An Alternative Way of Worship for Progressive Churches (Keith Watkins)

With Bruce Epperly writing a series of posts on the importance of Progressive Theology, perhaps it is appropriate that we also have a conversation about worship in progressive churches.  I know of no one better equipped to lead this conversation than Dr. Keith Watkins.  Since I didn't go to Christian Theological Seminary, I didn't have the opportunity to study under Keith.  However, over the past 20 years or so, Keith and I have developed a strong friendship and have conversed regularly over the years, whether in person or in other forms, about worship.  Therefore, because of this, I have been his student and he my teacher.  Keith is now an emeritus professor, living in the Pacific Northwest, but still actively teaching us about matters of worship, ministry, theology, history (and of course bicycling) through his new blog Keith Watkins Historian.  In the post that I am republishing with Keith's permission, he lays out the foundations of what will be an extended series of posts outlining what progressive Christian worship might look like.  In a response to my comment at his blog, he makes clear the direction:  "In each entry I intend to state clearly what I believe to be the way churches like ours should plan and conduct worship. In the process, I will give a rationale supporting my proposals."

___________________________________________

An Alternative Way of Worship
for Progressive Churches
By Dr. Keith Watkins

“What you should do, Keith, is develop an alternative liturgy for people like us.” My friend made this proposal as we were driving to his home following the celebration of Holy Communion at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California. In earlier conversations, we had talked about our frequent disappointment with Sunday morning worship in churches of our own communion. He presumed that my long career as professor of worship, and my continuing interest in progressive Protestant church life, qualifies me to develop suggestions.

During the next few weeks, I intend to offer my reflections upon these matters. My goal is to outline characteristics of the church’s definitive liturgy of Word and Sacrament that meet three criteria: shaped by the historic tradition, expressed in the culture of our own time, and performed in a manner suitable to the occasion. In this first column of the series, I give a preview by noting characteristics of worship at All Saints Church, which I believe are consistent with these criteria.

First, the celebration conveys the sense that what is going on is important—important enough for the leaders to be well prepared and skilled in the performance of their respective parts of the liturgy. The liturgy is always well staged so that the visual and dramatic character of the event reinforces the meaning of the words and actions. The principal leader was at the top of his form. Although he and other leaders expressed a sense of personal presence, there was nothing trivial or inept about their words or actions.

Second, it was clearly an occasion of public worship rather than religious lecture, concert, seminar, support group, or political rally. By using the word worship, I mean that the primary orientation of the event was toward God who was addressed in the prayers, especially the prayers over the bread and wine during the communion. The scripture reading and sermon were presented in such a way that they prepared the congregants for their parts in the words and actions of praise. By public, I mean that participation was open to everyone. Except for the informal words and parish notes midway through the service, nothing was said or done in ways that implied congregants had to be insiders in order to understand and participate.

Third, the liturgy was fully consistent with the long-standing pattern of worship that began early in Christian history and, with important revisions, has continued in most churches ever since. At the same time, the liturgy at All Saints was revised in ways that allow it to be more appropriate for congregants at this progressive church. Contrary to the Prayer Book pattern, only one Scripture lesson was read rather than three. The ancient Nicene Creed was omitted. Most interesting to me was the fact that the Eucharistic prayer was carefully modified so that it more fully manifested conditions in the world and implications of the proclamation that had preceded this part of the liturgy.

While Episcopalians, as part of the Anglican Communion, maintain the tradition that the words of the Eucharistic prayer are to be read from the Book of Common Prayer, All Saints clergy make subtle variations in the early portion of the prayer while leaving unchanged the theologically important words at the prayer’s center. An exchange of e-mails with one of the church’s clergy indicates that the modifications of this prayer are developed or chosen with great care. Although the words of the service indicate an immediate awareness of current conditions, there is nothing left to chance in what was said and done.

Fourth, the style of the event was consistent with the geographical and cultural location of this church. All Saints Church is located at the very heart of Pasadena, California. This wealthy, politically important city east of Los Angeles is the center of major educational institutions, including Fuller Theological Seminary, museums, governmental buildings, commercial activities, and major churches. In some ways, this part of Los Angeles County, with its leaning toward politically progressive convictions, is the counter balance to politically conservative Orange County. Several years ago, a National Public Radio program featured All Saints in Pasadena and Saddleback Church in Mission Viejo as contrasting versions of churches that are appealing to younger, unchurched people in Southern California. All Saints Church appears to be advancing despite the malaise that marks many progressive churches. One reason is the skill with which the classic liturgy is adapted to the congregation’s natural constituency.

Fifth, the liturgy conveyed a sense of movement and energy. In part, this was because the order of service expressed the theological logic of the historic liturgy. The pacing, staging, language, and music of the morning were chosen and conducted in such a way that everyone was moved forward to a dramatic finale in communion. When we left church that morning, we felt as though we had actually done something that moved us from spiritual malaise to a sense of union with the God who comes to us in Jesus Christ.

Keith Watkins is a historian and theologian who has devoted his life to the study of worship and the the practical life of religious institutions. His graduate studies in Berkeley (Th.D. from Pacific School of Religion) focused on nineteenth-century liberalism and American religious studies. During his 33-year career at Christian Theological Seminary , he specialized in the history and theology of Christian worship. His books Liturgies in a Time When Cities Burn,    Faithful and Fair: Transcending Sexist Language in Worship, and The Great Thanksgiving: The Eucharistic Norm of Christian Worship, which illustrate this interest. His continuing interest in religious history is evident in his 2009 book A Visible Sign of God’s Presence: A History of the Yakama Christian Mission.  His blog, Keith Watkins Historian can be found here. 

.

Liturgical Order and the nature of the church

I posted a rather long piece the other day from Keith Watkins' book Celebrate with Thanksgiving (Chalice, 1991) on becoming the body of Christ in the eucharist.  Continuing that discussion, I'd like to raise the question of whether the way we order worship, especially in regards to where we place the Word and the Table, says something about how we view the nature of the church.  In essence Keith asks fellow Disciples whether they are a "bible-centered church, colored by eucharistic piety?" or are we a "sacramental church, braced by the Word of God?"  How we structure worship speaks to which of these two options we have chosen.

He notes that two patterns have emerged among Disciples congregations, with each implying a "distinct understanding of worship and doctrine of the church."  Beginning with those congregations that place the communion early, prior to the reading of the Scriptures and the preaching of the sermon, with what he refers to as an "intensified communion interlude," Disciples churches expressed a view of worship that is "consistent with non-sacramental Protestantism,"  where the church is seen primarily as a "community shaped by revelation in the form of doctrine and ethics."

This word-centered revelation presents the gospel of salvation through Christ, and it leads to the transformation of life.  Nevertheless, the main focus is what Christians are to believe and what they are to do about that belief.  (p. 20).

This version of worship, is often rooted in revivalism -- we gather at the Table, because that's what Disciples do, but the most important thing is making the pitch so that people can get saved.  It is a popular style of worship among congregations heavily influenced by church growth teachings.

On the other hand there is the version that places the communion at the end of the service.  In this view, "worship is understood as the Lord's Supper interpreted by the Word of God" (p. 20).  Keith goes on to write:

This idea is consistent with the sacramental approach to worship that marks the catholic impulse in Christianity.  It emphasizes God's self-disclosure in nature and history, asserting that salvation comes from participation in a community that embodies the divine Spirit.  This participation is by means of sacramental eating and drinking with God.  (pp. 20-21). 

Perhaps it's a remnant of my Episcopalian background, but I find myself -- as is true for Keith -- on the side of a sacramental understanding of worship.  I believe that Word and Sacrament belong together.  Although you don't need a sermon, necessarily, you do need the Word, even if it is the text of Scripture read, to give substance to what happens at the Table.  Although Disciples aren't a creedal people and thus there is room for differing views of what happens at the Table and who Jesus is for us, the Word read and proclaimed provides the starting point for what happens in the encounter that we have with the Living Christ at the Table, an encounter that is embodied in the elements of bread and wine and the gathered community. 

In the churches that I have pastored, we have always placed communion at the end of the service.  Thus, if I must choose, I see us being a sacramental church not a bible church.  The Bible provides the interpretation and the guidance, but we come to church not to encounter the Bible, but to encounter Christ our Lord, who meets us at the Table and then sends forth to minister in the world in which we live.  I simply don't know how this happens if communion comes early on, and then the sermon and invitation.