The Calvin Institute of Christian Worship puts together an excellent resource library on worship-related topics. A focal point of worship in most Christian traditions is the reading of Scripture. In an interview for the Institute, I argue that a translation that errs on the side of formal equivalence, for example the old RSV, the recent ESV, and the new NABRE, is the most appropriate for worship in a context that thinks of worship as a moment in which "the communion of saints" is realized.
If the church is a transgenerational community spanning cultures and ages, then it makes sense for scripture and liturgy to sound the same, as much as possible, from age to age and language to language. Of late, it is the Catholic Church that has been the most intentional in revising translations and the diction of the liturgy in accordance with an ideal of faithfulness to, on the one hand, the diction of an original in a foundational language (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Latin), and, on the other hand, long-standing traditions of interpretation.
Unlike a number of church movements of recent coinage, the megachurch movement included (the components of which are almost fated to follow the boom and bust cycle of Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral Ministries), the Catholic Church is in it for the long haul. This is reflected in the way it has come to sponsor and prize conservative, non-paraphrastic translations like the revised edition of NAB in English (NABRE 2011, online here) and the analogous revision of the official translation of the CEI (The Italian Conference of Bishops) used, among other things, for the purposes of worship (2008, available online here).
Orthodox churches and Protestant churches in it for the long haul also favor, with reason, translations that err on the side of formal equivalence. The new Zürcher Bibel in German, a Protestant effort and instant bestseller, embodies a similar choice in which the strangeness of the Bible is deliberately left as is in translation. I discuss the matter here, here, and here.
At the time of the Reformation, a host of translations of the Bible in European vernaculars were produced by movements of dissent all of which adhered to an "as literal as possible, as free as necessary" ideal. In the English language, a high water point was reached In the case of the King James version, whose translators built on a tradition - Tyndale, Geneva, etc. - which placed a premium on faithfulness to the wording of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek originals; uniformity of translation across the canon (concordance); and theological perspicuity. All of the above was in line with the Renaissance ideal of a return to the sources (ad fontes).
I am often astounded at how unaware people are about what the translation of the Bible they prefer says about their proximate goals and ultimate values. For further reflections, see my comments here and here.