While both traditions have their deadly temptations, in my experience it's easier to get a high energy free church leader to pause and "remember that it's all about Jesus" than it is to awaken the liturgical from their contemplation in order to energetically engage the world with the gospel.

Maybe someday we'll see liturgical entrepreneurs, but I'm still looking ...

It would be interesting to tease this out along the lines of American Church history. For example, old-side/new-side or the Edwards/Finney divide.

The longer I'm in ministry, the more I see that innovation is always carving new paths, but that the tried and true refuses to die. As a minister in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) I think we are successfully keeping balance along this fault line. But then again, everyone who's living out their convictions thinks their way is right--at least I hope so!

PS. @Jarrod liturgical entrepreneurs are free church folks. At least I think that was Mr Rowell's point

I wasn't clear, Tim. Sorry. What I meant is that the liturgical tend honor the received traditions but not to be entrepreneurial.

Free church folk tend to be more entrepreneurial to the neglect of "received traditions."

If the liturgical could display more entrepreneurial energies, that's what I'm waiting to see. Maybe you know some people like that, but I don't.

From my little experience, I have found that too much rigidity or too much spontaneity within a church can create a difficult environment to raise up new leaders, which is necessary for any church to survive over the decades and centuries. Many liturgical churches have become so full of red tape that it makes younger leaders powerless and voiceless. Many free churches are so dominated by their fun and lovable superstar pastor that younger leaders cannot escape that pastors shadow. And when the pastor is not around, often times there is only confusion for the young leaders to walk into since there is no long lasting liturgical and educational structure. The free church, though loving missions and evangelism, needs to spend more time creating an long-lasting structure (like a church network or ministry training center) that can be passed down so that its people can be continually raised up and sent out. Liturgical congregations (the rigid kind)need to lighten up and spend more time investing and sending out their young leaders instead of just letting their seminaries do it.

Good to see a post from you Andy! Take care.

I'm a Pastor in a "liturgical" tradition who served a congregation with a Free Church ethos. I agree with a lot of the observations in this article but would have to say that in my experience most liturgical churches are also very engaged in issues of social justice.

Good stuff, Andy.

I've always been an ecumenical low-church guy in practice, but I'm also very much drawn to the idea of weekly Sacraments, liturgy, sacred spaces and deep thinkers from the high-church tradition. Every time I visit a liturgical church, I'm stuck by how thoughtful and intentional everything is.

Sometimes I wonder how my faith would be different if I had been raised on creeds and catechisms instead of DC Talk and Breakaway magazine.

I would personally love to see more liturgy, written prayers and reverence for the Great Tradition incorporated into our local church's worship gatherings, but much of it is still a second language to me.

It's as if I've become a long-distance admirer of the sport of cricket from watching it on TV, but at the end of the day my natural sport is baseball. I may be intrigued by the oval-shaped field, wickets and bowlers (instead of a diamond, home plate and pitchers), but I'm in no way qualified to teach the fundamentals of a game for which I barely understand the rules.

Perhaps my low-church, pragmatic evangelical DNA is to blame for my desire to see some sort of convergence that blends the best of both worlds.

Good thoughts here. I wonder if you could push Tim's point a bit more and simply ask some basic theological questions of these movements. It seems to me, as I've been musing on at Theology Forum, that evangelicalism has built into its ideology and culture an idolatry that now governs and guides its movements. At Catalyst, is not bigger truly considered better? I wonder if we can actually talk about it all being about Jesus when the Jesus way fails to be taken seriously - exchanged for a very worldly depiction of what a "thriving" church might look like?

I suppose that the same kinds of questions could be asked of higher church folk - if they have bought into an idolatry of ecclesiology - refusing to adapt because adaptation might mean breaking down systems which have grown too deep to be questioned? Andy was incredibly generous in his posting, but I wonder if idolatry is the category that demands to be used here?

The generalisations expressed in the article are breath-taking.
They seem indicative of a determination to focus on style rather than substance.
The divide is between 'liturgical' and 'free' churches? Really?
All 'liturgical' churches are equivalent, including those who jetisoned any notion of Christian orthordoxy for liberalism and those who still maintain the Gospel?
All 'free' churches are equivalent, including those that reject substitutionary atonement and biblical morality and those who still hold the historic faith?
I see more co-operation among evangelical leaders, whatever their ecclesiology, while those who want to promote alternate Christian teaching make common cause.
The mark of division is not liturgical/free.
It is the Gospel.
Every generation of leaders needs to remember that.

I was recently also thinking about some of the distinctions between liturgical and free church communities and how that affects the politics and theology of each. I linked to this article my post about it: http://jacobscafe.blogspot.com/2009/11/liturgical-v-contemporary-church.html

So if one were neither "liturgical" nor "free" but Biblical as in the proposals by Viola and Barna in Pagan Christianity, or Reimagining the Church, where would the subject of "leadership" and accountability and all the other weaknesses addressed play out?
This article emphasises the points Viola and Barna make about the importance of the coming back to the Biblical principles that Jesus introduced to be the "church" where Christ is the ONLY head, and every believer a priest unto God. Leadership, Lord's Supper, Worship, are all addressed in His model, and there is neither "liturgy" or "lost" (free). Just "relationship".

Jarrod asks about examples of innovation from people in liturgical traditions. I think it is important to think of innovation in terms of evangelism—that is communicating the good news to people who are unchurched or dechurched. I think of the Alpha Course started out of Holy Trinity Brompton in London, UK (Anglican Communion); Luther Seminary's Ph.D. Concentration in Congregational Mission and Leadership (Lutheran); Will Willimon encouraging church planting as a Bishop or Adam Hamilton's megachurch (Methodist); and Tim Keller's church planting and large church in New York City (Presbyterian).
Tim is surely right that over church history there has often been this tension. He names Edwards who is famous for never looking up from his sermons to Finney's salesman antics. Edwards had revival all around him so he was able to focus on grounding people. But for Edwards’ followers, many of them need to ask themselves how they hope to see evangelism taking place. Finney probably could have used more theological grounding though his efforts in reaching out to lost people deserve our praise.
Kyle restates my points well from the perspective of a young pastor. Yes, there is little room to innovate in the liturgical tradition not just for young pastors but for everyone there. But the free church can be a very harsh place to learn because you either produce (for example, a big youth group) or "fail" because the system is often not set up to survive over the long term.

Brian, you are right that many liturgical churches are involved in social justice issues. I may have mischaracterized that a bit. In his book, Congregations in America, Mark Chaves argues that these churches do more social justice ministry than free churches but of course this is extremely difficult to measure quantitatively. I was struck at Catalyst though at the degree of cooperation with innovative social justice ministries--having an armored truck pass out $120,000 for micro-finance, having a sponsored child now grown meet his sponsor, etc. The liturgical churches tend to think through their involvement more deliberately and systematically rather than the powerful occasional bursts of action by free churches. I think of free churches as being “ready, fire, aim” churches and liturgical churches as “ready, aim, aim . . .” churches.

Dan S. rightfully senses the difficulty of borrowing practices from other traditions. Vincent Miller in Consuming Religion worries about what Karl Marx called “commodification”—casually drawing practices like sacraments, liturgy, sacred space, and written prayers out of their original location and inserting them wherever we feel like. These practices do not “work as well” when the majority of the people in the room are doing it for the first time. The power of the liturgy is not obvious until it gets in one’s bones. So free church people need to try to understand the complexity of the tradition (becoming serious students of theology) rather than just borrowing what looks cool.

Kyle Strobel asks about idolatry. I admit I bite my tongue when I hear free church people getting a bit carried away saying “we don’t need no education” and liturgical people attributing their numerical losses to solely to “cross-bearing.” But I love pastors and think their motivation is usually right. When I think of my friends who are passionate about innovation in the free church, it tends to be because they love seeing people transformed by the good news of Jesus Christ. When I think of my friends who are appalled by the innovations pioneered in the free church, it is usually because they believe conformity to Jesus Christ is about quiet, faithful, obedient service. However, it is true both groups do indeed succumb to idolatry—the free church people enjoying too much the fulfillment that comes from sharing bread with hungry people; the liturgical church people enjoying too much the satisfaction that comes from obedience to Jesus’ way. My hope in this piece is stop a bit of the worship of “Eyes” “Hands” “Heads” or “Feet” (1 Cor 12:21)—that is ourselves. We need each other.

Gary Ware is right to say it is all about the gospel. There are a lot of ways to talk about ecclesiology. Tim Keller likes priestly, prophetic, and kingly. Avery Dulles has five models: (1) institution, (2) mystical communion, (3) sacrament, (4) herald, and (5) servant. My point in suggesting the rubric of free church and liturgical is that the free church tradition often does quite a good job of communicating the gospel whereas the liturgical tradition does a good job of reflecting on it. Now, Protestants could respond angrily that the Roman Catholics get a lot wrong concerning the gospel but it is important to remember that almost all of the great theology on the gospel throughout Christian history has been done by people in the liturgical tradition: Augustine, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley. The free church tradition often does “ready, fire, aim” and the liturgical tradition often does “ready, aim, aim . . .” Together perhaps we can “ready, aim, fire.” Ware writes, “I see more co-operation among evangelical leaders, whatever their ecclesiology, while those who want to promote alternate Christian teaching make common cause.” I agree with him but I worry that too often “evangelical” is just associated with the free church and that there are evangelicals –in the sense of devoted to orthodoxy and evangelism—across the ecclesiological spectrum.

Grant Alford asks about the work of Frank Viola and George Barna. I would situate them (and I think they would situate themselves) in the free church camp. They are not operating within the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist traditions. Their understanding of the church is much closer to Baptist, Pentecostal, and Mennonite views. Thus people in the liturgical tradition would question whether indeed it is possible for a church to be free from implicit leadership and liturgy; and whether accountability is possible with little connection to other congregations. United Methodist Ben Witherington has engaged Viola’s work.
Viola argues that many common understandings of church have become distorted and should return to biblical principles. There are people in all of the traditions calling for reform in their own tradition. Yves Congar was a Roman Catholic theologian who influenced the Roman Catholic church to make internal reforms to empower the laity at Vatican II. Karl Barth questioned infant baptism of his own Reformed tradition. Both, like Viola, made arguments from Scripture. I am encouraged to see people all over asking: How can we better as a church (1) submit to the authority of the Scriptures? (2) participate in communion and baptism? (3) communicate the Good News? and (4) live cruciform lives?

Andy~this is a very well and thought out post. But, number one of an important realization would be that 'not all' Catalyst speakers ramble from paperless talk-nor have a more lackadaisical mind behind/spirit w/ their meanings-this would be wrong. I've found this sort of insight offers a more profoundness in the delicate awareness called "to each his own" , and how a person feels containing to the practical procedures called worship~their interpretors and the validations of their teachings--huge~as well the most important: Are their teachings becoming more spiritual?? ...Do we see a difference held with meaning within the structure presenting believable-nesses or dead? For the poor, and unenriched, laid barren or downtrodden...I sincerely look at it like this...Praise God for the uniquenesses of catalistic gentlemens structure producing much more than a bow, kneel and sit. People I find are searching for the simplist answers and meanings--not that of being lazy~but providing much more truth behind all these demonstrations~after a large acquired presumption of a bundling of words off paper--but no proofs in what was just read--Example: Social Justice for one drastically falling by the wayside of pretends....leadership and training for others benefits.
I Do Not believe that God blesses this type of practice~The Fancy Robed, lite candles with (at times) meaninglessness behind the scenses for all pratical purposes. Some.
The Catalystic Approach certainly allows the poor or other moderate person room to grow~**and sadly without God in Our presence** this leaves an open gaping questions, and much more profound growth we can only hope for--I'd rather a man of distinguishnesses teach me WITHOUT a note pad~grounded in all he says and does, and performs that of Biblically.... Grounded forsure.
Rahab

Interesting article

also, I never look at the catalystic approach to religion as neccessarily being considered weak at all; this is usually when you see and witness the true character in depths within a mans Soul. But, I will say this...I would not listen to the current younger adult generation as much as I would the older who have mastered minded the intellect differently and well. The discipline that free flows from this type of worship...hummmmm....Its either there, or its not. Off the cuff-type-ramblings you speak of dear andy~I'd would not even attend~i would become board..... But, again reiterating your words skimmed over at first....oooops~some on catalyst types~I believe this type of interpersoanl gestures with others/church holds the keys to future successes in churhces indefinately...

lovely post....your smart

Rahab

According to me both the religion has their own choice and temprament. I love to see that photos of strictly followers of religion.

Andy-- Great post! Caused me to think. Also I appreciate your even-handed remarks in some of your comments regarding both the free church and liturgical perspectives. (I am specifically referring to the comment that begins with "Kyle Strobel asks about idolatry...") Thanks.

generally i think your assessment is correct.

i would say that the "free churches" have no corner on the market when it comes to "social justice"....

mainline/liturgical churches have pounded that drum for years...

it used to be a reason why "free churches" criticized them...

remember? the whole "social gospel" thing that was used as a term of derision?

it's my experience that in liturgical churches they are actively involved in their communities, social justice issues, etc.

and often were "there" long before the local evangelicals got involved.

they just do it in a quiet sort of way...

give props where it's due.

I saw the Hillsong United "I heart justice" sattellite broadcast tonight. Its heart was in the right place, its sincerity in no doubt. It was also the most rambling, disjointed, redundant, frequently self-conflicting, kind of incoherent professional documentary I've ever seen, a word-for-word example of the weaknesses of the free church movement that Andy listed. Now, I don't know if HU would identify itself as 'free church', but "I heart justice" certainly had all the hallmarks, even (especially?) with the benefit of being an edited production.

Where it really got me thinking, though, was when the person I drove home with commented on how she's noticed a sharp rise in the past few years in sermons or church focuses on social justice, a revival of sorts. A sharp rise in particular sermon topics usually goes hand in hand with a sharp rise in something bad or sharp decline in something good, and in this case, decline seems to have been the catalyst (no pun intended). Since the beginning, providing practical, temporal, bold and effective aid to the poor and oppressed has been the hallmark of the Christian church, something it's been known for, something that's set it apart; these days, it feels like something too many of us need to be goaded or guilted into, and we're certainly not known for it like we used to be. And I can't help but wonder if there's a correlation here between the widespread rejection of the traditional church and the drastic decline in its oldest, most remarkable tradition, for that is what social justice is. The traditional churches lose manpower to the free churches, which on a practical level means the traditional churches are not able to render as much aid as they used to, and in personal experience, many of the free church churches I've encountered practice social activism rather than social justice - a significant distinction, the former tending to be words rather than deeds.

I am saying all this purely on the basis of experience and perception; perhaps, Andy, you have some more objective or knowledgeable insights on this matter?

Elly, yes, Hillsong Church is a free church.

You ask more broadly whether the emphasis on social justice indicates that there is a problem in this area. Yes and no. Yes, there has been suspicion of social justice in some circles but it is hard to say whether it is worse than what it was say 100 years ago.

It is certainly true that during the first part of the 20th century during the Fundamentalist vs. Modernist controversy, social justice became associated with the social gospel and liberalism. Fundamentalists and their successors the evangelicals were suspicious of it. Evangelicals have tried to recover from this suspicion for a few decades now. The Lausanne Covenant of 1974's statement on social responsibility and Ron Sider's 1978 book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger were early signs of that. The Catalyst Conference this October emphasized microfinancing and adoption as concrete actions.

Continuing to respond to Elly's comment.

The question of whether the church as a whole is doing less social justice is of course difficult to measure. But Mark Chaves, the sociologist who was in charge of the National Congregations Study that I cite above, argues that congregations do not do that much in terms of social services but this has not changed in 100 years. Here are some of his conclusions:

"1. Congregations typically engage in social services in only a minor and peripheral way. 2. Congregations' typical involvement in social services involves small groups of volunteers carrying out well-defined tasks on a periodic basis. 3. Congregations, when they do perform social services, mainly help to meet individuals' emergency needs in a way that involves minimal contact between congregation members and the needy . . . 5. Congregations were not more intensively involved in social services in the early part of the twentieth century than they are now, nor did their social service activity ever represent an alternative to government-provided services, nor has there been a displacement of religious social services by secular services." Mark Chaves, Congregations in America, (Harvard, 2004), p. 46.

Elly, you are thinking like a historian and sociologist--well done! I have given you a little input to further your reflection and reading!

Thanks for the insights, Andy.

I am particularly intrigued by Mr. Chavez's finding that "Congregations were not more intensively involved in social services in the early part of the twentieth century than they are now, nor did their social service activity ever represent an alternative to government-provided services...". Well, really it's the "nor did they ever" part that catches my attention. Is that statement specifically referring to a 100-year timeframe, and is that study available to the public? I'm from Quebec, and as far as I know that same statement cannot be made of our church history; I think that's why it intrigues me so much.