Introduction
I am a firm believer in what has come to be called “Covenant Renewal Worship.” In many ways this is simply traditional, Protestant worship according to Scripture, reflecting the patterns of the early and ancient church as well as the revisions and recoveries of the Reformation. But I believe it is a real advance in our understanding of the biblical theology behind our worship – explaining in greater detail how our worship truly is sacrificial and covenantal, without lurching into mysticism or superstition or sacramentalism.
The very short version is that when God’s people gathered for corporate worship in the Old Testament, they often offered specific sacrifices in a specific order: sin offerings, ascension (whole burnt) offerings, and then peace offerings – which included a meal (e.g. Lev. 9, Ex. 24, 2 Chron. 29). When the New Covenant urges Christians to offer their bodies as living sacrifices and to “draw near” to the presence of God by faith, these are not just generic metaphors; the best way to understand those invitations is through the theology of the sacrifices and covenant making ceremonies. We do not offer bloody sacrifices, but we draw near by confessing our sins, consecrating our entire lives to Christ (through Scripture reading and the sermon), and by communing with Him (at the Lord’s Supper). Add to this the Call to Worship at the beginning of the service and the Commissioning/Benediction at the end, and you have what is sometimes called the 5 C’s of Covenant Renewal Worship. This pattern is faithful to the Protestant regulative principle and honors historic and traditional precedent, and I am an advocate for all Christians to embrace this general order and theology.
The Temptation to Overcorrect
At the same time, I believe some of the churches that have embraced Covenant Renewal Worship suffer from what I would call the Saul’s Armor Problem. There was nothing wrong with Saul’s armor that we know of. It was perfectly good bronze age armor, probably some of the best that money could buy. But it didn’t fit David. It was too heavy. It was too clunky. It would have gotten in the way.
I say this as someone who has been fully embedded in the liturgical renewal work of the last few decades. I say this as someone who grew up in some of the tensions of the traditional vs. contemporary worship battles. John Frame was my worship pastor when I was little kid. And while I appreciate some of his concerns, I’ve definitely landed firmly on the traditional side of things. I am fully committed to recovering predominant Psalmody – learning to sing all the Psalms, our primary prayer book. Weekly communion should be normal, just like John Calvin tried to convince Geneva to practice (unsuccessfully).
Nevertheless, whenever a renewal movement breaks out, the temptation is to overcorrect. If one is good, then three is better, and if three is good, why not seven or fifty-seven? But what I have experienced in my circles is a tendency to put every liturgical option into every service. And I’m assuming all the best motives here, but it’s like going to a restaurant and having them bring you plates of prime rib, turkey, ham, and a hamburger all at the same meal. It all looks good, but it’s just too much for one meal. And the kinds of things I mean are: processions, robes, candles, congregational prayers and responses, chants, etc.
Worship should clearly be full of the Psalms, prayers, Bible reading, a message explaining a passage of Scripture, and a simple celebration of the Lord’s Supper. And the congregation should be engaged and involved in the service of worship. It is not a performance up front; it is more like an army being led into battle. But there’s a difference between a joyfully ordered simplicity that helps a people worship in spirit and in truth (on the one hand) and a complicated, ponderous, heavy burden that can make all kinds of theological sense on paper but just doesn’t fly.
I certainly want to leave room for some cultural differences as well as personality differences. One pastor may be able to lead a liturgy that is a little heavier in a way that everyone is blessed, but I fear that many pastors have adopted forms more because if one is good, two is better rather than what is actually edifying and prudent. A strong case can be made for congregational participation in worship. But the Bible does not say that means they must say something at every part of the service. The Bible encourages thoughtful prayers, but that doesn’t mean every single one must be scripted and read by the congregation. And if a prayer is based on a psalm has been set to very memorable music, doesn’t that count? A congregational hymn is a congregational response.
Something Else Going on?
Sometimes there’s something else going on; it isn’t just honest liturgical renewal. Sometimes there’s something gnawing in a man’s soul and he thinks if he just keeps tinkering with the liturgy something will click. And so it tends to get increasingly strange or esoteric and generally more ceremonial and ornate. Maybe more robes. Maybe candles. Maybe incense or some kind of processional. Maybe another chanted psalm. If it feels ancient and awkward maybe it will do something to my soul. But not only is that superstitious and will-worship, it’s incredibly unkind to the people who are gathering who actually want to meet with their Maker. While Protestant worship has sometimes erred on the side of austerity, there is a true glory in simplicity.
Yes, worship is the work of the people, but it’s supposed to be Sabbath work – restful and rejuvenating work. And some liturgies are simply too heavy, too complicated, too ornate, too busy, and they do not allow God’s people to simply hear the Word read and explained, offer their prayers and praises, and celebrate communion with their God. Yes, all that may be technically done, but there’s so much clutter and busy-ness that it’s buried in making sure you’re reading along with all the responses and not losing your place in the worship book that is nearing the length of a Russian novel. OK, I slightly exaggerate.
I grant that some communities and cultures may truly feel right at home in a slightly more complicated liturgy, and if it really is from the heart and seeking the Lord and not merely playing dress up, then praise God and I do not object. But perhaps in our fear of seeker-sensitive entertainment worship, we have sometimes veered into an opposite ditch of theologically-esoteric worship – the kind that can only be understood after many years at seminary and several shots of James Jordan – and I say that with all kinds of gratitude for what I’ve learned from James Jordan.
But I would argue that worship should be “high folk,” meaning it should be orderly, biblical, reverent, and the highest expression of glory that ordinary folks can muster honestly. I grant that there is a real wisdom call here, and again, I want to emphasize that I think there is real freedom here within the constraints of Scripture. But the question I would ask is whether we are loving the sheep in front of us and the scattered sheep in our land well. We are required to obey God in worship. We are not allowed to do whatever the sheep demand. But given the constraints of God’s word, are we ministering that word in our worship services in the most effective ways? Or are we following the words of well-intentioned scholars or theologians?
Conclusion
Maybe some services could use Saul’s sword or shield; maybe others would be perfectly fine with just the five smooth stones of Covenant Renewal Worship. Pastors wisely consider the time of the meeting, how long the meeting lasts (or at least they should!), and so it’s perfectly fine to consider how many prayers, how many responses, how many parts do we need to remember.
In the American context in particular, where we suffer from an anti-liturgical, low evangelicalism, wise pastors should ask how to help their people use the means God has provided to meet with their God. John Frame’s concern back in the 1980s with traditional worship was that it might be unintelligible to modern people. He argued that the forms of contemporary worship spoke in a language that the common people could understand. I think he took that principle too far and underestimated the ability of folks to learn to speak in more biblical dialects as well as underestimated the potency of certain cultural forms to dumb down and distort biblical worship (see Neil Postman). But I do think he was making a fair point that we should take on board as we seek a true reformation in worship.
Christ commanded us to feed His sheep. We do not believe that means the sheep are allowed to dictate what they will eat, but neither does it mean that various ideas of “gourmet” get to dictate the menu either. Sometimes parents err by letting their kids run the show, but sometimes parents err by not remembering their kids’ frames.
Leave a Reply