Principles for Gospel-Shaped Worship (Part 1)

By Robin G. Jordan

To succeed in engaging and reaching unchurched population segments in North America the churches in an Anglican ecclesial body or network must proclaim the New Testament gospel. Doctrines that have no real basis in the Scriptures should not be allowed to dilute the gospel, much less displace it. Only the proclamation of the New Testament gospel has the power to transform lives.

Doctrines like the medieval Catholic-modern day Roman Catholic doctrine of eucharist sacrifice and the Lambeth doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice do not come from the Scriptures nor are they agreeable to the Scriptures. They are human innovations.

These doctrines affect primary matters. They are not doctrines on which Anglicans can agree to disagree. They are doctrines that have no place in an Anglican ecclesial body or network that unreservedly accepts the authority of the Bible and the Anglican formularies and is wholeheartedly committed to fulfilling the great commission. They are doctrines that should not be preached from its pulpits, taught in its classrooms, or expressed in its liturgies.

How then should an Anglican ecclesial body or network deal with worship practices that have their origins in the cultus of the medieval Catholic Church, in its system of religious beliefs and ritual. How should it deal with practices associated with the Lambeth doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice?

One argument is that these practices are adiophora—matters of indifference. They are matters that are not regarded as essential to faith. They are nevertheless permissible for Christians and allowable in church. The Scriptures neither mandate them nor do the Scriptures forbid them. This doctrine is known as the normative principle of worship.

Another argument is that elements of worship must have a clear warrant in Scripture. If the Bible does not enjoin a practice, it should not be followed. This doctrine is known as the regulative principle of worship.

A number of these practices, when considered apart from the origins and the doctrines with which they have a long association, at first glance may appear to be adiophora. Due to their origins and past and present doctrinal associations, however, they cannot be regarded as matters of indifference. They give expression to beliefs that do not come from the Scriptures and which are not agreeable to the Scriptures. They therefore should be avoided even though they may not be specifically prohibited by the Scriptures.

Against this view it is argued that their origins and past doctrinal association no longer hold any meaning for the modern day congregation and that Anglican worship would be impoverished without them. The problem with this seemingly reasonable argument is that congregations and clergy exist for whom the origins and doctrinal associations of these practices do have meaning. The doctrinal associations for them are not historical but current. These folk do change churches and bring their understanding of the practices with them to their new churches. Whenever they have an opportunity, they will teach this understanding to the congregation of the new church. If their understanding of the practices is shared by the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church, they will bolster their arguments with the claim that they are teaching what these two branches of Catholic Christianity teach. Consequently the first premise of this argument is not true. It may be true in some instances but it is not true in all cases.

Whether the elimination of these practices from Anglican worship would impoverish it is a subjective judgment. In accordance with the liturgical principle, “less is more,” their omission would greatly enhance the quality of Anglican worship: Anglican worship at its best is marked by “a noble simplicity.”

The apostle Paul in his epistles sets out a number of principles that historically have guided the conduct of worship in Anglican churches. While some things may be permissible, Paul writes, they may not helpful. Christians should respect the tender consciences of their fellow Christians. Whatever they do, they should do it for the glory of God. They should refrain from actions that may cause trouble to the church.

Christians in their gatherings should speak in a language that is understandable to outsiders. They should make greater use of the gifts of the Spirit that help build up the church. Whatever is done should be edifying to the church. It also should be done “in a proper and orderly way.” Whatever promotes erroneous belief and superstition should be avoided

When these principles are consistently applied, it quickly becomes evident that many of the practices that were reintroduced (or in some cases, introduced for the first time) in the Anglican Church in the nineteenth century really have no place in Christian worship. They cause trouble to the church. They are not edifying. They also promote erroneous belief and superstition.

In the sixteenth century the Caroline High Churchmen revived a number of practices that the English Reformers had rejected at the time of the Reformation. Archbishop William Laud who was a leading figure in this revival saw Scriptural warrants for this revival in1 Chronicles 16:29, Psalm 29:2, and Psalm 96:9, which contain a command to worship the Lord in “the beauty of holiness.” Laud interpreted this phrase as a reference to the ornaments of the church and the clergy. What it actually refers to is the spiritual state of the worshiper. These passages, when properly interpreted, are not a warrant to beautify church worship according to our own notions of beauty. Yet even today we may hear members of the clergy make reference to the beauty of holiness in their explanation of certain practices.

In the Old Testament we find specific instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle, its equipment, its adornment, the consecration and adornment of the priests who were to perform the rites in the Tabernacle, and the manner in which they were to perform these rites.  These instructions we may on occasion hear cited as establishing precedent for adorning the rites of the church, the buildings in which they are performed, and the ministers who perform them. The Old Testament’s description of the adornment of the Temple is also cited as establishing precedent for adorning church buildings. But does the Old Testament really establish precedent for the ornamentation of the church and the clergy. The instructions for the Tabernacle, its rites, and the Aaronic priesthood were given to a specific people and were specifically for them and their descendents. They were not intended to serve as precedent for the Church. Later generations of Jews would understand them to apply to the worship of the Temple but not to the worship of the synagogue. The Council of Jerusalem, in determining what requirements of the Law with which Gentile converts to the Christian faith would be expected to comply, did not see in these instructions precedent for how Christians should worship God.  From Paul’s writings we can gather that he and the first Christians also did not see them that way.

The Old Testament’s description of the adornment of the Temple is simply that—a description. Unless a passage describing a practice in the Bible is accompanied by clear evidence that whoever originally wrote the passage intended to establish a precedent in writing it and the precedent is applicable to Christians, it should not be interpreted as establishing a precedent for Christians. To do so is to misinterpret Scripture. This is one reason that we should not give too greater weight to the writings of the early Church Fathers, the Medieval Schoolmen, and the Caroline divines and should subject their thought to Scripture. They misinterpreted Scripture in a number of different ways. This is one of them. Subsequent generations of Christians have also misinterpreted Scripture in these ways. We should be similarly critical in reading their writings.

A principle that can be derived from Paul’s teaching about speaking in a language understandable to outsiders is that whatever is done in church worship should make sense to outsiders. It should not be strange, incomprehensible, or nonsensical to them. If anything that we do requires a lengthy explanation, we ought not to be doing it.

We need to recognize that visitors to our churches may not perceive our practices the way that we do. Without realizing it, we may have erected cultural barriers between ourselves and those we are seeking to engage and reach. We take these practices for granted—a familiar part of the way we worship. Visitors, however, may perceive them as quaint, alien, or pointless. In visitors’ eyes these practices may mark us as living in the past or in a different world from them. This first impression may be enough to make them decide not to return for a second visit.

Visitors may have negative associations with our practices. If visitors have a liturgical church background, the practices may evoke memories of bad experiences in past churches. If visitors have a non-liturgical church background, they may have picked up prejudices against these practices: the visitors’ initial reaction may be “this is not my kind of church” and the resulting discomfort may also be enough to keep them from coming back.

The practices may also create barriers to visitors’ participation in worship. Instead of adding to visitors’ worship experience, they take away from it. They may prevent visitors from focusing on what is most important.

In the second part of this article I will look at specific practices, their origins, their doctrinal associations, and the appropriateness of their use in the worship of an Anglican church that adheres to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrine of the Anglican formularies and for which making disciples is its first priority.