One Foundational Observation, and Six Rules

I doubt whether what is fast becoming the standard Evangelical liturgy can be “fixed” apart from a theological re-examination of Evangelicalism from the ground up. This would require the labors of people who are able to assess the movement from a high enough vantage to understand it in light of its place in the history of the Church as a whole. The difficulty is that those who are able to do this, and to lead the churches in that light, have almost always left Evangelicalism rather than remain within it as reformers. This is, I believe, because of the not unreasonable intuition of Christians of this sort that in light of this whole, Evangelicalism of the present day is so far removed from anything that could be considered a catholic center, so much defined by taste and sentiment and so little by theology or any depth of tradition, that any attempt to right it would be a fool’s errand.

My problem with this attitude is that there is just too much good, too much promise, too much of the labor of God himself, in Evangelicalism to let it end miserably in the hands of the theological experimentalists in its seminaries and the liturgical experimentalists in its churches, working together to drive a movement conceived in concern for the fundamental doctrines of the faith to something increasingly difficult (in light of the Whole) to recognize as Christian, no matter how often or intensely the name of Jesus is invoked as its patron.

If, however, lex orandi, lex credendi, worship determines belief, is correct, perhaps the way back to the main path does lie in righting of the manner of Evangelical worship, perhaps enough wisdom and concern for orthodoxy remains in the movement to lead it along that path, and perhaps there is enough alarm by now among at least a few of its elders at the increasingly strange Jesus-cult Evangelicalism is becoming, to lead it into serious self-examination.

I have written elsewhere on where I think the central theological and liturgical problem is found—in denial of the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord’s Supper, and subsequent abandonment of the Lord’s Table as the central locus of Christian worship. But several other supporting points should be added to the prescription I gave in that writing—and upon which I am now beginning to hear agreeing voices.

1) The direction of the service should be removed entirely from the hands of the worship leaders, and solidly and unequivocally returned to, and made the whole responsibility of, the pastoral authority of the church. If a worship leader is retained, he must understand that he is wholly subordinate to that authority, having no standing whatever as such to determine the form or content of the service.  (I would also add that giving this person pastoral status and title does not fix the problem.  If that is done, one must say explicitly that the responsibility is that of the teaching authority of the church, normally vested in the Senior Pastor.)

2) The attraction of inquirers to the principal service of worship—which, after all, should culminate in a communion in which they cannot yet participate—is to be subordinated to the theological and doxological integrity of the service itself.

3) Words to all music sung in the service must be studied and approved by pastoral authority as theologically sound, and unapologetically rejected when not, no matter how beautiful the music to which they are set, or how beloved by the congregation.

4) The service of worship is not to be conducted as if it were a show in which some of the worshippers are performing for others, but rather all present should be worshipping God in every aspect of the proceedings. Musicians should be placed and used so as to give glory to God rather than themselves, and should present themselves accordingly both in dress and demeanor. Prayers should not, for example, be used as an opportunity to move about or change settings.

5) It must be understood and attended to by the pastoral authority that the service does not take place in a vacuum where it is free to innovate as it will, but participates in the worship of the whole church in heaven and earth, to which it is called not only to add its own unique voice, but to conform that voice to a pattern that lies outside itself. This conformance should be a matter of constant study and meditation on the part of the pastor and elders of the church. To leave it to the tastes of the congregation or to a professional worship leader is a dereliction of pastoral duty.

6) It must be understood and accepted that what results from this, while it should be of firm integrity and deep beauty, may not be a “popular” product for that very reason. No proportion is to be expected between faithfulness in these matters and congregational size.