I sure don’t think you’re crazy…I’ve just been wondering what I’d have to add to the thoughts.

Personally, I think liturgy had far more relevance in the pre-literacy era, but that’s not to say I think its place is entirely in the past.

In the modern, pentecostal church where I worship, we actually do have a form of liturgy, because usually things happen in a certain order…including responsive prayer when the pastor feels led to do this. Many of the elements you’d expect in liturgy are present, but in a relatively informal manner. Just like the guidelines for what most of us base our church services on via Paul’s writings are not prescriptive, but suggestions (excluding the corrective stuff in 1 Cor 12-14).

All that said, I certainly think it helps some people, and is not boring for some people, and holds great meaning for some people. That’s the beauty of worship – provided it is centred on the Word, focused on Christ, the method hardly matters does it?

Hey,
I suppose it’s also helpful to really define “liturgy”, and what that means. I think in your context, you’d refer to more things like readings, and what I’d called “programmed” stuff … but then again, after sitting through our creative meetings, we “program” or “liturgize” stuff like crazy …

Bobby Gilles of SojournMusic.Com wrote a great article on TheworshipCommunity.Com about this … see below:
http://www.theworshipcommunity.com/the-work-of-the-people-liturgy-for-non-liturgical-churches/

For the Kingdom,
Fred McKinnon
http://www.fredmckinnon.com
http://www.theworshipcommunity.com
http://www.highestpraise.com

In it’s broadest sense, every church has a liturgy, as it would be the set of practices one’s church community practices on a regular basis.

In the sense of the prescribed readings, call and response, there are different elements that we do every week type of liturgy I have mixed feelings. I think that there is some profound wisdom in certain pieces, (for instance having a congregational prayer of confession) that otherwise gets left off. And I think these pieces can go a long ways towards making the entire worship service focused around God and what Jesus has done for us.

Although a little separate, I also like the idea of a lectionary, and the church calendar, as I think it gives us a lot broader set of topics to cover and doesn’t allow us to avoid verses in the Bible we don’t want to address. The church calendar shows some wisdom in how we approach the different big times of the christian year and how we focus on what Jesus did.

I think with all of this the thing that is hard for most of us evangelicals is our fear of turning something into ritual. Of course we have ended up doing the same thing with how we do church, but I understand why some felt the need to move away from it. Before we decided to pull the plug on the church plant to start over, we were really starting to process using the different elements, but trying to do it in a less rigid way that left us some room for difference in expression. And while I don’t know how that would work for everyone else, I found it incredibly helpful.

Extremely safe.

Bryan is right in that in the broadest sense every church is liturgical. Perhaps a more helpful distinction is “low” versus “high” liturgy, although admittedly all kinds of labels are problematic.

Anyhow, I think the question of liturgy is tied to some degree to the question of tradition. Most high liturgical churches come out of denominations with a higher view of tradition as well. It seems that those whose worship is characterized by a higher view of liturgy recognize the authority of their tradition much more than your conventional evangelical church. In some respects, I think that’s really healthy. Among other things, it avoids the individualistic and presumptuous “just the Bible” mentality. Granted, it has its disadvantages as well.

I feel like I’ve got a million things to say about this, but no way to spit it out coherently. It’s been on my mind for quite some time.