Barth and Liturgy

I've noticed that the ongoing discussion about contemporary vs. traditional liturgy can in some ways be aided if in approaching liturgy we borrow a card from Karl Barth. In approaching scripture, Barth argued for a position that has become known as neo-orthodoxy. He refuses to defend the historical and scientific inerrancy of scripture, but instead argues that the purpose of the bible is to bring people into an encounter with Christ.

Obviously, I have some issues with this. However, if we replace the Word of God in this discussion with liturgical elements in worship, we have something truly insightful. The problem most people have in arguing about them is that the discussion is about the elements themselves. Thus, for example, modern evangelicals disdain things like creeds and public confessions of sins as dead and lifeless, while more traditional churches defend them as good and historically important. This is where Barth's understanding is helpful. The truth is that, independent of anything else, liturgical actions are empty and dead. However, they don't exist as ends in themselves but rather as means to bring people into encounter with God. This is why traditional liturgies can be extremely powerful. They provide a framework soaked with meaning and specifically designed to bring the worshipper into God's presence and communicate over and over the truth of his gospel of grace to their hearts. In this role, that of providing a means by which people encounter Christ, liturgy is seen to be both good and useful; but without this as its end and aim all of the criticism contemporary evangelicals level are true.

ET