# Young, Restless and Liturgical?



## Hamalas (Jan 18, 2014)

I came across this article today on the Aquila Report: Why Millennials Long for Liturgy | The American Conservative I am actually friends with one of the people they interview and have seen this trend first-hand. I have become convinced that this is a serious pastoral problem that must be addressed. While many of my friends have made moves to more "high-Church" or "sacramental" contexts the same pressures that pushed them there have driven me to dig deeper into the Protestant and Reformed tradition. I have found good answers there and believe that we have within our history, and more importantly in the Bible, answers to these longings and correctives to the sacramental theology of the Anglican, Roman, and Orthodox communions. 

My question is this, how can we more effectively communicate this theology in a pastoral way? What should we be doing (or not be doing) to make sure that members of our congregations can tell the difference between a Reformed church and the broadly evangelical church down the road? I have my own thoughts, but I think this is a discussion we need to be having. Thoughts?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 18, 2014)

I don't understand the appeal; it would wear me out. Someone I know recently went to a wedding service in the REC and it was 1.5 hours long most of that taken up with the goings-on between the deacon and the couple up front and their receiving communion. When it came time for guests to go up he passed on the opportunity (plus he neither understood, heard or could remember the long instructions on what to do). Later he spotted a Catholic friend who remarked that the service was far worse than any Catholic service.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 18, 2014)

I think the underlying problem is that doctrine is thrown out the window in both contemporary Protestantism and the 'high church.' I believe being rooted in such sound doctrine would deter those from convert just do to liturgy. Apparently many of these people believe in 'liturgy alone,' and really opt for sacramentalism.

Like Chris said, I don't understand any appeal either. If they want a high church liturgy with proper doctrine have them go to conservative Anglicanism, if one is able to find a church. If not, and probably most recommended, why separate from a church that proclaims the Gospel?

If that's why they convert (at least to an anti-Protestant doctrine denomination), just for a liturgy once a week, then they are lost trying to fill a Christ centered hole in their hearts with sacramentalism (in my opinion).


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jan 18, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't understand the appeal; it would wear me out. Someone I know recently went to a wedding service in the REC and it was 1.5 hours long most of that taken up with the goings-on between the deacon and the couple up front and their receiving communion. When it came time for guests to go up he passed on the opportunity (plus he neither understood, heard or could remember the long instructions on what to do). Later he spotted a Catholic friend who remarked that the service was far worse than any Catholic service.



I work at a Catholic Hospital so the Mass is always on TVs around the hospital. Forgetting for a moment the blaspheme of the mass it seems dreadfully boring. I am sure the chants and readings could seem "mystical" or "spiritual" but when delivered by a pudgy disinterested priest whose vestments just don't fit right it looks like one of those terrible pageants children put on in school.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 18, 2014)

I think it has more to do with the historical aspect more than if it is entertaining or not. If anything it may be a rebellion against the entertainment driven 'worship' in evangelicalism.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 18, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> If anything it may be a rebellion against the entertainment driven 'worship' in evangelicalism.


For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 18, 2014)

I think he said there was chanting or something also. This was 'supposedly' a low church BOCP church. 


Unoriginalname said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand the appeal; it would wear me out. Someone I know recently went to a wedding service in the REC and it was 1.5 hours long most of that taken up with the goings-on between the deacon and the couple up front and their receiving communion. When it came time for guests to go up he passed on the opportunity (plus he neither understood, heard or could remember the long instructions on what to do). Later he spotted a Catholic friend who remarked that the service was far worse than any Catholic service.
> ...


----------



## Philip (Jan 18, 2014)

I suppose I should weigh in, given that I find myself currently fellowshipping on the other side of the Thames while in seminary.

I am going to claim that, practically speaking, most of us are Zwinglians. I know that confessionally we aren't, and when pressed on the matter, all of us would say that the sacraments are efficacious and means of grace and that God uses them to our sanctification, etc. The fact is, though, practically speaking, we tend to downplay them. How many of our churches celebrate the Lord's Supper every week? I think that the practice of infrequent communion is as dangerous as would be a practice of infrequent sermons. We are meant to be fed both by word and by sacrament. And when we do celebrate communion, most often, we pass it around just like we pass the offering plate. The best Presbyterian churches I have been in were the ones that took the Lord's Supper most seriously, and made serious efforts at frequent observance.

I don't know if we can adequately address this issue unless we understand the (legitimate) appeal.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 18, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> I think it has more to do with the historical aspect more than if it is entertaining or not. If anything it may be a rebellion against the entertainment driven 'worship' in evangelicalism.



That's exactly what I was thinking. People are fed up with attempts to entertain them and are rightly looking for substance and foundation. A solid Reformed liturgy has this. You don't have to go Episcopal.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 18, 2014)

Here's a recent thread that addressed a closely related topic:
Why Millennials Long for Liturgy


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 18, 2014)

Liturgy can appeal to two very different sorts of people. First, some people really enjoy researching the details of it and then worshipping in a very intentional manner, i.e., by intellectually understanding and affirming what is going on, even in the parts where the congregation is not explicitly participating. I have noticed some of my more introverted friends enjoy this; it lets them participate in a way that works for them, unlike the very loud or expressive participation that might occur in a Pentecostal church. Second, some people like the artistic performance aspects of it. The aesthetics are appealing to them. The symbolism is meaningful to them.

I do wonder if, alongside doctrinal differences and cultural variation, to some extent Christian denominations are weighted toward people of particular temperaments. For instance, poets and artists are more strongly represented among my Catholic/Anglican friend group, hard-nosed logical thinkers are most strongly represented among my Reformed friends, and passionate YOLO types are most strongly represented among my Baptist and Pentecostal friends.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 18, 2014)

Philip said:


> I suppose I should weigh in, given that I find myself currently fellowshipping on the other side of the Thames while in seminary.
> 
> I am going to claim that, practically speaking, most of us are Zwinglians. I know that confessionally we aren't, and when pressed on the matter, all of us would say that the sacraments are efficacious and means of grace and that God uses them to our sanctification, etc. The fact is, though, practically speaking, we tend to downplay them. How many of our churches celebrate the Lord's Supper every week? I think that the practice of infrequent communion is as dangerous as would be a practice of infrequent sermons. We are meant to be fed both by word and by sacrament. And when we do celebrate communion, most often, we pass it around just like we pass the offering plate. The best Presbyterian churches I have been in were the ones that took the Lord's Supper most seriously, and made serious efforts at frequent observance.
> 
> I don't know if we can adequately address this issue unless we understand the (legitimate) appeal.


I can't think of anyone who would disagree.
My bone of contention is the fact that these people flock to RCC and EO and likewise Lutheran and Anglican churches (the latter two not being bad) without understanding what it entails. the converts to the former two will throw away Biblical doctrine and worship the Pope (exception of EO yes I know) and Mary and whatever saints come with it because they bought the argument of Apostolic succession and the notion that what is believed and taught now is exactly how the early church believed and taught, hook-line and sinker.

I am sympathetic to the arguments that contemporary evangelicalism with its rock bands and shallow sermons drive them away but, they could find a good Christ centered church without a smells and bells liturgy and sound doctrine if they looked.


----------



## R Harris (Jan 18, 2014)

The "high end" liturgy is mainly a way for some to feel more "spiritual." Like the wide open entertainment worship they are rejecting, it is simply another form of emotionalism. They feel good after the service thinking they have solemnly worshiped.

Again, the emphasis needs to be on what Scripture teaches about worship.


----------



## Philip (Jan 18, 2014)

R Harris said:


> The "high end" liturgy is mainly a way for some to feel more "spiritual." Like the wide open entertainment worship they are rejecting, it is simply another form of emotionalism.



I'm going to disagree. I think (oddly enough) the reason why many are being drawn to high-church traditions is the same reason why many are being drawn to the reformed tradition: both high-church and reformed traditions take worship seriously. Both are crystal-clear that not just anything goes and both carefully consider the "why" of their practices. This is not to downplay the different criteria for worship practices by any means, but it is to say that "emotionalism" doesn't describe my friends who have gone high-church.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jan 18, 2014)

CharlieJ said:


> Liturgy can appeal to two very different sorts of people. First, some people really enjoy researching the details of it and then worshipping in a very intentional manner, i.e., by intellectually understanding and affirming what is going on, even in the parts where the congregation is not explicitly participating. I have noticed some of my more introverted friends enjoy this; it lets them participate in a way that works for them, unlike the very loud or expressive participation that might occur in a Pentecostal church. Second, some people like the artistic performance aspects of it. The aesthetics are appealing to them. The symbolism is meaningful to them.



I think your view is rather interesting. When I think about it, while the aesthetics of worship really did not sway me either way, I can really appreciate intellectually the movements in the BoCP. I can appreciate a worship that is serious and intentional. 


Philip said:


> I think (oddly enough) the reason why many are being drawn to high-church traditions is the same reason why many are being drawn to the reformed tradition: both high-church and reformed traditions take worship seriously. Both are crystal-clear that not just anything goes and both carefully consider the "why" of their practices. This is not to downplay the different criteria for worship practices by any means, but it is to say that "emotionalism" doesn't describe my friends who have gone high-church.



Plenty of what gets called reformed worship these days could also be accused of being more boring evangelical worship. It seems that in some places we have just adopted the forms found in evangelicalism and charismaticism and simply sucked the emotion out of them leaving an aesthetic of stuffy worship rather than intentional.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 22, 2014)

Ben, after 30+ years (many more in some areas of the south) of "accepting a personal savior" and snapping along to praise songs, I think pew-dwellers are reaching the logical conclusion: "so what?" Sadly, the jump to "high church" just gives another form of external practice, but one that is imbued with seriousness and a kind of purpose. (I distinguish the average person from the elders who have jumped ship, a phenomenon that still completely baffles me.) A thoroughly Christ-centered soteriology and worship -- along with thorough teaching on both -- could go a long way. Related are the lack of worship on the personal and family level. I'm convinced that public worship flows out of what happens all week at home.



> I am going to claim that, practically speaking, most of us are Zwinglians.


Phillip, unless you are talking extremes, such as churches that only observe communion once or twice a year, you make a giant leap from non-weekly observance of the Lord's table to Zwingli. Though I can think of reasons why weekly observance would be ideal, I've been in several churches with a monthly observance and the value of the Lord's table as worship and as a means of grace is never lost from sight.


----------



## Philip (Jan 22, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> Phillip, unless you are talking extremes, such as churches that only observe communion once or twice a year, you make a giant leap from non-weekly observance of the Lord's table to Zwingli.



I'm stating this as a symptom, not the cause.


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 22, 2014)

Philip said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> > Phillip, unless you are talking extremes, such as churches that only observe communion once or twice a year, you make a giant leap from non-weekly observance of the Lord's table to Zwingli.
> ...



How would you flesh out the "functional Zwinglism" of which you spoke? (In other words, what does this look like in Reformed circles today?)


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 22, 2014)

> Phillip, unless you are talking extremes, such as churches that only observe communion once or twice a year, you make a giant leap from non-weekly observance of the Lord's table to Zwingli.
> I'm stating this as a symptom, not the cause.


It doesn't follow that a church's less-than-weekly observance of the Lord's supper is symptomatic of a weak view of the means of grace, any more than the weekly observance in many "high" churches indicates a congregations' estimation of the sacraments. I was shocked, early in my Christian walk, to observe a mass and see the complete boredom with which many approached the "altar."


----------



## Philip (Jan 22, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> How would you flesh out the "functional Zwinglism" of which you spoke? (In other words, what does this look like in Reformed circles today?)



Consider all of the material about preaching that we have right now. All the emphasis on teaching. Compare this with the lack of teaching on the Lord's Supper. If we hold Calvin's view (in the Lord's Supper we are brought into the presence of Christ) then we should emphasize it more. It's a sign of trinitarian fellowship, a means of grace, and yet somehow we don't emphasize it all that much. It becomes that thing that makes the service go longer on the first Sunday of the month rather than the main event.

Where are the books on the theology of the Lord's Supper? Why aren't we discussing this? We have family conferences, preaching conferences, lectures on all kinds of issues, even Baptism gets more attention!


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 22, 2014)

And baptism really gets attention only as a polemic against credo-baptists. One refreshing exception is Word, Water, Spirit by Fesko.


----------



## Jose Rodriguez (Jan 22, 2014)

Philip,

I couldn't agree with you more. I attend a PCA church where the Lord's Supper is a weekly event. One of the pastors always "preaches" a mini-sermon and points to a direct connection between the sermon that was preached and the importance of the Lord's Supper. It's very refreshing to see that a church actively seeks to teach their congregation about this very important sacrament. Thus, it never becomes some routine ritual.


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 22, 2014)

Philip said:


> Hamalas said:
> 
> 
> > How would you flesh out the "functional Zwinglism" of which you spoke? (In other words, what does this look like in Reformed circles today?)
> ...



I agree with virtually everything you've mentioned here (you and I have already discussed this issue to some extent so you know where I stand) but there is one thing I wonder about. Where do you get the idea that the Lord's Supper should be the "main event" to use your words? Obviously it is important as it is a visual presentation of the gospel and a means of grace. However, it seems to me that confessionally and biblically the preaching of the word is still given priority in worship.


----------



## Philip (Jan 22, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> Where do you get the idea that the Lord's Supper should be the "main event" to use your words? Obviously it is important as it is a visual presentation of the gospel and a means of grace. However, it seems to me that confessionally and biblically the preaching of the word is still given priority in worship.



I would say that both should be given priority. Without the word preached, the sacrament is too often a mere formality, but without the sacrament, we risk intellectualizing the Gospel.


----------



## Philip (Jan 22, 2014)

Dearly Bought said:


> Please explain the "intellectualizing" of the Gospel.



Simply this: the Gospel as mere words preached from a pulpit rather than the reality of the body of Christ. It is not enough to apprehend the Gospel intellectually--it must be our food and drink.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 22, 2014)

"It is not enough to apprehend the Gospel intellectually--it must be our food and drink."​
And this means that there must be an anointing of God's Spirit in both the sermon and the preparation for the Lord's Table. I see a moving in my PCA church to a more robust worship through a study of and participation in liturgy. A (church) book discussion group I am in is studying James K.A. Smith's, _Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation_. I think he is right about the "dryness" of much worship (whereas the world's "liturgies" – which lure and prompt us to worship the idols of secular culture are quite "juicy" and attractive), but I am highly suspicious of his push for enhanced appreciation and practice of liturgy as he simultaneously (mildly) disparages preaching and seems to be looking to Rome or Byzantium for guidance. 

To me the answer is to be found in preaching with the presence of God in the heart of the preacher. And the illumining the Lord's Table with the Spirit's view of the Lord's body and blood broken and shed for us – _not_ merely a routine – even if weekly – practice.


----------



## Philip (Jan 22, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> And this means that there must be an anointing of God's Spirit in both the sermon and the preparation for the Lord's Table.



Amen!



Jerusalem Blade said:


> To me the answer is to be found in preaching with the presence of God in the heart of the preacher. And the illumining the Lord's Table with the Spirit's view of the Lord's body and blood broken and shed for us – not merely a routine practice.



Precisely what I had in mind. The two are meant to complement and supplement one another.


----------



## BibleCyst (Jan 22, 2014)

I'm one of the "young, restless, and liturgical!" While I have no plans to become Eastern Orthodox or a Papist, I am flirting with Lutheranism. I previously flirted with the idea of becoming Anglican, but I'm not particularly fond of the North American denominations (TEC, ACNA, REC, etc.). I will most likely fully "convert" to Lutheranism at some point in the near future. I hardly consider it a "serious Pastoral problem," as the liturgy has deepened my appreciation for the gospel. What has driven me to this? The emphasis on grace. The Law-Gospel balance found in their preaching. I'm tired of empty pietism, and tired of looking towards the fruits of my sanctification for assurance of salvation. The liturgy is just wave upon wave of grace.


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 22, 2014)

BibleCyst said:


> I'm one of the "young, restless, and liturgical!" While I have no plans to become Eastern Orthodox or a Papist, I am flirting with Lutheranism. I previously flirted with the idea of becoming Anglican, but I'm not particularly fond of the North American denominations (TEC, ACNA, REC, etc.). I will most likely fully "convert" to Lutheranism at some point in the near future. I hardly consider it a "serious Pastoral problem," as the liturgy has deepened my appreciation for the gospel. What has driven me to this? The emphasis on grace. The Law-Gospel balance found in their preaching. I'm tired of empty pietism, and tired of looking towards the fruits of my sanctification for assurance of salvation. The liturgy is just wave upon wave of grace.



There is a big difference between confessional Lutheranism and Anglo-Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic in liturgy and other things. Still, my greater concern is not with liturgy (I'm not anti-liturgy and agree with what Carl Trueman recently said on the subject: Familiarity and Contempt - Reformation21 Blog) but with sacramentalism or sacerdotalism. I think B.B. Warfield was right to contrast this as a distinct "gospel" or way of salvation that is contrary to the Scriptures.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 22, 2014)

Philip said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain the "intellectualizing" of the Gospel.
> ...



Philip, those "mere words" are the power of God unto salvation. The Word preached is God's primary means of grace. By it our minds are renewed. We are to have it in our hearts and in our mouths. The Word (apprehended intellectually) is our food and drink. It is the main event.

That said, the sacrament of the Lord's Table is important as a visible sign to us, in which is represented the facts of the Gospel which we apprehend (intellectually) from the Word as it is preached to us by God's minister.

I'm not arguing against the use of the sacrament. There is much benefit in it, and we should observe it often. But the Word is still the primary means of grace, and you will have a hard time Biblically defending the view that the two are equally important.


----------



## Philip (Jan 22, 2014)

TylerRay said:


> I'm not arguing against the use of the sacrament. There is much benefit in it, and we should observe it often. But the Word is still the primary means of grace, and you will have a hard time Biblically defending the view that the two are equally important.



Why is this an either/or? Is intellectual apprehension sufficient? Or are we given more than that?



TylerRay said:


> That said, the sacrament of the Lord's Table is important as a visible sign to us, in which is represented the facts of the Gospel which we apprehend (intellectually) from the Word as it is preached to us by God's minister.



Is it a mere sign? Or is it more?


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 22, 2014)

Philip said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not arguing against the use of the sacrament. There is much benefit in it, and we should observe it often. But the Word is still the primary means of grace, and you will have a hard time Biblically defending the view that the two are equally important.
> ...



It depends on what you mean by "more." It is not "more" in the sense of a mystical experience that can't be explained in dogmatic terms. It is "more" in the sense that the Spirit is at work in us making the sacrament (and word) effectual to our sanctification.

"Why is this an either/or?"
We never have either the word or the sacrament. We either have the word alone or the word and sacrament. The sacrament is important and it is sinful to neglect it, but the sacrament is not always present when the word is preached. The sacrament is much with the word, and nothing without the word. The word is much with or without the sacrament.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 22, 2014)

BibleCyst said:


> I'm tired of empty pietism, and tired of looking towards the fruits of my sanctification for assurance of salvation



May I suggest you book some time with your pastor to discuss this? The Gospel, properly preached, doesn't teach this at all.


----------



## littlepeople (Jan 23, 2014)

TylerRay said:


> you will have a hard time Biblically defending the view that the two are equally important.



I don't think that's the case at all. Perhaps the word preached and read has primacy with regards to frequency, but that in no way makes prayer, baptism, or the LS less important. This thread makes me feel sorry for prayer, prayer always gets left out. I understand your meaning, but I would say it with more care. "important" is the wrong word to use


----------



## yeutter (Jan 23, 2014)

BibleCyst said:


> I'm one of the "young, restless, and liturgical!" While I have no plans to become Eastern Orthodox or a Papist, I am flirting with Lutheranism. I previously flirted with the idea of becoming Anglican, but I'm not particularly fond of the North American denominations (TEC, ACNA, REC, etc.). I will most likely fully "convert" to Lutheranism at some point in the near future. I hardly consider it a "serious Pastoral problem," as the liturgy has deepened my appreciation for the gospel. What has driven me to this? The emphasis on grace. The Law-Gospel balance found in their preaching. I'm tired of empty pietism, and tired of looking towards the fruits of my sanctification for assurance of salvation. The liturgy is just wave upon wave of grace.


I can relate to much of what you are experiencing. The problem I have with Lutheranism is doctrinal. Have you read the entire Book of Concord?


----------



## Philip (Jan 23, 2014)

TylerRay said:


> It depends on what you mean by "more." It is not "more" in the sense of a mystical experience that can't be explained in dogmatic terms. It is "more" in the sense that the Spirit is at work in us making the sacrament (and word) effectual to our sanctification.



It's the difference between talking about a meal and actually eating it. The imperfect analogy that came to me this morning is that the Lord's Supper is the hors d'oeuvres for the marriage supper of the Lamb. It is a foretaste of what is to come.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 23, 2014)

I think that there is a need in certain churches to have more frequency, but it must be combined with Gospel preaching. A biblical view of the Supper must coincide with a biblical view of the Gospel. That is the main issue I see over here in at least my neck of the woods. There is no biblical view of the Gospel which leads to no biblical view of the Supper. Granted, I am talking about northern Nevada area where you're either Southern Baptist or Mormon (obviously they are a cult... mormons that is...). No offense to anyone in the SBC (born and raised in the SBC for 18 years.... so I can speak as I wish  ) but they do not have either in my area.

My church (Mt. Rose OPC) that I'm attending does it well. We have the Lord's Supper every other week. I love it because the minister takes time to reflect and preach on the importance of the Supper (after the main sermon).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2014)

It's a bit ironic that I was thinking about this topic while working out yesterday morning only to discover this thread.

It occurred to me that any appeal to the need for liturgy to reach people falls down on the problem that the Reformed Churches existed for centuries without them. Like so many other things the resurgence in liturgy is a recent phenomenon.

It just so happens that I'm reading Preaching and Preachers by Lloyd-Jones. I'm increasingly convinced that the rise of liturgy in the Reformed Churches is accompanied by a decline in confidence in Preaching. If a man thinks he needs to turn to liturgy to find grace then either he is spiritually impoverished or the Preaching of the Word that he hears is failing to properly communicate the power of God unto salvation. I would include in this observation that it would enrich the Sacraments if the preaching were powerful.

I've also been reflecting that we probably have become a bit too unemotional about the things of God. I say we as a general observation. I think the Word of God ought to move us emotionally and I'm not arguing for wild enthusiasm but I wonder if many of us have lost the ability to weep at our sin or for the lost. I wonder if our fear of being too enthusiastic actually depresses an appropriate response to the things of God as the whole man comes into contact with the living God.


----------



## littlepeople (Jan 23, 2014)

like a book or even a "directory" for worship? sounds like a fantastic idea to me


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 23, 2014)

> A uniformity in Worship & Practice defined and agreed upon by churches in, say, a set of Standards would be a good place to start.



Unity - yes, uniformity, - not so much.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 23, 2014)

Liturgy is simply service. I suspect that most try to distinguish between a bunch of unrelated praise songs interrupted by an offering and sermon (no liturgy) to following a particular setting week after week (liturgy). Presbyterians have historically come somewhere in between with a particular order of worship with interchangeable parts -- i.e., a call to worship is always at the beginning but could be done with numerous different verses.) Having been in Presbyterian circles all my life, and conservative churches for most of the last 30 years, the main change I've seen has been in a more conscious reflection on those different parts of the service and an enriching of the idea of God's people responding to their covenant-making God. (I'm not sure I'm expressing the latter very well. Sometimes it's stated in terms of God speaking and man responding in worship, but it seems that there's been an enriching flow in the thought of the relationship between God and man. I have a lot more thoughts on this, but my boys are being loud!


----------



## MW (Jan 23, 2014)

For the Reformed doctrine of worship, WCF 21. Sociological diagnoses are only adding to the confusion. OUGHT and IS must be kept distinct. God chastens professing Christians by leaving them to their own devices. What wilt thou have me to do? is the first step towards genuine reformation.

Calvin: "Modes of worship regulated according to our own fancy, and honours rashly contrived by men, have no other advantage than this, that they rob God of his true honour, and pour upon him nothing but reproach."


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 23, 2014)

I know the moderators have been easy going, but Anglicanism and the like is not defended here. Please review the board rules and respect that this is the Puritan Board.


----------



## yeutter (Jan 23, 2014)

Point well taken. Post deleted


----------



## yeutter (Jan 24, 2014)

To provide some historical context look up the *The Book of Common Prayer as Amended by the Westminster Divines AD 1661*. I wonder how many would go over to Anglicanism or Lutheranism if Presbyterian worship services followed the 1661 Presbyterian Book of Common Prayer.


----------



## tleaf (Jan 24, 2014)

Rich, when I went searching for a new church ( I was in the Lutheran church for 10 years, then out of church for another 10) I had to ask myself whether I was looking for a church that I found comfortable, or one that offered what I needed to hear. We must be careful about relying on emotions in finding a church family (speaking for myself!).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 24, 2014)

I don't think we try to retain folks in Presbyterianism by abandoning Presbyterian principles. That title is misleading. The Westminster assembly no longer existed in 1661 (this was the Savoy conference correct? and it would only have been a few attending that may have been at Westminster). It was clear the Puritans would have to accept the BOCO under Charles II (that persecutor) and this was an attempt to get it modified. They still had to 'swallow' things they objected to and wanted changed and as I said persecutions continued of dissenters. 


yeutter said:


> To provide some historical context look up the *The Book of Common Prayer as Amended by the Westminster Divines AD 1661*. I wonder how many would go over to Anglicanism or Lutheranism if Presbyterian worship services followed the 1661 Presbyterian Book of Common Prayer.


----------



## yeutter (Jan 25, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't think we try to retain folks in Presbyterianism by abandoning Presbyterian principles. That title is misleading. The Westminster assembly no longer existed in 1661 (this was the Savoy conference correct? and it would only have been a few attending that may have been at Westminster). It was clear the Puritans would have to accept the BOCO under Charles II (that persecutor) and this was an attempt to get it modified. They still had to 'swallow' things they objected to and wanted changed and as I said persecutions continued of dissenters.


You are correct, this is essentially Baxter's liturgy. I agree; the reference to the Westminster Divines is confusing at best. 
The book was reprinted by the old southern Presbyterian Church U S; and given the title Presbyterian Book of Common Prayer. 
This liturgy had a tremendous influence on the Anglican 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer; which is still the official liturgy of the Church of England, more closely resembles the Presbyterian 1661 Book then it does the Church of England liturgy of 1549.
If I understand you correctly your objection is to a fixed liturgy like the one provided in the 1661 Book.
Do you have similar objections to the liturgy used by the conservative Dutch Reformed denominations in this country?


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 25, 2014)

yeutter said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think we try to retain folks in Presbyterianism by abandoning Presbyterian principles. That title is misleading. The Westminster assembly no longer existed in 1661 (this was the Savoy conference correct? and it would only have been a few attending that may have been at Westminster). It was clear the Puritans would have to accept the BOCO under Charles II (that persecutor) and this was an attempt to get it modified. They still had to 'swallow' things they objected to and wanted changed and as I said persecutions continued of dissenters.
> ...



When you say "this country" do you mean Thailand or America?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 25, 2014)

This was published in 1864 but a publication is not a change in the standards; it took more time once the churches slid into liberalism to jettison their Puritan/Presbyterian worship convictions. I am for an order of worship not an imposed rote liturgy. If Anglicans adopt a sounder form that is great. I don't know what the Dutch practice is. Presbyterians should neither be lauded nor encouraged to jettison their confessional standards and principles and certainly not one that was a compromise big step backwards (due to a persecuting anti Puritan King).


Hamalas said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...


----------



## yeutter (Jan 25, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> When you say "this country" do you mean Thailand or America?


The States. Sadly the Dutch Reformed have not established any Church in Thailand. One has to go to Indonesia, Burma or Singapore to find a good Church in the Dutch Reformed tradition.
I am not Dutch; but I would gladly attend a good continental Reformed Church if one could be found here. Trinity Baptist Church in Chiang Mai is an old school Baptist Church with good preaching. Its worship service does not include the reading of the Law, a prayer of confession, the Lord's Prayer, the singing/chanting of the Psalms. Both my wife and I miss these elements of the worship service a great deal.


----------

