|
|
|
Christus
Rex
Liturgical Thoughts and Musical Musings
Gregory Soderberg
Liturgy is inescapable. It should be obvious that it is not a question of whether we will have a liturgy, but
which liturgy we will have. In pursuing a more Biblical and God-honoring liturgy at Christ Church, we have much to
learn, and even more to un-learn. This section of brief thoughts will be more or less devoted to liturgical musings for an
indefinite period. My goal will be to distill some of the exciting discoveries I’ve made in endeavoring to become a better
musical liturgist for Christ Church.
****
As Protestants, we need to come to grips with the fact of tradition. As with liturgy, every church has traditions. Every
denomination has traditions.The only difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics/ Orthodox is that we like to pretend
we don’t have traditions. As William Chillingworth put it, “the Bible only is the religion of Protestants.”(4) Besides the
fact that this refrain is now a tradition (especially in the fundamentalist South), it is patently false. Where does the
Bible say to close your eyes and fold your hands when you pray? As Protestants, we need a broader view. We need to examine
our traditions self-consciously and see which ones are Biblically-informed. Notice I did not say we need a verse to support
every single tradition. We need to understand the broad, covenantal, patterns of Scripture. God’s revelation is a tapestry.
Provincial Americans like me want an engineering manual. We want a how-to book … Liturgy for Dummies.
****
In the same vein, Douglas Wilson is worth quoting: “I think it was Jaroslav Pelikan who defined tradition as the living faith
of the dead, as opposed to traditionalism, which is the dead faith of the living. A lot of poison is contained in the ism of
those three small letters. Reason is good; rationalism is idolatrous. Ritual is inescapable; ritualism is refusal to think
about what you are doing.”(5)
****
Speaking of not thinking about what we are doing, why do we receive communion sitting in pews? Where did this tradition come
from? In most churches, the answer would be, “Well, this is the way we’ve always done it.” Interestingly, this practice is
a modern innovation.
The first people in a thousand years of church history to receive communion in pews were English Independent
Puritans.(6) Both the Scottish and English Presbyterians sat around a table during communion. In New England Independent
churches, the minister and deacons would still sit around the communion table, while the congregation sat in their
pews.(7)
The English stopped sitting around the table at the end of the 17th century, and Thomas Chalmerswas the first to
introduce pew-communion to the Scottish Presbyterian church, in 1819.(8)
It is ironic that those of us seeking to restore a more historic and Biblical liturgy should receive so much flack
from those touting the worship of the Puritans as the most pure worship in history. How many of our Southern Presbyterian
brothers actually follow the example of the Scottish, Irish, and English Puritans, and sit around a communion table? I have
yet to find the church that does so.
Perhaps it’s because sitting around a table actually forces us to look at each other, and discern the Body of Christ, namely
His Church. We’re much more comfortable hunkering down and looking within ourselves, trying to conjure up pious communion
thoughts. But that’s not the point of communion. Communion is about fellowship, around the table of the Lord, with
Christ and with his Church. The Puritans understood that.
****
If, as has become apparent in recent theological discussions in the Presbyterian world, there are good reasons for seeing the
sacraments (especially baptism) as the mark of a Christian (Eph. 4:4-7), then it would appear that Quakers are not
Christians. I was surprised to learn that, historically, Quakers have not practiced either baptism or the Lord’s Supper.
Later Quakers, however, were split over the issue of whether to make concessions for the sake of evangelism and start
celebrating the sacraments.(9) There are other oddities about the Quakers, but it would appear that we should not welcome
them as Christian brothers and sisters to our communion tables.
****
Although we need to study hard in our pursuit of a better liturgy, there is no substitute for liturgical practice. A
quarterback can study other great players’ throws, learn all about physics and aerodynamics, but the only way to improve is
to just throw the ball. Jeffrey Meyers, a pastor and an astute liturgical thinker, concurs, and is worth quoting at
length:
“[R]eading theology in the kingdom means reading it in the context of the liturgical worship of the Church. Hearing,
reciting, praying, singing,speaking, receiving, tasting, seeing, and experiencing the Word within the liturgical life of the
church will have a formative influence, not just on the sermon, but the Divine Service as a whole. This, I have come to
believe, is foundational for theological formulation. Men must experience the liturgical consummation of theology. Theology
is doxologically acquired and its primary function is doxological as well. Within the Divine Service theology is given,
received, and offered in praise to God. Without this liturgical orientation theology becomes ideology and eventually heresy.
And this begins with little ‘heresies’ here and there, born of a man’s reading and thinking outside of the context of the
worshipping Church, whether it be alone in his study or in conspiracy with others in an academic context.
My recommendations to men who want to learn theology? Of course, books, books, books, and more books! But for every
book, a dozen Sundays on your knees and at the Table … No amount of reading can ever substitute for what is received from God
and then offered back to Him in a biblical liturgical worship service. Period. Here I stand.”(10)
*****
Our culture is so far gone that we no longer know the difference between male and female. What makes us think we know the
difference between good music and bad music? The standard most of us use to determine what music is good is what music we
like. Since the 50’s (at the least) what we like has been determined by what popular culture has told us to like. Since
popular culture is also counter-cultural, it became mandatory for each generation to have their own music. Children had to
have different music than their parents. If we pretend to be covenantal in our theology, we need to stop being
anti-covenantal in our musical taste.
Just because something is old does not make it therefore better. But, since most of the art and music produced in
the 20th-21st centuries has been explicitly rebellious and hostile to the Christian worldview, we need to purify our taste
buds before making pronouncements about what good music is. I’m not talking about simply bad lyrics or pornographic
paintings. The fact that we can’t interpret the meaning and message of music and art without reference to lyrics and F-words
shows the depth of our sickness. The form and structure of an art-work communicates just as much as the explicit content. We need to learn more about how music communicates non-verbally, and what it means, before we are aesthetically mature.
*****
The idea of aesthetic maturity is very important in discussing what to sing in church. You have heard it said that we should
sing the psalms because they are God’s Word. This is true, and is one of the main reason we sing Psalms at Christ Church,
rather than cheap imitations of KISS 98.6, COOL 97.7, or GAG 103.4. But, which versions of the psalms should we sing? Why
don’t we just combine a faithful translation of the psalms with whatever is hip and trendy yesterday? (In trying to be
trendy, Christians never manage to keep up with the culture. We only recycle pop culture after it has been around long
enough to desensitize us.)
As a preliminary answer, consider the possibility of imbibing the music of another culture for a long period of time, if for
no other reason than to get beyond our popular culture provincialism. And since our popular culture is explicitly
rebellious, wouldn’t it be better to let the musical forms of a more faithful culture sink down into our bones? This is
precisely what we are doing in singing the psalm-tunes of the Reformation. Of course the Reformation was no golden age, but
they saw much more clearly than we in many theological matters. Let’s experience their theology in their music! Then, after
we’ve really come to know and love Reformed music, let’s learn the music of Christendom, that rich heritage of the medieval
period and Renaissance.
Such proposals are like convincing someone who loves Folger’s to try exquisite espresso, or like trying to convince someone
to try a $100 bottle of wine rather than the Gallo Brothers. There really is a difference. Some people just don’t know it
yet. Some people just can’t taste it either. But, whose fault is that?
4 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition, (New Haven: Yale UP, 1984), 11.
5 Credenda/Agenda, vol. 16, no. 3, 15.
6 Independents were distinguished from the Presbyterians on the one hand, and the Anglicans on the other. They were congregational in matters of government, but still markedly Puritan.
7 Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans, (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997), chapter 12.
8 Crawford Gribben, The Irish Puritans: James Ussher and the Reformation of the Church (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2003), 61.
9 James F. White, Protestant Worship: Traditions in Transition, 141.
10 Jeffrey J. Meyers, The Lord’s Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship, 406-407.
Volume
Two - Issue Two
Theology: Satan Loves Proof Texts - Gregory Soderberg
Science & Culture: The Cyborgs Are Coming! - Maurice Hagar
Family: Time To Eat - Robert Nash
Literature: The Da Vinci Code - Maurice Hagar
Liturgy: Liturgical Thoughts and Musical Musings - Gregory Soderberg
Poetry: Tylwyth Teg (The Fair Folk) - Josh McInnis
|
|
|
