Ex Libris

On July 9th, P. Andrew Sandlin, a theologian and cultural critic I hold in extremely high regard (his book New Flesh, New Earth truly transformed my faith) attacked “covenant renewal” folks on his blog, which would be basically your local Federal Vision dept., and pretty much all “high church” fellas.

He wrote,

Legalism in liturgy tends to occur when one erects (= invents) a liturgy from a deductive or “theological” reading of the Bible text and … argues that this is the Christian (”Biblical”) liturgy and all others are substandard.

I think we need to immediately point out how bloomin’ odd this statement really is. Sandlin is saying that people who erect a liturgy from “deductive or ‘theological’ reading of the Bible” are legalistic. But I would like to ask, “How else precisely is someone to develop a proper liturgy than by ‘a deductive or ‘theological’ reading of the Bible’?” It makes one wonder precisely what Rev. Sandlin uses as his liturgical standard at his church, if deductive and theological studies of the Bible are “legalism.” Maybe he gets his liturgy by askin’ the boys down at the Cracker Barrel? What method of Bible reading should we employ in developing our liturgy if both deductive and theological are out (and there aren’t many appealing choices once those are taken off the ballet)? Rev. Sandlin’s?

The question Rev. Sandlin needs to answer is whether or not there are appropriate methods of worshiping God as directed in the Bible, or are we just up to our own ideas, tossed out willy-nilly and applied without any real thought? In other words, if I said it was appropriate to worship God by employing cheetoes, beer, and a fresh episode of The Simpsons, how exactly would Rev. Sandlin say this is bad? What standard is he appealing to? And if his answer is “the Bible,” then we must ask him, “Would you like the Deductive Burger or a side order of theology with that?”

As to the protest about liturgical folk (and here Sandlin is including low, high, and middlin’) thinking one another’s liturgy is substandard, I can only answer via: “Duh!” Everybody thinks they’ve got all the answers, and incidentally this includes Rev. Sandlin, who is the guy terryhooting about the whole mess. Aren’t they allowed to think what they want?

I’m sure Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, James Jordan, Rich Lusk, and other covenant renewal folk think other forms are substandard, but you also never see them being schismatic or haughty about it. But what you do see is Andrew Sandlin calling everybody legalists for having a liturgy.

Sandlin continues,

To insist that Our Way - a way on which 90% of the church historic could not agree - must be The One and Only Way to the Exclusion of All Others is an embarrassment to the thoughtful and historically alert among us.

Here, I think, Sandlin overstates his case. 90% of the church historic couldn’t agree with, oh say, being high church? Shall we do the math on this one? Shall we look at the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Church of England, Church of Scotland, and Episcopal communions for just a brief vote on whether or not high church liturgy is preferred? Now shall we add up all the members they’ve had through the centuries, and count ‘em up along with the Covenant Renewal folk and all other high church persons I’ve neglected to mention and compare that with the sole total of all low and middlin’ protestants around the world? Yeah, I’m pretty sure low and middlin’ would lose that one. (Please note that I do not agree with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox liturgical practices, yadda and so forth, with appropriate qualifications. The point is, they’re high liturgy.)

As to exclusive liturgical priority being embarrassing for the historically alert, hasn’t Sandlin read For the Life of the World or The Shape of the Liturgy? For all the rucus and the differences, there has actually been surprising continuity, and that continuity has tended to be upper-middlin’ to high.

And isn’t Sandlin himself among the ranters, yellin’ and wavin’ and getting red in the face about liturgy that is not identical with his own? Can we not turn his very statement back on him? Surely he is the one who is saying, “My Way - a way on which 90% of the church historic could not agree - must be The One and Only Way to the Exclusion of All Others”? Or is he magically immune to this kind of reasoning because he is actually right? And the cycle just starts over with Sandlin’s voice added in.

Unfortunately for Sandlin, and low and middlin’ church folk, the high church liturgical model stands mid-stream in the history of the church. The Covenant Renewal movement itself proves itself to be mostly Biblical (I think some of it is just summoned up from the ghost of 19th century idealism, primarily in the area of church music) and tries to worship as God has directed throughout all of Scripture - OT included.