Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
ConfessionalLutheran

Liturgical vs. non- Liturgical

Recommended Posts

This will be a debate that won't have any right or wrong answers. I'm going to go ahead and define my terms and give members here the opportunity to offer their reasons why they might prefer one over the other.

 

"Low Church" and "High Church"

Dennis Bratcher

Evangelical Protestants sometimes become offended when they hear that they are from a "low church" tradition. Indeed, in some cases those from more liturgical traditions use that term in a pejorative way to mean "less sophisticated" or "uneducated."* But then, Protestant Evangelicals are not beyond throwing around the term "high church" to mean "less spiritual than we."* The fact is, neither term in itself carries any of those negative connotations.

"Low Church" is a neutral term that simply describes a type of worship that does not follow a prescribed order of service, that does not follow certain liturgical patterns, and does not make use of developed ritual, ceremony, or worship accouterments* like vestments. From Webster's Dictionary: "Low Church (1710) tending esp. in Anglican worship to minimize emphasis on the priesthood, sacraments, and the ceremonial in worship and often to emphasize evangelical principles." By contrast: "High Church (1687) tending esp. in Anglican worship to stress the sacerdotal [priestly], liturgical, ceremonial, traditional, and Catholic elements in worship."

So the two terms simply describe attitudes, forms, or theologies of worship. Those traditions that follow more priestly models, ranging from Catholic to Anglican, or those that tend to follow a more liturgical form of worship in which the service is structured around a Theology of Word and Table, ranging from Lutheran to some Methodists, are considered "high church." *Many of the American-born traditions or those that reacted to the formality of other traditions, such as the Quakers and Puritans, adopted a “low church” approach to worship in which spontaneity was emphasized in matters ranging from prayer to sermons.

The differences between these two approaches to worship emerged from the Protestant Reformation. Many commonly understand the Reformation to be a theological revival (from the Protestant perspective) or a schism within the church over theological differences (from the Catholic perspective). While that is certainly true on one level, those theological differences were interwoven with other issues, including the nature of worship. While the Protestant confessions that emerged from the Reformation dealt with the theological issues, they also attempted to define the church in distinction from Catholic practices of worship that were seen at best as improper and at worst as heretical.

This can be exemplified in the split between Luther and Zwingli over this very issue.* Zwingli thought that Luther had not gone nearly far enough in breaking from Rome, while Luther genuinely wanted only to reform the Church, not totally remake it.*This led to the two well known criteria for church practice.* Luther held a maximalist view that whatever was not specifically forbidden in Scripture could be practiced by the Church in its worship.* So he continued many of the long established practices of the Church. Zwingli took the minimalist view and held that only those things that were specifically allowed in Scripture could be practiced in the Church.

Of course there were those like Menno Simons who thought Zwingli had not gone far enough and so spawned the Radical Reformation (Anabaptists, Mennonites).* Invariably, some like Jacob Amman thought Simons had sold out and moved still further (Amish).* The same thing happened in England as Cranmer followed Luther, with more radical reactions from George Fox (Quakers) and the Puritans.

For example the language of the Westminster Confession of the Puritans is especially pointed in declaring that “the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice, the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect.” (Westminster Confession, Chapter 29.2. Of the Lord's Supper; note the Scots Confession Chapter 18 - The Notes by Which the True Kirk Is Discerned from The False, and Who Shall Be Judge of Doctrine).* The Westminster Confession reflects not only theological differences but also the necessity of distinguishing emerging Protestantism from Catholicism in matters of practice. Especially relevant here is Zwingli's minimalist approach to worship or what some have called a regulative principle:

Chapter 21. Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath-day.

21.1. The light of nature shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and does good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. (The Westminster Confession)

In other words, this presents Zwingli's view of worship in which only those practices that are specifically commanded in Scripture or that have justification from Scripture in the practice of the early church are acceptable as legitimate means of worship.* In the context of the Reformation, this was not only a working out of the principle of sola scruptura, “scripture alone” as the basis for doctrine, but also a direct attack on what was understood to be unbiblical practices in worship in Catholicism.* This included such things as Catholic mass (as a reenactment of the death of Jesus), the multiplication of sacraments, and the more elaborate aspects of worship that had developed in the medieval period such as ornate vestments, incense, the proliferation of statues, the use of scepters, crucifixes, etc.. Along with this came criticism of opulent cathedrals and the call for more simplicity in worship.

This laid the groundwork for what would emerge as “low church” approaches to worship that attempted to return to a simplicity that was assumed to be biblically based.* It should be noted however, that the return to a biblical basis for worship only went as far as the New Testament church.* Ignored in this “back to the Bible” approach to worship were the very same elaborate rituals, priestly vestments, and magnificent places of worship that were characteristic of much of Old Testament worship, as well as that of first century Judaism.* It also ignores the rather obvious fact that Jesus himself as a first century Jew participated in those rituals of worship in those places without much condemnation (Jesus’ attack on the moneychangers in the Temple was not an attack on the practices of worship conducted there or on the Temple itself).

This reveals that there were other forces at work in the Reformation than simply a recovery of the acceptable way of worshipping God “instituted by himself.” In the concern to reject the excesses of medieval Catholicism, this minimalist approach to worship tended to invoke a subtle supercessionist approach to Scripture, which assumed that only what was directly commanded in the New Testament as a means of worship was revealed by God and therefore valid. In any case, the rejection of any practice not specifically commanded in the New Testament or practiced by the early church with biblical justification solidly laid the groundwork for the development of “low church” traditions of worship.

In another direction, the Anglican tradition also rejected Catholicism, largely to reject the authority of the papacy over the Church of England. But there were also both theological and practical aspects.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome has erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith. (The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Article 19 - The Church)

However, while moving away from some aspects of Catholicism, the Anglican tradition took a more traditionalist approach to worship.

Article 34 - The Traditions of the Church

It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word.

Whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely openly breaks the traditions and ceremonies of the Church which are not repugnant to the word of God, and are ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly that others may fear to do the like, as he that offends against common order of the Church, and hurts the authority of the magistrate, and wounds the conscience of the weak brethren.

Every particular or national Church has authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying. (The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion)

This might be described as a maximilist approach to worship, or what some have called a normative principle.* That is, while the minimalist approach viewed as acceptable in worship only what Scripture directly commands, this approach tends to view as acceptable in worship what Scripture does not directly forbid.

That what the Scripture forbids not, it allows, and what it allows, is not unlawful, and what is not unlawful, may lawfully be done. (Attributed to Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1566, by Henry Danvers, Innocency and Truth Vindicated, 1675).

Some have termed this approach a via media, a middle way between Catholicism and the more radical tendencies of Protestantism toward individualism, innovation, and rejection of all church tradition.* It is from this preservation of traditional practices of worship but within a decidedly Protestant context that “high-church” traditions of worship emerge.

While the Anglican tradition, along with Lutherans and other Protestant tradition, tended to gravitate to “high church” forms of worship, even within those traditions the influence of “low church” approaches came to be felt.* John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist tradition, was sometimes accused by his detractors of being "low church" because of his field preaching and training of lay-preachers outside the confines of normal church structure and structures.* But he vigorously defended against the charge.* He remained thoroughly Anglican and high church, while still continuing to emphasize evangelical principles.

The Methodist church, especially as it grew in the new United States, emerged as an interesting blend of low and high church practices. Modern Methodism still preserves both approaches in various congregations. Many American Presbyterians also managed to retain features of both types of worship.* However, the American versions of both Methodists and Presbyterians that emerged in the American Holiness Movement, along with Pentecostals, and others like Quakers, Brethren, and Churches of Christ, intentionally chose to move to "low church."

While there were certainly limits as to what might be allowed in worship with the Anglican approach, such as practices “repugnant to the word of God,” there is a great deal of freedom allowed in worship both in accepting traditional practices and in adapting the practices of worship to varying circumstances.* There is an interesting balance between practices accepted from church tradition and therefore seen as a source of unity in the church, and the disclaimer that such rules of practice are not decreed by God or Scripture.

. . . these orders and rules ensuing have been thought meet and convenient to be used and followed: not yet prescribing these rules as laws equivalent with the eternal word of God, and as of necessity to bind the consciences of her subjects in the nature of them considered in themselves; or as they should add any efficacy or more holiness to the virtue of public prayer, and to the sacraments, but as temporal orders mere ecclesiastical, without any vain superstition, and as rules in some part of discipline concerning decency, distinction, and order for the time. (Matthew Parker, The Advertisements, 1566)

It is perhaps in this balance between a recognition of the value of tradition in its role in unifying the church and fostering some degree of commonality between various communions of the Faith, and the allowance of adaptations of those traditions into different circumstances and contexts that strikes the via media between minimalist and maxamilist, between regulative and normative, approaches to worship.

Low Church attitudes, especially among American evangelicals, are often suspicious of structured worship, including emphasis on the sacraments and observance of rituals such as the Seasons of the Church Year.* Services are usually marked by an informality in which the congregation participates in the service in various ways, especially in prayer and testimony, which is often spontaneous.* Eucharist is generally celebrated infrequently and irregularly, sometimes only observed once or twice a year or not at all.

Yet, there is a renewed movement in many traditionally low church traditions to an emphasis on services of word and table, especially among heirs of the American Holiness tradition (see Word and Table:*Reflections on a Theology of Worship and What Is Liturgy?).**This seems to be an attempt to reintegrate the two dimensions of a concern with the sacramental and liturgical that is a part of Anglican and Wesleyan heritage with the evangelical emphasis that is also a crucial part of that identity.

Some criticize the modern Anglican/Episcopalian tradition for collapsing the via media back into Catholic forms of worship, and of being inflexible in allowing adaptation of worship into different contexts. Yet it may well be that the spirit of the Anglican tradition in trying to strike a balance between the value of tradition and liturgical worship on the one hand with the changing demands of a growing church and the dynamics of history on the other will provide the revitalization necessary to overcome the debates over worship in the modern church.* Rather than a point of contention, the growing influence of some aspects of more traditional forms of worship may instead provide some sense of unity.* It may well be that rather than high church or low church, the Wesleyan tradition as heirs of Anglicanism may provide Protestantism with a viable model of a via media for worship as well as for theology.

http://www.crivoice.org/lowhighchurch.html

 

This isn't meant to be a " one's better than the other," but " why I, personally prefer one form over the other." Answers can range from " it can be found or it's implied in the Bible," " it's part of my church's tradition," or even " I just like it better." So, shall we? I'm going to check back here later. I'm working on my application to Concordia Seminary. Blessings to you all.

Andrew

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer my liturgical church and I hold to its doctrine because I feel that the Lutheran Confessions are most directly based on the Holy Scriptures. I have felt God's grace working on me through the means of grace that are the Word and Sacraments. I have felt the blessings of community and the Holy Spirit has indeed inspired me to be much more than a pew- sitter or a talking head regarding theology. I have asked God to put me in a place where He can most effectively use me and glory be to Him, He did!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up attending a Lutheran church, but I never actually heard the term "high church" until after I finished college. Personally, I no longer agree with everything taught in the Lutheran church, overall I am "non-denominational." I suppose that would mean I identify more with "low church" now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I grew up attending a Lutheran church, but I never actually heard the term "high church" until after I finished college. Personally, I no longer agree with everything taught in the Lutheran church, overall I am "non-denominational." I suppose that would mean I identify more with "low church" now.

 

How interesting! Have you found an Evangelical place to worship yet, or are you still searching??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How interesting! Have you found an Evangelical place to worship yet, or are you still searching??

 

Right now I think the church my husband and I attend is Wesleyan, not positive on that. I haven't agreed with everything there, such as the strong emphasis they place on tithing. I just hope for a place where I can fellowship with other believers. It's getting more and more difficult to find a solid Biblical church it seems.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Right now I think the church my husband and I attend is Wesleyan, not positive on that. I haven't agreed with everything there, such as the strong emphasis they place on tithing. I just hope for a place where I can fellowship with other believers. It's getting more and more difficult to find a solid Biblical church it seems.

 

I pray you find the Biblical church you and your husband are looking for. God will surely bless you in your search.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I pray you find the Biblical church you and your husband are looking for. God will surely bless you in your search.

 

Thank you. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we go with both?

We see the Apostles teaching extemporaneously to multitudes as Jesus did. At the same time we see that the early church quickly developed creeds the could teach (1 Corinthians 15).

Truth can be taught in either fashion and heresy can be taught in either fashion.

Ultimately, one must seek a body of believers that are committed to learning biblical truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going with: if it aint broke, don't fix it.

 

Everything that's done in church should have a good reason for why it's done that way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going with: if it aint broke, don't fix it.

 

Everything that's done in church should have a good reason for why it's done that way.

 

Amen and I share that view.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going with: if it aint broke, don't fix it.

 

Everything that's done in church should have a good reason for why it's done that way.

Of course...if it is broke...fix it.

 

Sadly, every denomination has teachings that come from faulty tradition rather than biblical truth. Like the Bereans the congregants must challenge their teachers to provide biblical support for the teaching. The writer of Acts commended the Bereans for doing so. A healthy church will have biblically literate congregants who question church teachings and yet love their teachers. It seems to me that this is the way a church stays theologically sharp and ready to give an account for the hope we have within us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course...if it is broke...fix it.

 

Sadly, every denomination has teachings that come from faulty tradition rather than biblical truth. Like the Bereans the congregants must challenge their teachers to provide biblical support for the teaching.

 

Every denomination?

That would only be your assumption that congregants don't challenge their teachers to provide biblical support.

 

For conservative Presbyterians, Scripture is the for all doctrine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Every denomination?

That would only be your assumption that congregants don't challenge their teachers to provide biblical support.

 

For conservative Presbyterians, Scripture is the for all doctrine.

While I have much respect for solid Reformed theology, I suspect that even the conservative Presbyterians have cultural traditions that can be questioned. For example, where do we find congregational rule and presbyters in scripture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I have much respect for solid Reformed theology, I suspect that even the conservative Presbyterians have cultural traditions that can be questioned. For example, where do we find congregational rule and presbyters in scripture?

 

Elders or prebyteros in Greek were appointed to judge and rule. Exod. 18:13-26, Deut. 1:13, 1 Kings 12:6-8.

In the new testament we see the same. Acts 15:4, 1 Tim. 5:1, 5:17, Titus 1:5.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Elders or prebyteros in Greek were appointed to judge and rule. Exod. 18:13-26, Deut. 1:13, 1 Kings 12:6-8.

In the new testament we see the same. Acts 15:4, 1 Tim. 5:1, 5:17, Titus 1:5.

 

Elders lead over spiritual matters. Deacons over service needs. Where do we find congregational rule?

 

My point is that no denomination is perfect and precisely in line with the function of the early church. Traditions are created that can be helpful, but also can become idols that should be removed, much like King Josiah destroyed the serpent's staff that had turned from a symbol of God's healing to an idol being worshipped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Tim. 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthey of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.

Not just those elders who labor in word

​​​and doctrine, but especially those elders.

 

For congrational rule. 2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Tim. 6:3-5, Gal. 2:5,11, 4:16, 6:1.

​​​​

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Every denomination?

That would only be your assumption that congregants don't challenge their teachers to provide biblical support.

 

For conservative Presbyterians, Scripture is the for all doctrine.

 

It's that way for Confessional Lutherans, as well. Holy Scripture remains the standard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy