Pagan Christianity: Order of Worship
By Fred | Friday, July 2, 2010
The next topic dealt with in Pagan Christianity is the “order of worship.” Viola and Barna rightly trace the elements of our “order” throughout history. Generally speaking, a church service is structured around singing and then preaching (they also add “closing prayer or song” (p. 50), although I’m not sure it’s a given; at best, almost every meeting of Christian, except the most casual, is closed with in prayer; is this a bad thing?). More traditional services involve a more structured and defined order of worship.
This is what they have to say:
“You can scour your Bible from beginning to end, and you will never find anything that remotely resembles our order of worship…The meetings of the early church were marked by every-member functioning, spontaneity, freedom, vibrancy, and open participation (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 14:1-33 and Hebrews 10:25). The first-century church meeting was a fluid gathering, not a static ritual. And it was often unpredictable, unlike the contemporary church service” (p. 50).
This is the strongest example so far of guesswork presented as fact. In terms of the quote above (including the scripture references), I would ask, how do you know? Since there is no structure mentioned, you presume that the meetings were “marked by every-member functioning, spontaneity, freedom,” etc.? Because no structure is mentioned we can be sure that no structure existed? Ironically, they imply that the opposite is the case today: our services do not experience things like vibrancy and freedom. This is a subtle but intentional way of bypassing logic to support the continued underlying presupposition, namely, that “house church is the only appropriate way of ‘doing church’.”
Over the next pages, the authors trace the roots of some structures that have existed. The question must again be asked—if these structures are extra-biblical and cultural, are they necessarily bad? The authors ask this question and answer it appropriately: “It is clear that the Protestant order of worship did not originate with the Lord Jesus, the apostles, or the New Testament Scriptures This in itself does not make the order of worship misguided. It just means it has no biblical basis” (p. 74). I would add, neither did chairs, microphones, hors-d’ouevres, or the telephones and computers used to communicate and arrange church meetings, whether in a “church building” or a home. They are if they directly impede the purposes of the church. I’m not sure that case has been made—especially when the “order of service” is flexible enough to accommodate everything that the “large group meeting” intends to accomplish.
Viola and Barna say that “the Protestant order of worship represses mutual participation and the growth of the Christian community” (p. 75). If that were true, I wonder how churches that use these “orders of service” manage to survive and even thrive? The order of worship “strangles the headship of Christ” (p. 76). It seems to me that guaranteeing the “headship of Christ” is not necessarily accomplished by adopting a completely democratic or openly participatory service. It could happen; but it’s certainly not guaranteed. In contrast, the “headship of Christ” is not necessarily diminished by having an order of service. They say that “for many, the Sunday morning is shamefully boring” (p. 76). I’m not sure that has anything to do with an order of service—another illogical conclusion. Finally, “the Protestant liturgy that you quietly sit through every Sunday, year after year, actually hinders spiritual transformation…because (1) it encourages passivity, (2) it limits functioning, and (3) it implies that putting in one hour per week is the key to the victorious life” (p. 77). In response, I say, “no, no, and no.” I can’t imagine a pastor that would say or imply any of these three things. It seems to me that the authors are tilting at an enormous straw man of their own creation. Week after week, people are challenged to be active as Christians, to worship together, in many churches to be involved in a small group and in service “outside the service,” and certainly that Christianity is to be lived out every day of the week rather than during the “Sunday morning service.”
Unfortunately, I think Viola and Barna simply weaken their argument by taking it too far. We should not be tied by a consistent formula. My own criticism about an “order of service” it that it actually implies other things: most notably, that corporate worship is secondary to and a warm up for the message or “sermon.” We have addressed that at Crosslands Church by having a regular “flip service” in which the two are reversed. We have also been very clear that “being the Church” goes far beyond the large corporate worship gathering, which happens to take place on Sunday morning (because that seems to work well for the most people, at least for now).
Category: Stuff