Protestants and Traditionalism in Liturgy and Other Things

Thanks, Michael, for the interesting questions about Protestants.  I'll leave the spiritual-discipline question for now.  In response to Richard's post about the article on liturgy and life/moral issues, and Michael's question whether "Protestants (or subsets of Protestants) have similar fault lines to those described in Richard's post":

First, I'm not sure exactly what the article is claiming about the connection between traditional Catholic morality and liturgical devotion.  Is the correlation only with the particular wish to receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue?  Or is the correlation with a broader desire for mystery and grandeur in the liturgy -- which would implicate a bunch of features, like the often very un-mysterious "praise music," that the article doesn't mention?

Beyond that, and assuming that the article correctly describes a Catholic fault line, I think that Protestantism is more complicated and has one big dynamic cutting the opposite way that means -- in contrast to Richard's observation -- pro-life attitudes don't correlate with a deep sense of mystery and "sacredness" in liturgy.

There are examples of Protestants who are traditionalist on theology and moral issues who also call for a "high" liturgy marked by a sense of mystery and prostration, Richard's "perception of ... sacredness."  Many of these are in the Anglican tradition, not surprisingly because it's liturgically closer to Catholicism.  I think of Episcopalian theological-moral traditionalists who adhere to the 1928 Book of Common Prayer or the current Eucharist Rite I, both of which have more formal, majestic (i.e., "archaic"!) language than the dominant Rite II.

But a major dynamic in Protestantism cuts the other way.  A huge segment of Protestants who are  traditionalists on theology and moral issues -- namely, the evangelical/pentecostal segment -- tends to be "low" in liturgy, with choruses instead of hymns and spontaneous instead of set language.  These features all emphasize the approachability, not the mystery, of God.  Indeed, it's a seeming paradox that the more theologically and socially liberal denominations (Episcopal, Presbyterian, etc.) tend to preserve historic church music and liturgy that emphasizes grandeur, sacredness, and mystery, even as they reinterpret historic doctrine more freely.  Meanwhile evangelicals try to hold fast to traditional doctrines, and they fight in the pro-life and other traditional-morality causes, but they jettison longstanding worship forms.  I've faced this paradox every time I've moved and looked for a new church, because it's harder and harder to find congregations that emphasize both reasonably classic doctrine and reasonably classic liturgy and choral music.

The paradox can be made sense of in several ways.  Most of evangelicalism emphasizes the relatively unmediated relationship between God, through Jesus, and the person.  That and the Biblical word are primary; liturgy is a means for praise and proclamation, and the approach to it is pragmatic and experimental.  Another explanation focuses on class differences among Protestant bodies.  Evangelicalism historically has tended to be middle-class and lower middle-class, Episcopalianism and Presbyterian middle-class and upper-middle-class.  And -- another generalization here -- the upper middle class tends to be both more influenced by the Enlightenment (i.e. theologically liberal) and more drawn to historic and complex art forms like the historic liturgical language and music.

I share Richard's sense that a loss of reverence or openness to the sacred in liturgy can reflect a similar loss in the broader culture, and can even contribute to such a loss in ways we can't immediately recognize.  (And BTW, the idea that people should actually be barred from kneeling and taking the Host on the tongue strikes me as totally controlling.)  At the same time, I think it's a reality that preserving mystery and grandeur usually involves some tradeoff with making the faith personally accessible for large numbers of people.  Evangelicalism has usually been willing to trade mystery for accessibility, with significant costs, but also with significant benefits: among varieties of Christianity, it has been especially successful at inspiring huge numbers of average people to intense personal commitment, including commitment to the pro-life cause.  (Even without a well developed sensibility of the sacred, evangelicals seem inspired to be pro-life by personal faith, traditional sexual morality, and the proclamation of the Word about protecting the vulnerable.)

Obviously Catholicism has inspired commitment on a large scale too.  But -- and here's a question back to Michael and others -- hasn't the invigoration of the laity in the last 40 years contributed a lot to inspiring that commitment, and haven't those same 40 years also seen the emphasis on mystery in the Mass reduced and the emphasis on accessibility increased?  Am I right that it's hard to avoid some tradeoff between the two?  (Though I'm all for efforts to develop liturgical forms that embody both.)

Tom