Perhaps the word which summarizes the general attitude and ethos of the modern congregation at worship—be it in the modern Roman folk mass or the popular evangelical service—is familiarity; that is, familiarity with each other and with Deity.
People dress as if they were going to a ball-game or a cook-out or for a stroll, and they regard the worship-space as ordinary rather than holy ground. They greet each other as if they were meeting a returning friend at the airport. Deity is addressed in song and in spoken word in much the same style as human beings address each other when they are being civil and respectful, except that Deity is asked for more than is usually asked of a fellow human being. In fact, Deity seems to be assumed as present in spirit and somewhere nearby in terms of availability. That is, Deity is near enough to be able to see what is going on, to hear what is said and sung, to know the motives of participants, and possibly to take action “in the spirit” if so disposed.
And the purpose of the whole exercise of being together, engaging in symbolic and ritual acts, speaking and singing seems to be to make everyone feel good about Deity, each other and himself/herself. It is a kind of escape from the bustle and pressures of life in order to have one’s batteries charged and one’s vision renewed and one’s self-worth affirmed.
Perhaps the above account is exaggerated. If so, then it may at least claim to capture what is generally true of much modern “worship” and that is (to speak theologically) it assumes the immanence of Deity but not (or only minimally) the transcendence of Deity. Further, it assumes the friendliness of God but hardly, if at all, is aware of the powerfully pure holiness and wonderfully glorious splendor of God. Or, in relation to Jesus of Nazareth, it presents Jesus as the Resurrected Savior, “who walks with me and talks with me along the narrow way,” but not as the Exalted Savior, who rules the cosmos as Lord of lords, and is its Judge.
Practically speaking, there is present in this kind of worship-service little or no reverence, awe, dread and fear of the LORD God, who in his holy and glorious Being is totally apart from all created reality. There is also minimal sense of human sinfulness and of the absolute need of the saving, redeeming, cleansing blood and work of Jesus. After all, it is only when we see God for who he is and ourselves for what we are that we truly appreciate Jesus for who he is. True enough, the truths that Jesus is Savior and Lord are accepted, but they seem to make no impact on the ethos, style, attitude, dress and deportment of those present. It would appear that the truths concerning Who is God, Who is Jesus, What is man, and how is man saved from sin, are not engraved on the heart to make it fully self-aware; they are merely present in the mind.
Not a few books and essays have used the expression, “dumbing down,” to describe the way that biblical and theological truths along with forms of devotion and moral duty have been minimized, reduced, explained away or made into forms of self-affirmation in modern forms of “worship.” But while many see this, few seem to think that it is a problem to be solved, a failure to be made into a success, and a deficit to be made into a credit!
But, before any of this can change those involved in it have to see that it is wrong, very wrong. Why? Because it is the “fear of the Lord” that is the beginning of both true wisdom and true knowledge of divine things. Perhaps prolonged and careful reading of the Old Testament will help show this, for there “the fear of the Lord” is absolutely fundamental to true service of YHWH, the Lord God of the covenant of grace; and the New Testament, though it says less about the fear of the Lord than does the Old, it actually assumes this inner condition of the soul as a given!
The advantage of using a classic Liturgy, and for Anglicans this means an edition of the real Book of Common Prayer (e.g., USA 1928), is that it provides the possibility of worshipping the transcendent LORD in the beauty of holiness and in the Name of Jesus; and experiencing both fear and joy, a profound sense of creatureliness and sinfulness together with a powerful sense of being a child of God, to whose spirit the Holy Spirit speaks. Yet, even here, if the heart is not prepared then the ancient words can be—as too often they have been—merely a vehicle for a religious kind of social conservatism.
So it all begins within ourselves—as repentant, humble sinners who, being justified by faith through grace, bow before the LORD God of glory in the Name of his incarnate Son, Jesus, the Savior. We do not feel good about ourselves; rather we feel good about God the Father, the Holy One; Jesus, the Savior and Lord; and the Holy Spirit, who brings us to the Father through the Son. And this holy relation of reverence, dread, awe and fear provides the setting for freedom in the Spirit, the peace that passes understanding and the joy unspeakable.
October 23, 2007 The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon
2 comments:
Dr. Toon,
My father taught me the phrase "familiarity breeds contempt". So much of contemporary church "worship" is uninspired as is the preaching, it is little surprise that the Church is in the sorry state in which we find it today.
Dr. Toon,
When was a boy, growing up in Toronto, we had to study Shakespeare in English. It was one thing to read his plays, but they really came to life when we went to see them performed. It's one thing for us to read the Prayer Book services and another for us to be able to experience them when they are, pardon my phrasing, played according to the script. Of course there will be differnces depending on the setting, the location, accoustics, choirs, and the liturgical capabilities of those participating in the service. One could attend a Wagner opera in New York or London and the performance, though it stayed true to the text, may be very different. That is one of the reasons in the perorming arts that keep it alive and which allows several artists to perform the same pieces many times. Otherwise there would only be one recording of Mozart or one performance of Verdi. On Christmas Eve, midnight mass is telecast from St. Peter's in Rome with all the pomp and ceremony that the Vatican can afford. Roman Catholics around the world can observe this service together, but on a local level they can never experience quite the same thing, although the service may be the same and the lectionary readings be identical, it is somehow very unique. I tried to observe with some objectivity a Communion service held in Truro Church, for the Sunday on which they installed their new rector. I confess that I am not familiar with the 1979 Prayer Book, so it is difficult for me to really compare it with the 1662, but there seems to be a tremendous divide between the two. Modern worship leaves me cold and reminds me of what a friend in Chicago said to me after he had attended a "Seeker Service" at Willow Creek: "yes it was very entertaining, but was it Church?" I am trying my best to study the genuine roots of my evangelical Anglican forbearers and I constantly see the 1662 services as embodying everything necessary for Common Worship and Prayer. I feel no need to add my own variations. Am I being narrow-minded? Is there something wanting in my not going to Church to be entertained, although I do expect things to be done decently and in good order? The liturgical de-evolution of modern episcopalianism/anglicanism seems to appeal to the desire to be entertained. Hence the "Clown Masses" and ongoing desire to be both contemporary and "relevent" in worship. I never really thought of myself as a Puritan before; but as far as Common Prayer and Common Worship go, just give me that old-time religion.
Post a Comment