May 25 2008
What is the role of Liturgy in non-Western Churches?
Recently my wife raised this question to me, and I thought it a good one. We like to enjoy and appreciate the rich history and heritage of liturgy that we have as “western” Christians, but to what extent is this liturgy appropriate in non-”western” churches? For example - the Nicene Creed, while it expresses Biblical truth is also grounded and based on a particular theological debate which occurred within the historical context of the early Roman church. Maybe a Korean church, for example, would be better off formulating their own creeds and liturgy rather than using ours? Maybe they already have? What do our resident liturgical-minded folk think about this question?
I don’t know whether non-Western churches have created their own complete set of liturgy, but my initial reaction is that the Gospel is the same Gospel, and the Law is the same Law, throughout the world. Granted, cultural differences do play a part in worship. However (thinking of my church’s Communion statement, for example), those who believe the same, generally do the same. And yes, Western liturgy is very rich and full!
I would ask this - is “appropriateness” in terms of Western-applied-to-non-Western worship really a relevant issue? God does not change, although He may reveal Himself in many ways; anyone who worships Him should do so reverently and in fear of His holiness which we cannot attain. Western liturgy definitely aids in that reverence and, in that sense, would be suitable to apply to churches globally.
Sorry I didn’t really answer the questions brought up about the Nicene Creed. Perhaps next time.
Hannah - thanks for your comment!
I must admit I’m treading in an area where I know little - really just thoughts here. I do think that if the “western-ness” of our liturgy ever gets in way of the Gospel in other cultures then it’s relevant. If, liturgy is liturgy is liturgy and cultural flavor doesn’t really matter - then I agree, it’s not really a relevant issue.
I would be most interested in talking to anybody who’s seen our American/European liturgy at work in other churches around the world and how that has worked out!
Eric, I think I know where you’re going with this post, but I think we should make an important distinction between Creeds and Liturgies.
Creeds are important measurements of belief that have stood throughout time in order to test the orthodoxy of believers since they serve as summaries of biblical truths. Beliefs that we take for granted, such as the formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity, took years to be codified. In fact, the Apostles Creed predates the canonization of scriptures and served as the Rule of Faith for congregations. I would say that the specific controversy that the Nicene Creed is a response to makes the Creed even more valuable. Arianism disputes the divinity of Christ which distorts the relationship of the Trinity. That’s about as bare bones as theology can get. There is room to continually weigh these doctrines and prove them with scripture, but the wheel does not need to be reinvented. Additionally all of these churches around the world are daughter churches of this tradition, be it Orthodox or Roman Catholic. It only makes sense that they would accept the bedrock of the Christian tradition that they have inherited.
Liturgies on the other hand are expressions corporate worship. I think that it’s important for these structures to ring true for a community and also compel them to greater worship. I am specifically reminded of the Roman Catholic Church’s acceptance of vernacular language within the Celebration of the Mass after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). In this case, many Roman Catholics were able to take part more fully in their own worship services since they were able to fully understand the language that was used. Perhaps a Korean church would be better off making sure that the symbols and words used in their service were appropriate for their service, but to neglect the wealth of Christian history that is out there is foolish.
Andrew - good point. I hadn’t really been thinking about that distinction, but I agree that it’s important.