jrovira at drew.edu
Mon Feb 23 15:00:08 EST 2004
Thanks much for sharing the experience. I've come at it from both
angles. I see it as work either way -- in a church that employs set
liturgy, I find I have to work to put myself into it, and it tends to
move by me faster than I'm able to do that (this is probably a function
of my lack of recent experience, though). In a church that doesn't, I
still have to work, but have more time. But then, there's AW Tozer's
observation about the non-liturgical service: it still has a liturgy,
just not a very good one.
gilliaca at jmu.edu wrote:
>>I suppose I can let the Anglicans speak for themselves, eh?
>This Angican could probably reel off large chuncks of the
>liturgy from memory, from the heart too. As one who leads
>worship, I am always glad to have the Altar Book where I can
>see it. More experienced priests than I say it's really
>humiliating to say, forget the words to The Lord's Prayer.
>For me the genius of using a set but also flexible liturgy is
>that I come to the same words each time from somewhat or
>dramatically different place in my life in the world, my
>prayer life. I don't have to invent words for there I am -
>they are there, and I don't have to remember all that I
>should be praying for - it's there in front of me.
>Cynthia A. Gilliatt
>English Department, JMU
More information about the Milton-L