On the Three Streams of Worship

The Second Sunday after Epiphany

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who dost govern all things in heaven and earth: Mercifully hear the supplications of thy people, and grant us thy peace all the days of our life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Anglicanism seems to love things in threes. That is entirely reasonable given the centrality of the Holy Trinity to the Christian faith. In terms of worship, there are three streams of worship which correspond to these three persons of the Trinity. The most familiar to most people would be the Mass or Holy Communion. Anglicans also worship through the Daily Offices regularly. Historically Morning Prayer was the normative form of Sunday worship for many years until the Eucharist was restored to prominence in the 19th century. Finally, there is a third stream of worship which exists that is far less regularized, which I call Devotional Reception.

The Mass or Holy Communion is the most commonly understood form of worship in Anglicanism. It includes a number of prayers and Scripture readings, many of which deal with God the Father, the son or the Holy Spirit in some combination, making this seem like a form of worship which emphasizes all three persons, but ultimately as the name implies it is the celebration of the Eucharist which forms the central focus of the service of Holy Communion. It is in the Eucharist that we focus the centrality of the worship on the second person of the Trinity. Christ Jesus was incarnate, died for our sins and rose again. He commanded at the last supper that we do this in remembrance of him, and the entire crescendo of Eucharistic worship is that act of re-membering his propitiatory sacrifice.

The second form of common worship is that of the Daily Office. Morning and Evening Prayer are a psalm-centric form of worship, and owing to that they are much more centrally focused on the revelation of God the Father’s nature. The Daily Office originates in Jewish prayer practice, which involved prayer throughout the day at particular times. As Christianity developed, these prayer times were retained and liturgies developed to formalize their use among Christians. The Daily Office represents the Anglican use of these prayers and combines a number of the hours into two simple services for morning and evening. Much like with the Eucharist, which thematically is focused on Christ himself but which includes reference and worship of the other members of the Trinity, the Daily Office maintains references to Christ and the Holy Spirit, most often through the collects and the New Testament readings. The centrality of the service, however, remains the worship of God through the Psalms, whether read or chanted.

It also distinguishes itself in that it is a daily office. The normative practice among Anglicans with respect to Holy Communion would be weekly only, though in some cases an additional service of Holy Communion might be sought during the week. With morning and evening prayer, it becomes a daily practice of honouring God and exploring who he is. While the Revised Common Lectionary of readings takes you through the Bible in a three year cycle, Morning and Evening Prayer cycle though the Psalter every month, and it is only through their daily use that the RCL will cycle through the whole of Scripture during those three years. It creates and enhances a much stronger rhythm of Scripture reading and prayer than does only a once-a-week communion, even whereby the grace imparted in the Eucharist is unique versus the grace that is usually received through simple prayer and Scripture reading.
Taken together, these two are the most familiar practices of Anglicanism, but they place their emphasis only on two of the three persons of the Trinity. The third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is in these places limited to references in prayers and in Scripture readings. There is need for a third type of service, which can go by many names, but ultimately the title Devotional Reception seems apt because it captures the two aspects of this service, particularly as it relates to the Holy Spirit.

In the Daily Office, it is a clear action of worship and praise of the Father. If there is reception, it is most clearly the imparting of revelation from God’s word. In the Holy Communion, there is an offering on the part of the people—“And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee,”—but also there is the reception of the Blessed Sacrament. When we gather then to honour the third person of the Trinity, how ought that to look?

One concern often expressed over modern praise music is that it offers an emotional response to the people. At various times, Evangelicals have expressed concern over how worship interacts with their regular Sunday gatherings which themselves often involve simply a combination of praise music and preaching. Defenders of modern praise music suggest that there is no reason a parishioner could not get a similar emotional response from traditional Christian hymns, however there does seem to still be a difference.

Ultimately that emotional response is something received, and in the context of the mass, it does not seem to always be entirely appropriate. So what if that modern music were taken and repurposed? Devotional Reception is an idea for a non-Eucharistic service in which such music can be channelled specifically for the purpose of encouraging those in attendance to be open to receiving not simply directly from the music, but receiving the Holy Spirit himself. To be empowered, to be strengthened and to be enlightened. For many Christians, the response modern praise music evokes can be contemplative and meditative, for all the use of percussion and other similar instruments, in a way that a traditional organ accompanied solely by voice cannot.

That skips forward a bit to the reception, but what of the devotion? Due to the sometimes vague language of modern praise, a time of teaching would be needed as well. A time to explore concepts particularly relating to the Holy Spirit which might otherwise only receive the briefest of attention around Pentecost. It is an opportunity to orient hearts and minds towards the Holy Spirit before that reception begins.

Finally, one of the major works of the Holy Spirit is in healing. While many in North America have never had the awesome wonder of experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit in this way, it seems the works of the Spirit are far more common in parts of the world where people feel a much stronger need to rely not upon themselves or the conveniences of their society, but on God. A time of prayer would then be appropriate. Just as the people may receive something of a feeling of the presence through praise music, they can receive that more sacramental grace through the laying on of hands in prayer, as Scripture commands us. It is a time in which there can be far greater empowering through the Spirit.

Taken together, these three streams of worship offer opportunity for constant turning to God in praise and offering, and receiving from God, in the form of revelation and grace. As orthodox Christians, it should be our earnest desire to see some form of normative and regular worship of the Holy Spirit and reception from the Spirit as a part of our regular worship of God.

On Beauty

The Second Sunday in Advent

BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

Advent

ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and ever. Amen.

The Feast of Nicolas, Bishop of Myra, c. 343

O ALMIGHTY God, who willest to be glorified in thy Saints, and didst raise up thy servant Nicholas to shine as a light in the world: Shine, we pray thee, in our hearts, that we also in our generation may show forth thy praises, who hast called us out of darkness into thy marvellous light; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

As we continue to journey through the season of advent, it is important to reflect on the fact that we hold to a three-fold anticipation of his coming. We reflect on the anticipation of Christ’s nativity in the past, we continue to anticipate and receive him through his coming in the mystery of the Holy Eucharist, and just as we pray, “We believe that thou shalt come to be our judge,” in the Te Deum Laudamus, in Advent we anticipate Christ’s coming again on the last day.

There is much to say about Christ’s coming again, too much really, but that is perhaps not the point we are to consider in Advent, so much as to reflect on how we are to anticipate his coming. We sing those memorable words, “O come, O come, Emmanuel,” but what do we mean? What are our hopes by calling on Christ to come? How are we preparing ourselves for it?

Often on a personal level we prepare ourselves through beauty. We clean ourselves, men often shave and women often put on cosmetics, and then we dress ourselves in clothing we deem appropriate for the dignity of our coming to meet Christ in his Sacrament. What is the symbolism behind this? Why do we do it?

The best possible answer is to perhaps suggest that our outward emphasis on beauty is a representation and extension

I recently attended a church service for dementia patients at a nursing home. It was interesting to me in that the emphasis was on song with brief periods of teaching, and did not follow the format of any particular service book or authorized liturgy for any tradition. The residents in attendance varied from those who seemed relatively functioning and who could speak to those who spoke only in groans and shouts. Some might hum along or only mutter at some of the songs, while others could actually read the songbooks and sing along.

One gentleman in particular, who was unable to read and sing along for the most part, who had otherwise been humming or muttering throughout the service, caught my attention when the chaplain announced we would next sing Amazing Grace. He caught my attention because as we began singing, so did he. His voice was distinctive, loud and not particularly in tune, but all the same I was struck by the true beauty of his singing.

It was not professional singing. It wasn’t even all that good for an amateur. He was dressed in sweatpants and a sweatshirt with a large stain on his shirt. Many of the other residents were similarly dressed. Yet at that moment, I felt he was better prepared for the coming of the Lord than anyone else in the room.

Sometimes you can simply hear the joy and anticipating coming through someone in song. When he was finally able to join in, there was no way to misconstrue why he was singing. It was a deep love of God.

Sometimes, when we dress ourselves up and go to Church, or perhaps choose to attend a choral evensong, we ought to consider asking ourselves why. Is the beauty there in the worship of God or is it internally in the act of worship only? When we go and listen to a choir, is there the same offering unto God of ourselves, our souls and our bodies that is represented in how we dress, what we say and what we pray? JB Philips once remarked that:

it is natural and right, of course, that the worship we offer to God in public should be of the highest possible quality. But that must not lead us to conceive of a musically “Third-Programme” god who prefers the exquisite rendering of a cynical professional choir to the ragged bawling of sincere but untutored hearts.

The man I heard singing is perhaps a perfect example of the “ragged bawling,” of a sincere heart, and in that moment I was struck by how much his singing likely pleased God.

This is not to say that God does not find the voices of a professional choir pleasing, but rather a reminder that even if a choir sings off-key or there is no choir, God is always looking at what is in the heart. Are voices raised to create a sound pleasing to His ear, or to ours?

Aesthetic beauty, be it in the architectural design of a parish church, its appointments, the music and even in some cases the poetic words and imagery of the liturgy itself, is designed intentionally that way because we are inviting God into our presence. In the same way that we might groom ourselves and dress in a way that we feel honours God, our surroundings are designed to honour God. Stained glass windows, cruciform buildings, and Gothic spires that reach to the heavens. They are there for two reasons, to keep us focused on God and to honour God.

The primary purpose of beauty in Church is not to be aesthetically pleasing to people. It has a dual purpose of reminding us of God—the stained glass window depicting a Christian saint or historical event, the cruciform building reminding us of Christ’s death on the cross, the spires pointing to heaven as we are to turn our hearts and minds to God—and also of being pleasing to God. When we look to the beauty in something like song, the beauty of a professional choir is lost when in effect what we are doing is placing the emphasis on our hearing the professionals sing, rather than ourselves lifting our voices in praise of God. We have outsourced, in effect, our praise.

There is nothing inherently wrong with beauty in the Church. Indeed, there is much to be lauded. A well appointed nave and sanctuary can help us to draw ourselves out of our secular world and lives and remember we are in God’s presence. A professional choir can help to lead our singing, perhaps helping it to be as pleasing as possible to God. In all things, however, we should remember that intentions matter, and we should concern ourselves first and foremost with what we are giving to God, rather than what we are receiving temporally from the Church building and others. Keep in mind the man who sang with passion, without concern for key or tempo, but only to express his joy found in God.

On a Culture of Invitation

The Fifth Sunday after Easter

O LORD, from whom all good things do come: Grant to us thy humble servants, that by thy holy inspiration we may think those things that be good, and by thy merciful guiding may perform the same; through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Having identified some of the issues linked to decline in the Church, before addressing possible solutions, there is one major question which must be answered. In the early Church, one of the early methods of exegesis used by the Church Fathers was that of skopos, a Greek word which means goal or purpose. The fathers would seek to identify the goal or purpose of the Biblical writer for writing a given passage. Whenever anyone presents a response for what the Church must do to address decline, they must explain their skopos: what the goal is. Is it just to fill pews and reverse a demographic trend?

Christian rock concerts and similar events may fill pews, associated altar calls may even bring many to profess Christ as their Lord, but does it truly bring about a conversion of faith that leads to discipleship? Discipleship should always be the skopos of any efforts to reverse any kind of decline in the Church. And it's simple enough to see how discipleship no longer plays front and centre in the language and skopos of the Church.

As discussed previously a significant part of decline in the church is cultural. Sixty years ago, Christianity was a cultural norm. The Church did not need to reach out to the world, it simply existed inside of it and people came as a matter of course. It was what their parents and grandparents had done and there was no reason for that to change. Until it did. During the massive cultural changes seen in the 1960s and the Post-War baby boomer generation, religion took on a more minimal role as society itself was restructured. Women had entered the workforce, jobs were plentiful, new conveniences were being introduced to the home that shifted society, a new wave of urbanisation hit as jobs again migrated to the cities, cars were more plentiful meaning people were no longer geographically centred and could commute longer distances to work and church. Throughout this process of social and economic change, the Church was complacent. What was needed was an invitation to Church.

Today, we still do not proper foster a culture of invitation, but rather seek to foster a culture of attraction. Rather than seeking to invite non-believers to, as Jesus said, “follow me,” our skopos is merely to get them through the Church doors. To that end, we are marketing Church to youth. What's more, we're doing it poorly.

Do away with vestments. Do away with stuffy hymns and complex liturgy. Update the words. Be inclusive. Fudge sin. Be energetic. Stir up the room. Be trendy. Relate to non-believers. Say what they want to hear. Church isn't hard; it's fun! No need to change or to be changed by it!

Each of these is something that can be seen today in different ways in how we market to the unchurched. Each of these propositions ultimately comes down to an attempt to modernise the church. It's about trying to conform the church to the world so that it can be consumed. Traditional vestments and hymns don't sell well, so do away with them, dress in stylish and hip clothes and play modern music. Kids wont cross the door if they think it's just to hear from a stuffy old cleric and sing boring tunes.

Traditions have meaning. Vestments have meaning. Traditional hymnody speaks clearly to the theology of the church. What priests wear, what they say and how they act speaks to the traditions and doctrines of the church throughout the centuries. In attempting to market the church, that is being lost. While it might get people through the doors, it doesn't do anything to make them stay. When the Church is simply asking, “how can we get them through the doors?” it isn't asking the far more important question of, “how can we encourage them to follow Christ?”

Seekers from every age have always, in their hearts, wanted one thing: the living water that Christ himself promised. They seek the authentic heart of God. You can get a sort of worship high out of modern music with its loud, repetitive chords and the excitement of a charismatic speaker. But if it does not carry with it the living water of Christ, those who consume it will still thirst.

When what they are offered is based on what is believed to appeal to people, the offering is shallow. Worse than that, it is rightly viewed as inauthentic. Modern generations are constantly bombarded by media. Buy this, consume that. This will make your life better. When Church is conformed to the world, even in the best case scenario the authentic word of God is lost in that tumultuous noise.

Church needs to stand out. Church needs to be different. Church needs to be authentic. Church needs to invite, not market. Fostering a culture of invitation doesn't mean that the church has to change its appearance or its doctrines, it means that those who remain it it must become more Christ-like.

Christ was the one who asked others to follow him. When Christ gave the great commission, it was a charge to all believers, and remains one that applies to all Christians today. It is the responsibility of every believer to themselves be a proper disciple of Christ, attempting to live his life of grace and truth, and to foster a culture of invitation where anyone can be invited and welcomed into Christ's presence, and where they can hear his gospel.

Invitation may be difficult, but it isn't complicated. During the push for the Alpha Course in 2013, Michael Harvey discussed the difficulty in inviting people to Alpha. He offered this simple model of invitation, “Would you like to come to Alpha with me?” It is no more complicated to invite someone to Church saying, “Would you like to come to Church with me?”

Michael Harvey offers this other piece of advice. Getting an answer of Yes is the destination, but No is the way you get there. In other words, don't be afraid of rejection, and invite!

Being inviting means also that once someone has entered the Church, the culture of welcoming must exist. All of these relate to two things. Being authentic disciples of Christ, and having a skopos that doesn't end just with getting someone in the door. This is the first step in addressing decline in the church.

On Modesty

The Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee, grant thy people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and with pure hearts and minds to follow thee the only God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

When you invite a guest to come to Church with you, either because you’re hoping to encourage them to come to Christ or because you've invited them to a special occasion such as a Baptism or other event, the response might often look something like, “Sure, I’ll come. What should I wear?”

Outside of controversies surrounding doctrine, there have probably been more words written on the subject of what men and women should wear to church than on any other issue that could be characterised, under last week’s post, as a non-essential. Indeed, it is so important that it was covered in the Book of Homilies in a homily entitled Against Excess of Apparel.

In modern society, what we wear seems to be held as important. It makes a statement about us, to the point where studies have shown that it can have a significant impact on our lives, with workers of equal competency who dress less fashionably being less likely to receive a promotion than their more fashionable, but no more qualified, colleagues.

This reality proclaims the fact that what we wear is a statement, whether or not we intend to make one, and it’s a statement both at work and at church. With respect to what we wear at church, there seems to be a two-fold modern narrative. The first narrative is that we ought to be comfortable, and second is that we, and particularly women, ought to be modest.

Church is not a stuffy, formal place, but rather a place where we meet Christ in person! He’s our pal, so dress comfortably and sit back and relax in the presence of “bro Jesus.” A casual t-shirt or perhaps an untucked button-down shirt paired with jeans or shorts, depending on the weather, are the order of the day. Expectations are much the same for women with the addition of skirts and dresses as well. This seems to be something borne out of the sixties and seventies when Church began to try and address declining attendance by attempting to adapt to popular culture. No need to wear a shirt and tie, come and listen to our top 40 Christian Folk music! No need for your Sunday best, come just as you are and don’t be put out.

The idea of dressing comfortably, then, is one which reflects a desire to not inconvenience someone from attending by the implication that meeting Jesus may move them away from their personal comfort zone or in some way involves transformation in their lives. It doesn't really speak at all to the question of what we say when this becomes the rule of dress for church.

The second aspect of the modern narrative is one of modesty, particularly when applied to women and girls, as opposed to men. Looking back, this would have been made explicit through definition of collars not lower than two inches below the neckline, and skirts that extend below the knee, to take the example from the Roman Catholic Church’s guidelines in the 1950s. In modern times, there is an interesting tension between the idea that people should be comfortable and yet should still display modesty, even though the term is no longer defined in such stringent and observable terms.

There is, it must be said, some merit to the push for modesty, but generally speaking its merit is not in any way related to the reasons modesty has become a part of our modern narrative on dress in church. Usually modesty is promoted because of claims that immodest dress on the part of girls and women is a form of sexual temptation for men and boys who, it is assumed, cannot control themselves.

There are two problems with this. First off, it suggests that, even with the grace and support of God, a Christian man cannot conquer temptation. This is, to use a technical Greek term, hogwash. St Paul tells us in Rom 6. 14 that , “sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” By blaming the dress of others, we are in fact ignoring our own unrighteousness and trying to call out the possible sins of others to distract ourselves from our own falling short. This leads to the second problem. Earlier in his letter to the Romans, St Paul had just warned them against such hypocrisy, to the point where he asked in Rom 2. 3, “Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgement of God?” This is a dangerous form of hypocrisy because it seeks to ignore our own sin by highlighting the perceived sins of others through judgement of them. We have no right to judge, nor does our judging them in any way affect our own sins.

All of this ties up with the false narrative of dress codes in church. The question that should be asked is not whether or not we need to be comfortable to come or whether or not our wardrobe will tempt others to sin. If our clothes say something, then surely what it says should be a message directed to the one we gather to worship when we go to church?

As Anglicans, we affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, then our manner of dress speaks directly to him, and we must ask ourselves what we say through that.

How would you dress to come before the Prime Minister of Canada or the Queen? A few years ago there was an uproar when Mr Justin Bieber was photographed with the Prime Minister while wearing overalls and a t-shirt. His manner of dress was identified as failing to show due respect for the person he was meeting. How much more should we recognize the need to send a clear message of reverence and respect when we come before Christ?

Does this mean going back to Sunday Best? Does it mean chastising those who don’t meet these standards? Absolutely not. The problem with encouraging people to wear comfortable clothes wasn't so much the informality of the dress, but the fact that the message we’re sending is that you don’t need to have your heart focused on Christ when you choose what you’re going to wear. 1 Sm 16. 7 says, “man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

While the general rule ought to look to some level of formality in dress, because that is how as a society we show respect, what matters is not the judgement of peers or the message we send to them, but the message on our heart we send to God. Someone who is simply used to wearing a suit or who does so out of an improper sense of understanding without doing so with the express intention of honouring God would not be as pleasing to God as the person who dresses quite casually, but for whom those clothes are the best they own and selected in a desire to honour God. For the same reason, modesty does have a place in how we dress for Church simply because of the message it sends to God. The concern, however, should not be about inciting sin in others.

In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ is recorded as saying, “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on,” (6. 25). This seems to contradict the importance of dress, and indeed may well have been used to support the dress code revolution of the sixties and seventies that told us it didn't matter what we wore. At the same time, it should be remembered that just a few verses before in Chapter 5, Christ discussed how it was not the letter of the law that mattered, but the spirit. It is not enough to simply refrain from murder, but that we must avoid anger as well as both are subject to judgement (Mt 5. 22). This mirrors the interpretation of 1 Sm 16. 7 and what is truly being said is, what matters is not what you are wearing, but why you are wearing it.

On Organs

The Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, let thy continual pity cleanse and defend thy Church; and, because it cannot continue in safety without thy succour, preserve it evermore by thy help and goodness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Last Sunday identified two primary problems that have a tendency to arise when using contemporary Christian music in a worship service, for which the use of the Book of Common Praise was presented as a potential solution. The two problems were first and foremost that the prayers offered through some of that music are shallow, while the second was that there may be a tendency to shift God as the object of worship through the tool or medium of music, to worship of either self or the music itself.

What is the Book of Common Praise and how does it potentially resolve these issues? The Book of Common Praise is the officially authorized hymn book of the Anglican Church of Canada, though it is not a mandatory book nor does it hold the canonical status of the Book of Common Prayer. There have been four authorized versions in the 20th century, the 1908 Book of Common Praise, the 1938 Book of Common Praise, the 1971 ecumenical Book of Common Praise developed in conjunction with the United Church of Canada and finally Common Praise which was authorized in 1998. The 1938 Book of Common Praise, which was reprinted most recently in 1963, is by far the preferred hymnal for traditional Anglicans in Canada, given the significant theological changes and problematic doctrinal innovations introduced in Common Praise.

St Justin Martyr in his Apology in Defence of Christians wrote that, “no one can give a name to God, who is too great for words; if anyone dares to say it is possible to do so, he must be suffering from an incurable madness.” Had he lived to see the publication of Common Praise, he might have made a similar comment on the revisionist slant of the committee that created it, which decided to re-write some hymns in order to, for example, affirm God as Mother in the revised text of Hymn to Joy. This type of revisionist agenda reminds us that the importance of hymnody is not simply in ancient tunes, traditional instruments such as a pipe organ or choirs, but rather in the orthodoxy of the words being sung. St Augustine of Hippo spoke to the nature of hymns saying this:

It is a song with praise of God. If thou praisest God and singest not, thou utterest no hymn: if thou singest and praisest not God, thou utterest no hymn: if thou praisest aught else, which pertaineth not to the praise of God, although thou singest and praisest, thou utterest no hymn. An hymn then containeth these three things, song, and praise, and that of God. Praise then of God in song is called an hymn.

Hymns are prayers, sung in praise of God. The traditional hymnody of the Anglican Church of Canada reflects St Augustine’s three-fold requirements. More than that, the hymns were written long-enough ago that they all reflect a traditional theology and avoid a shallower approach.

Like good prayer, a good Christian song ought to thank God for something He has done or something He is. In doing so, it ought to speak to what He has done, or who He is. Poor Christian music fails to expound on God’s nature, and instead simply uses ‘Christianese’ and Biblical sounding words to create a catchy lyric, something which often times will shift the focus away from God and back towards either the music itself or the person who is singing it. In other words, for good Christian music the message is God, while for bad Christian music the message is the medium.

While not at all seasonal, Easter provides an interesting comparison of a traditional hymn versus popular contemporary Christian praise music. Perhaps one of the most commonly sung hymns on Easter Sunday is, appropriately enough, Easter Hymn, known more commonly by its first line, "Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia!" The second is called This is Amazing Grace by Bethel Music, and was the most popular Easter praise song in the United States in 2014.

Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia! our triumphant holy day, Alleluia! who did once upon the cross, Alleluia! suffer to redeem our loss. Alleluia! Hymns of praise then let us sing, Alleluia! unto Christ, our heavenly King, Alleluia! who endured the cross and grave, Alleluia! sinners to redeem and save. Alleluia! But the pains which he endured, Alleluia! our salvation have procured, Alleluia! now above the sky he's King, Alleluia! where the angels ever sing. Alleluia!

Who breaks the power of sin and darkness Whose love is mighty and so much stronger The King of Glory, the King above all kings Who shakes the whole earth with holy thunder And leaves us breathless in awe and wonder The King of Glory, the King above all kings Chorus: This is amazing grace This is unfailing love That You would take my place That You would bear my cross You lay down Your life That I would be set free Oh, Jesus, I sing for All that You've done for me Who brings our chaos back into order Who makes the orphan a son and daughter The King of Glory, the King of Glory Who rules the nations with truth and justice Shines like the sun in all of its brilliance The King of Glory, the King above all kings [Chorus] [Bridge:] Worthy is the Lamb who was slain Worthy is the King who conquered the grave Worthy is the Lamb who was slain Worthy is the King who conquered the grave Worthy is the Lamb who was slain Worthy is the King who conquered the grave Worthy is the Lamb who was slain Worthy, worthy, worthy Oh

While both songs do speak to truths about God, Easter Hymn more clearly speaks to God in each and every line and more clearly each and every line’s purpose is to praise God for who He is and what He has done. In This is Amazing Grace, by contrast, the first six lines speaks only to one implied truth that God has broken the power of sin. If St Augustine were to evaluate the song, it seems doubtful he would find it fits his criteria of a hymn.

As JB Philips warns in his book Your God is Too Small:

It is natural and right, of course, that the worship we offer to God in public should be of the highest possible quality. But that must not lead us to conceive of a musically "Third-Programme" god who prefers the exquisite rendering of a cynical professional choir to the ragged bawling of sincere but untutored hearts.

Regardless of the medium, it is possible to warp the purpose and to substitute our own preferences towards the music. The intention of using music as a tool of worship must always be to praise God, and our concern must be for the words being said and their intended audience, not the degree of musical excellence.

The use of a hymnal encourages that focus, providing other benefits beyond simply assurance of orthodox theology in the words being sung. With limited musical accompaniment, it is the voice of the people which is the primary tool of worship, while the organ merely maintains the meter of singing. A hymnal containing the tune to a song can also allow a parishioner unfamiliar with a given tune the opportunity to sing.

This is not to say that there is no merit to listening to more contemporary Christian music, regardless of what St Augustine would have made of it as a tool for worship. The question is the degree to which it is appropriate as a tool of worship for the mass. A Christian song which may not be appropriate for the mass due to its lack of theological depth or even its ability to truly praise God may still be appropriate to listen to outside of the mass as a wholesome form of musical entertainment. A song which lacks any form of thanks to God for who He is and what He has done can still at the least encourage us to think about God.

Worship is not about musical preferences or traditional versus contemporary. We must always recall the importance not of the music or the form or instruments, but rather of the intent: does this music honour God?

On Contemporary Christian Music

The Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity

KEEP, we beseech thee, O Lord, thy Church with thy perpetual mercy; and, because the frailty of man without thee cannot but fall, keep us ever by thy help from all things hurtful, and lead us to all things profitable to our salvation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

As has been discussed, worship comes in many forms. It is, simply put, the way in which we ascribe worth to God. Art can be an important tool of worship, but it also brings with it possible difficulties. Throughout the ages, there has always been an important question asked of art as it intersects with the worship of God: where is the point at which art, intended to be used as a tool for worshipping God, becomes a hindrance to worship of God by usurping God as the focus of worship?

This was a question at the heart of the Byzantine iconoclasm controversy of the 8th century, and which has remained throughout the life of the church in relation to all mediums of art. In this period, there was a split in the church over whether or not icons could legitimately depict Christ, or whether or not they could only represent his humanity at the expense of his divinity. Ultimately this concern reflected the question of the legitimacy of the art as a tool of worship. In much the same way, particularly in the United States, music has become the medium under scrutiny.

Millions of Christians around the world find the contemporary Christian rock worship music significantly enhances their ability to praise God. To others, however, modern worship music, as it’s often called, has usurped the place of God as the object of worship. As Lance Ralston puts it, modern worship emphasizes the creation, “of emotional rapture and the worship of worship, rather than the worship of God.” With the desire to instill this feeling of rapture as the goal, musical worship can become the focus of a Sunday service in some protestant churches, and elaborate productions are put on, attracting hundreds and thousands who are seeking a ‘worship high’ from the experience.

This pursuit of a ‘worship high’ is part of a dangerous trend which sees the feelings evoked by Christianity as the goal of Christianity, replacing salvation. That in and of itself is dangerous, as it again reflects changing the meaning of Christian worship from ascribing worth to God to ascribing worth to self (you give worth to yourself by emphasizing your own personal experience over giving glory to God).

It is perhaps easy to see this experiential goal in the high production value performances of US mega churches, or various actual concerts, but there is an even more insidious form of this same issue of the worship of worship and the experience of worship.

In any Sunday service, be it Anglican, Roman Catholic or a protestant denomination, whenever a musician begins to play there is always a question of how the congregation reacts. For a musician, the music they are playing as much as the words they are potentially singing can be offered to God. There can be a problem when the music is being offered for the benefit of the congregation, for its inherent beauty, and for their enjoyment, rather than in praise of God. From the opposite side of the spectrum, regardless of the intentions of the musicians, the congregation can create and seek out their own euphoric experience from the music, rather than focusing on singing in praise of God.

Worship is generally active; a conscience decision to do something. When a person is passively receptive to what is happening, it is difficult to explain how that might constitute worship of God. When you seek something, rather than seek to do something, the focus has shifted.

In response to just this concern being raised in his home church, the Christian singer/songwriter Matthew Redman wrote and released the song “The Heart of Worship” in 1998, which contains the lines:

I’m coming back to the Heart of Worship,
and it’s all about You, Jesus.
I'm sorry, Lord, for the thing I've made it
when it's all about You, it's all about You, Jesus.

The lyrics are a stark reminder that the importance is in the meaning behind the words and the intention behind singing them, not whatever else, or whatever experience we receive either by hearing the music or even by expressing ourselves in song.

In many ways it echoes the warning prophesied by Isaiah when he wrote:

And the Lord said:
“Because this people draw near with their mouth
    and honor me with their lips,
    while their hearts are far from me,
and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,

This should make complete sense. Songs are merely prayers arranged to music, much like the Psalms. As prayers, they reflect and, in some ways, shape our faith. If we constantly worship, even with the intention of glorifying God, through music with shallow prayers.

The question then becomes how to corporately ensure that the focus remains on the words and prayers, and that the art remains a tool for the worship of God, and not simply to create an experience for man. One method, discussed next week, is through the use of the Book of Common Worship.

On Liturgy

The Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity

ALMIGHTY and merciful God, of whose only gift it cometh that thy faithful people do unto thee true and laudable service: Grant, we beseech thee, that we may so faithfully serve thee in this life, that we fail not finally to attain thy heavenly promises; through the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For someone who is new to Anglicanism, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper on Sunday is probably their primary form of worship. From an outsider’s perspective, there might be one other piece of information they know of what to expect when they come to an Anglican church on a Sunday: liturgy. A formal prescribed order of service prescribed in some dusty tome that tells parishioners what to say, when to say it, when to sit, when to kneel, when to stand and when to sing.

There is a famous quotation by CS Lewis from his Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer where he says:

Every service is a structure of words and acts through which we receive a sacrament, or repent, or supplicate, or adore. And it enables us to do these things best--if you like, it “works” best--when through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it. As long as you notice, and have to count, the steps, you are not dancing but only learning to dance. A good shoe is a shoe you don’t notice. Good reading becomes possible when you need not consciously think about eyes, or light, or print, or spelling. The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God.

In this, he describes the faithful utility of a liturgy when coming to worship in that it allows worshippers to focus on God rather than being concerned with an order of service. Lewis here expresses the practical reason for St Paul’s reminder to the Corinthians that, “God is not a God of confusion but of peace.” (1 Cor 14. 33) This is a useful understanding of why there is a written and ordered liturgy, but to take this understanding (and it should be noted Lewis was talking here on the subject of worship, not liturgy specifically) is only a minor part of the full meaning of liturgy, the expression of liturgy that we see only when we gather together to worship, just as worship of God occurs both corporately and privately, but it is chiefly expressed for many Christians on Sunday when they gather to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

The liturgy goes well beyond that, however. It is an ancient institution with roots in the early church where the liturgies sprung up out of Christ’s words of institution recorded throughout the Scriptures. As it is rendered in the Book of Common Prayer:

[Christ], in the same night that he was betrayed, took Bread; and, when he had given thanks, he brake it; and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat; this is my Body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise after supper he took the Cup; and, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all, of this; for this is my Blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins: Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.

Following Christ’s commandment to do this in remembrance of Him, a number of different liturgies with almost entirely common features, but generally different orders, appeared.

The modern Anglican liturgy stems from two of these ancient liturgies. The earliest English Church liturgies were rooted in the liturgies of St John and St Paul associated with the Church at Ephesus. During the 6th century, St Augustine of Canterbury introduced some revisions using the Sacramentary of St Gregory the Great, which itself found its roots in the Liturgy of St Peter, associated with Rome.

The first thing to remember about the liturgy is thus that it is rooted in both Scripture, Christ’s commandment to us, and in the traditions of the Apostles and the Church Fathers.

It should further be noted, even from just this brief introduction, that there is more to liturgy than simply a formal and prescribed method of worshipping when Christians gather. The etymology of the word liturgy may reveal even more. The term stems from the ancient Greek leitourgia, which might be rendered as ‘work of the people’ or ‘public works’ and referred to the civic works undertaken by wealthy citizens on behalf of all the people. In that sense, the liturgy for Christians referred to the works they were instructed, by Christ, to undertake on behalf of all people. The term in its Christian origins can be traced to the Septuagint (the Greek language translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jews during the time of the early Church) in which the word leitourgia was used to refer to public religious service at the Jewish Temple.

Christ’s instructions to Christians were not limited simply to the use of the sacraments. Early Christian understanding of liturgy involved their actions at all times, of which only part was frequent participation in the Lord’s Supper for spiritual nourishment.

It is why when the communion is finished, the Prayer Book ends the service with a final blessing based on St Paul’s words to the Philippians:

THE peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord: And the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be amongst you and remain with you always. Amen. (Phil 4. 7)

In this blessing, we are commissioned to go forth to continue to do the liturgy throughout the week by keeping the knowledge and love of God in our hearts and minds at all times. We pray to God to bless us in this way, to keep that knowledge, in order that we as Christians may perform our own ‘work of the people’ throughout the week by practicing the love of God as Christ further instructed us.

In both the practical sense of an order of service, and the broader reminder that Christians are called to love all people, the liturgy stands as a necessary tool for Christian life, and an essential practice of the ancient Church.

On Worship

The Twelfth Sunday after Trinity

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who art always more ready to hear than we to pray, and art wont to give more than either we desire or deserve: Pour down upon us the abundance of thy mercy; forgiving us those things whereof our conscience is afraid, and giving us those good things which we are not worthy to ask, but through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen. 

Worship has been described as the principle duty of a Christian, but how is that duty fulfilled? As touched upon previously, worship means ascribing worth to something or someone. It is therefore something we do to God; it is not something we can come to passively experience. JI Packer goes so far as to suggest that, “[w]e are constructed so that no activity ever brings us such deep joy as does the worship of God, once we are enabled (through new birth in Christ and through the liberating power of the Holy Spirit) to plunge into it.”

This makes generally clear the concept of worship. It is something done by us that shows how we ascribe worth to God, and at the same time gives us joy owing to how God created us. But how do we worship? What constitutes worship?

There are many different ideas on what constitutes worship. JI Packer concluded his thought by suggesting that, “worshipping on earth is training and rehearsal for heaven.” This reflects the concept of worship as a mirror of heaven, a practice for our eventual joining of the Church Triumphant in heaven, ceaselessly praising God with all the other saints and angels in heaven. Others view worship as more of a form of service to God. It is show of devotion to God for who He is and what He has done. Among many evangelical circles, including some Evangelical Anglicans, it is viewed merely as an affirmation for believers, an opportunity for peace and refreshment amidst the turmoil of the world. Still others view it as a form of communion with God and other Christians. Worship becomes an opportunity to share our relationship with God with other believers in community. Still to others, worship is more of an external act, a proclamation of the Gospel; an opportunity to make a profession of belief to non-believers about the God we worship. Among charismatics, there is also a notion of worship as being an arena of transcendence, a way of meeting with God beyond ourselves.

Examining any local parish, it would be possible to see multiple ideas of worship in action, regardless of whether or not that parish identified itself as being evangelical or charismatic or anything else. Most parishes will not be alike, emphasizing one idea over another, and excluding a third completely. For instance, a parish rooted in Low Churchmanship might largely ignore the concept of worship as a mirror of heaven, and instead focus more thoroughly on ideas of service to God and affirmation for believers. A parish of a more High Churchmanship might conversely have greater focus on worship as a mirror of heaven and communion with God and other Christians.

What is important is that whatever lens or idea is used to frame worship, it ultimately be done in the original context of ascribing worth to God. Worship must always focus on God, glorifying and affirming him, and should never shift that focus away from God towards the individual. Worship is not about making ourselves feel better. As JI Packer says, we receive joy from worshipping God. We don’t need to make it about us in order to receive joy from worship!

Coming to Holy Communion on a Sunday morning is thus in and of itself an act of worship; in doing so we proclaim God’s worth of our time each week. But beyond that, how do we worship?

Holy Scripture commands us to, “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength,” (Mk 12. 30). How does that apply in the context of worship?

Properly, worship focuses on God. The best worship, however, focuses on God with all our five senses, in order that we display our love as Christ commanded. In doing so, we are actively engaging all that we are in worship. Worshipping God with some senses may seem more readily apparent than others. It is simply to think of how we worship God with hearing, listening to the Gospel or singing beautiful hymns, but what of our senses of smell or touch?

As mentioned there are two simple ways in which we engage our hearing in worship. First, there is the receptive way. When we listen to the Gospel and other lessons being read from Scripture, we ascribe worth to God. We similarly engage our hearing when we listen to the homily expounding on the nature of God. Alternatively we can be active towards God and engage hearing through our own words and songs. When we pray, in and of itself it is an act of worship, but when we pray together, it becomes a second act of worship, seeking to make our prayers beautiful to the ears. The same can be said of when we use our voices to sing, joining the Angels in their unending hymn to God. In both of these cases, our hearing is engaged in filling our hearts and minds with the love and praise of God, and the revelations of His nature.

Sight is another obvious way to engage our senses in the worship of God. From a prepared altar to stained glass windows or other decorations around the church, our eyes can be constantly engaged. Banners in liturgical colours remind us of historic events or seasons and of God’s nature and relationship with us. Clerical garments and altar decorations similarly have specific meanings. Just as our hearing is engaged receptively, our sight can be similarly engaged as we watch the cross processed to the sanctuary or other actions carried out during the service.

The most common way to engage our smell is through the use of incense, a practice dating back to the early Church. The use of incense throughout the service carries with it different meanings. When the Gospel is processed amidst the people to be read and is censed, it is meant to bring to mind the devotion and prayers of missionaries of the Church in bringing the Gospel to the world. During the offertory, the censing represents God’s grace being imparted. During the consecration and preparation of the gifts the incense is offered as adoration for God.Even when incense is not used, there are other smells which can be engaged in worship. The altar will be adorned with candles, and while unscented still produce a smell from the burning of the wick, particularly once they have been extinguished at the end of the service.

The sense of taste is engaged when we receive God’s grace through the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!” (Ps 34. 8) The mouth is the gateway to our body, and when we engage our tongue in the consumption of the body and blood of our Lord, the taste reminds us of the gift we have received, the constant refilling of God’s grace and our duty of thanks towards Him.

Finally, our sense of touch is somewhat surprisingly one of the more versatile of our senses in the context of worship. There is something about the physicality of touch that lends tangibility to the intangible aspects of worship. We touch others to pass the peace in preparation for giving of offerings to God. We touch ourselves when we cross ourselves at the invocation of the trinity and other points during the service. We touch the baptismal font and cross ourselves to renew our baptismal vows. Taken more broadly, touch can involve all aspects of our physical activity. When we kneel to pray or stand to sing.

Worship is best when it engages our whole minds and bodies, and when every aspect of our being is engaged in ascribing worth to God. Holy Communion provides a feast of worship for each of our five senses, but in order to translate a candle or a stole into worship, we must engage our senses with the intention of worship.

On Churchmanship

The Eleventh Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, who declarest thy almighty power most chiefly in showing mercy and pity: Mercifully grant unto us such a measure of thy grace, that we, running the way of thy commandments, may obtain thy gracious promises, and be made partakers of thy heavenly treasure; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

When speaking of Anglicanism, there is broad diversity in style of worship, and even shockingly to some outsiders, of doctrine and theology. Often times, the understanding of Anglicanism is rooted in Churchmanship, a broad summation of that style of worship which itself is usually, but not always, a reflection of the doctrine and theological perspective of the Anglican in question.

There is an oversimplification here, but it can be traced back to the reality that originally there did tend to be a strong association between High and Low Churchmanship and the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic understandings of Anglicanism.

Prior to the 19th century, the practice of Anglicanism had become what today would be viewed as very Low Church. Altars were bare, priests wore very plain vestments. This reflected the Puritan influences from the 17th century wherein there was a stress on the personal relationship between parishioner and God. Ritual was viewed as something that separated the individual from God. At the same time that Anglicanism’s Catholicity was being highlighted by the Oxford Movement in the early 19th century, the ritualist movement appeared in response, giving liturgical expression to the theologies being developed that emphasized more corporate worship.

Straddling between the two extremes of High and Low Churchmanship were a myriad of groupings. Central Churchmanship involved a conservative and sometimes evangelical theology, but a much higher level of ritual than in standard Low Churchmanship. Latitudinarianism gave birth to Broad Churchmanship which today, sadly, encompasses many Anglicans.

Latitudinarianism was a pejorative term used to describe a movement that arose in the 17th century that stressed the idea of the Church of England as a civic expression of spirituality. The Church had a necessary role in the expression of spirituality, the cultivation of morality and so on, thus subscription to the Church of England itself was essential, however the doctrines, liturgy and practices were far less important as there could be, for the Latitudinarians, other sources. This was the source of the name: adherents argued that greater latitude be given to the practice of the Church in order to promote unity at a time following the English civil wars through to the Glorious Revolution of Parliament in 1688—an extremely unstable and turbulent time in English history.

There was often an association between Latitudinarianism and heterodoxy, as one might suppose given there often times rejection of orthodox doctrines and the supremacy of Scripture, and over the centuries the term Broad has tended to supplant Latitudinarianism to describe this form of Churchmanship. Unlike Low or High Churchmanship, Broad Churchmanship does not subscribe to a particular style of worship, but is generally associated at the very least with Liberal theology and often modernism.

In modern Broad Churchmanship, this has tended towards a revival of the view of the Church as merely the ‘nation at prayer’ and thus the doctrines of the Church can be informed by the philosophical values of the nation. In a more technical sense, modern philosophy, scientific understanding and hermeneutics are applies to the understanding of Scripture, which again holds less authoritative value, rather than the opposite which would generally be expected in more conservative theologies.

Because of this theological underpinning, which can see even a rejection of the statements of the Creeds, it is not difficult to see how both low and high practices can be incorporated. While there is a tendency towards High Church liturgical practices, due to the inherent beauty in the liturgy itself, Broad Churchmanship can also find expression in lower liturgical practices.

Discounting the heterodoxy of Broad Churchmanship, and recognizing that while less institutionally prone it can occur anywhere, each form of Churchmanship holds merit. The fact that each does hold merit does not mean, however, that one is not superior to another.

The question then becomes one of examining the purposes and suppositions of each form of Churchmanship, and the purposes of Holy Communion (and other gatherings) where the liturgy becomes an expression of that Churchmanship and thus that theology.

Worship is about ascribing worth to something or someone. According to JI Packer:

Worship is looking Godward and celebrating the worth—that is the praiseworthiness—of what we see. The Bible calls this activity glorifying God, or giving glory to God. “Glory” means, first, divinity on display, (the glory God shows us) and then, the response we make to God for this honour.

So when Christians gather on Sundays and in context Anglicans in particular, we do so first and foremost to ascribe worth to God by glorifying him. Anglican Churchmanship then is the response to the question of, “how do we glorify God and show his immeasurable worth?”

The Psalmists tell us all creation worships the Lord. “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” (Ps 19. 1) If all creation worships God, how can it in and of itself become a barrier to worshipping Him? We are called to worship God with all that we are (Mk 12. 30), and through the use of ritual we are able to reflect that. Forms of worship that engage the full senses and which worship God not merely in raised voices, but with smells and sights and even our very posture, recognizing that all creation worships God with us.

It is also worth noting that Church, the House of Prayer of the Lord, is a place for corporate worship. We come before God not simply as individuals, but as adopted sons and daughters in His family, members of a community of faith and the communion of saints.

The theology expressed in High Churchmanship is one that emphasizes a high view of God and his created world, and offers it all back to Him in due worship.