Why are most common Evangelical Protestant Christians way of worship not Liturgical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mannyfit75

Guest
I have always ponder about this? How come Evangelical Protestant Christians like Non-Denomination, Baptists, and Penecostal worship is not Liturgical worship like Catholics, Angelicans, Lutherans, and Eastern Orthodox? I think they are missing the most ancient form of Christian worship.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
I have always ponder about this? How come Evangelical Protestant Christians like Non-Denomination, Baptists, and Penecostal worship is not Liturgical worship like Catholics, Angelicans, Lutherans, and Eastern Orthodox? I think they are missing the most ancient form of Christian worship.
Click to expand...
Hi, Manny.

What you might be questioning is something that for which our Anglican brothers has created a name:

*** High Church
  • Low Church**
Mind you, these aren’t sub-churches or sub-denominations or meant as demeaning or debasing forms of worship, but principal methods of a worship’s appearance or conduct.

A “high church” service is rooted in ritual, ceremony, sacraments, bishops and apostolic authority. In simple terms, a high-church Anglican service has traditions and practices that are very similar in appearance to the Catholic Mass.

A “low church” service emphasizes the evangelical nature of worship with far less emphasis on an organized liturgy: the readings, rituals or sacraments, or clerical matters.

While it might be disingenuous since I’m making a broad statement to make an example, it could be said that many Baptist and Assemblies of God services are “low church” format, while Episcopal, Anglican and some Lutheran services are “high-church” format.

American news media tends to characterize in this manner, but uses “evangelical Christian” to (mis) characterize many Christians, often incorrectly lumping in “high-church” format faiths such as the Catholic Church when the objectives of such evangelicals coincide politically with us (such as the definition of marriage).
 
A better question to ask is why do Liturgical groups do this and where do they get the material? However, since the Bible doesn’t talk about it at all, as long as it doesn’t contain things contrary to the Bible, I personally see not harm in it. But it does get tiresome, week after week, in my opinion.
 
The high-church/low-church distinction has to do with ecclesiology, not liturgy. You can be a high-church Anglican (believing in the necessity of church order and in faithfulness to Prayer Book principles, in the threefold ministry and in an established state church) and yet not be an Anglo-Catholic. I’ve seen High-Church Anglicanism expressed in a very minimalist Prayer Book service with the priest vested in cassock & surplice only.

Likewise, “Low Church” refers more to a Reformed view of ecclesiology and structure. The Puritans were low church, not because they disliked ritualized liturgy (which they did), but because they viewed the episcopate and the church establishment as matters of indifference.

As far as Evangelical Protestants not being liturgical, they may not follow the historical pattern of Christian liturgy, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have liturgy or ritual. Consider the most common form of Evo worship : the “hymn sandwich”.

Hymn (or more hymns, or “praise songs”)
Opening prayer, sometimes incorporating intercessions for the sick & needy in the congregation
Scripture lesson (optional; the preacher may choose a verse to kick-start his message)
Sermon/message (usually a 30+ minute lecture)
The collection (sometimes mistakenly referred to as the “offertory”; there may also be Special Music here, or a hymn)
Altar call (optional, depending on denomination)
Closing prayer/benediction
Hymn

That’s not exhaustive, but it’s certainly descriptive of the general pattern of Evangelical worship. It’s basically a devolved/adapted version of the Daily Office, if you squint hard enough to see it.
 
Jon_Hus said:
A better question to ask is why do Liturgical groups do this and where do they get the material? However, since the Bible doesn’t talk about it at all, as long as it doesn’t contain things contrary to the Bible, I personally see not harm in it. But it does get tiresome, week after week, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Most of it comes from the Bible, oddly enough. Pick up a copy of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and be prepared to break the spine of your Cruden’s looking up passages.
 
Palaeologos said:
Most of it comes from the Bible, oddly enough. Pick up a copy of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and be prepared to break the spine of your Cruden’s looking up passages.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Nearly everything from the liturgy, especially the verbal aspect, is allusion or direct quotes from Scripture. As for the visuals: The Book of Revelation!
 
Most of the churches that have been referred to here as “low church” churches do not come from the Lutheran/Reformed split with the Church, but from the split off the split—the Anabaptists. The Lutheran break, for example, kept whatever traditions they felt were not contrary to scripture, but the Anabaptists took it a whole step further and would not do anything that was not specifically called for in the New Testament. I attended several little fellowships that tried furiously to replicate the Book of Acts. Many of the younger denominations started out that way—I think of the Assemblies of God, in which I was brought up. The original intention was that “old time religion” of Acts 2. Over time, though, as a denomination grows, you can’t pretend it’s still a new movement. The typical Evangelical worship service has evolved over time into its current, predictable state. Some independent churches try to get out the “rut” by turning Sunday worship into a rock concert, or by losing the “formality” and having a Bible study. Reinvent the wheel, until you get tired of that same old round shape, and then you reinvent it again. The rejection of the liturgy as a “tradition of men” is really a straw man argument because everyone does it. The difference is, in the case of the Catholic/Orthodox liturgies, which grew over time like a seed developing into a plant, the Protestant denominations want the plant but threw out the seed. A lot of what you see comes from whatever the popular speakers are saying church should “look” like. I think of the Rick Warrens and Bill Hybels and their “disciples.” Maybe this sounds harsh and anti-Protestant—I don’t mean to be harsh. But my appreciation of our liturgy in the Catholic Church is super-sized after my past experiences in “free-lance” churches.
 
An even better question is why are we looking into the Bible to try and see how worship should be conducted when we see little in Scripture indicating anything worship-wise? Why apply sola scriptura and ignore the fact that the early church that was persecuted, illegal, largely in catecombs and in homes, was LITURGICAL. Have you ever read the Didache? It’s a late first/early second century Church manual and it actually spells out how liturgy was conducted and it’s very similar to Catholic/Orthodox worship. It’s very structured, detailed, and says what responses should be. I highly recommend you get out of the Bible-only box, realize the Church came before the NT was even finished, and that works like the Early Church Fathers’ writings and the Didache are very important in understanding the Early Church.

And “tiresome” is all in the eye of the beholder. I say “thanks be to God” several times each week at Mass, never tire of it! I say, “Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” The Centurian said it to Jesus, Jesus appreciated the man’s faithful words, so I have no problem saying it." I like saying the Creed. I believe it. I like saying “glory to you Lord” and the Our Father. What is so tiring about the liturgy? I suppose if you’re looking for entertainment at church and can’t say the liturgy with a heartfelt feeling then you’d be right. I believe liturgy is the only way to fly. It’s the entertainment-minded, televangelist crying and ranting and raving and arms flailing of modernity that the early Christians never exhibited. The Catholics and Orthodox have it right.
Jon_Hus said:
A better question to ask is why do Liturgical groups do this and where do they get the material? However, since the Bible doesn’t talk about it at all, as long as it doesn’t contain things contrary to the Bible, I personally see not harm in it. But it does get tiresome, week after week, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I highly recommend you get out of the Bible-only box, realize the Church came before the NT was even finished, and that works like the Early Church Fathers’ writings and the Didache are very important in understanding the Early Church.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. 👍
 
All the churches you have described as “non-liturgical” are, in fact, liturgical. They have a way of “doing worship” that they tend to follow Sunday after Sunday.

That it is not exactly like ours is beside the point. The conclusion that because it is not like ours it is not “liturgical” seems to be little more than a way of saying that it’s inferior or “sub-liturgical”, which is a judgment we can make according to preference but not necessarily according to any kind of objective evaluation.

That said, I think the main reason they do not tend to follow any order like those of the historically “liturgical churches” is because they consider the worship of these churches either dry and spiritless or, on the other hand, historical accretions which betray the intention of the early church.

Of course this is problematic, repristination is eventually self-destructive.
 
It should be recognized that, within the context of Anglicanism, “low church” is still liturgical. In past times, you could tell the difference by things like sung liturgy (or parts thereof) and the type of vestments at the Eucharist. Those wearing choir dress at the Eucharist were the low church ones, and those in vestments similar or the same as Catholic churches were high church. Nowadays, that particular distinction, at least in the USA does not really apply. It should be noted that in the Church of England, there is a strong evangelical wing, something that one does not see in the US.

It is interesting to note that, certainly in the 1960s, the Methodist Church was still fairly liturgical. They used an amended version of Morning Prayer for most services, and their Communion service also bore the imprint of the Book of Common Prayer. I’ve been to my mother’s church (the same one, but 4 decades later) and it is less liturgical, but the minister now wears an alb. If you are a Methodist, you ought to wear, and proudly, the black gown that John Wesley wore, but I digress.
Spencerian said:
Hi, Manny.

What you might be questioning is something that for which our Anglican brothers has created a name:

*** High Church
  • Low Church**
Mind you, these aren’t sub-churches or sub-denominations or meant as demeaning or debasing forms of worship, but principal methods of a worship’s appearance or conduct.

A “high church” service is rooted in ritual, ceremony, sacraments, bishops and apostolic authority. In simple terms, a high-church Anglican service has traditions and practices that are very similar in appearance to the Catholic Mass.

A “low church” service emphasizes the evangelical nature of worship with far less emphasis on an organized liturgy: the readings, rituals or sacraments, or clerical matters.

While it might be disingenuous since I’m making a broad statement to make an example, it could be said that many Baptist and Assemblies of God services are “low church” format, while Episcopal, Anglican and some Lutheran services are “high-church” format.

American news media tends to characterize in this manner, but uses “evangelical Christian” to (mis) characterize many Christians, often incorrectly lumping in “high-church” format faiths such as the Catholic Church when the objectives of such evangelicals coincide politically with us (such as the definition of marriage).
Click to expand...
 
Palaeologos said:
Most of it comes from the Bible, oddly enough. Pick up a copy of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and be prepared to break the spine of your Cruden’s looking up passages.
Click to expand...
Quite so. 1928 is a chock full of scripture, and in the most beautiful language.

Welcome fellow Berkeleyean!

Go Bears!
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Please tell me your a Giants fan, dude. Usbek’s an A’s guy…😛
Click to expand...
Sorry to disappoint–I don’t do sports (I’m usually up to other stuff on Sunday, you know). 😃

ETA : Except for Cal Rugby–I get to a game or two each season. Those guys are great!
 
England also has more Anglo Catholics than most provinces of Anglicanism as well though, to be fair. More priests and parishes are looking at the pope’s ordinariate offers there than here in the States. There is a healthy contingent of Anglo-Catholics across England with the John Stott 'vangies thrown in throughout the CofE as well. I"m not sure I agree totally with the idea, though, that one doesn’t see much evangelical Anglicanism here in the States. The Reformed Episcopal Church is evangelical as heck. The ACNA is comprised of more evangelicals than high church or Anglo-Catholics for sure. There are plenty of evangelicals and the Fort Worth Iker diocese of largely Anglo-Catholic Anglicans are actually more uncommon.
Usbek_de_Perse said:
It should be recognized that, within the context of Anglicanism, “low church” is still liturgical. In past times, you could tell the difference by things like sung liturgy (or parts thereof) and the type of vestments at the Eucharist. Those wearing choir dress at the Eucharist were the low church ones, and those in vestments similar or the same as Catholic churches were high church. Nowadays, that particular distinction, at least in the USA does not really apply. **It should be noted that in the Church of England, there is a strong evangelical wing, something that one does not see in the US. **
It is interesting to note that, certainly in the 1960s, the Methodist Church was still fairly liturgical. They used an amended version of Morning Prayer for most services, and their Communion service also bore the imprint of the Book of Common Prayer. I’ve been to my mother’s church (the same one, but 4 decades later) and it is less liturgical, but the minister now wears an alb. If you are a Methodist, you ought to wear, and proudly, the black gown that John Wesley wore, but I digress.
Click to expand...
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
It should be recognized that, within the context of Anglicanism, “low church” is still liturgical. In past times, you could tell the difference by things like sung liturgy (or parts thereof) and the type of vestments at the Eucharist. Those wearing choir dress at the Eucharist were the low church ones, and those in vestments similar or the same as Catholic churches were high church. Nowadays, that particular distinction, at least in the USA does not really apply. It should be noted that in the Church of England, there is a strong evangelical wing, something that one does not see in the US.

It is interesting to note that, certainly in the 1960s, the Methodist Church was still fairly liturgical. They used an amended version of Morning Prayer for most services, and their Communion service also bore the imprint of the Book of Common Prayer. I’ve been to my mother’s church (the same one, but 4 decades later) and it is less liturgical, but the minister now wears an alb. If you are a Methodist, you ought to wear, and proudly, the black gown that John Wesley wore, but I digress.
Click to expand...
I get to learn more everyday with tidbits like this! Thanks!
 
You will likely find me at Peets on Domingo, around 8:45-9:00, with a group standing around the garbage can. Sometimes a collar can be spotted among us.

Actually I drive up and down Claremont, like most clementines.
Palaeologos said:
Cheers! I’m guessing I might see you strolling down Claremont on Sunday mornings… 🙂
Click to expand...
 
I should also point out that the Church of Ireland remains fairly low-church and discourages (I think still) the chasuble. I believe their priests celebrate in cassock and surplice with stole (or tippet). Also the highly evangelical diocese of Sydney, Australia forbids the chasuble. I saw a video of a high church service there where the priest wore alb, cinture and stole but sans chasuble.
Spencerian said:
I get to learn more everyday with tidbits like this! Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
Don’t forget the Sydney diocese allows lay consecrations…talk about low!
Usbek_de_Perse said:
I should also point out that the Church of Ireland remains fairly low-church and discourages (I think still) the chasuble. I believe their priests celebrate in cassock and surplice with stole (or tippet). Also the highly evangelical diocese of Sydney, Australia forbids the chasuble. I saw a video of a high church service there where the priest wore alb, cinture and stole but sans chasuble.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top