Anglican worship styles

[Justin Denholm]

A number of threads have raised questions about worship styles in Anglican churches. I have read discussions about Anglican distinctives in worship, and about selecting styles of worship for their missional effectiveness. I would be interested to hear about a range of worship styles that people have used or seen used in a helpful way.

Two questions to get us started:

1) Is worship style simply a matter of personal choice? What are the legitimate grounds on which we might choose one style over another - is it just about what we like or what is useful for mission?

2) Would people like to share some experiences they have had with alternative styles of worship in church services? (Please include high church/low church - I don't mean 'alternative' simply in the sense of gregorian chanting/taize/wilderness church/other, although I think it would be good to hear about these experiences as well).

Justin

[Tim Patrick]

JustinD wrote:

1) Is worship style simply a matter of personal choice? What are the legitimate grounds on which we might choose one style over another - is it just about what we like or what is useful for mission?

Something that I've been meaning to throw into the mix but haven't gotten around to is Article 34. I think it captures a fantastic, biblical principle of Anglianism. We have a healthy tradition that we mustn't just abort because we're being divisive - but at the same time, we're not slavishly bound to it and can move away from it if it's repugnant to God's word or if there are more edifying ways of doing church. The institution has an inbuilt trip-switch that respects and upholds Anglican culture, but doesn't allow it to take precedence over God's Word or mission. It's a magnificent statement and one that I think makes our denomination very able to take the best of all worlds. It's worth reproducing in full here -

Article XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

It's also worth reading the essay 'Of Ceremonies' which served as the preface to the BCP.

Tim

[Matt Williams]

Yes that is a great article, Tim!

It's important to note, though, that the 'we' who can alter traditions and ceremonial things for the purpose of edification is 'we' the particular or national church; the body with authority to authorise such things (in our case, I guess, the diocese, with some deference to General Synod). It's not 'we' as in you and me, which comes under the heading of breaking "through private judgement" and is supposed to be openly rebuked! So it's not quite as convenient an article for missional innovation as might first appear, but it nonetheless shows very wise foresight on the part of its authors and we might hope it was taken advantage of by our synods and leaders to create space for appropriate missional innovation rather than to suffocate it.

Regarding the broader question, I have noticed that while a lot of church styles were originally expressions of a particular theology, sometimes theology I would disagree with strongly, that theology is not successfully communicated by those expressions. For many laypeople, although they may believe passionately that something 'should' be, it is only because church has been done that way in their recent experience, or by someone they liked in the past. In other words, 'should' follows 'does', rather than theological commitment. Given churches are often more ruffled by changes in practice than changes in theology, it may be as well just to reinterpret symbolic worship actions to mean something good.

For that reason I would more likely baulk at aspects of worship style which I felt would probably communicate something I thought was dodgy (like genuflecting to the table) rather than aspects which don't necessarily communicate anything in particular, though perhaps they were introduced for a bad reason (like having candles lit on the Lord's table, dipping wafers at communion, or some articles of clothing). I might try to reform those things in due season, if it was going to be helpful for the congregation and its mission, but wouldn't draw the line at participating in them.

M

[Jereth]

Thanks for asking this question Justin. It gives me a chance to get onto another hobby horse of mine -- the large Anglican church with multiple congregations each catering to a different "taste", eg.
8.00 traditional prayer book robed service
10.00 Family/children oriented service
19.00 Youth oriented "freestyle" service with emphasis on contemporary music, expression, etc.

We've done a lot of talking on this forum about unity/disunity and the "consumerist" approach to religion. I want to suggest that this popular "targeted congregations" method of Sunday worship is a spectacular show of Christian disunity and consumerism!!

What you have is the local body of Christ physically separating from each other not because of doctrinal controversy, not because of second order issues, not because of discipline, but simply because of different taste in worship style. We tell ourselves we're still "one church", but is that really the case? Can you worship separately from other believers, take communion separately from them, sit under the Word separately from them, socialise separately from them, and still be "one church"? I don't think so. I have as much "fellowship" with someone from ST. Judes 9am or 5pm as I do with someone who goes to Holy Trinity Doncaster. They are effectively in a different church to me.

Not only is this a flaw in ecclesiology, IMO, but it is also pastorally damaging. (Not surprising -- bad theology invariably means bad living.) At 7.30 Rachel and I found that we had no one older to look up to, seek advice and wisdom from, etc. At 11 am we have no younger people to invigorate and drive us with their youthful passion and evangelistic fervor. And we still don't really have many older people to look up to --meaning people > 60 years of age who have walked with the Lord for many decades and endured in faith through thick and thin. We're all stranded on little demographic islands, which leaves us all the poorer. Rachel and I notice this starkly because we've both previously attended churches with a "cradle-to-grave" model, and experienced the richness of that.

Surely we have given in to the consumerist -- "take the product that suits your fancy"? IS there an alternative? Could we perhaps have a church where everyone meets together in the same time and place, and rotate through different worship styles over a month? Eg. week 1 traditional, week 2 relaxed modern, week 3 contemporary/experimental... and thereby learn to accept and accomodate to each other's tastes in worship style

Thoughts anyone?

Jereth

[Cat Patrick]

Hi Jereth

I think you're right in affirming the fantastic richness of a diverse gathering of God's people, be it across age ranges, culture, professions, socio-economic background, etc. I have very much appreciated the benefits of a wide age range when I've been part of congregations that have included that (my church in England had newborns as well as an incredibly faithful team visiting church members who could no longer make it along on a Sunday).

However I think that you fail to give credit where it is due.

Jereth wrote:

We've done a lot of talking on this forum about unity/disunity and the "consumerist" approach to religion. I want to suggest that this popular "targeted congregations" method of Sunday worship is a spectacular show of Christian disunity and consumerism!!
...
Surely we have given in to the consumerist -- "take the product that suits your fancy"?

I agree completely that if targeted congregations are simply to cater for the different, consumeristic attitudes of people within the church, then that is indeed a show of disunity and unnecessary divisions! But, if the division is for the sake of kingdom growth, then I think it deserves to be acknowledged as such.
Since you've used St Jude's as an example, I know that the reason behind the targeted congregations at St Jude's is a desire for mission. I've heard from the pulpit that Peter and Paul's agreement to have separate ministries to Jews and Gentiles (Galatians 2:9) is a biblical example of how we've structured our church.

I don't think you need to agree with that model, particularly, or even to like it. But since it is motivated by a genuine desire to seek to build God's church, and to structure ourselves most effectively for that mission, then I think to call it self-absorbed consumerism is unfair.

On an entirely practical note, using a building more than once on a Sunday is an efficient use of our resources. If we insisted that everyone who was part of a church had to meet at the same time, then the church could only be as big as the building. I think that is an unnecessary limitation to growth! But even without a particular target focus, different communities will look and feel differently depending on the people and gifts which God has placed in each. That's fantastic, and no doubt each of those different vibes will be attractive to different groups of people - but most likely those who are similar to the people in the congregation.

P.S. If you know any older people who would like to commit to ministering to students to Unichurch, then I know they'd be welcome! And if you're looking for young people showing evangelistic zeal, maybe you're just not looking young enough? The kids ministry have regularly evangelistic movie nights, and I know a certain six year old at 11am who recently hand-made invitations for 12 of her school friends to come to church and prays for her friends to know Jesus! She certainly challenges me with her enthusiasm!

[Jereth]

Cat Patrick wrote:

I agree completely that if targeted congregations are simply to cater for the different, consumeristic attitudes of people within the church, then that is indeed a show of disunity and unnecessary divisions! But, if the division is for the sake of kingdom growth, then I think it deserves to be acknowledged as such.
Since you've used St Jude's as an example, I know that the reason behind the targeted congregations at St Jude's is a desire for mission. I've heard from the pulpit that Peter and Paul's agreement to have separate ministries to Jews and Gentiles (Galatians 2:9) is a biblical example of how we've structured our church.

Hi Cat,

Thank you for your response.

Please note I did not call our targeted-congregation model "self-absorbed consumerism". All I was claiming was that by taking this approach we (and many other churches) are running things in a way that encourages people to be consumeristic in the way they attend church, and the trap is to become increasingly narrow and divided with time.

I know that consumerism was never the intention at St. Judes. You're right that the intention was in fact mission. I also heard that sermon about Galatians 2:9.

Let me ask you though: do you think it is fair to compare the Jewish and Gentile missions of the early church with our contemporary situation? I would suggest that Galatians 2:9 is quite particular to the primitive church, which dealt with the unique situation caused by the transition between Old and New covenants. Later in the NT (eg. Romans) we actually see Jews and Gentiles worshipping together, difficult as this was. Even later in Acts we see Paul trying to reach both groups.

I don't think it is really legit to extrapolate "Jews and Gentiles" to "Workers" and "Families".

Jereth

[Gordon Cheng]

Tim Patrick wrote:

Something that I've been meaning to throw into the mix but haven't gotten around to is Article 34.

That's a great Article.

Also, is there any clarity on what 'worship' means? My understanding is it means 'obedience', so to ask about 'worship styles' is synonymous with asking about 'obedience styles'.