Travis, I am sorry you felt my comments to be elitsm and snobbery.

But you took me out of context. I had just finished writing that there were no simple answers to Julie's questions about liturgy. I was comparing the complexity of seeking answers to her questions (and the futility of seeking a simple answer) to the equal futility of a simplistic comparison of complex art to simple art.

I was not trying to compare liturgical forms of worship themselves to "high art" (and therefore, by way of contrast, non-liturgical forms to less complex art). Again, I'm sorry you misunderstood me.

"But how can one explain the differences in artistry between, say, a Beethoven symphony and modern American pop music? How does one compare the rhymes found in greeting cards with the poems of George Herbert (my favorite liturgical poet, by the way)? How can one describe the differences between the Sistene Chapel and the kind of Christian art that one commonly finds for sale in a Christian bookstore? These things are mysteries and are beyond the capability of mere words to explain."

That's just snobbery, and just as ignorant and judgmental as those who scoff at the "Cat-licks" and their "dead traditions".

I don't at all find it appealing to think of Christians from every century and corner of the earth singing the same song the same way. I want to hear the Greek Orthodox worship as Greek Orthodox, Africans worship as Africans, and the Navajo worship as Navajo, and so forth.

Let's be honest enough to admit when something just isn't our cup of tea, as liturgical worship isn't mine, and then be smart enough to realize that just doesn't matter. That we can learn a lot from forms we don't like, but in the end, there's no right way to worship, except to love God and our neighbors.

It seems that many have written extensively and I don't suppose that I will clarify it all. I also know a few books were already recommended, but I would also like to recommend one.

Simon Chan is an Asian Pentecostal who has written a rather spectacular (little) book on the liturgy and the theology behind it. If it helps to motivate an "emergent" Christian such as yourself, it comes recomended by Jonathan Frankes (at Biblical Seminary – a rather emerging friendly school)

http://www.amazon.com/Liturgical-Theology-Church-Worshiping-Community/dp/0830827633/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234752100&sr=8-1

As an Episcopalian I can say that it is pretty much right on the mark.

My childhood background was in the Byzantine Catholic Church – under Rome and the Pope, but looked just like Eastern Orthodox – the Holy Eucharist of St. John Chrysostom. And when I was a child (admittedly decades ago), the language was Old Slavonic. I still have a mass book using the Cyrillic alphabet. You think liturgy is indecipherable today? Ha. (Joking)

Along the way and across many decades, we've traversed Latin Rite RCC, Quaker home church, Presbyterian, non-denominational evangelical, and now, ELCA Lutheran – which has a traditional liturgical service – even wine with communion!

While I greatly enjoyed and spiritually grew from certain parts of the non-denom, I wearied of the 3 point sermons on happiness, success, etc that sounded more like Dr. Phil than like God, and of the happy-clappy-sappy music. I love rock n roll – but I'll take mine with the Stones or U2 or Coldplay. I don't need some weak elevator music stylized imitation in church.

What I don't understand is your experience that liturgicals have it all right – except that this seems to be a universal human experience that is well demonstrated within churches, rather than any perspective unique to liturgicals.

And I don't understand the sense (self induced) that you have to somehow be following each hymn and articulation or be subject to some sort of group-think liturgical judgment. As one of the EO sorts said here, an EO service is all about each person's response within the context of an overall commonality. Sit, stand, kneel – whatever – except for a few key times such as the reading of the gospel (stand up! "Wisdom, be attentive!") or the consecration. I don't mean to be harsh, and I am just making it up here, but I think that your (perhaps) exaggerated self awareness might be more related to your non-denom type of experience rather than to a liturgical one.

Two things I want to add on to here…

1. For me, at the core of it, the liturgy is simply more substantive. It's about something that transcends centuries, not some pastor consulting the latest church marketing trends to see "what sells". Even in today's trendy missional churches, sometimes it's the word "missional" that sells more than the act of mission. BTW, I especially appreciated someone's recent blog on MINO – missional in name only. No kidding on that one.

2. You mentioned somewhere that you crave "simple". To me, liturgical means just that. There is a simple beauty in reciting timeless prayers, especially on a Sunday, when one is reciting them with others around the world. Just like any structure that can be ultimately freeing, the structure of the liturgy frees me from the restrictions of time and place and worldly obligations as the liturgy creates space for me to enter into God's world. Just as a committed relationship such as marriage frees me to be honest and open and affords opportunities for growth that "dating" (ok now I've really dated myself) does not, the commitment to the structure of the liturgy frees me to respond to God and to hear his response to me.

Great question, btw. Thanks for the discussion.

In the end about 25-30 emerging/missional people came to Vespers, and you can read about what happened and links to the various reactions in my post on Orthodox emerging missional dialogue.

As for what "liturgy" means, perhaps the best explanation is given by the Orthodox theologian, Fr Alexander Schmemann, when he said:

"The Eucharist is a liturgy. And he who says liturgy today is likely to get involved in a controversy. For to some — the "liturgically minded" — of all the activities of the Church, liturgy is the most important, if not the only one. To others, liturgy is an esthetic and and spiritual deviation from the real task of the Church. There exist today "liturgical" and "non-liturgical" churches and Christians. But this controversy is unnecessary for it has its roots in one basic misunderstanding– the "liturgical" understanding of the liturgy. This is the reduction of the liturgy to "cultic" categories, its definition as a sacred act of worship, different as such not only from the "profane" area of life, but even from all other activities of the Church itself. But this is not the original meaning of the Greek word leitourgia. It meant an action by which a group of people become something corporately which they had not been as a mere collection of individuals — a whole greater than the sum of its parts. It meant also a function or "ministry" of a man or of a group on behalf of and in the interest of the whole community. Thus the leitourgia of ancient Israel was the corporate work of a chosen few to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah. And in this very act of preparation they became what they were called to be, the Israel of God, the chosen instrument of His purpose.

"Thus the Church itself is a leiturgia, a ministry, a calling to act in this world after the fashion of Christ, to bear testimony to Him and His kingdom. The eucharistic liturgy, therefore, must not be approached and understood in "liturgical" or "cultic" terms alone. Just as Christianity can — and must — be considered the end of religion, so the Christian liturgy in general, and the Eucharist in particular, are indeed the end of cult, of the sacred and religious act isolated from, and opposed to, the "profane" life of the community. The first condition for the understanding of liturgy is to forget about any specific "liturgical piety"."

Now on the issue of whether liturgy transforms a person. I suspect that liturgy like any other religious practice offers the opportunity for transformation. After all worship and praise of God, I think, in itself makes some difference at least until one's habitual sins and negative attitudes begin to get in the way again. I do not think that doing any kind of liturgy, however, automatically makes one a better person. After all as much as I have come to love the Eastern Orthodox liturgy I have to admit that the fact that the Serbian people are Serbian Orthodox did not prevent the Serbian government in the 1990s from conducting a genocidal war in Bosnia. One can in fact perform liturgies as a matter of routine or simply as a person dominated by sin. This person in spite of his or her words does not intend to do right. I think that a good liturgy should impact peoples lives in a positive manner and in fact does effect some peoples lives as it should. However, the force of original sin often blinds even the most faithful in many ways. Look at the Example of the Slave Owning Christian South's attitude toward slavery prior to the American Civil War. In spite of the fact that the South's religion was centered on Christ, the people of the South embraced slavery and after the Civil War racism. I see no reason to believe that the people of the liturgical churches have been any better at fighting against the forces of social economic or political evil.

Note. In my own life my increasing involvement in both Eastern Orthodox liturgy and Old Catholic liturgy I think have helped. I am much more interested in more traditional ways of seeing Jesus and the Trinity than prior to my experience with liturgy. However I am hardly a transformed wonderful person yet.

Glenn King

Mark – I agree that all churches have a liturgy and freak out when something different emerges. I think I'm just most curious about those that ascribe something transformative to their liturgy. Those that say that simply participating in this way will shape you as a person. Granted all churches assume something like that from their church services, but it is more upfront in so-called liturgical churches.

That said, I see few structural differences between them. Each service I have attended is generally arranged to lead worshippers to a moment of crescendo, of religious ecstasy, of stepping outside of oneself. For liturgical traditions, it is generally the Eucharist, the moment in which the congregation joins together and the service reaches its climax. In many evangelical circles, that moment is the sermon/invitation, where the congregation welcomes new or backslidden members or reaffirms their faith through the shared invitation to others. In more postmodern contexts I have experienced, the moment is in the conversation that takes the ecstatic place of the Eucharist and the sermon/invitation.

You are right that there are lots of folks pushing liturigical traditions as the way, the truth and the life. Which is just as silly as pushing seeker-sensitive or traditional protestant services. Most services seem to share more in common than not, in my opinion, as they all seek to get people to connect with God and step outside.

I think the whole "work of the people" might be tied to the pre-Vatican idea that the Mass was a kind of reincarnation of the sacrifice of Christ in real time. It was work, as I understand it, that all participated in this divine enfleshed reenactment. If that makes any sense. At least, that's what a Latin mass priest told me.

Most churches are sink-or-swim liturgy. When I started to attend an Episcopal church, I nearly got blisters on my thumbs from turning the pages. But, it was the prayers that kept me and the in-unison confessions of sin and the assurance of absolution. I've written about it on my blog, that the liturgy was a bridge of faith when I had none.

Now, of course, I mumble through half of it because I don't believe most of it. It's lost a lot of meaning. But no more meaning than every other kind of service.

I don't know if that answers any of your questions, but that's just my experience with worship and the liturgy.

If you are uncomfortable with the liturgy, I wouldn't recommend trying it… as a relative jokingly refers it to as Church Aerobics.