From a netfriend:

Dear All,

I'm prompted by the observation that liberal theology can often (though not always) be accompanied by rather traditional liturgical worship to consider whether this comment - which my experience suggests is often valid - may be related to our other recent debate about whether questioning the faith can be 'dangerous'.

What a more liberal viewpoint does tend to do - at least in my experience - is to accept the experience of other Christians as valid and worthy of consideration even when it is not completely agreed with (perhaps excessively so occasionally). 'Liberals' are less concerned with 'dangers to the faith' issues, for they see God as big enough to accommodate all sorts of historically and culturally conditioned practices - and hopefully have the self-awareness to recognise the limitations of their own condition. Call this 'post-modern' if you will, but it is consistent with modern liberal scholarship in other fields, and personally I find that intellectual consistency crucial to my faith. I can't look critically at 'texts' Mon-Fri and drop it all on Sunday.

If we can accept the practices of 'the Christian community of this place/time' as validly Christian even when they look very different from one's own worship style, that leads to more acceptance - and knowledge - it seems to me, of the understandings of the Christian faith across the ages and hence a greater appreciation of older liturgy. One of the things I find curious about the more extreme manifestation of evangelicalism is its ahistorical nature, not withstanding talk of 'tradition'. The outworkings of the Christian faith in 20/21st century Australia (or even more so, America) are see as the epitome of Christian experience. This is exemplified in the widespread ignorance in US evangelical circles of the Middle Eastern Christian Orthodox communities - along with attempts to 'convert' them - and it could be seen as somewhat arrogant.