Me: Enter the family room with excitement and the living room with thanks!
Wife: Ok…
Me: Most beautiful and ever loving wife, we are gathered here today to have a conversation. In this conversation our hearts will be opened and all our communications known, and from each other no secrets hid. Hear the thoughts of my heart by the guidance of your ears and mind that I may love you and worthily magnify the importance of this meeting, to the endurance of our family name. You may be seated.
Wife: What??
Me: We will now take part in a responsive conversation. After each line, please reply, “Thanks be to you, oh husband.”
Wife: You’re kidding.
Me: The grass has been cut and the hedges meticulously pruned.
Wife: [nothing]
Me: The grass has been cut and the hedges meticulously pruned.
Wife: [huffs] Thanks be to you, oh husband.
Me: The dog has been fed and the kitty litter cleaned and perfumed.
Wife: Thanks be to you, oh husband.
Me: We’re out of milk so please go to the store soon.
Wife: … Thanks be to you, oh husband.
Me: The finances are tight so please stop spending money.
Wife: Thanks be to you, oh husband.
Me: I like your pot roast, but I’d like to have veal parmesan, too.
Wife: Thanks be to you, oh husband.
Me: This is the word of the family.
Wife: Thanks.
Me: Please stand as we recite the family creed.
Wife: Seriously? [sighs]
Me and Wife: We believe in one family, one husband, one wife, two kids, a dog, and a cat. We believe in one marriage, one commitment under heaven. We believe in one anniversary, that shall be observed on the annual remembrance of our holy matrimony, one date, that shall not be forgotten, and one bond, that our marriage will have no end.
We believe in procreation, babies, and many children, and we look for the day when we will welcome them into our ever happy home.
Me: We will now hear petitions from the family.
Wife: You mean me?
Me: But first a moment of silence.
Wife: Uh, could we just talk?
Me: I lift up your thoughts in concern.
Wife: No, I mean, could we spend some time together?
Me: I lift up your thoughts in concern.
Wife: I want to have a real, normal relationship.
Me: I lift up your thoughts in concern.
Wife: You’re just repeating yourself. How do I know you’re listening?
Me: I lift up your thoughts in concern.
Wife: Good, because it would be really nice if we could get to know each other!
Me: Now we will confess our relationship failings.
Wife: You… want me to read this?
Me: Let us speak.
Wife: Okay. Most merciful husband, I confess that I have not listened to your family report. I have not loved our conversations with my whole heart. I have sinned against you, I repent, and I justly deserve your… wait… what if I didn’t do any of this?
Me: Your gracious husband forgives you and encourages you to be a great wife in all faithfulness forever. We will now share a hug.
Wife: I don’t want a hug. I want to talk.
[awkward hug]
Me: On the night I proposed, I took your hand, kneeled down, and gave you a ring, saying, “Take this, wear it: this is an engagement ring, which is given to you for the marrying of me.” After our marriage, I took you in my arms and said, “This is the consummation of our new covenant, which is done for you for the living with me. This do as often as you remember it.”
Wife, we now celebrate the joining of our marriage. By means of this kiss and affection, I show forth my love for you until we shall converse again.
Wife: Why do you keep talking like that? Can’t we just be normal and have a conversation?
Me: The gifts of the husband for the wife of the husband. Come.
Wife: You haven’t listened to what I’ve said. I’ve come every week to this meeting, hoping we’ll talk — that we’ll have a meaningful exchange. I want to hold you. I want to be held by you. I want us to laugh and cry together — do everything together. I want to have a growing-old-together-laughing-in-the-rain relationship with you. I want to be fallen in love with. I want to be romanced. I love you.
Me: You may now depart in peace.
Haha! Great analogy!
When put in these terms it points out how odd and mechanical our Sunday morning liturgy must sound to God.
He’s glad to have us show up to church, but I’m sure God gets a bit bored of the same old recitations. The question is: are we having a conversation with God? Don’t we prefer having a conversation?
Of course.
My teen daughter was asked by a friend, “how should I pray? I don’t know what to say?”
My daughter said, “when I pray I’m just talking to God, I usually start by saying, ‘Hi Jesus, how’s it going? I’m not doing great lately. Sorry I haven’t talked to you in a while. I wanted to ask Your help deciding what to do about’….”
I’ve learned a lot over the years from my kids. God may seem remote and scary, and it’s important to feel in awe of Him. But he loves us as His children, and He’d like to have a talk with us rather than be talked at.
Liturgy can be a positive thing, it gives unity and structure to our crazy world. People like to know what to expect and a standard church liturgy prevents individual ministers or church leaders from swerving too far afield or being heretical.
Just as we prefer a two way conversation, God does too. After praying, I try to be still to listen, which is important, but I’m not very good at it often times I admitt.
Also, as I tell my kids, don’t get discouraged because God’s answer is not always yes. He may say no or wait, but keep on talking with Him, He’s always there, He always loves us, and He always wants the best for us.
This is a great comment! You’ve nailed exactly my point — to get us thinking about the ways we fall into mechanical or odd ways of relating to God. And it’s worth laughing at ourselves from time to time as we go about those oddities!
Good point that liturgy can have a benefit of maintaining the orthodoxy of individual ministers. It definitely had that effect when the Nicene creed was written for that purpose. Still, even with liturgical churches we find orthodoxy wavering on a denominational level, as evidenced by the annual votes on whether they will change this or that doctrine amidst social pressures.
But overall, I think making church relational, as you and your daughters have with your relationships with God, is essential. With active engagement and worship. He wants to meet us there personally and corporately no matter what type of church we go to.
:D
Thanks JP! Glad to hear I was on the right track. It’s refreshing to read your blog posts knowing you’re not walking around on eggshells for fear of ruffling some feathers.
A baptist minister once told me that a sermon is “no good” unless you step on some toes.
Thanks JP and Richard for being toe steppers.
;)
It’s really a blessing to step out in courage. And I personally am so blessed by your continual support and encouragement of our ministry. Being a fool is so counter-culture to what we think and naturally tend towards as humans. But it’s an essential of the faith. The more we make it a together thing, the more we stand together, the more we are emboldened to be the right kind of Christians – fearless as lions, but loving as pups – knowing how to respond to a world that is programmed to hate us but set up to be astounded when we show Christ’s love along with a counter-culture, unbending message. Most of Christianity doesn’t love, or bends.
Thank you for being the foolish, Christ-following kind!
Great work John Peter! Painfully humorous. You captured the very real challenge associated with liturgical worship. The structure can be dehumanizing. I love the pic of you and Angela, her expressing frustration. Susan made some excellent points about the value of liturgy to keep folks on track.
One other challenge that impacts every church is this: how will you pray and communicate the Gospel in a way that makes sense to the people gathered? And who exactly are you trying to reach? Will the language and the forms which you use free people to enter into a full worship experience? Because language and culture is constantly shifting, even those with non-liturgical worship styles will be forced to make tough communication decisions which will make some people feel comfortable and free, others not so much.
Just as an example, many of us have been in churches and prayer groups in which particular forms of “Christianese” were employed. “I’m too blessed to be stressed.” And the forms are unique, depending on the denomination, the socio-economic mix of the congregation, the particular theological bent of the pastor, etc. “Oh Lord, we can do nothing without your grace…” “Sanctify us with your holy blood…” If you knew and spoke the language, you felt at home. But even in those times when I felt at home, I had this nagging question. If I bring my unbelieving friend here, will he or she feel comfortable?
I found that often, even in non-liturgical churches, the answer was no. That was true in part because the church was rightly out of step with the secular culture. But it was also true that, whether we knew it or not, we were just like the exclusive country clubs in town. We had our own way of talking, acting, and dressing and if you looked and spoke like us, you belonged.
There’s one new development to this church language/culture/style that I find a bit disconcerting. It’s what I would call “the cool dude pastor.” He wears dark wash jeans and t-shirt to lead his hip church. He’s sporting a 5 o’ clock shadow or the omnipresent goatee or soul patch, or whatever facial hair happens to be in style at the moment. In his ultra cool style he croons on the radio spot “We’re just real people following a real Jesus…” Ok, dude, I get it. We need churches that serve the contemporary culture, but it feels like you’re trying a little too hard.
Anyway, I’m done for now. Thanks for getting the conversation started…
Jon, those are excellent comments and questions! I think one of the turning points should be how would this look to my unbelieving friends? Who this minister to them? Not necessarily would it make them feel comfortable, because being in the presence of God isn’t always comfortable in that sense — we aren’t trying to remove him from church — but on the communication side, would this minister to them? If the answer is no, I think we need a change.
And this is where it reaches a dilemma. Lots and lots of church goers, as you well said, are comfortable with the Christianese that characterizes many subcultures of the church. That’s where the church needs to be discipled. I remember when I was at First Church when P. Greg came many years ago and he had to tell the church that the changes they were going to make with worship weren’t going to be what everyone likes, that they weren’t even going to be what he exactly wants, but the changes would be about “them” and he’d point to the doors of the building. And I think that’s key. Reaching the lost. Reaching our neighbors. Reaching our friends. Not making church people feel comfortable in their environment. But discipling them to rise above that in maturity to have a heart to reach the lost.
You’re so right. This is much more than a liturgy thing, but about how we commonly communicate with God. I can guarantee I would not feel comfortable anywhere someone says “I’m too blessed to be stressed.” Haha
And I COMPLETELY agree that the hipster, too cool, what’s up man, bro-pastor is trying too hard. I even find it funny when I see a pastor with thick rimmed glasses, because that was totally a thick-rimmed, nerd smart Rob Bell thing. So just like a guy who tries too hard to be suave with a girl, or a teacher who starts talking like his students to be cool, being too cool is just that.
Great comments! Great conversation.
Although Jon described your blog as painfully honest, it seemed to me more contemptuous – as if you were discounting the hearts of liturgical worshippers – somehow making a judgment of inferiority about the condition of their hearts or the depth of their response to God or the richness of their conversations with Him just because the format used isn’t one that meets the needs or expectations of the current popular style.
Personally, I’ve found that what keeps my heart open to His prompting and to the deepening of my relationship with Him is making the effort to stay balanced – to avoid getting in a rut of any kind. Not rejecting one form of worship over another, but recognizing what each has to offer. Not alway choosing casual worship tailored specifically for comfort and for my own cultural desires, because in that form of worship there is a danger that I lose track of the majesty and awe and sacredness of our God. And not always choosing worship that is highly structured, with liturgical responses, because in that form of worship there is a danger that in the weight of tradition and formality I lose track of the overwhelming joy in the intimacy of being His child.
Regardless of the form of worship, churches are over-focused on meeting the expectations and falling into the comfort zones of people they want to attract.
What attracts people to God is the evidence of authentic relationship – and authentic relationship with Him has nothing to do with the form of our worship. It has to do with how we love each other.
Worship is not about us at all. Worship is endlessly continuing all the time without ceasing at His feet – whether we are participating or not. When we gather here, in our fallen world, to worship in whatever format, we get a chance to join with that ongoing worship, however briefly. Our attempts enter into worship are solely about proclaiming to all the earth the majesty and honor and holiness and worthiness of our God. He revels in our worship, regardless of the form it takes or the clothes we wear – because it is all about submitting our hearts and glorifying Him.
It’s unfortunate you took this post as contemptuous. It wasn’t intended. In your comment you highlighted the danger of losing the intimacy with God through formality. It seems to me, then, you agree with the point of this post. One cannot put every point and every caveat in each post.
And although you may find it difficult at times to celebrate God’s sacredness in informal worship, many do find an awe-inspiring, fearsome God without repetitious statements and carefully planned responses.
Isn’t the point of this a relationship we’re encouraging? If Christ is Husband and we are Bride, isn’t this his analogy? Would you meet with your husband (if you are married) this way? If not, why would we ask it of the church? These are valid questions to be raised, even with the respect shown that many people enjoy that form, exactly because we’re talking about more than ourselves here, and even if there are valid answers.
Although worship isn’t about us, the way we come together certainly is important. It doesn’t only matter how much we love others, although that is of primary importance, if the service is in Latin, as an extreme example. It will still drive many away, who never get the chance to experience the love you refer to. Who never find it within the pages. Sure, it isn’t about us. It isn’t about creating comfortable faith. And I’m glad you worship with different styles. But I do think it’s about doing services in a way that brings people to a God who may want to communicate something off the script, as he did in the early church (different people brought different unplanned songs, psalms, or speaking a word God laid on their hearts). This goes beyond liturgy, no-liturgy, or whatever, to is there an opportunity in our services for organic Word, spontaneous worship, engaging faith?
I think the post puts a funny spin on habits we may not observe from a distance. And I wonder what we would do if we didn’t have the church history we do — not the doctrinal history, but the pattern of habits — would church look this way? My guess is it would communicate more closely to the culture it is found in, as an effective way to communicate the message of grace to its hearers. Is it worthwhile for our growth to ask? I think so.
But perhaps more importantly, I think we have to laugh at ourselves. I do at my eccentricities. Which is why I respect a liturgical pastor like Jon and a liturgical pastor’s wife like Susan so much for being willing to look at the positives and negatives and converse. I do think this is a funny, if not poignant, starter. Hopefully from it I, you, he, we all grow.
I’d also like to add I was in no way making a statement about the PEOPLE who worship or their hearts or ability to worship, hence the title above.
And both P. Jon and Susan raise valid points, as you do about glorifying God in worship.
Thank you for sharing. Communication is key to relationship between believers, as well, I suppose! And perspective helps us grow. God bless you.
I think that the last thing JP would wish to do is be judgmental or speak with distain toward another’s form of worship or try to read another’s heart.
I’m glad he sticks his neck out and is bold, but he is ever kind and loving in his intentions.
The blog is one if my favorite because it makes me think.
It’s a blessing that readers of this blog are moved to respond.
The uniting voice of all the above comments is an overwhelming love and commitment to worshipping The Lord with all our hearts!
I agree Susan! Only an opportunity for us to love each other more, as we seek to understand each other and grow in him!
I love your contribution and spirit. Wonderful attitude; I look forward to more of your insights!
I stepped away from this discussion for a few days, but it has not been far from my thoughts. I saw Janet’s post, and I thought her points were excellent. I could definitely understand why she responded the way that she did. John Peter’s blog, although presented in a humorous fashion, is still biting in its critique. “Painfully humorous” was the way that I described it.
When I read it, it was cute and funny, but it also stung. I think I got the point that John Peter was trying to make: liturgical worship (which just happens to be the way that I lead people in worship) can be awkward and irrelevant–people don’t talk to each other this way, why should we talk to God this way, and encourage others to do the same? That may not have been exactly John Peter’s point, but it can’t be far from it. So I think that I can understand why someone who worships and leads in a liturgical setting might be challenged and even put off by the post. I think Janet was right to push back in the way that she did. I also agree with the substance of Janet’s response, which, if I’m understanding it correctly, is that liturgical worship helps some people enter into the presence of God in a powerful way that freer forms of worship and prayer may not. I know that’s true. I don’t believe that one form of worship is superior to the other. The Body of Christ is diverse, and we need diverse forms to help people connect with God in worship.
But I think the blog post was excellent, even if it was painful to read, because it forced me to take a cold hard look at the forms that we’re using in worship. If they’re working, and if they help people to enter into the presence of God, we want to retain them. If our worship is not helping people a particular people group to connect with Jesus, we need to prayerfully consider changing the form, or develop new services which are designed to speak the language of that people group.
Bottom line, I think the John Peter’s blog post, and Janet’s response were excellent. “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” I think that is what a blog is supposed to do.
Sharpening is absolutely the goal. I like your ability to hear what people are saying. Thank you for participating in the sharpening and challenging!