‘No matter how loudly Pentecostals claim that they are following New Testament patterns, the typical Pentecostal or charismatic church follows the same order of worship as do most other Protestant bodies.’ Another stinger of a sentence by Viola and Barna in Pagan Christianity as they look at the roots of worship in church.

Protestant roots

The Pentecostal tradition, they claim quite correctly, has its roots in the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century but with the added ingredient of the emotional bustle of the US revival movements from the early 18th century onwards. Those movements introduced new elements like the ‘anxious seat’ where new converts were invited to come forward and take their place as they made their declaration of faith public. Added to this and other revivalist techniques were hymns that could be truly emotional, especially if sung by a specially trained choir. Anyone who has been to a Billy Graham crusade will surely testify to that.

If Pentecostalism was one stream that eventually flowed from the Reformation another was the more staid nonconformist movement – the Presbyterians, the Baptists, and Calvinist Methodists. While the Pentes developed a simpler style of worship service – with a time of worship (dominated by singing choruses) followed by a sermon, then a closing prayer, the nonconformists have stuck to their traditional hymn sandwich. While the order is slightly different the basic elements are all the same in both traditions – which is the point PC makes in the sentence quoted at the start of this post.

Theology reformed

As stated both these traditions have flowed from the Reformation – a period of intense change in theology in the European church. But study the order of worship of both Roman Catholic and Protestant churches and you will find very little difference. The sermon may have taken the central place instead of the Eucharist, both bread and wine were taken in communion, and congregational psalm singing was introduced in some Protestant traditions, but apart from this the similarities are striking. And despite the key Reformed doctrine of the priesthood of all believers their actual services were led by one or two from the front with very little opportunity for congregational participation.

How great was Gregory?

Once again in PC Viola and Barna underline that what has been lost in all this reform is this key concept that the church should be functioning as a body with all parts playing a vital role. It wasn’t always thus, they claim, for back in the early church – especially as seen in some of Paul’s writings – the opportunity for all to actively participate in worship was available. Where did it go wrong? They point to the sixth century Pope Gregory the Great – a man who was ‘incredibly superstitious, whose thinking was influenced by magical paganistic concepts.’ (Maybe we should rename him Gregory the Not-so-Great.) He was the one who instituted the medieval Catholic Mass which actually incorporated many ancient Hebraic and pagan ideas and the priest was at the centre of the whole service. ‘The Mass was deeply steeped in pagan magical thinking as well as Greek drama.’ The worship of the early church as witnessed in the NT was being left behind and something new and alien took its place. While we may no longer hold onto the magical practices, PC certainly believes that we are still too dominated by this ‘one person leads everything’ worship service.

Are they correct? Or does some kind of form and leading help us to focus and actually makes it easier for all – especially those not confident enough to participate openly – to worship together? And could it be that the weakness of the freer type of worship service is that it actually ends up being a number of individuals doing their own thing rather than having congregational worship? How have you experimented with your worship services and has it worked?