As a part-time seminarian myself, I think your three reasons are correct but incomplete because you underrate the substance of the traditional luturgies. It's not just that those luturgies are an anchor in turbulent cultural waters. They aren't historic and traditional for the sake of being historic and traditional - practitioners think there is something faithful and compelling and useful in those luturgies.
With this in mind, I submit that your three solutions, which boil down to theology, theology, and theology, are a bit like the "they don't know" meme. "They don't know how historical, deep, and satisfying our theology is!" Meanwhile everyone else is (or thinks they are) encountering God Himself every week through liturgical worship in ways they never did or could in reformed evangelical churches.
The notion of sacramentalism is all but absent, more like optional, in the non-denominational and reformed Baptist churches I’ve been around.
As a Catholic, I believe I encounter and commune with Christ in his body, blood, soul, and divinity every time I receive it in mass. I am taught, and experience, that I am healed and transformed through the preparation for and reception of the elements. No theology study feeds me in this way. And I truly love theology and biblical study.
And putting right and wrong, godly and worldly completely to the side ... a liturgical service is appealing in part because it's an experience that one cannot get anywhere else. If I want a slick motivational speech I can watch a TED Talk. If I want a pop music concert, I can go see Taylor Swift. When I go to an evangelical service, I know I'm getting a knockoff TED Talk and a pop concert. The liturgical service offers me something I simply can't get anywhere else, not just a less interesting version of entertainment I can get elsewhere.
One would think in this age of niche marketing and the long tail, more church leaders would recognize the value in not following the "leaders" and imitating what is popular, but instead figuring out what they can offer underserved markets.
I found myself (raised Evangelical and now Catholic) nodding along to much of the article. But then I got to the end where he said they don’t need mysticism they just need better theology. And I don’t understand this rejection of mysticism especially when so many Evangelical churches embrace rock music, production values and Ted talks.
Great point. The church has been trying to copy pop culture but as always they do a poor job of it. The thing is young people dont want to church to mirror the world. They want something entirely different. Thats why they’re at church and not a Post Malone concert.
Yes, the liturgy is sacred. Meaning "set apart" from the profane things of the world. Turning Christian worship into a motivational speech and a rock concert is profaning the sacred. It seems to me like one of the worst things you could possibly do.
But should it even be about a market. Your church should be about the truth.
Surely so many churches have been very foolish, when the youth like the prodigal son wish to take the inheritance of their father and leave to seek fulfillment in the world. The father waited maintaining his home in the truth, until the son returned having discovered that all the promises of the world were hollow.
What does it say to your children when they return home to find it has remodeled itself to be more like the world.
Oh, absolutely. The church should be about the truth, and church leaders should be doing preserving the liturgy and orthodox doctrine because it's true and holy.
My point is that if the leaders of these churches were nothing but frauds trying to make a buck off the rubes, they'd still work to maintain traditional liturgy because it would bring in the sheep who don't want to be sheared (or more accurately fleeced) by the non-liturgical churches.
No, the problem is that they're not even honest thieves. Church leaders can say they're dumping liturgical worship because they need to be relevant in order to attract new members, but the truth is they are dumping it because they don't want to worship liturgically. Whether that's human laziness, pride in their own inventiveness, or demonic influence I leave to others.
I have a number of liturgically conservative pastor friends. One was noting that if the rationale for modern praise music in the service is to appeal to the seekers, why were those songs part of the order of worship at pastoral retreats? The answer is simple: "it's for the seekers/unchurched/new people" is just an excuse.
Agree. Our family left the Anglican/Episcopal Church because of its increasing drift away from orthodox Christianity, but not because of the liturgy. At its best, traditional liturgy conveys the holiness of God, and His splendor. As with the author, I am Reformed in my own theology, which has a post-conversion sanctification component and solid exegetical preaching. But I do miss the beauty of the Anglican rite.
Very good! I especially agree with your three key factors — those definitely seem to be behind the shift. You put your finger on it.
I’m not exactly young (42), but I am part of this shift, and I’ve been increasingly drawn to the liturgical and sacramental practices of Anglicanism over the past couple of years. From my perspective, the idea of a more “intellectually satisfying” faith that you posit as a solution didn’t do the trick for me: If I wanted intellectual rigor, I’d simply dig deeper wells in Reformed theology. Instead, I got to the point that a primarily intellectual faith wasn’t enough, and I began to hunger for a more physical, experiential, embodied, and sacramental faith. To put it crudely, I found that it was no longer enough to order a Banner of Truth volume that would help me think truer thoughts about the Lord’s Supper, and instead simply found that I was hungry for the body and blood of Christ.
Thank you for the encouragement Josh. That is a really interesting point. Liturgy in some sense makes religion more tangible. I was talking this over with a friend over the weekend, and he suggested that liturgy "externalizes" religion and that is part of the draw for people. That was a real thinker for me.
I guess I would push you a bit there: liturgy MAKES religion/God tangible. I recall someone describing the sacraments as "concrete ways of running into God."
I suppose if you and I were brains in a vat (hah!) or angelic beings, we would be satisfied with a faith that was merely intellectual. However, this intellect and will of ours in housed in a body!
I find that the liturgy responds to our embodied nature as souls WITH bodies. Liturgy (specifically through the sacraments) make God tangible for we who are embodied creatures.
(I find the worship of the Book of Revelation envisions much of such embodied worship; I'll shut up now, haha)
I’ve observed this trend (as an Anglican), and find it interesting. One thing I’d encourage you to think on is the role of the charismatic church planting pastor in evangelicalism. I became Anglican in Seattle in the early 2010s. Our primary source of converts was ex-Mars Hill members. Many nondenominational congregations seem so dominated by the particular vision and personality of an individual pastor, who often is subject to little or no oversight. When that goes south, disaffected ex-members are often very drawn to churches that center the tradition, not the man at the pulpit, and that offer strong governance.
Interestingly enough, my shift to Eastern Orthodoxy from evangelicalism largely had to do with the intellectual satisfaction. I received graduate degrees from an evangelical seminary in theology and church history (TEDS in Chicago), and further study kept confirming for me EO beliefs. That said, there were some very helpful Protestant scholars who helped me with their works along the way. It will be fascinating to see what impact people like Hans Boersma and Michael Gorman had on young evangelicals in this regard. I'm also 42 and "not exactly young" haha
Just come all the way home. Heal the schism. If Anglican liturgy is appealing to you, look into the ordinariate of the chair of St. Peter- you can be in communion with the timeless church and worship in the Anglican style. Also read John Henry Newman
I thought about engaging with this essay, because I usually don’t engage much online anyways. This will probably solidify that conviction that it is usually not worth it.
I am a Catholic more or less my whole life. Less as I married and my wife and I hopped around trying out different denominations. When I had children I reverted to a more sincere adherence to the precepts of the Catholic Church.
In charity, I think it is reasonable to be concerned about draws from other denominations or the pull to secular beliefs. It merits some introspection to find out shortcomings as Christians. But I say this, anecdotally: I think an oversight into this concern is neglecting the possibility that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are true, and that is why they draw others to them.
We can quibble about why or why not, I am just a layperson, and not a serious apologist. I only add this as a consideration
Newman might be an extra helpful figure/writer for anyone wrestling with why a Protestant intellectual would leave everything behind (friends, students, congregation) to follow Christ within the Catholic Church.
As a young-ish person who left evangelicalism, I particularly agree with the first reason cited. I would also add that I found refuge in a liturgical tradition from the politicization and polarization that’s rampant in many evangelical churches. And when the central element of service is the Eucharist (instead of a sermon, as in evangelical churches), it’s much easier to leave Sunday service feeling united with God and with fellow churchgoers. I have attended more than a few services of solid, Bible-believing evangelical churches where the sermons were positions on an upcoming Supreme Court case or defenses of a particular economic model.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Grew up Southern Baptist and still espouse certain doctrines I was raised on, but often feel that when I'm in a protestant church the congregation is largely "personality driven." For reference I grew up under John Piper so that was a hefty personality to sit with every week. As I've explored more liturgical services I can't help but feel the space to truly worship. When the preacher is not the central focus of the Sunday service I am left with a liturgy which is sound, time-tested, and not reliant on man's intellect to explain.
Anglicanism (specifically ACNA). It was initially simple curiosity and an appreciation of the Book of Common Prayer that led me to explore Anglicanism. Once I’d attended several services, I found the general tenor of both the service and congregants to be less wedded to political ideologies than I had personally experienced in the evangelical church. I still hear some overtly political things at an ACNA church (both from the congregation and from the pulpit), but overall it’s much less part of the fabric of the church body.
Come all the way home. Heal the schism. Read Newman. As an aside I’ve heard maybe 2 political homilies in my entire life- it’s definitely focused on the Bible. https://ordinariate.net If you love the Anglican liturgy check out an ordinariate parish.
I am a prime example of what you are speaking about in this article. 10 years ago I was in a Baptist Church, now I am an Anglican. Coincidence? Not really. Mostly because I became tired of the evangelical culture being an inch deep and a mile wide. Is there a solution? Yes! But unfortunately for you, this would mean more people leaving the evangelicals for the liturgical. Once you expose them to historical theology, they won’t stay in an evangelical non-denominational context.
Come all the way home. Heal the schism. Look into the history of Anglicanism with an open mind and heart. If you love the liturgy look into the ordinariate https://ordinariate.net
I grew up Southern Baptist but the older I get, the more I feel uncomfortable with the theatrics, the modernity, and the gimmicks. Smoke machines, dark lights, moody music during the alter call, everything to juice up some dopamine. It’s all starting to feel icky, and I don’t think that makes me a bad Christian.
My brother felt the same way and he converted to Catholicism. That decision is starting to make more sense to me now.
Thank you so much for this analysis. You have such clear insight and, I think, wisdom about the flight from historically untethered churches.
I’m particularly keen on your rejection of one-and-done Sinner’s Prayer salvation. You’re right. It isn’t biblical, and it just doesn’t line up with lived experience. In fact, that theology produces a lot of spiritual anxiety in people who keep sinning and feel that the church has no account of this kind of problem and nothing to offer the sin-sick Christian.
Somewhat relatedly, I find difficult to understand is the scripture v tradition argument. Scripture IS the tradition of the church. It was formally assembled as scripture by people who worshipped and shared that scripture in a liturgical context. In fact, reading scripture alone with your morning coffee is a really new way to engage with the word of God, which would have been received audibly in a liturgical context for many centuries.
Also, the sacraments and mysticism get a bad rap in the evangelical US. But that’s a least in part because people seem to have forgotten that mysticism is nothing more or less than contact with God, which is to say, Christ, which is to say our salvation (the person, not the idea). There’s nothing esoteric about Christian mysticism. It’s what we should mean when we say that we are saved and are being saved: ‘Yes, I’ve met him and fallen in love and am in a living relationship with God’ <—-mystical experience
One last consideration. I’m not sure theology is the answer, unless by theology you mean knowledge of God, which can only be obtained by revelation, which means grace, which means (again) mysticism.
Though clearly an important, God-given faculty, the rational mind is only one of myriad faculties through which God communicates his reality to us. The overemphasis on intellectual assent and theological discourse (never mind the body or the natural world, never mind aesthetics, never mind saints, those luminous people who are made bright by the light of Christ) leaves a vaguely gnostic taste in my mouth (all mind, no body—all rational understanding—no room for the mystery of his grace in the sacraments).
I’m probably being unfair in that last bit, but that is my imperfect impression. I hope you’ll keep writing on this theme! It’s an important one.
Interesting read. I grew up in a non-denominational church, fell away late in high school, and later converted to Catholicism four years ago at 25.
You definitely hit on a good point regarding tradition and historical continuity. We never discussed the early church in my church growing up. When I started to look into early church history, I almost felt as though this great, rich history was hidden from me…maybe on purpose? The practices of the early church did not resemble what I grew up with.
Could write a lot more on the topic, but I’ve got to get to bed.
This has been on my heart, as well. Our church is in the process of restoring weekly communion after decades of once-a-month. The sooner we evangelicals give up on "make it up as you go" ecclesiology and freestyle worship, the better.
Take it from one who knows, there are different kinds of Catholic converts. Some, like me, are drawn to the original nugget of Christian truth that lies buried under all the hoopla and shows up over centuries in certain very holy men and women, all saying the same thing (b.t.w. - overall, the institutional church has pretty much ignored them) and second, to mystery, to a faith that embraces the Presence of Christ in a way that defies explanation. Then, there are the ones who "convert" because they want to get married and their intended won't go through with it without them. And last, but not least, are the ones who just want a tradition (I do not say faith) that gives them all the answers. When you look out at the Wide World and all its uncertainty, then try to imagine what it must be like to be in your twenties or thirties to be looking out at the same thing, it's not hard to understand why the Catholicism that has a rule or an exercise or an answer for every aspect of life might be pretty attractive. I ache for these young men and women, because there is such depth and richness in the Catholic faith, but they may never find it. All the methods and exercises may be great to get started, but if they stop there, they will miss so much.
I appreciated this article a great deal. As a Reformed Christian (raised in the Baptist persuasion) who finds himself in the middle space between departing the Evangelical fame and stepping gently into "High Church" (Orthodox, to be specific), I wish to add one critique. Forgive me if this has been asked-and-answered elsewhere, for I didn't read every comment.
Your third solution, providing a more robust intellectual theology, misses the mark, I feel. If I can be so bold as to speak for many of the young men on the path with me, I feel it is necessary to say that the hyper-intellectualization of the faith is one of the lynchpins that set this path in motion. My experience in Evangelicalism provided me with a veritable mental library of knowledge *about* God, but it had very little to offer me in the way of experiencing God outside of the manner in which one would experience any other topic of study. I could "experience" God the same way I could experience Waterloo or the Great Depression - simply by thinking real hard about it. As if an abundance of academic knowledge of God could ever get me through the dark nights of the soul.
You see, Evangelicalism, broadly writ, provides the believer with not tools to interact with Christ outside of our Left Brain, the same place we process math and solidify abstract concepts. It gave me no mysterious objects with which to pry open the doors of my mental library to actually see, taste, know, and love God fully and rightly. For how can one love a topical study?
Nothing is real in Evangelicalism. Everything is a remembrance, an allegory, a symbol (although they almost always misuse the word symbol, missing its meaning entirely), with no tangible or, God forbid, mysterious nature to it.
Anyway, I really did appreciate your article. Thank you!
Thank you for the encouragement, and I think that is an interesting and fair critique. Having largely existed and evangelical spaces that would be characterized as anti-intellectual, it is helpful to hear that there is a ditch on the other side of the road where intellectualism can lead to the Faith feeling cold and abstract. I totally agree with your evaluation that many evangelical traditions lack tangibility, and that the reformed tradition is a helpful and I think biblical middle way between the liturgy of the Catholic Church, and the floatiness of non-denominationalism.
PK, thank you for your thoughtful analysis. Another draw could be the strong pro-life advocacy in the RCC. This was the draw for one of my daughters. Even though our church is very pro-life and supported pregnancy centers, most members(myself included) did not participate in 40 Days for Life or March for Life. Our daughter made many Catholic friends in her advocacy work. Incidentally, her best friend, who also participated in these rallies, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. This isn't just about pro-life advocacy, but goes to the Catholic/Orthodox understanding of sanctification, living out their faith through good works.
By the way, did you mean to type "non-demoniacal" in the section about the need to embrace the historical roots of our faith?
Isn't what you call "conversionistic" theology a hallmark feature of Calvinism, which you say is your theological view? I think your reflection on your ten year old self is absolutely correct. If you're saved, and there's no being unsaved, there's nothing for you to do. There's no race to be run (1 Cor 9:24-27; 2 Tim 4:7-8; Phil 3:14), right?
I see where you are coming from. I believe that eternal security is a critical feature of Calvinism, and is a doctrine that is clearly revealed in scripture (Phil 1:6). However, I don't think eternal security necessarily leads to conversionism... i think a simplistic understanding of eternal security leads to conversionism, which is the variety that is common in many non-denom churches.
It is the "Once saved always saved", golden ticket, free grace theology that I think is so destructive, and I think that view is inconsistent with historic Calvinism.
What's the difference between the common man's "Once saved always saved" understanding and the historical understanding in Calvinism of eternal security?
That's a great question, that would take a while to unpack.
Simply put, the "Once saved always saved." understanding is out of biblical proportion and leads us to make non-biblical conclusions. Ive heard pastors who espouse this free grace view say things like "So long as you have professed faith once in your life, no matter what you do or what you continue to believe, you're going to heaven." I think that is profoundly unbiblical and destructive.
Historic Calvinism has never seen eternal security as a license for an antinomian life.
I'd love to discuss this further with you, as I'm very interested in understanding what academically informed Calvinists think. My understanding of eternal security has always been what you described this pastor as saying, as long as we understand "professing faith once in your life" to mean that there was a past moment in your life when you were really saved by grace through faith. Not that this gives license to a Christian to behave immorally, but that no matter what future sins a true Christian commits, he would not lose his salvation. Doesn't eternal security mean this? If not, what does it mean?
Feel free to DM me and we can talk more in depth! In the meantime, I think Tom Shriners' book "The Race Set Before Us" is the absolute best articulation of a thoroughly biblical Calvinistic explanation of the doctrine of eternal security
I wonder if, while liturgy can be a blessing pointing us to Christ, it can also satisfy the temptation to live by sight, not by faith. In our sinful nature, we tend to worship the gift rather than the giver. The flesh longs for a ritual, checklist, or step-by-step program to do, because our default is works-based righteousness. I’m afraid this is why Comer is so popular at the moment. If I just do these 9 steps and change my behavior, then I’m a Christian which means I’m good. We love to be able to visibly see our spirituality and spiritual growth. As Kyle Strobel says, we should be the last to see our spiritual growth.
There is some truth to this, but it is hard to understand why a liturgy centered on the Eucharist would lead people to live by sight and not by faith. Believing that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ requires you to reject your sight and embrace your faith.
Your observation about the popularity of people like Comer and Jordan Peterson is spot on. The thing is, there is only one way: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."
I think the Lord’s Supper (different tradition) and baptism are the sacraments given to us as a blessing for that reason. They give us a tangible and visible awareness, but point us to faith. Perhaps what happens though is people place too much emphasis on the seen in the sacraments. For example, thinking well I took communion so I am good. I checked the box.
Humans tend to operate on a pendulum of swinging from one extreme to the other. Evangelical nondenominational churches swung far to the no liturgy, no history, no substance side. The interest in the RCC seems to be a swing in the opposite direction. For example, one of the comments on the article was they prefer the focus being on the Eucharist rather than a sermon. He said it’s because he feels more united to Christ. To me that’s saying I prefer to do something physically that I can see and know I did rather than hear God’s Word call me to repentance in faith. Jesus is the Word after all, but it’s difficult for our flesh to sit and just be in God’s grace. We want to do.
Of course, this is all just guesses and conjecture.
Oh, there is definitely box-checking in the RCC, but I don't think the liturgy feeds that in any meaningful way. One interesting parallel between this article and what is happening in the RCC is the strong Traditionalist movement currently in the RCC, of which you may be aware. These Traditionalists want the RCC to return to the Latin Mass, Gregorian chant, more incense, altar rails, ad orientem, etc. Even within an RCC steeped in history and tradition, there is a movement for more history and a return to older practices. As you point out, it seems to be a pendulum swinging back from a number of liberal practices within the RCC.
The reason why Christianity has always involved Liturgy (at least until Ten Minutes Ago, in the grand scheme of things) is because Christians are corporeal, flesh-and-blood beings responding to and engaging with God with both physical and spiritual faculties, and Liturgy reflects this. We are not disembodied abstract minds rationally assenting to a list of theoretical precepts, a Gnostic anthropology which is pretty much where the presuppositions of Protestantism ultimately end up.
We also aren’t like angelic beings irrevocably flipped to Good or Evil, but dynamic beings which flip-flop, fail, abandon God, and have the ability to choose to be obedient or disobedient until we finally die. Thus, while God is perfectly loving and never abandons us, he doesn’t force us to love Him because such is intrinsically paradoxical. Unfortunately, we often abandon Him, yet in His graciousness He provides means to be reconciled when we misbehave, which is exactly why we have sacraments like Confession and Communion.
This is all quite unlike the anachronistic invention of “works based righteousness” that is so dear to evangelical rhetoric, yet completely misunderstands the dynamic relational nature of Christianity with misapplied legal metaphor.
God made us physical beings. The practice of liturgy establishes his Word in our hearts and guides us to the Truth. The liturgy engages us, body, mind, and spirit, and sacramentally unites us with Christ. It is a constant process of becoming like Christ, and liturgy is given by God to humanity for that purpose. What were the Israelites doing in the desert? Liturgy. Who wrote the first liturgy for the Church? James the brother of our Lord, the Bishop of Jerusalem. This liturgy is still used to this day by the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
I think those three factors make a ton of sense. And as a youth pastor, I see these things not only in my students but in myself and my friends. I see young people craving an experiential relationship with God. I think the embrace of Christian mysticism is not something to look down upon but to encourage as a way to seek Jesus and his kingdom, as long as it doesn't take you down a path that is contradictory to scripture.
In terms of liturgy...
During one of my recent lessons, I felt it appropriate to finish by having all the students pray the Lord's prayer out loud together. I was so nervous because for me growing up, these kinds of practices were considered "religious and weird" and would have been looked at as something that would drive young people from the church. So as I gave them instructions I said, "So, I know this might be weird and uncomfortable but..." and they looked at me and said, "why would that be weird?" and each week of that teaching series we concluded by praying the Lord's prayer together and they responded with enthusiasm. I am fascinated by this shift.
As someone who was raised staunchly Fundamental Baptist and converted to Confessional Lutheranism at age 35, I can attest that every reason mentioned mentioned here was a factor for me. Now, I also believe Confessional Lutheranism to be biblically, doctrinally, and theologically the most accurate of any denomination I have found as well--not to mention the deep spiritual blessing that liturgy is in my life--but the deep intellectual dissatisfaction and emptiness I experienced in the Baptist church, and which are described so well in this article, are what caused me to start searching in the first place.
As a part-time seminarian myself, I think your three reasons are correct but incomplete because you underrate the substance of the traditional luturgies. It's not just that those luturgies are an anchor in turbulent cultural waters. They aren't historic and traditional for the sake of being historic and traditional - practitioners think there is something faithful and compelling and useful in those luturgies.
With this in mind, I submit that your three solutions, which boil down to theology, theology, and theology, are a bit like the "they don't know" meme. "They don't know how historical, deep, and satisfying our theology is!" Meanwhile everyone else is (or thinks they are) encountering God Himself every week through liturgical worship in ways they never did or could in reformed evangelical churches.
The notion of sacramentalism is all but absent, more like optional, in the non-denominational and reformed Baptist churches I’ve been around.
As a Catholic, I believe I encounter and commune with Christ in his body, blood, soul, and divinity every time I receive it in mass. I am taught, and experience, that I am healed and transformed through the preparation for and reception of the elements. No theology study feeds me in this way. And I truly love theology and biblical study.
Agreed.
And putting right and wrong, godly and worldly completely to the side ... a liturgical service is appealing in part because it's an experience that one cannot get anywhere else. If I want a slick motivational speech I can watch a TED Talk. If I want a pop music concert, I can go see Taylor Swift. When I go to an evangelical service, I know I'm getting a knockoff TED Talk and a pop concert. The liturgical service offers me something I simply can't get anywhere else, not just a less interesting version of entertainment I can get elsewhere.
One would think in this age of niche marketing and the long tail, more church leaders would recognize the value in not following the "leaders" and imitating what is popular, but instead figuring out what they can offer underserved markets.
I found myself (raised Evangelical and now Catholic) nodding along to much of the article. But then I got to the end where he said they don’t need mysticism they just need better theology. And I don’t understand this rejection of mysticism especially when so many Evangelical churches embrace rock music, production values and Ted talks.
Great point. The church has been trying to copy pop culture but as always they do a poor job of it. The thing is young people dont want to church to mirror the world. They want something entirely different. Thats why they’re at church and not a Post Malone concert.
Yes, the liturgy is sacred. Meaning "set apart" from the profane things of the world. Turning Christian worship into a motivational speech and a rock concert is profaning the sacred. It seems to me like one of the worst things you could possibly do.
But should it even be about a market. Your church should be about the truth.
Surely so many churches have been very foolish, when the youth like the prodigal son wish to take the inheritance of their father and leave to seek fulfillment in the world. The father waited maintaining his home in the truth, until the son returned having discovered that all the promises of the world were hollow.
What does it say to your children when they return home to find it has remodeled itself to be more like the world.
Oh, absolutely. The church should be about the truth, and church leaders should be doing preserving the liturgy and orthodox doctrine because it's true and holy.
My point is that if the leaders of these churches were nothing but frauds trying to make a buck off the rubes, they'd still work to maintain traditional liturgy because it would bring in the sheep who don't want to be sheared (or more accurately fleeced) by the non-liturgical churches.
No, the problem is that they're not even honest thieves. Church leaders can say they're dumping liturgical worship because they need to be relevant in order to attract new members, but the truth is they are dumping it because they don't want to worship liturgically. Whether that's human laziness, pride in their own inventiveness, or demonic influence I leave to others.
I have a number of liturgically conservative pastor friends. One was noting that if the rationale for modern praise music in the service is to appeal to the seekers, why were those songs part of the order of worship at pastoral retreats? The answer is simple: "it's for the seekers/unchurched/new people" is just an excuse.
Agree. Our family left the Anglican/Episcopal Church because of its increasing drift away from orthodox Christianity, but not because of the liturgy. At its best, traditional liturgy conveys the holiness of God, and His splendor. As with the author, I am Reformed in my own theology, which has a post-conversion sanctification component and solid exegetical preaching. But I do miss the beauty of the Anglican rite.
Check out the ordinariate of the chair of St. Peter. Solid biblical preaching and the Anglican liturgy. https://ordinariate.net/
Very good! I especially agree with your three key factors — those definitely seem to be behind the shift. You put your finger on it.
I’m not exactly young (42), but I am part of this shift, and I’ve been increasingly drawn to the liturgical and sacramental practices of Anglicanism over the past couple of years. From my perspective, the idea of a more “intellectually satisfying” faith that you posit as a solution didn’t do the trick for me: If I wanted intellectual rigor, I’d simply dig deeper wells in Reformed theology. Instead, I got to the point that a primarily intellectual faith wasn’t enough, and I began to hunger for a more physical, experiential, embodied, and sacramental faith. To put it crudely, I found that it was no longer enough to order a Banner of Truth volume that would help me think truer thoughts about the Lord’s Supper, and instead simply found that I was hungry for the body and blood of Christ.
Thank you for the encouragement Josh. That is a really interesting point. Liturgy in some sense makes religion more tangible. I was talking this over with a friend over the weekend, and he suggested that liturgy "externalizes" religion and that is part of the draw for people. That was a real thinker for me.
I guess I would push you a bit there: liturgy MAKES religion/God tangible. I recall someone describing the sacraments as "concrete ways of running into God."
I suppose if you and I were brains in a vat (hah!) or angelic beings, we would be satisfied with a faith that was merely intellectual. However, this intellect and will of ours in housed in a body!
I find that the liturgy responds to our embodied nature as souls WITH bodies. Liturgy (specifically through the sacraments) make God tangible for we who are embodied creatures.
(I find the worship of the Book of Revelation envisions much of such embodied worship; I'll shut up now, haha)
I’ve observed this trend (as an Anglican), and find it interesting. One thing I’d encourage you to think on is the role of the charismatic church planting pastor in evangelicalism. I became Anglican in Seattle in the early 2010s. Our primary source of converts was ex-Mars Hill members. Many nondenominational congregations seem so dominated by the particular vision and personality of an individual pastor, who often is subject to little or no oversight. When that goes south, disaffected ex-members are often very drawn to churches that center the tradition, not the man at the pulpit, and that offer strong governance.
Interestingly enough, my shift to Eastern Orthodoxy from evangelicalism largely had to do with the intellectual satisfaction. I received graduate degrees from an evangelical seminary in theology and church history (TEDS in Chicago), and further study kept confirming for me EO beliefs. That said, there were some very helpful Protestant scholars who helped me with their works along the way. It will be fascinating to see what impact people like Hans Boersma and Michael Gorman had on young evangelicals in this regard. I'm also 42 and "not exactly young" haha
Just come all the way home. Heal the schism. If Anglican liturgy is appealing to you, look into the ordinariate of the chair of St. Peter- you can be in communion with the timeless church and worship in the Anglican style. Also read John Henry Newman
I thought about engaging with this essay, because I usually don’t engage much online anyways. This will probably solidify that conviction that it is usually not worth it.
I am a Catholic more or less my whole life. Less as I married and my wife and I hopped around trying out different denominations. When I had children I reverted to a more sincere adherence to the precepts of the Catholic Church.
In charity, I think it is reasonable to be concerned about draws from other denominations or the pull to secular beliefs. It merits some introspection to find out shortcomings as Christians. But I say this, anecdotally: I think an oversight into this concern is neglecting the possibility that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are true, and that is why they draw others to them.
We can quibble about why or why not, I am just a layperson, and not a serious apologist. I only add this as a consideration
Well put! TY.
St. John Henry Newman tried for a long time to "reason himself away" from Catholicism.
He found the Church Fathers to be invaluable (one Catholic apologist has put such wisdom into an entertaining format: https://youtu.be/UNiOiwmLzOE?si=drw047bApx12esc7 ).
Newman might be an extra helpful figure/writer for anyone wrestling with why a Protestant intellectual would leave everything behind (friends, students, congregation) to follow Christ within the Catholic Church.
As I understand it that’s why st Frances de sales rejected Calvinism- there was no mass. And he really struggled with it when he was young.
Ha yes! 🙌
As a young-ish person who left evangelicalism, I particularly agree with the first reason cited. I would also add that I found refuge in a liturgical tradition from the politicization and polarization that’s rampant in many evangelical churches. And when the central element of service is the Eucharist (instead of a sermon, as in evangelical churches), it’s much easier to leave Sunday service feeling united with God and with fellow churchgoers. I have attended more than a few services of solid, Bible-believing evangelical churches where the sermons were positions on an upcoming Supreme Court case or defenses of a particular economic model.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Grew up Southern Baptist and still espouse certain doctrines I was raised on, but often feel that when I'm in a protestant church the congregation is largely "personality driven." For reference I grew up under John Piper so that was a hefty personality to sit with every week. As I've explored more liturgical services I can't help but feel the space to truly worship. When the preacher is not the central focus of the Sunday service I am left with a liturgy which is sound, time-tested, and not reliant on man's intellect to explain.
Thats a really helpful insight Brooke. Can I ask, are you still a part of the reformed baptist tradition today?
I’m not. I have some very dear friends who are and I love and respect them with my whole heart.
Thats interesting. What kind of tradition are you a part of now? Was hyper-politicization the thing that drove you away from evangelicalism?
Anglicanism (specifically ACNA). It was initially simple curiosity and an appreciation of the Book of Common Prayer that led me to explore Anglicanism. Once I’d attended several services, I found the general tenor of both the service and congregants to be less wedded to political ideologies than I had personally experienced in the evangelical church. I still hear some overtly political things at an ACNA church (both from the congregation and from the pulpit), but overall it’s much less part of the fabric of the church body.
Come all the way home. Heal the schism. Read Newman. As an aside I’ve heard maybe 2 political homilies in my entire life- it’s definitely focused on the Bible. https://ordinariate.net If you love the Anglican liturgy check out an ordinariate parish.
I am a prime example of what you are speaking about in this article. 10 years ago I was in a Baptist Church, now I am an Anglican. Coincidence? Not really. Mostly because I became tired of the evangelical culture being an inch deep and a mile wide. Is there a solution? Yes! But unfortunately for you, this would mean more people leaving the evangelicals for the liturgical. Once you expose them to historical theology, they won’t stay in an evangelical non-denominational context.
Thank you Anthony. I’m glad you found my analysis to be accurate
Come all the way home. Heal the schism. Look into the history of Anglicanism with an open mind and heart. If you love the liturgy look into the ordinariate https://ordinariate.net
I say this with all of the love in my heart for you.
I grew up Southern Baptist but the older I get, the more I feel uncomfortable with the theatrics, the modernity, and the gimmicks. Smoke machines, dark lights, moody music during the alter call, everything to juice up some dopamine. It’s all starting to feel icky, and I don’t think that makes me a bad Christian.
My brother felt the same way and he converted to Catholicism. That decision is starting to make more sense to me now.
Come on over. Yes. ReverentCatholicmass.com
Sounds like the people at your Southern Baptist church are worshipping with strange fire.
I agree. It's odd.
Thank you so much for this analysis. You have such clear insight and, I think, wisdom about the flight from historically untethered churches.
I’m particularly keen on your rejection of one-and-done Sinner’s Prayer salvation. You’re right. It isn’t biblical, and it just doesn’t line up with lived experience. In fact, that theology produces a lot of spiritual anxiety in people who keep sinning and feel that the church has no account of this kind of problem and nothing to offer the sin-sick Christian.
Somewhat relatedly, I find difficult to understand is the scripture v tradition argument. Scripture IS the tradition of the church. It was formally assembled as scripture by people who worshipped and shared that scripture in a liturgical context. In fact, reading scripture alone with your morning coffee is a really new way to engage with the word of God, which would have been received audibly in a liturgical context for many centuries.
Also, the sacraments and mysticism get a bad rap in the evangelical US. But that’s a least in part because people seem to have forgotten that mysticism is nothing more or less than contact with God, which is to say, Christ, which is to say our salvation (the person, not the idea). There’s nothing esoteric about Christian mysticism. It’s what we should mean when we say that we are saved and are being saved: ‘Yes, I’ve met him and fallen in love and am in a living relationship with God’ <—-mystical experience
One last consideration. I’m not sure theology is the answer, unless by theology you mean knowledge of God, which can only be obtained by revelation, which means grace, which means (again) mysticism.
Though clearly an important, God-given faculty, the rational mind is only one of myriad faculties through which God communicates his reality to us. The overemphasis on intellectual assent and theological discourse (never mind the body or the natural world, never mind aesthetics, never mind saints, those luminous people who are made bright by the light of Christ) leaves a vaguely gnostic taste in my mouth (all mind, no body—all rational understanding—no room for the mystery of his grace in the sacraments).
I’m probably being unfair in that last bit, but that is my imperfect impression. I hope you’ll keep writing on this theme! It’s an important one.
Interesting read. I grew up in a non-denominational church, fell away late in high school, and later converted to Catholicism four years ago at 25.
You definitely hit on a good point regarding tradition and historical continuity. We never discussed the early church in my church growing up. When I started to look into early church history, I almost felt as though this great, rich history was hidden from me…maybe on purpose? The practices of the early church did not resemble what I grew up with.
Could write a lot more on the topic, but I’ve got to get to bed.
This has been on my heart, as well. Our church is in the process of restoring weekly communion after decades of once-a-month. The sooner we evangelicals give up on "make it up as you go" ecclesiology and freestyle worship, the better.
Amen
Take it from one who knows, there are different kinds of Catholic converts. Some, like me, are drawn to the original nugget of Christian truth that lies buried under all the hoopla and shows up over centuries in certain very holy men and women, all saying the same thing (b.t.w. - overall, the institutional church has pretty much ignored them) and second, to mystery, to a faith that embraces the Presence of Christ in a way that defies explanation. Then, there are the ones who "convert" because they want to get married and their intended won't go through with it without them. And last, but not least, are the ones who just want a tradition (I do not say faith) that gives them all the answers. When you look out at the Wide World and all its uncertainty, then try to imagine what it must be like to be in your twenties or thirties to be looking out at the same thing, it's not hard to understand why the Catholicism that has a rule or an exercise or an answer for every aspect of life might be pretty attractive. I ache for these young men and women, because there is such depth and richness in the Catholic faith, but they may never find it. All the methods and exercises may be great to get started, but if they stop there, they will miss so much.
I appreciated this article a great deal. As a Reformed Christian (raised in the Baptist persuasion) who finds himself in the middle space between departing the Evangelical fame and stepping gently into "High Church" (Orthodox, to be specific), I wish to add one critique. Forgive me if this has been asked-and-answered elsewhere, for I didn't read every comment.
Your third solution, providing a more robust intellectual theology, misses the mark, I feel. If I can be so bold as to speak for many of the young men on the path with me, I feel it is necessary to say that the hyper-intellectualization of the faith is one of the lynchpins that set this path in motion. My experience in Evangelicalism provided me with a veritable mental library of knowledge *about* God, but it had very little to offer me in the way of experiencing God outside of the manner in which one would experience any other topic of study. I could "experience" God the same way I could experience Waterloo or the Great Depression - simply by thinking real hard about it. As if an abundance of academic knowledge of God could ever get me through the dark nights of the soul.
You see, Evangelicalism, broadly writ, provides the believer with not tools to interact with Christ outside of our Left Brain, the same place we process math and solidify abstract concepts. It gave me no mysterious objects with which to pry open the doors of my mental library to actually see, taste, know, and love God fully and rightly. For how can one love a topical study?
Nothing is real in Evangelicalism. Everything is a remembrance, an allegory, a symbol (although they almost always misuse the word symbol, missing its meaning entirely), with no tangible or, God forbid, mysterious nature to it.
Anyway, I really did appreciate your article. Thank you!
Thank you for the encouragement, and I think that is an interesting and fair critique. Having largely existed and evangelical spaces that would be characterized as anti-intellectual, it is helpful to hear that there is a ditch on the other side of the road where intellectualism can lead to the Faith feeling cold and abstract. I totally agree with your evaluation that many evangelical traditions lack tangibility, and that the reformed tradition is a helpful and I think biblical middle way between the liturgy of the Catholic Church, and the floatiness of non-denominationalism.
Thank you for the helpful feedback!
God keep you, sir. Again, I appreciate your writing.
PK, thank you for your thoughtful analysis. Another draw could be the strong pro-life advocacy in the RCC. This was the draw for one of my daughters. Even though our church is very pro-life and supported pregnancy centers, most members(myself included) did not participate in 40 Days for Life or March for Life. Our daughter made many Catholic friends in her advocacy work. Incidentally, her best friend, who also participated in these rallies, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. This isn't just about pro-life advocacy, but goes to the Catholic/Orthodox understanding of sanctification, living out their faith through good works.
By the way, did you mean to type "non-demoniacal" in the section about the need to embrace the historical roots of our faith?
Blessings to you.
Thats an interesting perspective that I have not considered...
Thank you for the encouragement, Faith!
(and no, I did not. Ill fix that now!)
Isn't what you call "conversionistic" theology a hallmark feature of Calvinism, which you say is your theological view? I think your reflection on your ten year old self is absolutely correct. If you're saved, and there's no being unsaved, there's nothing for you to do. There's no race to be run (1 Cor 9:24-27; 2 Tim 4:7-8; Phil 3:14), right?
I see where you are coming from. I believe that eternal security is a critical feature of Calvinism, and is a doctrine that is clearly revealed in scripture (Phil 1:6). However, I don't think eternal security necessarily leads to conversionism... i think a simplistic understanding of eternal security leads to conversionism, which is the variety that is common in many non-denom churches.
It is the "Once saved always saved", golden ticket, free grace theology that I think is so destructive, and I think that view is inconsistent with historic Calvinism.
What's the difference between the common man's "Once saved always saved" understanding and the historical understanding in Calvinism of eternal security?
That's a great question, that would take a while to unpack.
Simply put, the "Once saved always saved." understanding is out of biblical proportion and leads us to make non-biblical conclusions. Ive heard pastors who espouse this free grace view say things like "So long as you have professed faith once in your life, no matter what you do or what you continue to believe, you're going to heaven." I think that is profoundly unbiblical and destructive.
Historic Calvinism has never seen eternal security as a license for an antinomian life.
I'd love to discuss this further with you, as I'm very interested in understanding what academically informed Calvinists think. My understanding of eternal security has always been what you described this pastor as saying, as long as we understand "professing faith once in your life" to mean that there was a past moment in your life when you were really saved by grace through faith. Not that this gives license to a Christian to behave immorally, but that no matter what future sins a true Christian commits, he would not lose his salvation. Doesn't eternal security mean this? If not, what does it mean?
Feel free to DM me and we can talk more in depth! In the meantime, I think Tom Shriners' book "The Race Set Before Us" is the absolute best articulation of a thoroughly biblical Calvinistic explanation of the doctrine of eternal security
https://www.amazon.com/Race-Set-Before-Perseverance-Assurance/dp/0830815554/ref=asc_df_0830815554?mcid=02e0c5dd7607342a9edfba1ff3a332a0&hvocijid=8909087980476624470-0830815554-&hvexpln=73&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=721245378154&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8909087980476624470&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9027254&hvtargid=pla-2281435178338&psc=1
I will look into the book. Thanks!
I wonder if, while liturgy can be a blessing pointing us to Christ, it can also satisfy the temptation to live by sight, not by faith. In our sinful nature, we tend to worship the gift rather than the giver. The flesh longs for a ritual, checklist, or step-by-step program to do, because our default is works-based righteousness. I’m afraid this is why Comer is so popular at the moment. If I just do these 9 steps and change my behavior, then I’m a Christian which means I’m good. We love to be able to visibly see our spirituality and spiritual growth. As Kyle Strobel says, we should be the last to see our spiritual growth.
There is some truth to this, but it is hard to understand why a liturgy centered on the Eucharist would lead people to live by sight and not by faith. Believing that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ requires you to reject your sight and embrace your faith.
Your observation about the popularity of people like Comer and Jordan Peterson is spot on. The thing is, there is only one way: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."
I think the Lord’s Supper (different tradition) and baptism are the sacraments given to us as a blessing for that reason. They give us a tangible and visible awareness, but point us to faith. Perhaps what happens though is people place too much emphasis on the seen in the sacraments. For example, thinking well I took communion so I am good. I checked the box.
Humans tend to operate on a pendulum of swinging from one extreme to the other. Evangelical nondenominational churches swung far to the no liturgy, no history, no substance side. The interest in the RCC seems to be a swing in the opposite direction. For example, one of the comments on the article was they prefer the focus being on the Eucharist rather than a sermon. He said it’s because he feels more united to Christ. To me that’s saying I prefer to do something physically that I can see and know I did rather than hear God’s Word call me to repentance in faith. Jesus is the Word after all, but it’s difficult for our flesh to sit and just be in God’s grace. We want to do.
Of course, this is all just guesses and conjecture.
Oh, there is definitely box-checking in the RCC, but I don't think the liturgy feeds that in any meaningful way. One interesting parallel between this article and what is happening in the RCC is the strong Traditionalist movement currently in the RCC, of which you may be aware. These Traditionalists want the RCC to return to the Latin Mass, Gregorian chant, more incense, altar rails, ad orientem, etc. Even within an RCC steeped in history and tradition, there is a movement for more history and a return to older practices. As you point out, it seems to be a pendulum swinging back from a number of liberal practices within the RCC.
Amen! 🙌🏼
The reason why Christianity has always involved Liturgy (at least until Ten Minutes Ago, in the grand scheme of things) is because Christians are corporeal, flesh-and-blood beings responding to and engaging with God with both physical and spiritual faculties, and Liturgy reflects this. We are not disembodied abstract minds rationally assenting to a list of theoretical precepts, a Gnostic anthropology which is pretty much where the presuppositions of Protestantism ultimately end up.
We also aren’t like angelic beings irrevocably flipped to Good or Evil, but dynamic beings which flip-flop, fail, abandon God, and have the ability to choose to be obedient or disobedient until we finally die. Thus, while God is perfectly loving and never abandons us, he doesn’t force us to love Him because such is intrinsically paradoxical. Unfortunately, we often abandon Him, yet in His graciousness He provides means to be reconciled when we misbehave, which is exactly why we have sacraments like Confession and Communion.
This is all quite unlike the anachronistic invention of “works based righteousness” that is so dear to evangelical rhetoric, yet completely misunderstands the dynamic relational nature of Christianity with misapplied legal metaphor.
God made us physical beings. The practice of liturgy establishes his Word in our hearts and guides us to the Truth. The liturgy engages us, body, mind, and spirit, and sacramentally unites us with Christ. It is a constant process of becoming like Christ, and liturgy is given by God to humanity for that purpose. What were the Israelites doing in the desert? Liturgy. Who wrote the first liturgy for the Church? James the brother of our Lord, the Bishop of Jerusalem. This liturgy is still used to this day by the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
I think those three factors make a ton of sense. And as a youth pastor, I see these things not only in my students but in myself and my friends. I see young people craving an experiential relationship with God. I think the embrace of Christian mysticism is not something to look down upon but to encourage as a way to seek Jesus and his kingdom, as long as it doesn't take you down a path that is contradictory to scripture.
In terms of liturgy...
During one of my recent lessons, I felt it appropriate to finish by having all the students pray the Lord's prayer out loud together. I was so nervous because for me growing up, these kinds of practices were considered "religious and weird" and would have been looked at as something that would drive young people from the church. So as I gave them instructions I said, "So, I know this might be weird and uncomfortable but..." and they looked at me and said, "why would that be weird?" and each week of that teaching series we concluded by praying the Lord's prayer together and they responded with enthusiasm. I am fascinated by this shift.
As someone who was raised staunchly Fundamental Baptist and converted to Confessional Lutheranism at age 35, I can attest that every reason mentioned mentioned here was a factor for me. Now, I also believe Confessional Lutheranism to be biblically, doctrinally, and theologically the most accurate of any denomination I have found as well--not to mention the deep spiritual blessing that liturgy is in my life--but the deep intellectual dissatisfaction and emptiness I experienced in the Baptist church, and which are described so well in this article, are what caused me to start searching in the first place.