Home » Posts tagged 'liturgy'
Tag Archives: liturgy
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Two)
The Suggestion of a Church Calendar
Perhaps as you read, I don’t have to argue for Christmas and Easter. You accept that already for your church calendar. Churches should acknowledge and honor the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They include the birth and resurrection in the prayers, singing, and preaching of their corporate worship.
I suggest that a church have a calendar with events for the worship of the Lord. Scripture does not require the special days, but a church should acknowledge the truth of them. They can do that by putting them on the calendar, very much like inserting them into an order of service.
The Requirement of Order
The belief, teaching, and practice of scripture requires order. You see order all over the Bible. This is the nature of God. Romans 8:29-30 reveal an order of salvation:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Here’s the order: (1) foreknowledge, (2) predestination to conform to the image of the Son, (3) call, (4) justification, and (5) glorification. Other examples of order exist. Consider Matthew 5:23-24:
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Here’s the order: (1) Decide to bring a gift to the altar, (2) remember brother has ought against you, (3) Leave the gift before the altar, (4) go, (5) be reconciled to the brother, (6) come back to the altar, (7) offer your gift at the altar.
The Truth of Order
God is a God of order. God requires order. “Order” translates the Greek, taxis. According to BDAG, it means: “an arrangement of things in sequence,” “a state of good order,” and “an arrangement in which someone or something functions.” Here are two usages of the word by the Apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 14:40, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
Colossians 2:5, “For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.”
Very often the priesthood, like that of Zacharias in Luke 1:8, is called an “order.” The worship of Israel required order. If you think about the tabernacle, it started with an outer court, then an inner court, the altar of burnt offering followed by the laver, and then into the holy place. It ended in the holy of holies. God prescribed order in the worship.
Worship, Order, and a Church Calendar
When one reads the account of the Lord’s Table in the New Testament one sees a particular order of observance. This is seen in Matthew 26:26-27, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:17-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Someone takes the bread, gives thanks, breaks it, explains it, partakes of it, remembers, and then in the same manner takes the cup. He takes the bread first and then the cup. One could say that the order makes sense as it will always.
True worship requires order. A calendar puts the events of Jesus’ life in an order and observes them according to that plan. It treats them like they occurred. They happened at a time of the year.
One does not have to put events on a calendar to give them acknowledgement and honor. Doing so, however, fulfills a principle of order, which is in the nature of God. That obeys doing things in order. It ensures the church will think on these events, meditate on them, emphasize them, and include them in prayer, singing, and preaching.
(More to Come)
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar
You Might Have a Liturgical Calendar
If you have Easter and Christmas on your calendar, you have a liturgical calendar. You might not call it one, but it still is. Should you though? Is it permissible or maybe even of value for a church to keep a liturgical calendar every year?
Let’s say that you mark Easter and Christmas at their traditional and maybe historical times. That means every year you acknowledge that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a virgin in Bethlehem about nine months apart. You do more than that. You make those a major emphasis in every aspect of the service on those days. That is liturgy.
The Liturgical Calendar, Per Se, Not in Bible, But…
Regulative Principle
Scripture doesn’t teach a New Testament, Christian, or church calendar of any kind. Based on that, I understand a rejection of these special days under a regulative principle of worship. The Bible does not regulate a Christian calendar. Is that end of discussion? I don’t think so.
I would still argue for a liturgical calendar, even if you don’t want to call it a liturgical calendar. The Bible does not require it either by precept, principle, or example. It also does not require using hymn books, offering plates, even the construction of church buildings for worship.
You can plan worship days on a calendar around the events of Jesus’ life, but the Bible doesn’t tell you to do that. Prayers, preaching, and singing in a true church should on a continual basis emphasize especially certain events in Jesus’ life. Biblical events really occurred. Churches should treat them like they did. It is right to do that.
Circumstances of Worship
Our church celebrated Christmas this year on December 24th. We went out and caroled on December 21st at the houses of seven different people or families. I did a three part Christmas series with sermons on December 10, 17, and 24. I would call that liturgy.
Even though a liturgical calendar, I contend, is not an element of worship, it does fall under a sub-category of a circumstance for worship. Every theme of a liturgical calendar fits within the elements of worship. As an example, for Christmas a church can bring Jesus’ birth into prayer, preaching, and singing. That is still regulating the service based on scripture.
I would further contend that the order of a calendar gives more necessary order to the worship of God. Order is in the nature of God. Worship in truth should reflect the truth about God. Liturgy itself is an order of service. Service should be orderly.
The Use of the Term “Liturgy”
Most Baptists do not use and have not used the term, “liturgy.” Professing Christians define liturgy as the standard order of events in a gathering of worship. When people attend church, they do things. They might start with prayer, sing a psalm, then sing a hymn, take up an offering, read scripture, pray again, preach a sermon, and then end in prayer. This order of events, planning out what the church will do in worship, is liturgy.
“Liturgy” is the transliteration of a Greek word in the New Testament, leitourgia. BDAG, the foremost New Testament lexicon says the word primarily means: “service of a public or formal type.” In certain instances, the word “minister” is the translation of leitourgos, another form of the word. This is “one engaged in administrative service.”
Here are three usages of leitourgia as “service of a public or formal type,” translated “ministration,” “service,” or “ministry”:
Luke 1:23, “And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.
Philippians 2:17, “Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.”
Hebrews 8:6, “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
All three of the usages relate to worship of God. They are service of a public or formal type.
Roman Catholic Liturgy?
Some oppose liturgy, because Roman Catholics use the word. Some would say liturgy originated out of Roman Catholicism. In the most fundamental way, liturgy is order of service. If you plan an order of service with prayer, singing, reading, and preaching, you prepared liturgy. If you plan that out further in a general way for your year, that’s a liturgical calendar.
Historical evidence exists for pre Roman Catholic liturgy. Of course, this isn’t the English word “liturgy” from the first three centuries, because English didn’t exist. However, liturgy in its most fundamental understanding existed in the first few centuries. Scripture also reveals the liturgical aspects of a worship service.
Liturgy of American Consumerism?
After preparing with many thoughts on this subject of liturgy, I read these paragraphs by Scott Aniol:
I always find it ironic when I hear Christians in America state with conviction—and a little bit of piety—that they won’t be tied down by “Catholic” traditions like the Church Calendar, and yet through their actual practices they prove to be constrained by a liturgical calendar of another sort—The Liturgical Calendar of American Consumerism.
They insist that they won’t celebrate Epiphany, the Baptism of Christ, Palm Sunday, Holy Week, Eastertide, Pentecost, Ascension Day, Trinity Sunday, Advent, or the traditional Twelve Days of Christmas.
And yet instead, their churches celebrate New Year’s Eve, Valentine’s Day, Easter Bunny Day, Mother’s Day, Memorial Day, Father’s Day, Independence Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and a Christmas season stretching from Thanksgiving to Christmas Day—days with customs rooted not in biblical events or Christian tradition, but in the tradition of American commercialism.
His article and a few to which he linked argues for liturgy in churches. A church could opt to plan out the traditions of American commercialism and plan into the calendar the events of Jesus’ life.
(More to Come)
Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show (part three)
Worship, Roman Catholic or Protestant
Differences
Roman Catholic George Farmer debated Protestant Allie Beth Stuckey on the Candace Owens Show. Picking up midway of part two, Owens challenged Stuckey about the silliness in evangelical worship. I see this as a legitimate criticism of evangelicalism, not however a legitimate promotion of Roman Catholicism.
Everything about Protestantism does not not translate to modern evangelicalism. Worship and church growth philosophy are two of these. These relate more to the decaying culture of Western civilization and its effect on the church.
I imagine far less change in the formal tradition of Roman Catholic liturgy than what occurred to Western evangelicalism as an offshoot of Protestantism. Built into the formal liturgy of Roman Catholicism is a dogma of a transcendent imagination of God. Cavernous cathedrals, stained glass windows, robes, huge wood carved lecterns, sacraments, and pipe organs, even removed from sincerity and true spiritual reality, communicate reverence and seriousness more than evangelical practices today. Both are false, just like Judaistic and Samaritan worship had become in Jesus’ time.
Perversions in True Worship
Stuckey could not give a coherent answer to Owen’s criticism of evangelical worship. She doesn’t show understanding of the problem from a biblical or theological perspective. Stuckey made some good points about seeker-sensitive church growth philosophy and its effects on worship. It’s true that when churches become man-centered through strategies of church growth, it corrupts worship. She didn’t seem concerned about the issue, which is normal for evangelicals. Very few care that God isn’t worshiped by their worldly, irreverent, intemperate, lustful music and atmosphere. This shapes a false view of God that undermines true evangelism and biblical sanctification.
God calls on us to worship Him in the beauty of His holiness (Psalm 96:9). Beauty is objective. It is defined by God and His nature and the perfections of His attributes. Modernism, which includes modern evangelicalism, ejects from objective beauty and, thus, true worship of God. This changes the true God in the imagination of the worshipers to a false God. This corrupts worship in a significant way akin to the corruption authored by Roman Catholicism.
The Gospel
John 3:5
Allie Beth Stuckey then asks George Farmer what the gospel is. He starts by talking about baptism and the eucharist, first quoting John 3:5. Farmer says that this verse is explicit for baptism as a necessity for salvation. It reads:
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Farmer points to baptismal regeneration as sola scriptura, using John 3:5 and saying he depends on scripture for his doctrine of salvation. He argues this is salvation by grace, because the child can do nothing. At the moment of baptism, we do nothing, so that must be grace. He says the early church agreed with that argument, and I’m assuming he refers to the patristic testimony for it. Farmer follows the infant sprinkling as a means of salvation by speaking of the avoidance of mortal sin to stay saved. He doesn’t explain that, but that clarifies his view.
Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2
Stuckey quotes Ephesians 2:8-9 from the ESV. She says his description of salvation is grace plus works, bringing merit or works to it. Stuckey explains the Catholic view of grace as an ability to earn the salvation. She continues with a mention of 2 Corinthians 5:21, that we become the righteousness of God in Christ.
Farmer rebuts Stuckey by saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe salvation by works. He compares infant sprinkling to irresistible grace. The child can’t resist. He says that as long as someone doesn’t commit a mortal sin from that point, he will go to heaven. Then Farmer brings in James 2, that God inscribes a person with grace and through works he receives more grace. He interprets James 2 as, you are not saved through faith alone.
Stuckey makes two arguments. She references election, that we’re chosen before the foundation of the world. Then she reinforces Ephesians 2:8-9 again. When Owens pushes back, she explains James 2. It is works that accompany faith, as seen in the context of the New Testament, all the clear passages for faith alone and grace alone.
Baptism and the Lord’s Table
The conversation comes back to baptism for Farmer. He says the person receives grace through baptism, so it is grace by which someone is saved. He quotes Chesterton to say that it is more than a symbol. This was the issue for Farmer for turning Catholic from Protestant. He sees baptism and the eucharist as more than symbols.
Stuckey had good things to say to Farmer, but it did not seem that she participated much in evangelism or apologetics with Roman Catholics. She needed refutations for the proof texts Farmer gave her. She also needed more verses on the contrast between grace and faith and works. Actually, Roman Catholics will almost never argue like Farmer. I can count with one hand out of thousands of Catholics, those who try to defend their beliefs. However, Church of Christ, Christian Church, and others will argue like Farmer or harder. They keep you sharp on the issues of the debate.
Farmer continued later with an explanation of the real presence of Christ in the elements. He said this is the earliest Christian teaching, found again and again in Christian writing. He taught baptism and the Lord’s Table as crucial to his becoming Roman Catholic. It is important to show that Roman Catholic history is not the history of true Christianity. False doctrine and practice already corrupted the church by earlier than the third century.
Final Comments
John 3:5
I don’t know what Stuckey thought about John 3:5. Farmer used it first and she said nothing about it. Many Protestants think “water” in John 3:5 is baptism. Martin Luther and John Calvin thought so, so maybe that’s why Stuckey wouldn’t touch it. Thomas Ross and I both believe it is natural birth, the water being amniotic fluid. In answering Nicodemus, Jesus described the second birth, born first of water and then second of the Spirit. He explains the new birth or being born again. A second birth is necessary, a spiritual one after a physical one. This reads clear to me and a quick exposition of this text would have been better.
James 2 and Romans 4
Stuckey should have dealt with justification, which is a good place to answer James 2. Abraham was justified by faith before God, as seen in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:1-6, the latter a good place to explain, also including Romans 3:20. Paul doesn’t mention baptism in Romans 3 through 5. In James 2, works justified Abraham before men, which means they “vindicated” him, another meaning of “justified.” A man shows his faith by his works. James explains this.
Galatians and Hebrews
I also think someone must go to Galatians and Hebrews to talk to a Roman Catholic, especially Galatians 2, 3, and 5, and then Hebrews 9 and 10. A good question to ask a Roman Catholic is if he believes he has full forgiveness of sins throughout all eternity. He should explicate four verses in Hebrews 9-10: 9:27-28, 10:10, 14. Through the one offering of Christ someone is forever perfected and sanctified. These are perfect tense verbs, completed action with ongoing results.
I like Galatians 5 to show that even adding one work to grace nullifies grace. Stuckey could have quoted Romans 11:6, which says if it’s grace it is no more works and if it is works, it is no more grace. Grace and works are mutually exclusive.
Preparation
This encounter between the three participants shows a need for regular evangelism. Stuckey seemed uncomfortable with boldness. She might not be able to be friends with the other two. And then maybe she doesn’t get the kind of show or podcast that she has. I don’t know.
Someone who does not in a regular way confront the lost over their false gospel or false religion may stay unprepared for a difficult occasion. It is hard to keep good arguments in your head if you don’t use them a lot through constant practice. Hopefully, as you listened to this conversation with these three, you were ready to give an answer for the glory of God.
Addenda
I wanted to add one more thing, which I thought about driving somewhere this afternoon. Farmer brought in infant sprinkling as salvation by grace. He said this was scriptural. Stuckey also should have pushed back against infant sprinkling. It’s not in the Bible anywhere. She could have gone to a number of places on this.
Obviously, Farmer could just bring the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, and tradition. When you can make it up as you go along, you can believe anything. Not only is infant sprinkling not in the Bible anywhere, but it is refuted by several places. I think of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, what doth hinder me from being baptized? Philip said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Infants can’t believe in Jesus, so they are still hindered from being baptized. Every example of baptism is believer’s baptism.
Recent Comments