Its time to grasp the nettle on some of the issues that Richard Collins has raised. Is Restorationism a misguided endeavour, or is it truer to the New Testament than its critics are willing to admit? I hope to discuss the areas of New Testament church life that Richard mentioned in a few posts, and add a few more of my own. In each area, we ask is there a New Testament pattern, and if so, what is it? All of the areas are far too large for me to offer definitive answers, but

First up is liturgy (see his two comments here). It’s not a subject I’m an expert in at all, having encountered very little of it in the churches I have been part of. It is a very broad concept, but I want to focus on the practise of having set words or actions that the meeting leader or congregation are expected to use at different places throughout the meeting. One dictionary defines liturgy as “a prescribed form or set of forms for public religious worship”.

Now of course, in one sense every church has a liturgy. At the very least, most songs are sung with fixed words that everyone joins in. What’s more, most churches without a set liturgy will still have phrases they invariably use to welcome people, introduce the Lord’s supper, or close the meeting for example. Prayers too will follow similar patterns of words on a regular basis.

Obviously many charismatic churches will continue to make use of the liturgy they already had (e.g. charismatic Anglicans), possibly modified or relaxed somewhat. But Restorationist churches are typically very wary of liturgy (one notable exception being the Make Way marches devised by Graham Kendrick). For example, I have never heard a corporate prayer read out, or creed recited in a New Frontiers church.

The early church and liturgy

Richard highlights Phil 2 as an example of liturgy / creed in the early church. I would add 1 John 2 and 1 Cor 15 another probable examples. Maybe these passages were words of songs that the New Testament writers are quoting and adapting, or maybe they were spoken liturgy. The New Testament does not tell us, but early church history might point in the direction of there being more liturgy than Restorationists would care to admit.

However, I would want to balance this observation with a strong emphasis on the extemporaneous nature of much early church worship, particularly under the inspiration of the Spirit. We see in Acts and 1 Corinthians prayers and prophecies that came on the spur of the moment. There was no need for them to be either prepared before the meeting. The format of the meeting was such that there was room for contributions of all sorts from anyone (male and female). Paul’s long sermon in Acts 20 gives us an indication that he was quite happy to preach without a prepared script or a predefined end time.

Too much liturgy

We see then that there was a healthy balance between the prescribed and the free forms of worship. But where exactly should the balance lie?

There are problems with over-use of liturgy. It can become mechanical, said or sung without any thought to the meaning. It can leave people with the impression that they have worshiped simply because they opened their mouths, rather than engaged their heads and hearts. “These people honour me with their lips but their hearts are far from me”

Similarly, the words of liturgy can become magical incantations that must be said at the right time and in the right way for something to be proper. Baptisms, marriages, and the Lord’s supper are examples of times when people are particularly eager to use the right form of words.

Too little liturgy

If we never give people forms of words (such as songs or prayers) that they can make their own, then there will be a tendency towards shallowness of expression in worship. Not many of us are good with words. Perhaps this is why the stereotypical charismatic prayer goes “Yeah Lord, we just really wanna say like really”. Good worship songs help us to express our praise in fresh and meaningful ways. This is one positive thing about charismatic willingness to embrace new songs – a new way of saying the same thing can bring out the meaning to a deeper level.

But Restorationists will likely never hear a set prayer in church, particularly not one of confession or contrition. I once heard Terry Virgo say that he did not feel these appropriate for public worship as we have had our sins forgiven. But Jesus’ disciples wanted to be taught to pray, and he gave them a model with remarkably broad scope given its short length. Restorationists may be reluctant to use extra-biblical set prayers, but making more use of those from the Bible would I think be a good thing.

In summary, I must admit that I am happier with less liturgy rather than more, which may well be nothing more than a personal preference. It seems clear to me that a balance must be found but lets be careful that the balance is found in the best of both worlds (see Sven’s hilarious charismatic liturgy for an example of how the worst elements of both approaches could be combined).

Most of all I want my worship to be real. What I say must come from my heart, not simply from my order of service sheet. I think this is at least part of what Jesus was getting at when he spoke of worshiping in “spirit and in truth”.