Three Reasons Why Churches Substitute Liturgy for Discipleship

By Robin G. Jordan

The substitution of liturgy for discipleship is not a problem confined to Anglican churches. It affects so-called non-liturgical churches as well as Lutheran and other liturgical churches. While non-liturgical churches may not use any set forms other than songs, their worship gatherings follow a basic pattern that is repeated every week. Rare is the church whose weekly worship gatherings do not have a recurring format. A typical format in "contemporary" churches is a worship set followed by a sermon. The origin of this pattern is traceable to the camp meetings and revivals of the nineteenth century.

The problem may be more acute in Anglican churches for three reasons. Among these reasons is that the view of liturgy found in a number of Anglican churches has been shaped by that of the late Medieval Catholic Church.

During the Middle Ages the priest’s offering of the bread and wine at the altar in the Mass would become so strongly associated in Medieval Catholic minds with Christ’s offering of himself on the cross that the celebration of the Mass came to be viewed as being of such paramount importance in the life of the Church that it superseded all other forms of devotion to God. It came to be seen as being the surest way of influencing God and winning his favor.

Whether or not we want to admit it, there is a strong element of magical thinking behind this belief, an element of magical thinking that is attributable to the pagan context of early Christianity and its tenuous grasp on the teaching of the apostles. A growing body of church tradition, which was viewed as supplementing apostolic teaching, eventually would supplant it.

This body of church tradition served as the primary vehicle for the transmission of this magical thinking which also has roots in the human condition. Magical thinking is the way that small children think. Their way of thinking provides the fertile soil in which such beliefs flourish and grow. It does not disappear as we grow older. It is overlaid by other ways of thinking.

The drift away from apostolic teaching began in apostolic times and is the focus of a number of Paul’s writings. It would be also the focus of the early Patristic writers.

The humanistic view that the closer a belief or practice is to apostolic times, the closer it is apostolic teaching, while appealing, has no basis. What we do find is a church that was divided in its opinions on a number of key issues even in apostolic times.

The English Reformers took the position that the New Testament was the most reliable account of apostolic teaching. They maintained that the early Patristic writers in their account of apostolic teaching were only reliable in so far as where and the degree to which they agreed with the New Testament account of apostolic teaching. Their position is the position of historic Anglicanism.

The New Testament account of apostolic teaching, while acknowledging the importance of the observance of the Lord’s Supper as a commemoration of Christ’s offering of himself on the cross and a proclamation of its saving power for all believers, does not take such an inflated view of the priest’s offering of the bread and wine at the altar. It also does not support the magical thinking that would become associated with the celebration of the Mass.

These beliefs are not even a subtheme in the apostolic writings. The dominant theme in these writings is discipleship—not only turning away from sin to Christ but also following him as Lord.

Through the Catholic Revival of the nineteenth century the late Medieval view of the celebration of the Mass was reintroduced in a number of Anglican churches. It influences the way their congregations view the liturgy. Attendance at Mass and the support of a priest to say Mass are given the highest priorities. Prayer, fasting, acts of mercy, and that sort of thing are viewed as secondary to Mass attendance. The Catholic Revival would also reintroduce the non-communicating Mass.

Even in churches that have no priest of their own and which must share a priest with one or more other churches, this view is carried over to how their congregations regard the service of Morning Prayer. This service, while it is different from the Mass, is still thought of at some level as something that is done to earn merit with God and from which the members of the congregation by their presence benefit. This is most evident in the way that the congregations enact the liturgy.

A second reason why the problem of substituting liturgy for discipleship is more acute in Anglican churches is the way some Anglicans have reacted to the Prayer Book revision of the last century and to other changes in the Church of England, the Episcopal Church, and other provinces of the Anglican Communion. These Anglicans chose to break with what was at the time their province in order to protect what they valued most.

Among the things that they valued most was a particular form of worship and the Prayer Book and the hymnal associated with this form of worship. It would become the primary focus of the churches that they formed. This is evident from their websites on the internet. They typically advertise themselves as “traditional Anglican churches” that use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and its hymnal companion, The Hymnal (1940).

For these congregations their common devotion to these two worship resources is an important bond that unites them. Their use of the 1928 Prayer Book and The Hymnal (1940) is an act of solidarity with what they hold dear.

Unfortunately these congregations, in making the preservation of a particular form of worship their focus, displaced what should be the focus of every church—the primary task that Christ gave his Church on earth--the spreading of the gospel and the making and forming of disciples.

Their intentions may have been well-meaning. They desired to worship God with a biblically orthodox and genuinely catholic liturgy and to preserve what they believed was an authentically Anglican way of following Christ. But the result was a shift in focus away from discipleship. They are now paying a very high price for what they did. Most of these churches are stagnant and dying.

This is not to say that the 1928 Prayer Book and The Hymnal (1940), when they are interpreted in accordance with Scripture and used in a thoughtful manner, are not useful resources for forming disciples. As with any service book and hymnal the danger is when they are allowed to become an end in themselves rather than used as means to an end.

A third reason why the problem of substituting liturgy for discipleship is more acute in Anglican churches is their size. Most Anglican churches are relatively small. One of the characteristics of small churches is that the weekly worship gathering is the principal time for evangelism, fellowship, formation, ministry, and worship. It is often the only time that the church meets. If a church function is suggested for a different time and day, a typical reaction from the members of a small church is that they are unable to take time from their busy lives to attend such a function. Sunday morning is the time that they have allocated to God and the church.

In small Anglican churches the liturgy is the primary focus of Sunday morning. While a few churches may have an adult Sunday school class, they are the exception, not the rule.

The challenge for church leaders who want to restore discipleship to its rightful place in the life of a local church is how they can leverage the liturgy to achieve this purpose.