# Doctrinally Conservative / Liturgically Liberal



## Scott (Oct 6, 2004)

I am reading D.G. Hart's Recovering Mother Kirk right now. (Hart is a church historian at Westminster Seminary). He uses Frame's book on worship ("Worship in Spirit and Truth") as an example of the liturgical liberalism that has been introduced into the church since the 1970s. He observes that some of the most doctrinally conservative churches are also some of the most liturgically liberal. Ironically, liberal mainline churches are often liturgically conservative. You are more likely to find the liturgy of Calvin's Geneva in a mainline PCUSA church than a PCA church (of course, the doctrine will be abominable). The PCUSA's recent hymnbook, for example, includes an almost complete psalter. Many people in the PCA do not even know what a psalter is, in spite of its centrality to the Reformation (and the fact the every NT command to sing refers to psalms (not exclusively), a doctrine that somehow eludes otherwise doctrinaire conservative Presbyterians who seldom sing or pray psalms). Anyway, this reversal of roles has been a strange phenomenon since the 1970s. 

What do people think about that?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Oct 6, 2004)

I think it makes sense since I would argue that most conservative denominations (esp. the PCA) see themselves as being more evangelical than confessional. They tend to align themselves, and even model themselves, after independent "community church" type operations. (Note the growing phenomenon in PCA circles to drop "Presbyterian" from church names.) Independent, evangelical churches are rootless and offer a fertile ground for liturigical innovation. I think many folks in the PCA have either come from that background, or they would gravitate to that background if given the opportunity.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 6, 2004)

The doctrinally liberal churches that cleave to an historical liturgy have "a form of godliness, but deny the power therof." In other words, they have literally nothing else that defines them, so some of them (when they so choose) revel in the historical [i:db1d3c1c51]visuals[/i:db1d3c1c51] they think bind them to the Church of history. This is nothing less than a Protestant Traditionalism respecting form that rivals Rome's own idea and attidue of "changlessness."

Echoing Tom's statements above, the major problem in doctrinally orthodox churches (on paper) is not an attitude that says, "We've never done it that way before" (formalism), or even "Let's try this and see if it works" (pragmatism), as bad as those are. Rather, the chief problem is expresesd thusly: "We don't know why we are doing this. What we believe determines what our worship looks like. Rome's theology determines her liturgy. Pentacostal theology determines the appearance of its worship. And so on down the line.

What does it mean that certain Presbyterian/Reformed churches look/feel like, well ... something else? I submit it means that people there either don't know what they believe, or they positively believe something other than their confessional (on-paper) doctrine. P/R churches in many cases are starting to resemble other churches precisely because they are jetisonning doctrine (or burying it out of embarrasment), and becoming "Lowest Common Denominator" kinds of churches. What kind of liturgical "look" does LCD theology produce? In other words, what do those churches "feel" like? We already know the answer to that, don't we. It doesn't need a denominational name to be recognizable.


----------



## Scott (Oct 7, 2004)

I agree about the mainline liberal churches being doctrinally and morally bankrupt. That does not mitigate the irony that they are more likely to have the liturgy of Calvin's Geneva than a PCA church. I think we would all agree that Calvin's liturgy in itself is not dead form (Word, prayer, sacrament, song). It is the fake doctrine and mispreaching of the Word that damns them. 

I think Tom is right about modern Reformed churches. I also note when people leave our church and the churches they consider substitutes all tend to be low-church independent churches (bible, baptist, etc.). Of course, they drink from those sources as well, through radio, Christian book stores, etc.

I also agree with Contra that problems stem because people don't know why we do what we do.


----------



## Scott (Oct 7, 2004)

BTW, I do think it is interesting that Hughes Oliphant Old's book Worship That Is Reformed According to Scripture is the most thoughtful book on Reformed worship in 150 years. The book is entirely orthodox and is explains the elements and reasonsing behind Reformed worship. Old is a professor at Princeton and a pastor in the PCUSA.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 7, 2004)

I think that Liberalism is insidious in its nature. The ones that I know don't think of themselves as liberals, but as neo-conservatives at worst; that is, that they think they are conservative but up-to-date conservative. For them its not at all odd that their liturgy would resemble Calvin's or the traditional Dutch Reformed practiced liturgy, and that they would sing hymns that are outright Arminian in content. 

When I was part of the group that broke away from the denomination, then many of my former fellow worshippers would make comments about those "orthodox" people that I had aligned myself with. I asked some of them if they knew what they were saying, that "orthodox" meant right thinking? The reaction was always that this definition was concocted to justify ourselves, or something like that. In other words, their thinking was being shaped by their cultural givens, which at that time was liberalizing ecclesiastically, and the words "conservative" and "orthodox" were taking on bad connotations for them. 

Last week the sign on their front lawn said "Salvation is a gift anyone can open." That is only twelve years after the "orthodox" left. Yet I don't doubt that their liturgy has remained pretty well the same. They might have 'inclusive language' now, but otherwise likely still quite Reformed in structure.

But if we think minute, which church is going to say of itself that she no longer has the Bible and preaching the pure Word as central? Even sects claim the Word, and claim their adherence to it. So no one thinks they're bad but its OK. Which church advertizes that they are a liberal church, other than the local RCC? They all still want the appearance of being Biblical, even though they deny those Biblical things they don't agree with anymore. It's easy: just say its matter of opinion, and its no longer Biblical, but just arbitrarily interpretive. Voila! Liberalism without knowing it.


----------



## Scott (Oct 7, 2004)

Mypoint was intended more as a criticism of doctrinally conservative churches. It is ironic that while they defend doctrinal orthodoxy (i.e. the inherited interpretive tradition), they ignore liturgical tradition in favor of innovation. They also tend to be ones who defend Western culture's traditions in public contexts too, whether this is heterosexual marriage (the issue of the day), the nuclear family, or whatever. In this one area, they just abandon their normal approach.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Oct 8, 2004)

Scott,

What do you think of Hart's book altogether? What kind of liturgy does he advocate in worship?


----------



## Scott (Oct 8, 2004)

Hart's book is outstanding. It is the single best book I have read in a long time, and I read allot. Hart argues for a conservative Reformation-era liturgy. I expect that St. Paul's would fit the bill for Hart except perhaps for the music. Hart might also ask for absolution instead of words of assurance, reflecting the power of the keys more. 

Hart is a psalms-only guy. While I am not there, his essay on the history of hymnals and psalters in the American presbyterian tradition is eye-opening, reflecting the influence of revivalism on American presbyterianism. 

BTW, in spite of the name, the book is primarily a collection of essays related to the church, American church history, and liturgy. They all relate to the centrality of the institutional church in the lives of believers. 

Scott


----------



## luvroftheWord (Oct 8, 2004)

St Paul's also follows the liturgical calendar, which I suspect Hart wouldn't support. But I may be wrong. I have been wanting to read Hart's book for a long time but haven't been able to land it anywhere. I am mainly interested in reading defenses of more of a high church liturgical form of worship in Reformed churches.


----------



## Scott (Oct 8, 2004)

He opposes the church calendar (I don't). His writing are valuable from a high church perspective regarding his discussions of the necessity of the church and sacraments in salvation, the critical importance of ordination, and other matters. This are all things that have fallen by the wayside with evangelicalism and revivalism. 

Be warned that Mother Kirk is not a liturgical manual (the title can be misleading).

It is interesting that he laments the fact that Reformed don't have prayer books and denominational liturgical forms.


----------

