The first thing we should observe is that the structure and content of the service are never neutral, nor should they be regarded as matters of preference. Unlike the “gods of the nations,” the God of Abraham and Jesus does not leave the matter of how we approach him in our hands. While there may not always be a clear black-and-white answer to all our questions about which style to use in a given context, it should be fairly obvious that liturgical style is more than the window dressing of worship. In fact, it is that which brings into an embodied form all our beliefs about God, ourselves, redemption, and the chief end of human existence. By way of analogy, even architectural style can tip the scales toward transcendence (a cathedral with a towering nave) or immanence (a theater-style worship center), so we always have to think through the implications of style if we wish to support the biblical announcement of both God’s majesty and nearness in Christ. Of course, that does not mean there is a divinely inspired architecture: As in creation generally, many styles could be appropriate— from neoclassical to postmodern. The real question, however, is whether thought has been given to issues of transcendence and immanence, the priority of the Word and the sacraments, and a host of other practical questions addressed by the theological convictions of a given church. At the same time, circumstances can make it difficult to make our services exactly what we might want them to be, although the necessary elements are present.
Sometimes we take style too seriously and end up worshiping a form rather than the God who seeks to reshape us through his chosen forms. “Going through the motions” can happen in “low church” traditions as well as “high church” varieties. One can sing the same praise songs repetitively and without much thought, just as one can say the Apostles’ Creed each week without adequate reflection on what one is professing.
If style is not neutral, how do we determine the shape of our service, beginning with the liturgy or order of service? Non-Christian thought swings like a pendulum between hyper-transcendence and hyper-immanence. But as John Frame has noted, Christian thinking should take its direction not from the radical opposition of transcendence and immanence but from the biblical representation of God as covenant head of his people. As covenant head, God transcends his creation, and as covenant head, God is intimately involved with his people. Although God “goes beyond” us, he has condescended to be “with us” as Emmanuel.
God has come close, but on his terms. It is therefore not left in our hands whether we will tip the scales toward either a sub-biblical transcendence or a sub-biblical immanence. Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, served the Lord as temple priests, but when they offered a sacrifice that God had not commanded, God struck them dead. On one hand, they may have been looking for more transcendence— more ritual, another liturgical innovation. On the other hand, they may have had a desire for more immanence— a form of worship that seemed to bring God down to their level. In any case, they were sincere. They presumed to serve God in the way that they found “worshipful,” but they were unwilling to regard God’s commanded worship as sufficient. They thought this was the sort of business about which God might not care very much, at least as long as the worshiper’s heart was in the right place. They learned otherwise— with tragic results, confirmed by the anguish of their father, Aaron, who had himself accommodated to the people in fashioning the golden calf.
I have labored to demonstrate from Romans 10 the logic of the gospel— God sending his emissaries to sinners rather than sinners trying to make their way to God by their own skill, cleverness, imagination, or efforts. God has already accommodated himself to our weakness. He is not far from us, if we will but attend to the ministry of the Word. Therefore, we must resist “the sky’s the limit” when it comes to accommodation. The Bible must be read, sung, and preached in the common language of the people, but when we introduce skits, musicals, and puppet shows on the basis of wanting to bring God down to the level of the people, they can only conclude that God has not already accommodated himself sufficiently through the ministry of the Word. There is accommodation and there is accommodation. When Moses confronted Aaron about the golden calf, Aaron replied, apparently even without the benefit of marketing surveys, “You know the people” (Exod. 32: 22 NKJV). Ever since Cain— actually, ever since Adam and Eve— human beings have sought to worship God in their own way, on their own terms, in forms that seem “pleasing to the eyes and desirable to make one wise.” We know that God clearly commanded every detail of worship in the Old Testament, but is it not one of the liberating aspects of the New Testament that faithful worship is a matter of the heart rather than outward form?*
*Horton, Michael (2003-05-01). Better Way, A (pp. 143-145). Baker Book Group. Kindle Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment