Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy

I’ve been investigating the claims of Anglicanism recently and am working through a book titled “Liturgical Theology” by Simon Chan. Chan believes that the way we worship can affect what we believe. That sounded odd at first but some examples did come to mind.

It is obvious that Charismatics tend to “act out” much more in their services. There is more “audience participation” and motion, sometimes at the expense of teaching (i.e. “when the Spirit leads”). Contrast this with the more somber expressions of a more conservative denominational church in which laity participation is primarily sitting and listening to the sermon.

Is it a coincidence that so much more false teaching comes from the former’s circles, or that church can become seen as a tedious chore to be abandoned at one’s first opportunity away from home in the latter? Why are there generally more intellectuals in the latter and more emotionally-driven worshipers in the former?

More and more I am coming to believe that the choices of human persons reflect the character of their constitution. Human nature includes intellect and will which bring forth emotions. What we think affects how we choose to act, and those actions in turn can affect how we think. Consider a dance club. People go in ready to cut loose, to throw off daily concerns and just tune out for awhile. The actions they partake of help them to do so (no one goes to a dance club to read and reflect!). The loud music, drinks, lighting, etc. all contribute to a “loose” state of mind. And loose actions often follow.

Is it the same with church? I am starting to think so. The people that go to a typical evangelical church often have very little depth in their understanding of what the church teaches, so the worship format (including the sermon style, if not its content) becomes primary. Those who have strict biblical accuracy as their main concern will probably not choose a church where worship is “free” (as “free” sermons often go along with them). Those who need an emotional shot in the arm every service are probably not going to put up with a half hour expository sermon preceded by a stilted hymn or two.

In time past I would have thought this choice was a no-brainer. I was always willing to sacrifice experience for exposition. Because no evangelical church  seemed capable of both orthodox teaching and orthoprax worship, I simply erred on the side of teaching. I still think this was wise, but recently I am wondering if this is really a dilemma. Is there a place for the Christian who wishes to feel that their worship is meaningful and not simply check off correct doctrinal statements (but who refuses to give in to false teaching)?

Chan says this is what liturgy does. It connects Christians to Christ in a real way that is not simply via intellect nor emotion. The Church has historically taught that this occurs in the Eucharist, where we are made into Christ’s body through its consumption (in some sense). The standardized worship service ensures correct practice, and the strict standards for the clergy ensure correct teaching (that’s the theory anyway). Rather than self-styled services that are designed to attract non-believers (i.e., the non-church) to come to worship, the liturgical tradition exists to foster true communion between believers and between believers and Christ. And isn’t this what people of Christ should desire?

I’d love to hear your comments!