# Imposed liturgies



## Pergamum (Oct 6, 2010)

What do you all think about imposed liturgies? 

I guess my definition for imposed liturgies would be, "liturgies given by denominational or synod leadership that all member churches must follow."


Should denominations require member churches to use a certain liturgy during worship, or should they allow each individual church to make their own?

Reading John Owen’s _Discourse Concerning Liturgies and their Imposition_, he opposed imposed liturgies and claims that this makes a circumstance of worship into an act. 

Do you agree?

Several national reformed denominations here in SE Asia use a standard liturgy and even a text printed out and given to all congregations every Sunday and this seems to make for a very dull and seemingly dead worship (or perhaps decent and orderly, depending on your view).


----------



## Curt (Oct 6, 2010)

May we assume that the teaching elders in this denomination voluntarily signed on?


----------



## Philip (Oct 6, 2010)

As I recall, the Church of Scotland started using its _Book of Common Order_ in 1562. So imposed liturgy is certainly within the intent and practice of the confession.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 7, 2010)

Perg, don't read modern definitions back into historic debates. Just like the historical struggle for "religious freedom" meant "for me" and not for all, so the discussion of "imposition" of liturgical forms usualy meant "that we didn't impose" or "don't like".

I think in a situation like the reformation such an imposition (for the BofCW was an imposition) were needed to ensure that Roman practices did not "slip in". So in a pioneer setting, with recent converts, under-educted clergy, threats from cults, etc. such a practice may be wise.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Oct 7, 2010)

It depends whether the church's polity views membership in the denomination as voluntary or a moral necessity. The Dutch Reformed tradition uses set liturgies, but they think that their federations are "voluntary." If you don't like the rules, don't join the club, and you can leave any time you want.

Presbyterians in the Scottish tradition, with a more robust view of the national/regional church being a true visible expression of the Church of Jesus Christ, would take membership in a denomination more seriously. It is considered as serious a matter as an individual's membership in the local congregation. Therefore one congregation is not seen to be morally justified in leaving without a really good reason. Therefore, Presbyterians have favored a directory which gives more leeway in worship, allowing variance in the specific forms themselves. I agree with this approach, both as to the ecclesiology and the directory approach.

When you have involuntary membership and an imposed liturgy, then there is an intolerable situation like existed with the Book of Common Prayer in the Church of England.


----------



## yeutter (Oct 7, 2010)

The Dutch Reformed [and Anglicans] would ask; 'what is there in our liturgy that is not biblical?'


----------



## ADKing (Oct 7, 2010)

yeutter said:


> The Dutch Reformed [and Anglicans] would ask; 'what is there in our liturgy that is not biblical?'


 
I realize that there are many versions of the Book of Common Prayer, so forgive me if these observations may not apply to all of them... but from the perspective of this Covenanter...
1. The sign of the cross in baptism is nowhere commanded
2. The use of anointing oil in baptism is not commanded in Scripture
3. the response of so-called "godparents" on behalf of infants is not found in the Bible
4. holy days
5. the statement in marriage: "with my body I thee worship" 
6. Ordination of bishops
7. the burial service implies that prayers are being made for the dead
Since none of these things are found in the Bible that means they are not biblical. 

As for the continental liturgies, they are better than Anglican forms but a requirement of using the Apostles' creed is certainly not found in the Bible. 

Ultimately it is the very idea of requiring something that the Bible does not require that is objectionable. Who would argue that reading the 10 commandments in worship weekly is not acceptable, for example. And yet the moment men take it upon themselves to require it, they have gone beyond the Scripture itself.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 7, 2010)

So, it sounds like many of you would not agree with John Owen here against the imposition of set liturgies?


----------



## Kevin (Oct 7, 2010)

I remain unconvinced that Owen meant the same thing by "imposed" that we do.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 7, 2010)

> Where one witnesses obvious discontinuity between the Continental Reformer and the English Puritan is in the use of liturgies. For Calvin, the liturgies he put to use in Strasbourg and Geneva displayed his understanding of a worship service that was spiritual, simple and in complete accordance with what Scripture alone prescribed. On the other hand, Owen clearly reveled great disdain for liturgies. In his Discourse Concerning Liturgies, Owen made many statements that suggest he believed liturgies somehow quenched the Spirit and obscured the simplicity of worship. Understood in its context, however, Owen’s Discourse is a polemic primarily against the imposition of liturgies. While Calvin knew well the difficulties of having a Protestant state make certain impositions upon the order of worship (such as the Genevan city council denying him his request for weekly communion), he never faced the type of situation which Owen and his fellow Nonconformists faced in England during the 1660s. This must be taken into consideration when evaluating any discontinuities between Calvin and Owen and their theologies of worship. Both Calvin and Owen were men of their times. Yet, both of these towering figures in the Reformed tradition firmly and unwaveringly believed that worship must be biblical, spiritual, and simple.




From: Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Presbyterians and Puritans Apart?


I tend to agree with Owen that imposed literugies would restrain the free operation of the Spirit and bind the freedom of the pastor.

Owen wasn't against liturgies, but against imposed ones.

---------- Post added at 02:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 AM ----------

Meet The Puritans*|*Tag Archive*|*liturgy

This also seems useful.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Oct 7, 2010)

yeutter said:


> The Dutch Reformed [and Anglicans] would ask; 'what is there in our liturgy that is not biblical?'


 
And we Presbyterians (at least in principle, in my case  ) would reply that you're missing the point. It's about Christian liberty.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 7, 2010)

How binding is the Liturgy? There were some Puritans that stayed and signed on during the times of ejection. William Gurnall who wrote the Christian in Complete Armour was one of those guys. What Liturgy is being used? Is it scriptural? There are a lot of things that are being left out of this complex question. What denomination is going to impose something they believe to be unscriptural or void of God's will? Well, I know of some who do even though they don't believe they are going against God's will. 

Did J. C. Ryle have to abide by a certain liturgical compliance? That man could turn anything scripturally based into spiritual food for his Parish. Just my humble opinion. 

John Owen might not be a great example of enforcement. He was a Congregationalist with a Presbyterian mindset in an Anglicized world. Conformity didn't have its best season during his times.

You also have to remember John Owen was a man of God who was trying to keep the peace between the Presbyterians and Cromwell. He was also trying to keep the peace between some Particular Baptists, Presbyterians, and the Crown (or Anglicanism). Remember John Owen in context. He was a happy Camper if you understood the Covenants and weren't Arminian. He hated the persecution of Bunyan and the Presbyterians even though he seemed to endorse some of it. He loved those people who loved Mortification of the flesh and pursued the Goodness of God. Mortify!


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Oct 7, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> How binding is the Liturgy? There were some Puritans that stayed and signed on during the times of ejection. William Gurnall who wrote the Christian in Complete Armour was one of those guys. What Liturgy is being used? Is it scriptural? There are a lot of things that are being left out of this complex question. What denomination is going to impose something they believe to be unscriptural or void of God's will? Well, I know of some who do even though they don't believe they are going against God's will.
> 
> Did J. C. Ryle have to abide by a certain liturgical compliance? That man could turn anything scripturally based into spiritual food for his Parish. Just my humble opinion.
> 
> ...



It was "follow the prayer Book or go to jail." There are many good things in the Prayer Book, by the way. It really is a useful resource. The objectionable elements were only half the point. I can see why some good men were OK with using it, when it was necessary for them as a condition of their freedom to preach the gospel, but that doesn't justify its rigid imposition.

In follow up to your questions, what about denominations today which take great pains to craft a representative liturgy in keeping with the best traditions of Christian history, even searching newly discovered manuscripts of ancient liturgies to see what can be improved, while at the same time denying the historic faith itself?


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Oct 8, 2010)

Every church has a liturgy. The real question is: is our liturgy biblical?
My personal preference is for a highly structured worship service, that is, liturgical worship. The liturgy in my congregation is based upon Calvin's Liturgy. However, I do not think that we can impose a liturgy upon an entire denomination. Local differences and availability of resources need to be considered. Also it seems to take uniformity of worship to a level that may not be helpful. New York City is not LA, nor is it Rolla, Missouri. These are all very different cultures and people groups so we should expect a worship service to reflect the people that are being ministered to.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 8, 2010)

Riley, It just wasn't go to jail. Some were ejected and exiled. There is a lot to this question that goes beyond personalities also. Politics played a big part also. If you were liked you could stay with certain understandings as did William Gurnall. What is wrong with the prayer book? Could I get around it legitimately if need be, became a question of conscience. Can I preach the Gospel or have to relinquish it? Gurnall did preach the Gospel. Others had problems with the binding of their consciences. This has been a long played out debate. I would have been ejected had I been a Pastor of the time. But God in His providence made some to preach the Gospel in their time. Just saying. I still perceive there is much to learned in this area. I have read a lot of History and bios of Godly men during this time. You are a better man than me to have it all figured out.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Oct 8, 2010)

"For the unity and_ unformity_ of religion" Even the Westminster Standards had a Directory. Of course, in historic Presbyterianism, Directories have some liberty within them.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 8, 2010)

21st Century Calvinist said:


> Every church has a liturgy. The real question is: is our liturgy biblical?
> My personal preference is for a highly structured worship service, that is, liturgical worship. The liturgy in my congregation is based upon Calvin's Liturgy. However, I do not think that we can impose a liturgy upon an entire denomination. Local differences and availability of resources need to be considered. Also it seems to take uniformity of worship to a level that may not be helpful. New York City is not LA, nor is it Rolla, Missouri. These are all very different cultures and people groups so we should expect a worship service to reflect the people that are being ministered to.


 

I respect a man that knows where Rolla, Missouri is on the map! I spent several years at Fort Leonard Wood (Fort Lost in the Woods) near there. Lots of good caving and canoing.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 8, 2010)

> The Dutch Reformed [and Anglicans] would ask; 'what is there in our liturgy that is not biblical?'


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Oct 8, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Riley, It just wasn't go to jail. Some were ejected and exiled. There is a lot to this question that goes beyond personalities also. Politics played a big part also. If you were liked you could stay with certain understandings as did William Gurnall. What is wrong with the prayer book? Could I get around it legitimately if need be, became a question of conscience. Can I preach the Gospel or have to relinquish it? Gurnall did preach the Gospel. Others had problems with the binding of their consciences. This has been a long played out debate. I would have been ejected had I been a Pastor of the time. But God in His providence made some to preach the Gospel in their time. Just saying. I still perceive there is much to learned in this area. I have read a lot of History and bios of Godly men during this time. You are a better man than me to have it all figured out.


 
Martin,

Certainly I am not implying that I have it "all figured out." I am basically in agreement with you on this topic.


----------



## Philip (Oct 8, 2010)

I don't like the idea of an imposed liturgy, particularly in an age where various cultural contexts will require various styles of worship. But a standard rubric would not be a bad idea, methinks.


----------

