Hymn singing versus Psalm singing. Now days people compare moldy hymns to praise choruses. But Hymns, living within their time, are really approachable, carefully explaining, slowing down the details compositions that attempt to take what Christians might take years to begin to more fully realize in their walk with the Lord, and present to the public in a way that they can get a handle on it ... and roll over their tongue as they sing. It becomes familiar through repetition. It's the chorus that everyone knows. Compared that to long Psalms, like Psalm 119; or the sets of Psalms that have always been sung together, one after the other, these hymns are a real help.

The Monks could handle the long Psalms. the masses of people needed things explained in simpler form. And they needed frequent choruses.

Sounds "Low Church," doesn't it. But what I'm describing is the big church. What we NOW call "High Church." Hmmmmm......

The Monks didn't like the hymns. The term for the hymn verses -- badly spelt -- is sticheria. The Monks were professional Christians. They were the minute men of the faith. They had services continually. THEY knew the relationship between a Psalm 22 and Christ:

quote:
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? . . . I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax, it is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my jaws; thou dost lay me in the dust of death. Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircle me; they have pierced my hands and feet -- I can count all my bones -- they stare and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots.

To the Monks it might even be annoying to have long, slowly developing, simply worded hymn verses that led the common man step by step through the passion story. The Psalms were high-powered. For the monks who had meditated on them, their words melted away revealing the face of Jesus.

So, perhaps we can be fair to both: the monks, who's simpler liturgical forms got the job done for them; and, the common masses, who were coming to church from work, from home, from the contentions of the marketplace and the politics of management -- who REALLY NEEDED the big church outlines.

Boy, things have switched.

What was designed as being helpful -- the big church elaborations, is debated today as "high church" ritual.

To close....

In dating there is lots of ritual, lots of formalities. And they are all necessary. But in an established marriage, a touch ... a look ... an understanding sometimes is all that is necessary as to form.

But in the church we are not, NEVER (as Miss-E appropriately discerned) merely individuals. We are all part of ONE Body.

And big church or small, high/elaborate or low/simple, we have to help us all "COME" at the same time. :) We all enter the doors of the "Temple" and approach the one whom it clarifies for us. And it must be TOGETHER that we approach the temple, AS ONE.

In the words of the "Big Church" (Which means, with detailed explanation for common massed!)...

quote:
O thou who hast given us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplications unto thee; and dost promise that when two or three are gathered together in thy Name thou wilt grant their requests: Fulfil now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of thy servants as may be most expedient for them, granting us in this world the knowledge of thy truth, and in the world to come, life everlasting.

For thou art a good God and lovest mankind, and unto thee we ascribe glory: to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: now and ever, and unto ages of ages.

What ever we do, we have to do it together, in a way that is helpful to all in being a community of persons. (not individuals)

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/05/2002 3:04:28 PM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 8/5/2002 10:00 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Al2Si2H4O9,

From your post on the first page . . .

"

quote:
Starkman is half right and half wrong. I track with him where he talks about what does not matter. I'd educate him in what "high church" is versus low. (You could do high church on a ball-park pitchers mound. Its the liturgy; not the ornateness of the space.)

"

I think you missed my point. I was saying exactly what you meant here. I was trying to state that the size of the building or its ornamation was undistinqushable with regard to high/low worship; one could associate either with worship (in the case of one who's blind, mind you) if the settings of each reversed. It would make no difference. That there is a distinction between high and low worship wasn't my post at all. Perhaps I didn't make that real clear!

Got to run,

Starkman

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 8/5/2002 10:13 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Al...

Thanks for your posts and welcome to the board. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts so please stick around! Feel free to share more about yourself if you feel so inclined!

*smiles*

quote:
What ever we do, we have to do it together, in a way that is helpful to all in being a community of persons. (not individuals)

Amen!

Peace,
Empiress

Pennywise
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 4

Posted 8/5/2002 4:29 PM (GMT -6)

Hi all, first post, but I've been following the board for a while.

I wanted to address the following comment made by BJS.

He said regarding “low churches”:

quote:
---Social status of attenders is irrelevant.

I was raised in Calvary Chapel, which, seems to me to be one of the prime examples of the “low” or contemporary church model. Since then I have been to many other contemporary churches around the country and have found that, while they possess some differences, there is a remarkable degree of similarity. So while my comments do not necessarily apply to all contemporary churches, they do apply to every experience that I have had of them.

As I have seen it, the goal of a contemporary church is to create an environment that is comfortable and familiar to those for those that attend. Those that attend contemporary churches are almost exclusively from middle and upper-middle class American backgrounds. Every church that I’ve gone to has been “come-as-you-are” if you are dressed from Eddy Bauer, the Gap, American Eagle, or Abercrombie and Fitch. It seems that the interior of the churches and the music and all the environmental variables are geared to this one particular socio-economic demographic. I always felt highly uncomfortable in these churches simply being “alternative.” It feels that one of the traps of contemporary church philosophy is the very thing that has made them successful, the marketing approach of evangelism. They target the tastes and sensibilities of a particular social demographic. The problem is that it does little to nothing for those outside that demographic.

The advantage that I see to traditional churches and liturgy is that it stands totally outside contemporary American culture, and is, therefore, no one's "home field". But, at the same time it seems to communicate equally to people of vastly different backgrounds. The sound of a full pipe organ and gothic choir will send shivers up the spine of ghetto punk and Suburban driving soccer mom alike.

Liturgy also seems more accessible to the unchurched than sermon-centric worship. Even the most seeker-sensitive messages, by definition, require some presupposed level of knowledge or religious background. Liturgy is like scripture in its ability to communicate deeply with the scholar and uninitiated alike. The movement of well-done liturgy communicates its basic message to children and the most unchurched and uneducated. While those who wish to delve more deeply into liturgy will continue to find hidden gems even after decades of diligent study. The Orthodox have found that the liturgy has the power to engage equally the heathen and the saint, the illiterate peasant and the church father. The Orthodox Church has taken liturgical worship to its extreme, unfortunately neglecting other important things, like community, targeted evangelism, service, etc. However, by simply performing liturgy well every day, the Orthodox Church evangelized half the known world, was home to most of the early church fathers, and has continued to this day to account for nearly a third of all Christians worldwide, and is the fastest growing non-evangelical or Pentecostal church in the United States.

I guess I’m trying to get at the fact that there seems to be something more universal and timeless in a liturgical worship environment than in many contemporary settings; and I would hate to see that lost entirely.

Pennywise

Pennywise
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 4

Posted 8/5/2002 4:29 PM (GMT -6)

Hi all, first post, but I've been following the board for a while.

I wanted to address the following comment made by BJS.

He said regarding “low churches”:

quote:
---Social status of attenders is irrelevant.

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 8/6/2002 7:30 AM (GMT -6)

Welcome Pennywise! I appreciate your insight and I look forward to hearing more from you.

Here’s something I’d like to throw into the mix, that sort of relates to what you were saying about low churches’ tendency to cater to the American Eagle et al. socio-economic demographic. My church (Woodland Hills Church) falls into the “come as you are” category, and has also been very passionate about tearing down socio-economic walls, particularly as they reinforce racial barriers. So I visited a black baptist church (same denomination as Woodland Hills) in my neighborhood to find out why some black people might not feel welcome at our church if they came as they were. I was very surprised by what I found.

I was greated by ushers wearing uniforms and white gloves. Most of the women wore dresses and all the men wore suitcoats. The bulletin was full of names of people with elaborate titles who fulfilled various roles in the church. Two rows of deacons and deaconnesses and elders sat in front by the pastor, facing the congregation. Although the service was not liturgical, every item in the service was performed ceremoniously (especially the offering), and usually musically. A deacon or deaconness would lead the congregation in a hymn, speaking the next line for those who didn’t have the words memorized. Once the pianist and organist figured out what key the congregation was in, there was no stopping their embellishment.

This service seemed like the antithesis of my own “come as you are” church experience. It contained many of the elements of what we would consider presumptuous, arrogant, and empty (e.g. titles, uniforms, ceremony, organ music and hymns, etc.). But in the context of this very poor, black neighborhood, this kind of service conveyed something very different—something many of these people might not experience in any other aspect of their lives: dignity.

The people who find “come as you are” contexts appealing tend to be those who are most comfortable with who they are. To what extent are “come as you are” contexts a white priviledge? These contexts are not safe for the people who our church is most concerned with reaching—people like the prostitute who tranformed the tools of her trade into worship at Jesus’ feet—people who are not socially acceptable “as they are.”

I agree with Pennywise that the sacraments (Baptism, Lord’s Supper)—as explicitly associated with God’s presence and activity rather than our own, as equally accessible to all who are willing to receive them, and as equally “othering” experiences for everyone who participates in them—are a powerful means for overcoming cultural divisions. I would also add that manifestations of the Spirit (e.g. Pentecost, or Juan Diego’s vision of our Lady of Guadalupe, whose beauty was both Spanish and native Mexican, in Latin American Catholicism) are an equally powerful and non-institutional means of bridging cultural gaps.

Instead of trying to overcome walls by making people feel comfortable in each others’ presence (not that this is unimportant—I think that the gift of hospitality is highly undervalued in our culture), I think that the most effective means of overcoming walls is by inviting people to experience God’s presence, via participation in the sacraments and the Spirit. In making this argument I do not wish to pretend that both the performance of sacraments and manifestations of the Spirit are immune to serious abuse in the hands of human clergy and lay people. However, I do wish to emphasize that if we are serious about overcoming social strongholds, we need to be serious about acts of God in our midst.

For what it’s worth,
Electra

p.s. Whether we worship in high-church or low-church contexts, Al2Si2H409 has convinced me that peacocks should be a part of every service.

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Pennywise
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 4

Posted 8/6/2002 8:39 AM (GMT -6)

Thank you Electra for your post.

Your experience with the black church reveals that those churches that cater to a particular culture do offer a very important service to those communities. The problem is when a church (like many of the "come as you are" churches") lose sight of the fact that they are catering to a particular culture and start to believe that they are universally applicable. From my experience, "come as you are" churches are as tied to a culture/socio-economic background as the black church you visited, and can feel just as foreign to those outside that background as the black church felt to you.

There's nothing wrong with targeting a particular culture as long as we're aware we're doing it. I find it very frustrating when churches fail to recognize this. My previous experience with Calvary Chapel, who believed their "come as you are" worship was somehow the pinnacle of worship and was assessible to everyone, was highly negative. When people felt uncomfortable there, the attitude was that they were uncomfortable with "true Christianity" rather than simply being uncomfortable in that particular context. Additionally, because most of the "come as you are" churches are designed for and made up up mainly of the dominant class/race in our society, it can feel as though they are threatening to push out other expressions of worship, because these forms are set as a model to be imitated by all contemporary churches, regardless of class/culture in America.

Pennywise

54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:33 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual