Protestantism abandonned?
Having read and appreciated Greg's last couple of posts, I thought I'd relate a recent service I attended:
The Architecture the Chapel was classic protestant: Seats downstairs on a slight curve, with a balcony on three sides.It is designed to make it clear that the church is the people of God gathering around the word of God.It is designed so that the congregation might all gather near the front of the chapel and be able to hear the word of the Lord, see one another's faces and hear one another's voices.
The irony of a recent service I attended was that everything was done to try to undermine everything the building was designed for.
And it was deliberate.
Presumably the more "intimate" atmosphere that was created was designed to make the sense of "worship" more authentic. Sadly I fear that what was achieved was merely that it was more Roman Catholic.
Let me explain:
The congregation was in darkness - the only faces that could be seen were those of the "worship leaders", on the stage, lit not by the thousands of candles, but by spotlights from the lighting rig that blocked much of the view to the stage: the spotlights colored to clothe the worship leaders in their priestly robes of purple - while the congregation was clothed in black.
From the lighting rig hung also such large speakers so greatly amplified that only the voices of the performers might be heard. We looked to them to see and hear where the worship was truly taking place, and we partook through participation only by seeing and hearing (and feeling the reverberations of) their priestly act.
There was a rood screen suspended 8 feet above their heads, the rood (cross) itself projected upon it.
There was even smoke rising into the air - not from the swinging of incense but from smoke machines...
The moment when the climax of the worship is reached is marked not by the ringing of a sacring bell
and the repetition of the "magic" words, "hoc est corpus meum" (this is my body), but by the moment when the shortest phrase of the song is repeated "haec sunt verba ad nauseum" (these are the words, until sickness results) and the drummer is slashing the cymbals without ceasing.
A few minutes later and the lights had been turned on, the smoke began to disperse, and the preacher approached the pulpit. We had been told that we would have a time of worship before we listened to the word being preached, and everything about the service had made it pretty clear that now that the music had faded and the preacher had begun, the part of the service where we worship was most certainly over. It was actually an excellent sermon expounding Genesis 3, with a powerful presentation of the gospel in which Christ bore the curse that had justly been pronounced on fallen mankind. But I couldn't help fearing that for some who were there it might have seemed something of an afterthought, or at least an anticlimax.
A Romish view of worship is not something that was surgically removed from protestants at the reformation. It is the kind of worship that we naturally tend to when our senses lead, and our minds (possibly) follow. It is the kind of worship we tend to as embodied spirits. When we have the preoccupation with musical excellence to the extent that it becomes affectually more important to us than the words we are in real danger of losing all that was gained in the Reformation.
Excellent post. I grew up in a roman catholic town and now attend an SBC church in the South.
Each day the protestant church seems to be sliding more and more towards its Roman roots.
1. Pastor as CEO instead of as elder.
2. Only the ordained can fulfill the mandated responsibilities of the church.
3. The term "lay minister" becoming more and more prevalant, seperating the professional Christians from everyone else.
4. Only those who have been to seminary can preach, a new rise of intellectual elitism, where apparently God only talks to those who have paid the money.
5. Services that are organized to the point where God had better make an appointment if he wants to move in a congregation.
6. Multi-campus organizations, which makes the senior pastor more the bishop over a geographical area instead of the shepherd of a local flock.
Posted by: Stephen Feather | Feb 12, 2008 8:15:45 AM
Great illustration to Mr. Gilbert's exposition!
Posted by: Travis Gilbert | Feb 12, 2008 9:47:27 AM
Interesting post. Can't say I disagree with anything in it...but one thing to consider: just because the worship in that church seemed more Catholic than Protestant, does not make the worship style wrong--anymore than a particular style is wrong because it seems charismatic, Pentecostal, Independent Baptist, or Church of Christ.
Posted by: Anonymous | Feb 12, 2008 11:56:02 AM
Anonymous,
That's a great question. There are several reasons why I think that the move away from Roman Catholic 'style' of worship were a good thing at the Reformation. Let me highlight 3 of them.
1) The dependence upon the priest (or in modern-day protestantism the worship leader) undermines the priesthood of all believers and the uniqueness of the high-priesthood of Jesus.
2) The focus on a particular moment as a climax of worship undermines the completed work of Christ on the cross as our sole basis for approaching God.
3) The detraction from the preaching of the word as the central act of worship denies that faith comes by hearing and we are justified by that faith alone.
In summary, style is not necessarily neutral: style is often a reflection of theology.
Posted by: Mike Gilbart-Smith | Feb 12, 2008 3:46:18 PM
Hi, I'm a new visitor. I was a bit confused by all this. I've been a Catholic all my life and I have attended services at many churches, but I've never experienced anything remotely like this. I'm not saying that I disagree that it happens, I'm just saying that in all the years I've been a Catholic, attending mass in different churches and different parts of the world (on vacation, etc.) I've never seen anything like this and it would be as foreign to me as it is to you. Although I understand that you might not agree with all the tenets, style, etc. of the Catholic faith and worship format, at my Roman Catholic parish the services are intimate and meaningful, with worshipful music and a reverent atmosphere. True, the altar is not as austere as it would be with some denominations, but I've never seen smoke machines, never witnessed any sort of gaudy or over-the-top climax (such as at the moment of transubstantiation). Just a calm, prayerful church service.
So, it confuses me that the experience you had is comparable in your view to a Catholic service. Perhaps I misunderstood your post.
In the end we are followers of the same Christ. I think we tend to get too preoccupied with the ways that others choose to worship Him.
Posted by: Brendan | Feb 12, 2008 4:14:40 PM
Mike,
In your recent post you stated 3 reasons why a move away from Roman Catholic worship is good, but #2 and #3 seem contradictory. Could you explain it a little more?
Posted by: Brian | Feb 12, 2008 7:37:07 PM
Brian,
Yes, I can see how you could think that I'm contradicting myself when I say we shouldn't seek some sort of 'climax' in worship, and yet I'm also saying that the word is "central".
I guess what I'm saying is that if anything else is placed in the center other than the preaching of the word, then we have undermined the true center of Christian worship: faith, which comes by hearing. When the center has become something that WE do rather than something that GOD does, we have replaced faith with works.
Brendan,
I think you are misunderstanding the way in which I'm comparing this to a Roman Catholic Service. Catholic services are not showy in the way the service I describe is; but they ARE focused on the important individuals (priest in Catholicism, worship leader in evangelicalism) rather than the whole gathered congregation; a central act (transubstantiation in catholicism, fervent singing in evangelicalism) and a sensory-centeredness, rather than a plain rather than the listening to the word.
Posted by: Mike Gilbart-Smith | Feb 14, 2008 4:38:55 PM
Wait - whoever said that plain "listening to the Word" was the ideal form of worship? In the Psalms we're called to praise Him with crashing cymbals, sounding trumpets, tambourine and harp, and those are just the instruments that come to mind. The early church gathered to sing songs of praise, amongst whatever else they did. Remember, they didn't have the Bible - just the Torah (and then only if it was a Jewish congregation).
And as many of us were first touched by the Holy Spirit in a very emotional way (because God knew that that was what was needed) it makes sense that believers seek an emotional connection to their faith. And music is one way that many people connect easily with their emotional self.
But in the same way that, while I might seek out my mom to discuss a deep issue, (and maybe receive some comfort) it doesn't mean I rely on her to fulfill all my needs, as I did when I was a child. And it is not healthy to remain "spiritual babes" either. Pastors and worship leaders have a responsibility to provide balance between what "feels good" and "what's good for you". Serve too much broccoli and people will find another place to be fed. Unfortunately, the opposite is NOT often true - people love to be made to "feel good". If you give a kid pizza and burgers all the time, he'll be happy. But he won't be healthy. The trick is to develop "appreciation" - which comes from knowledge and understanding. It's how you graduate a kid from pizza to lasagna to baked canneloni. That's why hymns are such great worship tools - they stimulate the emotions through music, but they also have intellectually stimulating texts. Simple praise songs are nice once in a while, (and for some are the "comfort food" of their worship experience) but a steady diet of that does not promote growth.
So in my opinion, anyway, balance is the key - feeding the heart and the head at the same time. We who lead worship, whether as a pastor, music leader or in whatever role, need to make sure we are feeding the entire person in each congregant - heart, mind and, ultimately, soul.
Posted by: Dave Hibbert | Mar 1, 2008 2:37:59 AM
This a very interesting post, because it is certianly one that relies on the perspective of the individual. The trend in Catholic liturgy is moving away from what some Catholics call the "Protestant" post Vatican II Mass towards a Pre-Vatican II Mass commonly called the Traditional Latin Mass. The reason you cite "focus on the priest" is one of the reasons often mentioned for this shift to the older form of the Mass. The whole congregation (TLM) is focused on the "Word made Flesh" all participants worshiping Christ, facing Jerusalem. The Mass is two-fold; first the "Liturgy of the Word", an Old Testament reading, a Psalm, a New Testament reading and finally a Gospel reading for a total of four citations of the Holy Bible. The priest (prysbeter) then gives a homily / Gospel reflection. After the "Liturgy of the Word". Starts the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" A representation of the "Last Supper" through Christ's "Suffering Death" and "Ressurection" (A mini holy week). Since Catholics believe in the literal interpretaion of the Gospel John Chapter 6. To take away the priest is like Jesus having the "Last Supper" in the upper room without the Apostles. I agree with you smoke machines and spotlights are for nightclubs, not houses of worship. You might find Fr. Z's blog called (What Does The Prayer Really Say?)at www.wdtprs.com interesting. Father Z's blog is devoted specically to a Christ centered worship.
Posted by: Joseph Fromm | Mar 28, 2008 9:21:24 PM