In Rememberance of Me

by Joel V Webb | Dec 12, 2024 | Orthodoxy Matters

Of the two sacraments practiced in the Protestant tradition, the one that continues on throughout the believer’s life is that of the Eucharist (or the Lord’s Supper, Communion). Eucharist simply means thanksgiving from the Greek, which derives from the connection to the Passover meal and the similarity it has with the thanksgiving offering in the Levitical law. It has also been found in early church history in the Didache to be called the Eucharist as well.

Matthew 26:26-28 (NET), While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

One of the primary argument surrounding the Lord’s Supper as is with baptism is their classification. Some in the Protestant world are uncomfortable with using the language of “sacrament”, and rather use the term “ordinances” that the Church is commanded to practice. I am not going to discuss here the additional practices in the Roman Catholic tradition where they have 7 sacraments. The primary distinction between these two terms is the affect of them. An initial note, the word sacrament is derived originally from the Greek word meaning mystery. For those who use the term sacrament, it is common to hear the phrase “means of grace”. This is utilized in the Roman, Anglican, Methodist, Orthodox and other traditions. The theology is that through the sacraments, God enables and conveys His grace to the believer through them, be it baptism or the Eucharist. There are obviously disagreements of the specific mechanics of it, or if it’s even important to know. For those who utilize the term ordinances, is to say that these are things that we are to do because Christ commanded them and is beneficial to do them because it reminds us of God’s work (be it baptism or Eucharist). 

I contend that the term sacrament is the correct one to use for baptism and the Eucharist. I believe that through the Holy Spirit, God enables and conveys His grace to the believer. Initially at baptism, and continually through the Eucharist. John Wesley has a fantastic sermon titled ‘Constant Communion’ where he develops this idea that the Eucharist is an essential in the regular life of the Christian as a continual remembering and enabling through the grace of God to live a holy life. In this I do believe that Christ is spiritually present as we partake. Now this likely throws up some questions. I believe that the Roman distinction of transubstantiation is a mechanical overstatement in a desire to have philosophical certainty HOW Christ is present in the Eucharist. Rather, I put myself with the rest of the sacramental tradition where while we believe that Christ is present, and enabling the believer, the “mechanics” are as the Eastern Orthodox Church puts it, “is a mystery.” 

Because of this I have come to see the importance of regularly taking the Eucharist, even on a weekly basis. If the Lord’s Supper is an avenue by which Christ strengthens our walk and transformation to look like Him, than why would we not participate as often as we are able to? In fact, up until some of the radical reformers came onto the scene, the primary element in the Church service was the receiving of the elements. The table was the central place that people came to worship. Yes, to hear the Word, sing and fellowship. But primarily to partake together. It was the high-point of the service, that everything culminated with. What is a more fitting way to finish a service than with a proclamation of the Lord’s death! as He commanded.

This practice of regularly meeting is not just found in the tradition of the Church, but also in Church history through the Scriptures. The pattern we see in the Early Church was that their gatherings we focused around yes teaching, but also breaking bread (Acts 20:7). John Wesley comments on this Scripture, “their daily Church communion consisted in these four particulars: Hearing the word; Having all things common; Receiving the Lord’s Supper; Prayer.”

Sadly in many parts of the Church this practice has been relegated to happening less often, and in some cases rarely practiced. Here are several poignant quotes concerning the diminishing place of the Lord’s Supper as apart of regular Church practice.  

William Willimon (cited by Scott McKnight) hits the nail on the head:

In my own
free church tradition, Zwingli’s practice of quarterly celebrations of
Communion have taken hold. That radical reformer from Zurich felt that
quarterly celebrations of the Lord’s Supper were sufficient lest the
meal become too commonplace, too ritualized. This is an odd point of
view. Odd because five hundred
years of experience in those churches that adopted the Zwinglian
practice shows that churches which commune less frequently value
Communion less. Odd because
of the biblical and historical testimony of weekly celebrations of the
Eucharist. Odd because reformers such as John Calvin and Luther hoped to
establish weekly Communion.

Jim Hamilton makes a similar point:

It is not
clear to me why churches that seek to model themselves by the pattern
of church life and structure seen in the NT would not also partake of
the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. If it is objected that
this would diminish its significance, my reply is simply that those who
make this argument typically do not claim that weekly observance
diminishes the significance of the preaching of the Word, the prayers of
God’s people, the singing of Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and I
doubt they would be disappointed to have weekly baptisms!

Both of these quotes were sourced by THIS article from HolyJoys.com).

It is at the table where we all come, and partake of the elements. It is at that place that we all are to reflect on the amazing work that Christ has done for us all. It is there that, even with different language and liturgy, or ingredients of the elements we are worshiping with our brothers & sisters across the world and time proclaiming His death until He comes again. It is a moment that is holy. It is a moment that as we eat and drink we physically interact with the words that we speak. I do not believe in transubstantiation (as stated above and per Article 26 of the 39 Articles of Religion). But we are in another way tangibly interacting with our Lord who died and rose again. It is a moment of beauty as we know the Holy Spirit, in us is strengthening and enabling us for His service, and His glory. This holy and beautiful moment should be regarded as more than just an ordinance, as if it were us just reflecting on an important memory, or as if we were participating in mandatory training. Christ instituted it for our benefit. To know that His sacrifice is effectual for the entirety of our lives, not just when we first entered His family.

All of this that I have written and quoted is not to say that the preaching of the Word, or singing songs is nor important, it is! But, there has been as it seems from my perspective a much needed rediscovery of the importance and the power of the Eucharist. It should have predominant importance in Christian worship as participation in it is in it’s own way a reciting and declaration of the Gospel message. And I believe that through it, we can encounter Christ to be strengthened and steeled in holiness to image Him in the world around us.

Conversion of a Credobaptist

by Joel V Webb | Dec 8, 2024 | Orthodoxy Matters

This might ruffle some feathers.

Like most (if not
all) Western Evangelicals I was baptized when I was a bit older (for
me at 16). While I made a profession of faith at 4 or 5 years old,
general practice was not until someone was a bit older to make the
public declaration. As a baby I had been dedicated with my twin
brother at just a couple years old. My parents publicly stating that
they would raise my brother and I in the ways of the Lord. At some
points I would hear of “babies being baptized”, but it was always
with suspicion, mostly talking about Roman Catholics. Baptism is
really just a sign, a public confession when you want to let other
people know that you are following Jesus, and is only for those who
can make that conscience decision to follow Him.

And up until about 6
months ago I have held to that position as well.

I want to take you
though a truncated journey of my conversion from a credo-baptist
(a.k.a believers baptism) to a paedo-baptist (infant baptism). This
is a journey that I never thought I would go on, but as I have delved
into Scripture, taking into account as well the history and practice
of the Church it became increasingly evident there was more to the
story than I was told. As someone in the Wesleyan tradition I am
going to use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to help frame my journey and
discovery. Before I get into the weed I want to express a few
qualifiers.

I am in the Free
Methodist Church, a denomination that allows for both infant baptism,
and infant dedication. As someone who will be ordained in the near
future, I am agreeable to perform both infant baptism and dedication.
This is not something I am not dogmatic on, and am willing to do
both.

Secondly, I have no
ill-will to my credo-baptist brothers and sisters. I do not believe
that mode of baptism is a tier-one issue. While I believe (as I will
explain) infant baptism is a more grounded practice, it does not
invalidate other forms of baptism. Actually, for someone who has
never been a follower of Christ needs to be baptized (as is shown in
Scripture). But for those who have kids in the Church I feel infant
baptism is the best course of action.

Next, part of the
discussion hinges on our definition and discussion of sacraments.
While my Roman Catholic brothers & sisters believe there are 7, I
as a Protestant practice the two of baptism and the Eucharist (the
Lord’s Supper). There are some in more Anabaptist circles who
refrain from terminology such as sacrament, and prefer to use
“ordinance” Over the last several years I have become more aware
of the huge importance that sacraments plats in the life of the
Church. They are more than just ways we remember things. Sacraments,
as John Wesley spoke of them are a means of grace, by which God
through the enables and strengthens the Christian in holiness. We so
often focus on what WE do when we practice the sacraments, rather
than focusing on what GOD does in and through them. While yes baptism
is a public declaration of our allegiance to Christ, Scripture also
is very clear as to God’s work through the at of baptism
(Colossians 2:6-13). I am working on a blog post about sacraments,
and the Eucharist specifically, so wait for that.

Finally, this post
is not wholly exhaustive. Between references to Scripture and
tradition there is more than I could cover here and would love to
individually connect with anyone who has questions.

Scripture: Likely
one of the strongest cases from Scripture for infant baptism is how
baptism is the new circumcision. In the Old Testament the sign of
being apart of God’s people was the sign of circumcision. Every
male was to be circumcised, so people would know they were apart of
the family of Abraham. This of course after the initial act by
Abraham was performed on all male infants. Physical circumcision
then continued to be the sign for God’s people up until the coming
of Christ.

In the book of Acts
we have numerous stories of baptisms taking place. It of course
tracks that adults who became followers of Christ would be baptized,
as the initiatory sacrament into the Church. And during a number of
these instances there is reference to that person and their entire
household being baptized. Religion being a familial thing, it would
make sense that all in a family would be baptized into the community
of Christ as a sign of new life in Him.

Here is a helpful
list of comparisons of baptism and circumcision from Phillip Kayser
that is very comprehensive, and I appreciate not having to compile
the entirety of the Scriptural references.

Tradition: Simply
put, up until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s, infant
baptism was the universal practice of the Church. When we look to the
early Church Fathers it is nearly unanimous that infant baptism was
the practice since the early Church (as early as 100AD). Justin
Martyr, Origen, Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gergory Nazianzen,
Augustine, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Cyprian and many many more
Church fathers attest to infant baptism being the mode of the Church
for the children of believing parents. Of course this did not exclude
new converts to the faith, who would be baptized into Christ (be they
Jew or Gentile).

It was only until
the radical reformers who questioned this practiced. But aside from
these, all the main reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Arminius,
Cranmer) upheld the legitimacy of the practice of the standard.

Reason: Some
may ask, “wasn’t Jesus dedicated, and so because of that children
should be as well.” This is true, Jesus was dedicated as an infant.
But heres the thing, the New Covenant had not been initiated yet.
There was no death of Christ to be baptized into. It cannot be denied
that Jesus would have been circumcised coming from a Jewish family.
In the Jewish mindset, baptism was an act of purification, bit did
not represent the distinction that circumcision does until after the
death and resurrection of Christ.

Now that we are in
the New Covenant, is it not also reasonable that we want to signify
that our children are in fact apart of God’s people? We don’t
believe that our kids are little pagans running around until they
make a decision to follow Jesus. Yes, infants who are baptized should
when they are ready to, either affirm their baptism, or be confirmed
as a sign of living their life in line with their baptism.

Another aspect we
should also consider is the very individualistic culture that we are
in living in the 21^st Century West. Throughout Scripture,
we see a familial/communal aspect to ones faith. So much of our focus
in how we talk about our faith in Christ is what we do, rather than
the focus on what Christ does for us.

Experience: Be
it the baptism of an infant or an adult, we know that being baptized
does not ensure that person will remain in Christ. This is often a
common objection to infant baptism, “that baby can’t make a
decision, there’s no guarantee they will follow Him.” This is
true, just as there is not guarantee that anyone will apostatize the
faith.

Back to a
consideration of the individualization of culture and faith. One
thing that we forget about Sacraments is that is is more than just
recognizing our part, but they are also a declaration of what God has
done, and His work in our lives to save us. What’s more powerful
than a declaration of the Gospel, and the work of Christ when someone
is baptized? In baptism we recognize God’s saving work, and through
that work we state that our children are now apart of God’s people,
to be raised in His ways. While similar to dedication as some would
say, I would argue the impact is much more profound.

Final Thoughts:
As I said, this post is not exhaustive. But it is a sort of primer as
to why I no longer consider myself a credo-baptist. But what I’ve
presented here represents some of the core reasoning that I now am a
proponent of infant-baptism. This transformation has been just one
aspect of my theological journey to one that has been more connected
to the historical Church that is faithful to Scripture. I still
identify myself as an Evangelical (in the religious, not political
meaning), but have also been increasingly identifying some of the
pitfalls and shortcomings that Evangelicalism has accrued through
being suspicious of the past.

For other in-depth
discussion on infant-baptism you can check out these resources:

https://reformedperspectives.org/files/reformedperspectives/theology/TH.Johnson.Baptism.html

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/a-brief-defense-of-infant-baptism/

https://leanpub.com/infant-baptism/read

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/why-we-should-baptize-babies-the-case-for-covenantal-infant-baptism

Book Review: Rebirth of Orthodoxy

by Joel V Webb | Dec 6, 2024 | Orthodoxy Matters

What is orthodoxy, and why does it matter?

These are questions that many years ago Thomas Oden, who is now recognized during his lifetime as the preeminent Methodist theologian, and the father of a branch of theology called paleo-orthodoxy. 

We live in what is now called the post-modern era, where many of the assumptions of what has built our current world are being called into question. And many of these questions also etch away at the foundational truths that construct the core of Christian belief. Calling it “modern chauvinism”, where the assumed inference is that the understanding of the past is inherently inferior. This has developed from a combination of the rise of secularism, materialism & critical theory. 

If this modern chauvinism is the presumed way of operating, then what do we actually do with the long held beliefs of the Christian Church? Are they something to be believed, or are they the relics of an outdated past that has no connection with the here and now, and must be updated to fit with our modern sensibilities.

Oden himself went on his own journey from an idealistic liberal theologian, to someone who concretely was pursuing the classical Christian consensus of orthodoxy through the history the the Church. Finding his start by looking at the early church fathers (a.k.a patristics) as the progenitors of all faithful followers of Christ. 

Orthodoxy is simply defined by Oden as, “the integrated biblical teaching as interpreted in its most consensual classic period”. From this, if we go back to the patristic teachers, we can begin tracing the core of Christian understanding from the Apostles to our day with consistency. Some of these key teachers are Athanasius, Ambrose, Basil, Cyril & Crystotham.

Another amazing facet of his look on what is Christian orthodoxy is his placement of tradition as important to this. “tradition is itself a memory of scripture interpretation consensually received.” Meaning we cannot expunge tradition as many do in more fundamentalist understandings, as it helps hold the Christian consensus together. 

But ultimately Oden’s greatest area of concern and criticism is for the critical, liberal & Marxist understandings of Christian theology and history (which he himself had been saved from). 

“The Marxist explanation of orthodoxy was simple” economic interests prevailed. Ideological winners imposed their views on ideological losers corrosively – a matter of power.” This narrow understanding of history (as Marx himself would enjoy) rejects any notion of divine inspiration, that a Holy God could through His people keep and preserve His revelation to mankind. This of course being a core tenant of Christian understanding.

In fact, while many of these modern understandings seem so very broad, Oden states that they are actually very restrictive and small. Their “all encompassing acceptance” is really very small and narrow in comparison to Christian orthodoxy. One area that this shines bright is in orthodoxies understanding of diversity. “Because modern diversity has no time to listen to other generations, it risks a massive loss of wisdom.” This also is seen in the actions that flow from this kind of understanding. “Nothing is more pathetic than a self-centered doctrinal or moral advocate who claims to be centered on God’s Word and yet fails to listen to the vast resources of orthodoxy. 

This book, while written some years ago is more pertinent for our time than ever. I fear the dangers that Oden warns of are continuing to chip away at churches and seminaries,, thus causing a new generation of pastors and theologians to be driven more by idealistic modern chauvinism, than the tried and truth orthodoxy of the classic Christian consensus.

It is in the rebirth of orthodoxy in each one of us that will lead to a solid and real ecumenicism that will bring the Church together over what is essential, to spread the Gospel.

Justice vs Justification?

by Joel V Webb | Dec 4, 2024 | Orthodoxy Matters

Excess leads to error. 

An over extension of how God’s sovereignty works leads to a once saved always saved mentality. An over extension of how human free will works leads to an eternal insecurity mentality. 

One thing that I have been noticing is his over extension in the Church particularly on the issue of justice and justification. Often a group will be solely focused on “justice”, and seek to work for the poor, needy & oppressed. On the other hand another group will be focused so much on “justification” and only ever evangelize, never caring for people in this life.

In the movement of liberation theology that arose from primarily Roman Catholic scholars in Central & South America that has a focus on liberating people socially & politically to bring on human flourishing has some interesting perspectives. One of the more fascinating ideas was that even atheists who do good for the poor should be canonized in the Church as a saint. That is excess. With an overbearing focus on earthly justice and flourishing that completely forgets the work of Christ, and the message of the Gospel. Thus reducing it to good ideas that only answer problems here and now.

On the other hand there are places like in the tradition I grew up in that had a narrow focus on “justification”, where much of the here and now really are on the periphery. There really isn’t a need to do much of what Scripture talks about for the widow, orphan & oppressed because everything is about becoming so much like Jesus that you will be apart of a special rapture before or during the great tribulation, then you can reign and rule with Christ in the millennium and through eternity (a simple reduction of the general worldview).

The reality is that the Gospel holds both of these in an active tension where followers of Christ are to do both. Sadly, it seems that these tow characteristics have been picked up by partisan sides, which exasperates the issue further. Yet Christ calls all of His followers as part of His Kingdom to care about both justice and justification.

 I highly encourage you to check out this sermon by the late Timothy Keller HERE where he tackles this topic. If the Church is to be the salt and the light in the world we are called to be, we must hold both justice and justification in correct balance. 

Justice does not matter if it is grounded and flows out of the working of the Gospel.

Justification is not demonstrated if justice is not the fruit in the lives of those justified.

Excess either way leads to error.

Book Review: The Thrill of Orthodoxy

by Joel V Webb | Nov 27, 2024 | Orthodoxy Matters

We live in a very
pluralistic society. So much of the discourse is focused on “your
truth, and my truth”, without ever asking the question, is there
such thing as the truth? The question this begs as well is what is
the response of the Christian faith? We practice an ancient faith
that stretches back to early human history, telling the story of the
almighty creator God who has been revealing Himself to humanity, to
show the way as bring creation back to how it was intended.

In the 21^st
century the Church faces the issue that it has since it’s
inauguration at Pentecost. From time to time the vision and holistic
picture of who God is gets muddied up and lost. Combined with ideas
that help calm the human mind to reconcile God Himself with their own
desires. Instead of being transformed by the Gospel, they seek to
transform the Gospel to look like them.

This is the question
that Trevin Wax seeks to answer in his book The Thrill of
Orthodoxy. Trevin defines
orthodoxy as what can be called “classic Christianity”, or the
consensus that has been formed on the faith since the apostles that
is found throughout the Church till today. Orthodoxy is composed of
the essential truths that define what being a Christian is. We define
orthodoxy through what we call creeds (the 3 primary ones being the
Apostles, Nicene & Athanasian creeds). They provide concise
universal statements of the defining truths of the Christian faith.
Which means that going outside of them puts you in the category of
heresy, or wrong teaching.

The
discussion on what theology actually is, is important. Theology is
the study of God. While many may write-off theology as unimportant,
what we can often miss is that theology defines who God is, and if
that is off then we face the challenge of understanding Him
incorrectly. How can we get to know someone if our perception of who
He is, is incorrect?

Trevin
then discusses the natural we have as humans to drift, “because of
out natural tendency to apathy and inattention”. After exploring
the four primary ways that people tend to drift from orthodoxy (going
through the motions, works focus, unsettled by the counter cultural
truth of the Gospel, activism over evangelism), the discussion shifts
to how orthodoxy ultimately is swimming against the flow of the
river. In order to stop the drift we must have “the thrill of
orthodoxy.” We need to find a better excitement about the truth of
God that holds us to Him, rather than being taken away.

The
main crux of Trevin’s work deals with rejecting some of the
presuppositions in some popular theology today. Many seek to provide
either a theology that is either totally interested in the here and
now, or only interested in the world to come. Orthodoxy provides a
true tension between the two. A poignant example he discusses in
regard to this is the topic of justice, and social justice. Yes,
Scripture calls us to be just, personally and sin a societal way. But
something happens when we miss the premise of orthodoxy in this
pursuit.

“When
you lose that larger perspective, and when you stress only those
aspects of life that are “this world” and downplay the reality of
future judgment you lose the hope of eternal justice, which means
that earthly justice is all that’s left. Unless you achieve total
justice here and now, you’ll never see it, which makes every
pursuit of justice in this world a life-or-death struggle.”

Orthodoxy
expands out vision above the here and the now, giving us the ultimate
perspective that justice will be had by a loving and holy God. This
should not make us disinterested. In fact, it should activate us to
action, while not leaving behind the vision of when He makes all
things right.

A
final point of focus that struck me was his discussion towards the
end of tradition vs traditionalism, and how orthodoxy combats the
ideologies of our day to stay Gospel focused. Often times people
discount the need for orthodoxy by challenging that “you’re just
holding on to dead religion”. But this is an incorrect assumption.

“Tradition
is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of
the living”

Because
of the saints who have gone before us, we are called to live the
truth that they held to as well. But when we lose the trill and
excitement of knowing God truly, then it turns into dead faith that
does not live.

Fundamentally,
as followers of Christ we must have a definition of our faith. There
are things that must be held dogmatically. Our culture does not like
that, but that is the truth.

“The
problem with doctrine-less and ‘undogmatic’ Christianity is that
it becomes a religious veneer for blessing your life as it already
is. Christianity without dogma leaves us with a tame God.”

Truth
orthodox Christianity challenges our feelings and assumptions. It
will offend our sensibilities because our human nature does not want
to change. But that is the word of the Gospel. To take and change us
to be more like Christ. Some would charge that to progress forward we
must change and reject orthodoxy. All that does is lead us toward
heresy, which will kill us.

I
highly recommend this book to anyone and everyone. We live in
challenging times. With so many ideologies and theologies that seek
to take the historic Christian faith, and neuter it to be “kind &
nice”, rather than a sword that divides soul and spirit. Process
theology seeks to take God and adapt him to our own ideas of what is
right so that we can live how we want (and most of the time sleep
with who we want). Instead of transforming us, our culture seeks to
make Jesus into our image.

So
what does the future look like? Trevin encourages us to dig into the
historic Church. Read the early church fathers and see how their
unwavering commitment to Christ, even in the face of death answers
most of the questions we have in our day. Ill close with this final
quote as an exhortation as to what to do.

“The
future Church will not be forged by those who tire of the thrill of
orthodoxy, but by those whose roots run deep through the ages of the
Christian church and back into the pages of God’s inspired Word.

How do we all engage?

by Joel V Webb | Nov 25, 2024 | Orthodoxy Matters

 I lead the music part of worship every week at my church. Music is an important element of worshiping God, and always has been in different ways. Something my wife told me shortly after we got married was that she misses older songs, especially those found in hymnals because they helped teach people to sing, the melody and the harmony. The simpler instrumentation really brought the voices to the forefront, and there would be a robust sense of everyone singing together. At first I shrugged it off. But now, I see her point, and am wondering how do we get it back?

I love a lot of the contemporary worship that is out there. Especially the new stuff from the Getty’s, CityAlight, Phil Wickham and several others in particular. But with the general trends of Christian worship in the last 30 years, elements of the concert vibe really have been impacting how we worship together on a Sunday morning. This doesn’t mean we don’t use the latest and greatest tech when it makes sense. Our worship team uses in-ear monitors, backing tracks w/ click tracks to help fill in some sounds, and keep us all in timing.

But, how do we also work towards reengaging the entire congregation so they don’t feel like they are just attending a concert with Christian music, and then a message?

The most poignant and impactful tool that I have found for this is spoken liturgy. 

Liturgy is defined as “the work of the people”. It is something that everyone participates in as part of worship. No one is left out, because all can join in the prayers, and the call and responses of each part of the service. More than that, the liturgy that the Church has used in the Orthodox, Roman & Protestant traditions are steeped in Scripture. You can hardly go from one word to another without stumbling upon a list of Scriptures that are being referenced to. So in this case, not only is everyone participating, but people are also taking in Scripture.

In my context the usage of liturgy has taken the form of regularly reciting The Apostle’s Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. These two pieces provide a framework and foundation of Christian understanding that all can participate in, and remind them of the truth of the Gospel every time we repeat it.

At the end of the day, the liturgy is only as dead as the person participating in it. While we have more of a neo-liturgical experience (a blend of both contemporary and traditional service elements), it helps keep us grounded in the truth and wisdom of those who have gone before, while also allowing us to tap into the fresh expressions of Christian worship music. 

Both of these takes on worship can be problematic if seen as the ends, rather than the means. The focus is always to be on Christ, and the proclamation of the Gospel message. 

So how do we get everyone involved? Find various ways that integrate the outward involvement of everyone in the Church during worship. The collective action of praying and speaking the same things is a strong builder of commonality as we worship our great God!