Personally I don't like the RSF approach at all. There would appear to be an alarming lack of teaching. Silence is can be good, sharing is good, but I agree that it goes too far. In anycase, there is still a structure - just the method is different.
The shaking hands thing is practiced by a denomination - can't remember which - it's called 'passing the peace'. Good idea, but if done too often it's just going through the motions.
I prefer a structured church (but perhaps not as much as most), although I do realise it has limitations, as it has a dangerous tendency to encourage legalism, and worship can become stale very quickly.
What the early church did isn't known all that well. Off the top of my head, the Lord's supper was shared on a regular basis, but not in the manner it is today.
What I find most disappointing in the church today is that more often than not, a large proportion of people are just along for the ride. The senior members of the church are often left to do the lion's share of the work, which is never a good way to run a church. Some things should be the responsibility of the leadership team, but there is a lot that can be done by the rest of the congregation.
Anyway, that's my (shortened) rant on the church.

Thanks John
As I hinted at in the last paragraph, I tend to agree with the points you make. I believe there is a balance needed between structure/scripture and "following the spirit", and Religious Society of Friends is in my opinion as off-center as many other churches, just in a different direction. However, given that in my opinion there are a multitude of churches whose liturgy is "too structured", I do think it is worth taking a close look at the opposite extreme to see its virtues and ask "Is there something we can find in the middle?" See my part 2 (today I hope) for another data point in the spectrum.

You are correct that we do know some about how early church was run (at least in the second century), and perhaps someday I'll post a summary of what I have been able to dig up on that subject (I have put a lot of energy into researching Church History over the years, and used to give a short class on it at my church).

You point on the number of "freeloaders" at church is very well taken, and I agree it is a critical problem. For an interesting perspective on the subject I would recommend the book "The Churching of America" by Stark and Fink which goes into some detail on the effect this has had on the history of the church in America.

How about the Presbyterian Church of Australia's Free thought doctrine (on issues not core to salvation)?
And of course the early church (if you mean really early) would of been heavily influenced by the backgrounds of its memebers? Such as comments in the letters instructing jews not 'get over' the legal system, essentially. And the gentiles in corinth with their debauchrary and polytheism, as they were knew to structure.
And indeed this problem of liturgy vs 'oraclism' was faced very early, i believe c350 the council of i foget where, meet and the egyptian/eastern church kicked out the roman papacy. Yes John, i did want to get my anti-roman catholic speech in :P

Joshua,
I am unfamiliar with PCA's "Free Thought Doctrine" and could not find anything on it on the web. Can you explain what it is and how it relates to my point?

It is certainly the case (as noted in your examples) that the problems faced by the church as it moved into new cultures reflected the issues within that culture (religion as law vs. religion as celebration). However history would indicate that churches have overall been slow to embrace "cultural relevance" in how they worship – usually requiring new sects and denominations to form as opposed to changes in existing structures.

I think you may be referring to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 where the Coptic branch of Christianity split off. However 1) that had nothing to do with modes of worship (Coptic Christianity is quite liturgical and always has been), and 2) The orthodox church would take serious issue with characterizing that as "kicking out the roman papacy" as this was before the East/Orthodox vs. Roman/Catholic split, and so they were "kicked out" as well. If I am misunderstanding your comment, please clarify. Furthermore, while there is plenty of room in this blog to discuss doctrinal divisions with in the church (including those related to the Roman/Catholic branch of Christianity); I do not appreciate people posting comments solely for the purpose of being anti-anyone. There are many doctrines in many denominations I may disagree with; but I am not opposed to any Christian denomination for its own sake, and have learned much from every group I have studied (including the Roman/Catholics).

I have to agree with John's and your points on this matter. The thing that keeps me from being part of organized religion is the fact that it is so ritualized/set - even to the point of intolerance of doing things as your "inner light" may provide. The professionals know better than thou what is correct, yet they themselves are flawed in so many ways with the usual human foibles.

The example I like to use is the Lutheran congregation I grew up in. They taught us all the things that were right and supposed to be done, but their actions were far from, um, Christian:
- they posted on a weekly basis how much each member had given to the church. This was to encourage greater giving.
- the pastor beleived in mediating disputes by getting drunk with the disputers. Oh it helped in the short term while everyone was unconscious...
- the big religious festival happened each year at the Gethsemane cemetary. The congregation got to dance during the festival and it was common to dance (and drink) on the graves of the people who didn't measure up
- I'm still hurt/annoyed at the meal handed out at one such festival where (1) I was told there was no more food, (2) later arrivals were given food, and (3) I was then told I wasn't Latvian enough and that's why food had been saved for others.

Let's just say the actions of that congregation soured me on any ministry by man. I look toward that inner light and the inner light alone.

Ro,

Your stories are unfortunately all too common (I have my own versions from how my mother's church treated my dad after she died). All I can say is that there are many congregations out there that are not like that (the last three churches I belonged to all being good examples, although the one before that….). Your comment "The professionals know better than thou what is correct, yet they themselves are flawed in so many ways with the usual human foibles" is a critical concern. That's one of the tests I apply when looking for a new church. I have no expectation that the leaders of the church will be flawless – however what I look for are leaders who treat themselves as "just another Christian", who talk about their own struggles trying to live a Christian life. I want leaders who are transparent about their own faults.

I also understand retreating "toward that inner light and the inner light alone". At some level we must all do that in the end – we all stand alone to be accountable to God, finger pointing to pastors and priests will do no good. However I always have two concerns for people who go that direction.

The first is making sure they have some means in their life to double check their experience. As an engineer, when I do a design I write it up in a document and then have my peers review it because I know I have blind spots. The other engineers are not my superiors (at this stage of my career, I rarely have anyone who is in technical authority over me); but having multiple sets of eyes on a design is always a good idea. The same applies to faith. I recognize that there are areas of my life where I tend to be resistant to what God wants to do in me. While I trust God's spirit within me (the Inner Light), I do not trust my ability and willingness to always listen to it. I need other people in my life to whom _I_ can be transparent and who can say "Steve, I think you are missing something here…"

Second, there are many scriptures that talk about the connectedness and interdependence of Christians. We are compared to stones in a building, to parts of the body. We are reminded that "the eye can not say to the hand, I do not need you". I believe being part of an interdependent community of believers is integral to being a Christian. My concern for people who rely on their inner light alone is that they tend to be less connected. This not only deprives them of the support they need from other Christians with other gifts; but also deprive the others of the gifts the individuals have.

I have no idea if any of this applies to you personally (as you have mentioned before, we never talked about out faiths when we were in Boston); but these are the big red flags that start waving in my mind when I hear about people relying on their "inner light alone".

Wow – that's a long comment reply. Sorry.

Ro:

I can totally understand/sympathize with your position. It's not a good thing when those who are supposed to act in Christian love towards you are petty and hurtful.

I had a similar situation at our church in Boston and my bridal shower. The excuse for having 60 guests at the shower weeks after our wedding (there were 14 at mine) was that the groom was a deacon and had been at the church longer.

The best advice I can give is to recognize that they were wrong/flawed, forgive them for their stupidity, and look for another gathering where they treat you as you would like to be treated.

I would quickly find the exit if I ever went to a church like the one you described!!

Szy & Anne -

I did find the exit as soon as I reached adulthood. And I tried other congregations but, even though there is forgiveness, the past remains a part of me and the uncertainty and wariness interfere in any group bonding process. (It is not just churches that this impacts.)

The best church I found was Unitarian. The members were free enough to quote the Q'uran and Buddha as well as the Bible, but I wasn't fully happy there because it seemed too much like everyone doing their own thing, but in the same place. There wasn't enough value add to doing your own thing separately.

So I've muddled through, imperfectly to be sure, but muddled nevertheless.

Firstly, sorry about the inside joke I made to john - I was not meaning to be anti-anyone - I was simply trying to point out that there has been trouble with every attempt at developing a liturgy system. As seen in the troubles of the early euncemical councils etc. And I am sure there has always existed smaller sects of non-orthodox worshipers.

Liberty of Opinion 118. (v) That liberty of opinion is allowed on matters in the subordinate standard not essential to the doctrine therein taught, the Church guarding against the abuse of this liberty to the injury of its unity and peace.

from http://www.presbyterian.org.au/declaratory.htm

Surely this is a approaching a comprimise between 'quakers' and 'roman catholic'? Sure the is still a lot of regulation in terms of using the westminister as a rule of thumb? I realise you are focusing on the method of worship, but I believe the structure of the doctrine is crucial to this.
For example the Uniting church (at least in Australia) where literaly 'anything goes' provided a democratic vote supports it.
I am not inentionaly trying to portray one denomantion over another! Because basicaly the only denomonation that you are going to agree with 100% is one after your own views. It is simply a matter of community and fulfillment.

Joshua
Apology accepted.

In my study of church history, I can point to no council where the issue related to the liturgical system. The issue at the Council of Chalcedon was (as was often the case in the first 500 years) doctrines related to the nature of Jesus. In this case the question was – was Jesus God within a Man or God and Man. I'd need several more pages to describe the significance of that subtle distinction. Several Churches in Africa refused to accept the consensus of the council and the Coptic Church was born. Again, I can think of no case where liturgy was at issue at a council.

I like the "Liberty of Opinion" doctrine. I actually have a blog post in process on my own version of that, so I'll comment then.

I'll grant you that doctrine effects method of worship (you have to believe that God actually communicates today to accept the Quaker form of worship); however for all of the doctrinal changes that occurred in the first couple centuries of the Protestant Reformation, you see relatively few fundamental changes in how Church meetings were done. The Puritans got rid of the ornamentation; but the basic structure remained the same. It wasn't until the 19th century that you started to see change, and that often wasn't doctrinally driven.