I am not a fan of archaic language and so have ceased using the KJV Bible many years ago, but hearing the BCP alongside the KJV illustrates two completely different forms of English - the BCP so much superior.

Is this not the heart of the problem..private sincere opinions , rather than submission to authority?

Oh no, for I submit to the authority of the scripture. If you can show me where the BCP is required by scripture (or the other things listed by Philip) I will gladly repent and submit to them.

I mentiojned in another thread that there are many things that we do in church, not because there is biblical or NT warrant for it, but because it is a good idea.  If you want to use the NT as the prescriptive guide to worship then you will have to be like the Churches of Christ (non-denominational) who sing a capella because there is no NT reference to the church singing along to musical instruments.

Whether to be liturgical or not is not so much a matter of being Biblical as it is about ensuring that the content of worship remains true to the catholic faith.  I have lived for many years in a non-conformist tradition of non-liturgical worship and could attest ad nauseum to tendency of free-form worship to escape from orthodoxy.

I think there are many solutions to slipping orthodoxy. Liturgy may be one of them, but it may also be less culturally appropriate than other possible solutions. And when it doesn’t even have the cultural support of the NT (let alone prescriptive) I’m inclined to see it as an artefact of a single time in world and church history.

I also find it ironic that the die-hard liturgists and freest-form pentecostals alike both call what we do in church worship, though they’d struggle to find anything in common with what they do. Surely worship can’t be defined by either, and I think it’s really the wrong word entirely.

(And I wasn’t suggesting we only do what is prescribed, just noting that it isn’t.)

It would seem that Dannii has as much trouble with the authority of the Archbishop of Sydney as the Bishop of Rome! Are you actually a Sydeny Anglican?

Hi Robert IW
Can’t help noticing that there are all sorts of renegades here on this forum. I don’t think we can assume all the participants are Sydney Anglicans.

That’s right, David.

I’m from Perth as is Jon.  I enjoy the dialogue.  It helps me understand where another worldview to my own is coming from, and it helps me to think through my own different views.

Cheers

Are you actually a Sydeny Anglican?

No of course not!

Danii writes

I’m not sure I see the problem, for from what I can see, the NT churches had none of this either (or at least not in a mandatory formalised way.)

Actually, it is very hard to work out what church looked like in the NT era, but there are key principles that arise.  The word of God governs the church, which should be read in the meeting, and taught.  There is provision for the ministry of the word to the congregation (prophesying) provided it is intelligible and is weighed up by the elders.  In the letters of Paul we see helpful summaries of the Christian faith.  All through the NT it is clear that we never graduate from needing God’s mercy. 

Now Danii, I am not arguing that the use of written creeds/ confessions etc is mandated by the New Testament, but I am suggesting that they help congregations remember key truths.  If they are not used at all, it is my experience that many congregations drift into pragmatism as the final authority, semi pelagian theology raises its ugly head, and sin and judgment tend to lose their place as central truths to understanding the gospel.  One only has to go to modern Christian funerals to see this happening: the eulogies now take pride of place over a sermon explaining the death and resurrection of our Lord and the implications for us.  Instead, the deceased is presented as a near sinless person, and this even at Christian funerals!

And then there is the authority of the Bible over the church.  When the only readings are those explained by the sermon we are unwittingly teaching people that the scriptures cannot stand alone.  Further, much of the Bible is not read at all.  The BCP ensured that the Bible was read through and that the Bible, not the sermon, was the supreme authority over us. 

Finally, I don’t think that the future lies in a return to set piece liturgy.  I am urging much more thought about what has been gained and what has been LOST by the changes in the way in which we do church.  I myself think the answer to what I see as a very serious problem is to encourage denominational leaders and respected theologians to workshop with clergy/ pastors what they do at church and critique what they do theologically.

Lamentably in my own denomination our denominational leaders do not appear to have the time to do this, and sometimes in the past bishops have used a stick, not encouragement in a workshop environment, to help others think through how we organise church.  However, we do need more rigorous thinking about church- I believe this is now urgent.

I also find it ironic that the die-hard liturgists and freest-form pentecostals alike both call what we do in church worship

Well, I am neither of these, but I do use the prayer book as an Anglican minister, and the BCP does not speak of Morning or Evening Prayer or the Lord’s Supper as worship, but orders (structured ways) in which we pray and in which we share in the Lord’s Supper.  The book itself is called the Book of Common Prayer, not the Book of Common Worship.  I don’t call what we do in church worship in a special sense, although of course I am always worshipping God (Romans 12:1-2)

Hello Philip

I agree that the services are “orders” not worship - that is something we do, whatever the “orders” are.  Similarly, I agree the the Lectionary (BCP or RCL) takes us through most of the territory covered in the Bible rather than just the pet passages of the current priest.

But in your first par (post #24) you only mention the NT church as gathering for ministry of the word, yet my reading of the NT and early church history sees them gathering for the breaking of bread as well.  Perhaps you have rectified this oversight by noting that the BCP has orders for The Lord’s Supper.

Your final comment about the BCP not being the Book of Common Worship is interesting in light of the Uniting Church’s publication “Uniting in Worship” a book by which the Uniting Church not shapes and orders its morning services.

Hi John.  I have no problem with indicating believers broke bread together, a normal term for eating food together as found in Luke and Acts.  I also have no problem with believers sharing together in the Lord’s Supper, remembering specifically what our Lord did for us on the cross, but that’s probably tangential to the main issue on this thread.

I’m keen to see theologians and pastors and those in denominational leadership deal with an urgent and pressing problem: our churches are increasingly no longer shaped by clear biblical principles that once guided what we did when we met.  These principles find expression in Cranmer’s preface and ‘Of Ceremonies’ and in the structure of his orders of service, and there would be great benefit for us all if we were to think very carefully now about how these principles might find expression in contemporary church meetings.  The need for this is urgent.

Philip Griffin - 12 August 2008 12:02 PM

I don’t call what we do in church worship in a special sense, although of course I am always worshipping God (Romans 12:1-2)

I don’t think Rom 12:1-2 says this. See the previous discussion of what worship is at here.

Hi Martin.  I don’t agree with your post on ‘worship’ (although I found your thoughts stimulating and constructive) but this is not the thread to debate that.  The issue at hand here as I see it is the drift in what we are doing in church away from biblical principles that ought to shape what we do to unbiblical pragmatism and semi-pelagianism.

John Clapton - 12 August 2008 12:20 PM

Hello Philip
.....
Your final comment about the BCP not being the Book of Common Worship is interesting in light of the Uniting Church’s publication “Uniting in Worship” a book by which the Uniting Church not shapes and orders its morning services.

Hi John,
The relatively recent publication Uniting in Worship does not hold a similar “authoritative” postion across Uniting Church congregations as the various editions of the Anglican “BCP” traditionally do.

As far as the word worship is concerned, from a linguistic perspective I see the word worship as having a semantic range that covers at least two distinct senses.

One sense of the word worship is used to refer to an approach/attitude in our relationship to God.
[see Compact Oxford sense 1 : “the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity"]

Another sense of the word worship is used to refer to particular gatherings of Christians or other religions.
[see Compact Oxford sense 2: “religious rites and ceremonies"]

Some people will intuitively use either of the two senses of the word without confusing them in their own mind. (I would count myself in that category although I sometimes intuitively use service for sense 2.)

As an exercise in language for the reader, people could see how many meanings of the English word board you can think of and how they may be partly connected....

Grace & peace,
Terry