 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject) | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  Electra Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002 Total Posts : 611 | Posted 10/14/2002 5:23 AM (GMT -6) |   | I’ve been part of the Baptist church my whole life. In my experience, the closest thing we have to a liturgy is the bulletin. We don’t even say the Apostles’ Creed or the Lord’s prayer together, and there seems to be a general attitude of suspicion toward church traditions that do.
So, this makes me wonder: 1) Baptists, and non-liturgical traditions: What is your view of liturgy and what is it based on? 2) Liturgical traditions: What is liturgy, and what have I been missing?
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (I’m making the sign of the cross between key strokes), Amen.
Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 10/14/2002 5:40 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (I’m making the sign of the cross between key strokes), Amen.
As you cross, are you moving sideways from left to right, or from right to left? And also, do the fingers on your right hand all five come together to form one point? Or are just your thumb and first two index figers coming together to form that point (with the ring and little finger tucked tightly against the palm of your right hand? The latter approach forms a threefold point representative of the Trinity. Here in Lebanon at least, Catholics (Maronites) and Orthodox each have their own way of crossing. Interesting, eh?
I'm like Electra. I grew up with NO liturgy. I even celebrated communion once with some friends in a Ford Pinto with pizza and Coke. But I do appreicate some liturgical forms I've encountered over the years.
Tom 
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 10/14/2002 11:49:24 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Mephi2K Registered Member
 Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 713 | Posted 10/14/2002 7:37 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  Empiress Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2002 Total Posts : 363 | Posted 10/14/2002 9:45 AM (GMT -6) |   | Electra, thank you for asking this question! It makes me happy that you're interested to know more about something so dear to my heart. 
Liturgy is what converted me! Actually, it was a vehicle of the Spirit that brought me back to Jesus in the deepest sense. I'm so totally indebted and dedicated to liturgy that it's hard for me to step outside of that and imagine what it's like for others not regularly engaged in it, so I apologize if I fail to be objective in my description.
In the most simple sense, liturgy is a pattern or structure for worship. And truly, even non-liturgical churches have aspects of "liturgy" in their habitual patterns of worship in which singing/announcements/preaching/singing is the structure...the "bulletin" that you referred to is an example.
But when most people refer to liturgy I think they're referring to the structure of worship that liturgical churches use, the structure that came out of the first centuries of the Christian Church and has been sustained and preserved through the milennia. It generally includes the concept of a set structure and pattern of worship with written prayers/responses and rituals (the Sacraments) that are used in a habitual way. Liturgy is the opposite of doing things "on a whim," however, liturgy at it's best provides a set structure that also leaves ample flexibility for spontaneity according to the needs of the community.
I believe the critique and suspicion of liturgy is due to the fear that it will grow empty, dead, and lifeless ritual...and it will become just that when it done without the Holy Spirit. In that case it is no longer Spirit filled liturgy but dead ritualism. I think people suspect that liturgy is more prone to becoming empty than non-liturgical forms, whereas I would argue the opposite from my own experience.
To understand Christian liturgy we have to look back to Jewish worship in the Synagogues; it was "liturgical" and full of liturgical forms of prayer. It involved a set pattern of readings, responses, rites, and chants, etc. Early Christian worship, by no coincidence, was based on this same kind of pattern but included new rites such as baptism and the celebration of the Eucharist. These rites are described somewhat in the New Testament in the Gospels and Paul's letters.
The earliest description of primitive church worship comes from St. Justin in 150 and it includes the following set pattern:
-Reading the writings of the "apostles and prophets" -A homily/admonishment -The recitation of prayers by the people (often chanted as was Jewish custom) -The "kiss of peace" -The gifts of bread and wine being blessed by the Presider with the great congregational "Amen" response -The distribution of the gifts of bread and wine to the people by the Deacons
This order is maintained today in liturgical churches, along with additions that came in the next few centuries such as entrance and exit rites, written responses/hymns, and Psalmody (also Jewish). I find it exciting that some of our liturgical responses go back so many centuries....for example, the Gloria and Kyrie go back to at least the 6th century. Another example is the opening of the Eucharistic celebration which begins with: "The Lord be with you" and the response: "And also with you"... which has its origins in Jewish worship. From what we can tell, this liturgical response has been used in Christian worship since the very beginning.
Liturgy tends to be concerned with beauty (aethetics), with God's holiness, and with incarnationality in approaching God in a way I don't observe in other forms of worship. For me, once I had the tools to worship and touch Jesus in the "beauty of holiness" liturgically, I became able to know and be open to him in a way not previously possible for me before.
Finally, liturgy shouldn't be seen as something handed down "from on high" but was actually a grass roots production by the people for the people, that has endured because people find it helpful/conducive to worship. Things have been added to it spontaneously throughout the centuries, but only "stick" if they're considered helpful in some way. The sense of wanting to preserve the Church's worship from everything from the vestments to the hymnody comes from the belief that there is something sacred about remaining in solidarity with the church historically due to its collective wisdom...the sense of desiring "continuity" with the Church in previous ages factors largely in liturgical churches. In liturgical communities there is suspicion of non-liturgical forms of worship as being caught up in individualism and progressivism (the idea of the 19th century that "today's" wisdom and knowlege is superior to that of the past). I think that helps explain some of the motives behind liturgy too.
I hope this is helpful!
Peace, Empiress
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Electra Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002 Total Posts : 611 | Posted 10/14/2002 10:12 AM (GMT -6) |   | Thanks for your response Empiress. I’m being naughty right now—I should be writing my paper—but I want to explore this subject. Whenever I encounter liturgy, I am struck by its beauty. And, as you noted, liturgy’s ancient origins in the Old and New Testaments and the early church give it a powerful sense of continuity through time. I came across the entymology of the word, “Liturgy”: it lit. means Leit-ourgos, the work of the people. It is potentially more intellectually-accessible, aesthetically-interesting, and interpersonally-unifying than doctrine. I regret its absence in my own experience, though I’m so unfamiliar with it, I don’t even know what I’m missing.
But I’m not sure how to reconcile the beauty and continuity I recognize in liturgy as an outsider to it, with the ambivalence and apathy toward liturgy often expressed by people who regularly practice it, or who have ceased practicing it. I’m very interested in your perspective, because your experience of the power and beauty of liturgy seems to have increased rather than decreased with your regular participation in it.
Thanks, Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8
Edited by - Electra on 10/14/2002 3:14:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Empiress Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2002 Total Posts : 363 | Posted 10/14/2002 1:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | Electra said: but I want to explore this subject.
I'm curious what your interest is in liturgy...is it intellectual or more practical/emotive? What kinds of experiences have you had of liturgy so far in your life? How did it affect/not affect you?
She said: “Liturgy”: it lit. means Leit-ourgos, the work of the people.
Aww yes...you just jogged my memory of my introduction to liturgy class I took in seminary, that's right! Thank you for adding this. Done rightly, it should be the work of the people/community, not the presider.
She wrote: I’m not sure how to reconcile the beauty and continuity I recognize in liturgy as an outsider to it, with the ambivalence and apathy toward liturgy often expressed by people who regularly practice it, or who have ceased practicing it.
I know this feeling of ambivalence. I avoided liturgy for awhile because of this reason, but in the end I had to step out in faith...well, it was more like an irresistable draw than any real decision on my part. I can't say I understand how or why people are apathetic to liturgy other than that the context in which they experienced it was spiritually dead or stale. Some people were "forced" into it too. So far that just hasn't been my experience, so I cannot relate. I often wonder if liturgical "converts" are able to get more out of it because they weren't spoiled by it early on in a negative way. I can't worship in a church that seems spiritually dead though, so I avoid churches that would fit that description...I feel that people need to be actively involved in mission, service, and have passion in order for me to become a member somewhere, regardless of the form of worship.
Then again, there's always the "personal taste" issue, and that could be part of it too when it comes to liturgy. But I just can't help but feel that liturgy is flexible enough to fit into even the most modern, rock n roll, charismatic context...I've seen it done in so many different ways. Something I enjoy is called the "Folk Mass"....it's a bit like liturgy for hippies and it's great.
I actually envision something akin to a Techno-Industrial-Ambient-Rave Mass for Gen X and Yers, but with evangelical theology and preaching. To put my DJ skills and liturgical knowlege to use and design something like that would be a dream come true for me! I only need to find a church that is open minded enough, which is not easy. I've had several churches turn my proposition down already, so I've given up on it for the time being. If it's a vision from God, it may materialize one day.
Here is the website some friends and I designed when we were seeking to launch it initially, we called it the Catacomb Community. It is now outdated:
http://www.geocities.com/catacombsite/
I'd enjoy hearing what you think!
All peace, ~Empiress
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Starkman Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 1747 | Posted 10/14/2002 5:04 PM (GMT -6) |   | Meph, you're a riot! (Heeeeeeeer's Al!) Love it. (And . . . where are ya, our main man, Al?)
Empiress, you're first post on addressing liturgy was excellent. Precise and filling. Very nice.
Man, I see you folks who have or are doing seminary, and I wish I could attend Bible college. I'm 41, not getting any older, but don't have the cash at the moment. There's a fine school in London, England with whom I'd love to do some distance-learning. Meanwhile, this site has been an education in and of itself.
Well, maybe one of these days.
For gettin' one's smarts,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/14/2002 5:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | "Al" just got back from driving his wife and kids to see her grandfather (94) on his deathbed. Pray for Carl N. in these days!
"Al" is havine password problems. "PoW" will thus post a long quote. (What else is new?) This is from Father Schmemann, "For the Life of the World" which he sent a copy of to Electra and Modes a year or two ago. (Have it?)
quote: The Eucharist is a liturgy. And he who says liturgy today is likely to get involved in a controversy. For to some—the "liturgically minded"—of all the activities of the Church, liturgy is the most important, if not the only one. To others, liturgy is esthetic and spiritual deviation from the real task of the Church. There exist today "liturgical" and "non-liturgical" churches and Christians. But this controversy is unnecessary for it has its roots in one basic misunderstanding—the "liturgical" understanding of the liturgy. This is the reduction of the liturgy to "cultic" categories, its definition as a sacred act of worship, different as such not only from the "profane" area of life, but even from all other activities of the Church itself. But this is not the original meaning of the Greek word leitourgia. It meant an action by which a group of people become something corporately I which they had not been as a mere collection of individuals—a whole greater than the sum of its parts. It meant also a /"', function or "ministry" of a man or of a group on behalf of \ and in the interest of the whole community. Thus the leitourgia of ancient Israel was the corporate work of a chosen few to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah. And in this very act of. preparation they became what they were called to be, the Israel of God, the chosen instrument of His purpose.
Thus the Church itself is a leitourgia, a ministry, a calling ) to act in this world after the fashion of Christ, to bear testimony to Him and His kingdom. The eucharistic liturgy, therefore, must not be approached and understood in "liturgical" or "cultic" terms alone. Just as Christianity can—and must—be considered the end of religion, so the Christian liturgy in general, and the Eucharist in particular. are indeed the end of cult, of the "sacred" religious act isolated from, and opposed to, the "profane" life of the community. The first condition for the understanding of liturgy is to forget about any specific "liturgical piety."
quote: The liturgy of the Eucharist is best understood as a journey Or procession. It is the journey of the Church into the dimension of the Kingdom. We use this word "dimension" because it seems the best way to indicate the manner of our sacramental entrance into the risen life of Christ. Color transparencies "come alive" when viewed in three dimensions instead of two. The presence of the added dimension allows us to see much better the actual reality of what has been photographed. In very much the same way, though of course any analogy is condemned to fail, our entrance into the presence of Christ is an entrance into a fourth dimension which allows us to see the ultimate reality of life. It is r not an escape from the world, rather it is the arrival at a vantage point from which we can see more deeply into the reality of the world.
The journey begins when Christians leave their homes -and beds. They leave, indeed, their life in this present and concrete world, and whether they have to drive fifteen miles or walk a few blocks, a sacramental act is already taking " place, an act which is the very condition of everything else that is to happen. For they are now on their way to constitute the Church, or to be more exact, to be transformed into the Church of God. They have been individuals, some white, some black, some poor, some rich, they have been the "natural" world and a natural community. And now they have been called to "come together in one place," to bring their lives, their very "world" with them and to be more than what they were: a new community with a new life. We are already far beyond the categories of common worship and prayer. The purpose of this "coming together" is not simply to add a religious dimension to the natural community, to make it "better"—more responsible, more Christian. The purpose is to fulfill the Church, and that means to make present the One in whom all things are at their end, and all things are at their beginning.
quote: The early Christians realized that in order to become the temple of the Holy Spirit they must ascend to heaven where Christ has ascended. They realized also that this ascension was the very condition of their mission in the world, of their ministry to the world. For there-in heaven-they were 'immersed in the new life of the Kingdom; and when, after " this "liturgy of ascension," they returned into the world, "" their faces reflected the light, the "joy and peace" of that Kingdom and they were truly its witnesses. They brought no programs and no theories; but wherever they went, the seeds of the Kingdom sprouted, faith was kindled, life was transfigured, things impossible were made possible. They were witnesses, and when they were asked, "Whence shines this light, where is the source of this power?" they knew what to answer and where to lead men. In church today, we so often find we meet only the same old world, not Christ and His Kingdom. "We do not realize that we never get anywhere because we never leave any place behind us.
To leave, to come. . . . This is the beginning, the starting point of the sacrament, the condition of its transforming power and reality.
quote: 4 The Orthodox liturgy begins with the solemn doxology: "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages." From— the beginning the destination is announced: the journey is to the Kingdom. This is where we are going—and not symbolically, but really. In the language of the Bible, which is the language of the Church, to bless the Kingdom is not simply to acclaim it. It is to declare it to be the goal, the end of all our desires and interests, of our whole life, the supreme and ultimate value of all that exists. To bless is to accept in love, and to move toward what is loved and accepted. The Church thus is the assembly, the gathering of those to whom the ultimate destination of all life has been revealed and who have accepted it. This acceptance is expressed in the solemn answer to the doxology: Amen. It is ' ,'^ indeed one of the most important words in the world, for it expresses the agreement of the Church to follow Christ in His ascension to His Father, to make this ascension the "destiny of man. It is Christ's gift to us, for only in Him can ~we say Amen to God, or rather He himself is our Amen to God and the Church is an Amen to Christ. Upon this Amen the fate of the human race is decided. It reveals that the movement toward God has begun.
But we are still at the very beginning. We have left "this world." We have come together. We have heard the announcement of our ultimate destination. We have said Amen to this announcement. We are the ecclesia, the response to this-call and order. And we begin with "common prayers and supplications," with a common and joyful act of praise. Once more, the joyful character of the eucharistic gathering must be stressed. For the medieval emphasis on the cross, while not a wrong one, is certainly one-sided. The liturgy is, before everything else, the joyous gathering of those who are to meet the risen Lord and to enter with him into the bridal chamber. And it is this joy of expectation and this expectation of joy that are expressed in singing and ritual, in vestments and in censing, in that whole "beauty" of the liturgy which has so often been denounced as unnecessary and even sinful.
Unnecessary it is indeed, for we are beyond the categories of the "necessary." Beauty is never "necessary," "functional" or "useful." And when, expecting someone whom we love, we put a beautiful tablecloth on the table and decorate it with candles and flowers, we do all this not out of necessity, but out of love. And the Church is love, expectation and joy. It is heaven on earth, according to our Orthodox tradition; it is the joy of recovered childhood,.that free, unconditioned and disinterested joy which alone is capable of transforming the world. In our adult, serious piety we ask for definitions and justifications, and they are rooted in fear—fear of corruption, deviation, "pagan influences," whatnot. But "he that feareth is not made perfect in love" (1 Jn. 4:18). As long as Christians will love the Kingdom of God, and not only discuss it, they will "represent" it and signify it, in art and beauty. And the celebrant of the sacrament of joy will appear in a beautiful chasuble, because he is vested in the glory of the Kingdom, because even in the form of man God appears in glory. In the Eucharist we are standing in the presence of Christ, and like Moses before God, we are to be covered with his glory. Christ himself wore an unsewn garment which the soldiers at the cross did not divide: it had not been bought in the market, but in all likelihood it had been fashioned by someone's loving hands. Yes, the beauty of our preparation for the Eucharist has no practical use. But Romano Guardini has spoken wisely of this useless beauty. Of the liturgy he says:
Man, with the aid of grace, is given the opportunity of relaying his fundamental essence, of really becoming that which according to his divine destiny he should be and longs to be, a child of God. In the liturgy he is to go "unto God, who giveth joy to his youth." . . . Because the life of the liturgy is higher than that to which customary reality gives either the opportunity or form of expression, it adapts suitable forms and methods from that sphere in which alone they are to be found, that is to say, from art. It speaks measuredly and melodiously; it employs formal, rhythmic gestures; it is clothed in colors and garments foreign to everyday life. ... It is in the highest sense the life of a child, in which everything is picture, melody and song. Such is the wonderful fact which the liturgy demonstrates: it unites act and reality in a supernatural childhood before God.1 ('Romano Guardini, The Church and the Catholic, and the Spirit of the Liturgy (New York, 1950), 180-181. ) ,
BUT, READING THE BOOK YOURSELF IS BEST? | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Starkman Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 1747 | Posted 10/15/2002 12:50 AM (GMT -6) |   | Rats! I have to go to school now, and I don't have time to finish PoW's post. Very interesting! Have to get back to it a little later.
For truck driving . . . I think,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/15/2002 4:52 AM (GMT -6) |   | | (For being the sixth caller" Starkman is receiving the whole thing--THE LONG VERSION--in his e-mail. Way to go Starky!) | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Starkman Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 1747 | Posted 10/15/2002 2:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | AL,
Thanks!
I got it, but promptly deleted the email (after I saved the attachment, thank heavens) before I could email you a "thanks."
So, thanks!!!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/16/2002 1:23 AM (GMT -6) |   | What I posted pretty much says that liturgy is the Church's becoming herself.
Hey, Electra and Empiress, what else do YOU two have to say. I'm eager to hear. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:34 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|