Before I turn to the movements of this symphony, let us first look at the attitudes that our ‘audience’, if we can use that term, brings to the performance of this great work of art we call ‘worship’.

I begin by affirming that liturgy, that is to say, liturgical rites, texts, customs and practices are a norm and a source for theology. Liturgy is normative because we believe the first Christian liturgical experiences were in closer touch with the Christ event. A norm is a guide or rule against which one judges the authenticity of a present experience. Norms are indispensable but not absolute or exclusive.

However, there are criteria by which we judge the legitimacy of liturgical developments. We examine their origins and measure them against the primitive liturgical experiences of the church to the degree that one can be in touch with those experiences. We examine their historical contexts to see if non-theological and non-liturgical reasons were primary motivating forces. The development must

(i) be meaningful, i.e., responding to the immediate and real needs of the worshippers,

(ii) have meaning, i.e., have internal coherence, and

(iii) be true, i.e., fit into a larger context, such as the meaning of Christian community, worship of a trinitarian God, and the like.

A theology of liturgy is a theological articulation arising from a study of the liturgical texts and actions themselves. Liturgical theology is a theological system with its various branches but as informed by the experience of worship and reflection upon that experience. Liturgical theology is both systematic and pastoral. It is systematic when it explores the doctrines of the faith which the liturgy articulates and examines these doctrines in relation to their formulations in other theological branches such as Christology and ecclesiology. It is pastoral when it speaks from and to the church at prayer. Liturgical theology is (a) an explication of the theology contained within the liturgical celebrations themselves and (b) the application of theological insights to the church at prayer.

It is also appropriate to remember that no one observer, no one community, has exclusive rights to the claim of ‘knowing’ what happens when the church assembles to participate in leitourgia. Pluralism characterizes theological understanding and, even when not clearly articulated, informs the life of our congregations. To safeguard us from absolutizing our own experience, we must keep our theology in the context of prayer, for in prayer one knows the inadequacy of all images. And we must keep in mind that the purpose of theology is not to create a thought system which is self-justifying, but is intended to assist people to encounter God and to grasp their way of being in the world.

1) Some members of our assembly come in an ‘institutional’ mode. For them, liturgy is evaluated by its visible structures. Liturgy is pyramidal in structure; the clergy minister to the congregation. Liturgy is more a thing than an event. Great emphasis is placed on following the rubrics. The institutional model does not encourage the questioning of the structures of worship, no matter how outmoded they may be. This model claims that the essentials of the liturgy are unchanging because they have been given to us by Christ or, I might add, by some foundational figure of great significance to our tradition.

As a form of spirituality, those taken by the institutional model believe in the visible dimension of worship. The structure of this spirituality is found in the liturgy itself.

There are, of course, limitations to this approach to worship. There is no New Testament evidence for such an institutional model of the church. It reinforces the clericalization of the liturgy. It poses problems for ecumenical dialogue.

There are also values. It provides continuity with the Christian tradition. It provides ritual structures. Liturgical reform requires institutions: international, national, regional, parochial, congregational.

2) Other members of the Christian assembly come to our gathering in a ‘mystery’ mode. For them, the mystery of salvation is made present in the sacred rite. Liturgy equals anamnesis, the re-presenting of the sacred past. As we worship, we participate in the events of salvation history not merely remember them or invoke their power and effects. Christ is present in the sacraments, in the word of God, in the liturgical year, in all the actions of the church. In all actions of the church the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ are made visible; the paschal mystery is central.

As a liturgical spirituality, the ‘mystery’ approach understands our worship as a participation in the redeeming work of Christ. The Christian year, for example, becomes a metaphor for the Christian pilgrimage.

But there are limitations. In some cases, people may come to believe that the church exists for the liturgy rather than liturgy for the church. It can inhibit mission because the ‘world’ is seen in contrast to the ‘kingdom’ made manifest in the liturgical assembly.

3) A related mode to the ‘mystery’ approach is the ‘sacramental’. The liturgy is the fullest expression of what it means to be the body of Christ. The emphasis is on the community as the sacrament of Christ’s presence rather than the sacraments per se. Diversity of roles and proper ordering of roles in the liturgy is important. Unity and diversity find a place in the liturgy. Uniformity is not the goal; unity within diversity is. It is an approach to the worshipping assembly embedded in many of the liturgical reforms and renewal of the last fifty years or so.

This way of viewing worship tends to a communal and lay spirituality. It is a spirituality of the whole people of God. But this spirituality has to face its own limitations. For example, the ideal must confront the reality. There is also a danger of unrealistic expectations and romantic notions of community. Furthermore, "sacrament" can become limited to "sacraments"; the social dimension of Christian life can be obscured.

4) Another approach to worship that is prevalent in some churches of the Reformation is ‘proclamation’. Here, in worship Christ proclaims and the community responds to the Word of God. Sacramental actions are "visible words". The Word of God is the ultimate authority. This is a strongly evangelical model; God calls us to conversion.

In many cases its spirituality focuses on the moment of decision. Given its foundations and its spirituality, there can be a tendency to fundamentalism. It de-emphasizes visible liturgical action.

5) In some congregations worship can seem to follow the spirit of ‘process’ theology. Liturgy is an event in process and is constantly evolving. God is working in and through the world to achieve greater union. The church’s liturgy is open-ended, seeking to relate in more meaningful ways with the God who seeks such rapprochement.

As an approach to worship, ‘process’ tends to be world-centred and searches for a kind of human perfection. God is understood to be enriched when an individual acts to become more human.

6) Our emphasis on justice and justice-making has led some members of the Christian faith to turn to a ‘liberation’ approach to worship. In the liturgy we experience in anticipation as well as rehearse the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. Justice must be evident in the assembly’s ministerial roles. Liturgy is prophetic.

A ‘liberation’ spirituality emphasizes an ethic of responsibility and personal commitment. Worship raises the consciousness of the assembly so that evil may be overcome in society. But such a spirituality can lead one to avoid personal issues and growth in order to change the world. Love is replaced by justice.

In any congregation any or all of these approaches to worship can be evident. Effective leadership, whether lay or ordained, will seek to identify the attitudes brought to worship by the assembly, not to cater to one or another, but to recognize the importance of worship that attends to the full range of the diversity present among the worshippers. Identifying what approaches may be absent and the reason for their absence is equally important. What we avoid can reveal a great deal about ourselves and about our life in Christ.