You’re welcome. Also, I re-read my message, and I apologize if I sounded somewhat pompous, that was certainly not the message I was trying to convey. That’s why I use happy faces, to get across my tone, which was in all brotherly love.

I am still learning too, a far way to go. But please do get Wybrew’s book, it’s great.

Rick,

I understand the dangers of a liturgical style of worship. I come from a perceived “spirit-filled” worship background, a charismatic Pentecostal church, with roaring guitars, light shows and smoke machines (http://www.nlcf.org/ministries/nightchurch/)That’s not to deny that the Lord is there present among the people and moving, but from what I experienced it was a shallow well and did not quench the thirst I had.

After being in a liturgical church for over two years now, I cannot imagine being divorced from the pattern of corporate fasting, prayer and worship. This does not exclude my personal prayer life, fasting and worship. I still have “spontaneous” prayers, and fast in addition to the Church calendar. But how much more enriching to be part of a tradition with such deep roots, praying with millions of other believers around the world at the same time.

In response to the claim that Temple worship was legalistic. That is silly. Not only did Our Lord worship as a Jew, so did his brother James, and all of the other early Jewish Christians. Paul’s churches scattered across the Mediterranean still maintained a liturgical style of worship. What you said is the old, disproven anti-liturgical exegesis of the NT, imposing the “Catholic/Protestant” debate on Scripture. Evangelical/Anti-Liturgy apologetics need to be updated, because Church History, Tradition and scholarship (even the Bible) is not on your side (See Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders on the issue of the NT).

This is NOT to say that an EO or RC High-Church style liturgy necessarily needs to be adopted. A refreshed Lutheran or Anglican liturgy would be just as good. But I believe vigorously that Communion should be the focus of any worship. Calvin, Luther, and the early Church Fathers all affirmed the presence of the Lord at communion, Zwingli’s “memorial” conception of the Eucharist needs to be safely put away in the dust bins of history. It is detrimental to the life of the community of believers. N.T. Wright has written a fantastic little book on the Lord’s Supper I highly recommend.

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll order a copy today.

You might also be interested in Simon Chan’s “Liturgical Theology”. Simon is the professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Theological College, Singapore and is a senior leader in the Assembly of God in that country.

From a review:

“Chapter one is entitled The Ontology of the Church. In my opinion, this chapter is worth the price of the book. Here Chan asks, “Is the Church to be seen as an instrument to accomplish God’s purpose in creation, or is it the expression of God’s ultimate purpose itself?” How Chan answers this sets the trajectory for the rest of the book.

His answer is B — the Church is the expression of God’s ultimate purpose itself. From this he goes on to argue that the Church has an ontology — it has its own being. It is the body of Christ. Body of Christ is not just a metaphor for sociological relationships within the the Church, body of Christ is a description of the Church’s nature. Through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, the Church is brought into union with the risen and ascended Christ who is perpetually offering himself — and the Church with him — to the Father. The Church is folded into the life of the Triune God.

Modern evangelicals (and here Chan includes charismatics and Pentecostals), have an instrumental view of the Church. The Church does not have an ontology, only individual Christians have an ontology. The Church is no more than an instrumental arrangement to achieve other ends — typically converting people and growing disciples. For Chan, although conversion and discipleship are indispensable realities, this approach to Church is inadequate. It misreads both the New Testament and the tradition of the Church.

In subsequent chapters, Chan will build the case for liturgy of the Church on this foundational insight.”

Trust me, as a “recovering Pentecostal” myself, it’s well worth the read.

Kerry
http://www.windfarm.org.au

Thanks for the clarification (I’m still learning!). But I would agree with Chris in that the liturgy we use is that of St. John Chrysostom (from the 4th or 5th century) which, I believe, is based on that of St. James.

To All, as others have said here, may we all learn to worship in Spirit & Truth!

Sorry.

Perhaps God is multi-layered and worship is predominantly heart oriented and less structure oriented. Maybe? I have worshiped in both, and I still contend Communion should by a core element of any worship gathering.

Having vented, would you say this book would be good for laity? Folks around here need some worship education and Webber will go over their heads (sad as that may be).

The reverse would be several scores of millions of western evangelicals would be interested to know they are deficient in their worship style. Both sentences without Biblical substance. But I did throw in with the Communion view, that should at least make me little palatable, even to several hundred million believers?

BTW MS – they are only legalists if they require that style of worship or suggest that God only receives worship through their external helps. I never said legalists which implies more than a style derived from some OT shadows. And it is altogether possible and probable that many liturgical believers worship in a deeper and more focused way than the other forms, so I did not mean to imply otherwise as far as people’s hearts are concerned.

I still suggest a Mosaic shadow in the liturgy and some books I have read from those who practice liturgy actually embrace that connection.

He didn’t say it didn’t change “at all”, but rather that it was “basically the same”, which is not an unreasonable claim.