# D.G. Hart on Presbyterian/Reformed Liturgies



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 17, 2010)

Fascinating article by D.G. Hart on Presbyterian/Reformed Liturgy. Make sure to note his discussion on written prayers in the Reformed tradition. 

Find it here. 

Recommend taking the time to read.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 17, 2010)

*bump


----------



## ADKing (May 17, 2010)

_Yet, the Presbyterian commitment to liberty of conscience, while admirable, is at odds with the equally laudable Presbyterian desire for the unity of the Church. Presbyterians have little difficulty assenting to theological and ecclesiological unity, but draw the line when it comes to liturgical uniformity._

I am sure this would have been news to the Westminster Assembly. One of their tasks was a covenanted uniformity in...worship. A prayer book is not necessary to this end. 

I was very unimpressed with his treatment or knowledge of the Puritan approach to worship. Hart's article fails to deal in adequate detail with the fact that respecting conscience by including only commanded elements is not responsible for liturgical chaos. Quite the opposite of his assertion, I would suggest neglect of the regulative principle is responsible for liturgical chaos. 

Hart's approach may indeed be very high-church (whatever that really means) but it fails to be Presbyterian. Presbyterians are bound to the covenanted uniformity of worship as expressed in the standards of the Westminster Assembly.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 17, 2010)

I would like to hear more about this. Anyone else have any thoughts?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 17, 2010)

I don't know; I haven't read the piece, but just the way it is presented here, it seems me that Dr. Hart has not read George Gillespie's dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies because it sounds like he'd be happy on the opposite side of the fence from Gillespie, siding with the likes of Sprint, Cassander, the Archbishop of Splato and sad to say, cardinal Bellarmine. We don't impose even indifferent ceremonies if they offend. If we don't have that down, we are far from Presbyterianism.


----------



## chbrooking (May 17, 2010)

I didn't get any of this from his article. It seemed to be a defense of RPW rather than a refutation of it. I think he was just intending to point out that low-church has come to mean 'loosey goosey', and that this is not true to Presbyterianism's historical roots. Maybe I misread it, but that's what I thought he was saying. I thought he was saying, "Hey, if you feel the need for high church, pay attention to what Presbyterians actually believe and do. It's higher than you think." Or, he might have been saying, "Why don't we get a little more formal with the distinctives of our Presbyterianism." I didn't get the sense that he was saying we should adopt popish ceremonies or anything of the sort. I thought he was just saying that we should be more careful and thoughtful about the way we do things in worship. 

I'm not opposed to written prayers, but I'm not a fan of being confined to them either. I guess I'm a little too loosey goosey for Hart. But that's okay. I'd give him a read guys, I think you're misjudging his point.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 17, 2010)

Okay; I went to the link but it is not a short piece so it will have to wait for a read. I'm very leery of knocks or perceived knocks as the case may be against liberty of conscience. We have the traditions and system we have in presbyterianianism largely because of this. It was central to the argument of the imposition of ceremonies by the second reformation Scots. I wonder if to misconstrue the importance and centrality of the liberty of conscience issue really determines what side of the fence you were; anglican conformist or presbyterian reformer? It is a really important issue.


----------



## chbrooking (May 18, 2010)

No doubt it is important. Perhaps the article is just poorly titled, though. I, at least, didn't see anything threatening liberty of conscience, and I thought he was defending, rather than threatening the traditions and system we have in presbyterianism. But like I said, maybe I misread it. It is a long piece. I can't say I poured over it carefully.


----------



## jwithnell (May 20, 2010)

Meant to mention that I really appreciated this article! I wonder though, that so many of the "high" churches have gone astray -- Church of England, ELCA, etc. I'm not saying this demonstrates the use or non-use of liturgy, but wonder if this points to a caution for those adopting a more formal service?


----------

