# Does Too Much Liturgy Lead to Anglicanism or Rome?



## Quatchu (Jul 7, 2013)

Within a Reformed worships service can we have too much liturgy? That is a order of worship, can a church have to much reading of scripture, to many responsive readings and prayers? Obviously i think we have gone too far if we have BCP, but with that as boundary can we go to far with liturgy. I ask as i have run into Reformed folks that are very concerned that reformed churches are getting carried away with order of worship and liturgy. As well as the weekly administration of the Supper and the Minister wearing a Geneva gown. They seem to think that this will lead most reformed churches to Anglicanism or all out Roman Catholicism. What is the point where you can say to a church "Hold on your treading on dangerous ground on the liturgy department."?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 7, 2013)

In my own experiences, high liturgies helped soften the blow of Roman or EO doctrines elsewhere. The problem with "high liturgy" is what constitutes high liturgy? Is it smells and bells or is it something akin to wha tHart says in Recovering Morther Kirk?


----------



## Quatchu (Jul 7, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> In my own experiences, high liturgies helped soften the blow of Roman or EO doctrines elsewhere. The problem with "high liturgy" is what constitutes high liturgy? Is it smells and bells or is it something akin to wha tHart says in Recovering Morther Kirk?



I was thinking less in the lines of smells and bells, and more on the lines of a scripture responsive and the use of things such as the Sursum Corda.. To me those our put of accord with the RPW, but is the line we make begin at smells or bells or it it before that. And the use of things such as the Sursum Corda.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 7, 2013)

When the planned order, elements and words of the service become so precious to us that they seem as sacred (or even more sacred) then the One we are worshipping, or when we start to feel like we haven't really worshiped if we haven't sung a particular doxology or heard certain particular words, those are signs that we've become too attached to our liturgy.

This doesn't just happen with "high" liturgies. It can also happen with a "low," free one (as in, "It just didn't feel like an Easter service because we didn't sing _Up Form the Grave He Arose_.")


----------



## Quatchu (Jul 7, 2013)

Jack K said:


> When the planned order, elements and words of the service become so precious to us that they seem as sacred (or even more sacred) then the One we are worshipping, or when we start to feel like we haven't really worshiped if we haven't sung a particular doxology or heard certain particular words, those are signs that we've become too attached to our liturgy.
> 
> This doesn't just happen with "high" liturgies. It can also happen with a "low," free one (as in, "It just didn't feel like an Easter service because we didn't sing _Up Form the Grave He Arose_.")



I agree with you Jack, the attitude we bring to our liturgy can certainly be dangerous. That aside at what point does our liturgical practices go outside of the bounds of reformed? Is it when the church adds the fifth scripture reading in one service, or when the minister adopts robes or a collar, is it when the church starts to use historic prayers? Are we safe as long as we don't go "smells and bells"?


----------



## Jack K (Jul 7, 2013)

Quatchu said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > When the planned order, elements and words of the service become so precious to us that they seem as sacred (or even more sacred) then the One we are worshipping, or when we start to feel like we haven't really worshiped if we haven't sung a particular doxology or heard certain particular words, those are signs that we've become too attached to our liturgy.
> ...




Well, Scripture reading is good (even lots of it).
Prayer is good (even old prayers).
Robes and collars can be fine, depending on what you mean by them.

The liturgies of, say, the old Book of Common Prayer are beautiful and biblical and make for a pretty good service. There's no inherent problem in them, generally. The problem comes when they are revered like Scripture, or forced upon those whose conscience has an objection, or used mostly to make everyone feel more "high church" so that the vibe of the service becomes foremost... or when they end up serving any number of other troublesome purposes.

I've never been a member of a terribly "liturgical" church, but I don't think there's a set limit to how liturgical we may be. We simply need to remain careful to make sure that we aren't serving the liturgy, but rather that the liturgy is serving proper worship. Our worship ought to be biblical, heartfelt, Christ-centered, etc. Does whatever liturgy we use, and how we use it, support that or hinder it?

(I also don't think we should worry too much about appearing Catholic. If we think something is appropriate, let's not let the fact that the Catholics also do it keep us from doing what's right and good. Trying to mimic the Catholics just to be like them is another matter.)


----------



## Philip (Jul 7, 2013)

Jack K said:


> The liturgies of, say, the old Book of Common Prayer are beautiful and biblical and make for a pretty good service. There's no inherent problem in them, generally. The problem comes when they are revered like Scripture, or forced upon those whose conscience has an objection, or used mostly to make everyone feel more "high church" so that the vibe of the service becomes foremost... or when they end up serving any number of other troublesome purposes.



I'll second this by saying that there are few parts of the BCP liturgy that I haven't heard in what I would consider to be confessional churches.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 7, 2013)

Jack K said:


> This doesn't just happen with "high" liturgies. It can also happen with a "low," free one (as in, "It just didn't feel like an Easter service because we didn't sing Up Form the Grave He Arose.")



Excellent point Jack. Formalism can find its way into any church no matter how "low" its liturgy.

As it relates to Scripture Reading; the more the merrier. "Responsive" reading is another animal. Is there anything wrong with them? No, you are reading the Bible after all. The problem with Responsive readings (and really this applies to anything using a "versical/response" format), is that it can tend to make a service more cumbersome to the worshiper. They can become more concerned with saying the right thing at the right time and less concerned with WHAT is being said. I've been in Anglican and Presbyterian Churches where my number one goal was keeping up with where we were in the bulletin. Stressful. 

I'm not entirely sure, but I think one of Calvin's main objections to the services of the BCP were the many responsive prayers in the liturgy: Kyrie Eleison; Gloria Patri; the Litany, et al. Nothing wrong with the prayers per se, just the responsive format that became a cumbersome distraction to the worshiper, especially the illiterate. 

I personally think the Westminster Directory for Public Worship provides the best rubric for worship that makes provisions for substantial Scripture Reading (lectio continua) and preaching, prayer (including the Lord's Prayer), and the singing of Psalms. However it contians very few fixed forms and no responsive prayers or readings. Many of the Reformed Baptist Churches that I know of follow this simple plan for worship. Many don't even use bulletins. Just a simple and solemn focus on the Word and prayer. 


Call to worship 
Hymn
Prayer 
Scripture Reading (?Old and/or New Testament?)
Hymn 
Prayer of confession and intercession 
Preaching of the Word 
Prayer of thanksgiving and petition with Lord’s Prayer 
Hymn 
Benediction


----------



## Caroline (Jul 7, 2013)

I grew up attending churches that would have emphatically denied that they had a liturgy, and yet it did, in the sense that 99% of the time, it did pretty much the same thing--one song, then announcements, then shake hands with your neighbor, then more singing, then preaching, then altar call. Sometimes the singing got carried away and took over the rest of the service, but that was more the exception than the rule. Even when people are distinctly anti-liturgy, they end up repeating patterns in a liturgical manner. People tend to be creatures of habit by nature (people sit in the same pews week after week, even though theoretically, they could sit anywhere). After a while everyone gets so used to it that it is the easiest thing to do,

I say all that to say that some form of liturgy is inevitable. And it is a matter of becoming accustomed to it, whatever it is. Even though complex liturgy is a challenge to a newcomer, I wouldn't assume it remains a challenging distraction to someone who has been attending for a while. Perhaps we do need to stop and ask ourselves sometimes if we've gotten so carried away with complexity that we are discouraging new people. On the other hand, well-thought-through liturgy is beautiful, and it can draw people in. I absolutely loved the liturgy of my church from the first moment, and I loved it more when they added in new responsive features such as the recitation of the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed. So much of the reading and music is over the heads of young children and disabled people, but when something is done the same every Sunday, anyone can learn it in time and participate more fully. Now I love watching my little seven-year-old daughter and my autistic son reciting, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth..." My son may understand nothing else of the service, but he does get that part because they say it every week, and it is simple enough that he understands it (and he understands it more the more he says it). He can sing the Gloria Patri, even though he can't sing any other hymn, because it is easy and they sing it every week. And so on.

I used to complain that Reformed worship zinged right over the heads of my kids (and even over my own head initially), but after they added in more responsive liturgical elements, my children started to benefit from it a lot more.

I think that, like anything, there is a balance. If everything goes toward incense and processions, then obviously, they've taken it a bridge too far. But encouraging active participation in church is a good thing. And something that may be distracting the first time may not be distracting anymore when you do it every week. And kids and disabled people like having something they actually understand in the worship service, so repetition can be a good help to them. The Lord's Supper every week might be a good thing, especially for those who are elderly and mostly deaf or autistic and have trouble understanding the preaching. Then at least they are spiritually fed in some manner that they comprehend. I am amazed at the tendency of some churches to insist that small children and blind-and-deaf old ladies sit in on worship, and yet make no attempt to include anything in the service that would be helpful for them.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 7, 2013)

I agree with above that we should be first concerned that the right principle of worship is maintained, rather than the quantity of something (if it is wrong, the amount of it doesn't matter). There are simply a lot of practices that came in late in Presbyterian history that our founders would have opposed. For instance, the Puritans and thus Westminster Assembly were opposed to having responsive readings. Some old threads:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/rpw-responsive-reading-8475/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/responsive-readings-they-westminsterian-they-biblical-29792/
As far as read prayers and a prescribed liturgy, George Gillespie wrote the following in a 1638 tract entitled _Reason For Which the Service Book Ought to be Rejected_ (Edinburgh, 1638),5. Though likewise they amend all these errors, and that there were
no material error in it at all: so they read nothing at all but Scripture,
yea, and that all their prayers, and exhortations were nothing but words
of Scripture, yet such a liturgy were not lawful to be made the only
form of God’s worship in public. For, though a formed liturgy may be
to serve for rule to other churches and monuments to posterity what
forms are used or that may lead the way or be a direction to those that
are beginning in the ministry, yet it is not by reading of prayers and exhortations
that the Lord appoints his servants of the ministry to worship
Him, or edify His people, but he has given gifts to them to exhort,
pray, and preach, which they ought to stir up and use, and though they
may in their private studies take help of other men’s gifts, yet it is not
lawful for a man to tie himself, or be tied by others, to a prescript form
of words in prayer and exhortations for these reasons:
(1) Such a prescript form is against the glory of God in stinting to him
such a daily measure of service, and so hindering the many spiritual petitions
and praises that otherwise would be if God’s gifts were used.
(2) It is against the dignity of Christ, in making his gifts needless. For,
though he send down no gifts at all, they can serve themselves with the
book, without them.
(3) It quenches the Holy Spirit, because he gets no employment.
(4) It hinders the edification of God’s people; they may as well stay at
home and be edified by reading the book themselves.
(5) It is against the conversion of those that know not God: will ever
a rat rhyme of words said over without feeling or blessing, work upon
an unrenewed heart?
(6) It will never serve to convince an heretic, to check a profane person,
or to waken a secure soul. they may long go on [before] such a
service bite upon them. Yea, it fosters people in a presumptuous conceit
that they are well enough if they be present, and say their part of
the service.
(7) It fosters a lazy ministry, and makes way for putting down preaching.
they need take no pains, and therefore need no stipend. Yea, they
may come from the alehouse, or a worse place, and step to and read
their service, without either check or preparation.
(8) It may be done by a boy of seven years old, and so every private
man that can read; yea, a Turk if he may read, may be such a minister.
(9) It cannot express the several needs of all people to God, or deal
with them, according to their several estates, that will alter otherwise
than any prescript form can be applied to.
(10) If any one stinted liturgy had been good, or needful, no doubt
but Christ would have set one down for us.
6. Though a prescript form of liturgy were lawful, yet there is no warrant
for imposing of one.... Cf. Anonymous Writings of George Gillespie (Naphtali Press, 2008), 99-100.​


----------



## Curt (Jul 8, 2013)

> Call to worship
> Hymn
> Prayer
> Scripture Reading (?Old and/or New Testament?)
> ...



No offering?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 8, 2013)

Jack K said:


> When the planned order, elements and words of the service become so precious to us that they seem as sacred (or even more sacred) then the One we are worshipping, or when we start to feel like we haven't really worshiped if we haven't sung a particular doxology or heard certain particular words, those are signs that we've become too attached to our liturgy.
> 
> This doesn't just happen with "high" liturgies. It can also happen with a "low," free one (as in, "It just didn't feel like an Easter service because we didn't sing _Up Form the Grave He Arose_.")



This is a very good point. It is often said that Baptists as well as other "low church" evangelicals don't have liturgy. But watch what happens in those churches if you don't have an "altar call" or take away the "howdy" time. 

Another example is "children's church" when the children come to the front to get a little lesson from the pastor or children's minister. (I've seen the latter in at least one PCA church.)


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 8, 2013)

It used to be more common, but some churches still consider that the offering is not considered a part of public worship and a collection box is kept where folks entered to place their offerings.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 8, 2013)

Curt said:


> > Call to worship
> > Hymn
> > Prayer
> > Scripture Reading (?Old and/or New Testament?)
> ...



I don't know whether or not omitting the offering was an oversight on his part. But many "Reformed" or Sovereign Grace Baptist churches do not take up an offering during the service. Instead they will have a box or somewhere else to place the offering before or after the service.


----------



## R Harris (Jul 8, 2013)

Chris Coldwell and Austin have provided some good comments. The writing of Gillespie is great, he certainly did not mince words, did he? (LOL) Nor did any of the reformers, which was certainly understandable given the times and what they were contending with.

Could not agree more with the comments on responsive reading, especially confessional prayers. 

In services I have been in where "silent confession" takes place before the corporate confessional prayer, I cannot even count the times where I was not even remotely finished with my prayer before the TE/RE interrupted to say that we should now begin the corporate prayer. I would finish my prayer and then have to "catch up" where everyone else was in the corporate prayer! I have always wondered, how is that really helpful? What have I really done here? Gillespie hits the nail on the head, as he usually does.

Samuel Miller, a Princeton professor and theologian in the early 19th century, also made comments similar to Gillespie. He found no benefit in the responsive prayers and individual silent prayers. After all, should not one's heart be prepared prior to coming to corporate worship, especially examining one's self before participating in the Lord's Supper? These are solid points that I had not considered in the past.

I would add the Lord's Supper to Rev. Sheffield's list, somewhere after the preaching of the word and before the closing psalm and benediction. Throw in the fact of having the singing being a capella, and you have a 16th/17th/18th century reformed worship service - something very few Christians today would even recognize or even be comfortable with.


----------



## Caroline (Jul 8, 2013)

I think Gillespie is a little self-centered and uncharitable, frankly. Simply because something wasn't best for him personally doesn't mean it wasn't best for someone else. 

His argument against reading prayers, etc, is the same that many people use for reading the Bible in church--why have a reading of the Word in church? Can't someone just stay home and read it? Doesn't it quench the Holy Spirit to simply read the Bible? Perhaps we should all wait for new revelation that is not dry and dull dead letter. (This is tongue-in-cheek, obviously, but my point is that the exact same arguments are made by Pentecostals about reading Scripture in church instead of waiting for spontaneous revelation.) 

As far as responsive prayers, creeds, etc never convicting sinners, etc, that is just not factually correct. Such things have convicted me, and my children, and many of my friends. It is an unfortunate habit of people to be judgmental of a worship service and think everything should be according to their own personal taste and exactly what edifies them the most. The difficulty (but more mature attitude) is recognition that some parts of the service that I find tedious and unhelpful are excellent helps to others. For the sake of brothers and sisters, it is good to be patient. Something that seems so simple that a seven-year-old could carry it out (as Gillespie says) is, in fact, excellent for seven-year-olds, as that is their level. When people place themselves in judgment over the worship service to decide what is best for everyone, then they generally lose the ability to benefit from it at all.

PS I realize that Gillespie may have been restricting his reprimand to those that disallow preaching entirely and only read prayers and Scripture--not that I have ever heard of such a thing, and if it exists, then that too would be a bridge too far, but his characterization of such things as never helpful troubles me.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 8, 2013)

Caroline, I think you're missing a vital introductory element in Gillespie's remarks:



> such a liturgy were not lawful to be made *the only form* of God’s worship in public



If there is NO room for extemporary prayers, then certainly an individual minister's gift of public prayer would not be exercised. A great part of the skill of that is in adapting the prayers offered to the texts read and the circumstances of the congregation. If only written prayers are permitted, that faculty of adaptation is crushed. The evils that he mentions follow, not necessarily from a judicious _use_ of sound forms, but from _*being tied* to a prescript form of words in prayers and exhortations._ No self-centeredness required!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 8, 2013)

It probably would have helped the context for me to have cited the whole tract which is not long (which I did post to my FB page); here it is below:
The second publication by George Gillespie was a short tract against the imposition of Laud’s Liturgy on the Church of Scotland, which had sparked the Second Reformation in Scotland, leading to the Bishops Wars; and similar protests against King and Archbishop in England would bring the English Civil War just a few years later. The following comes from The Anonymous Writings of George Gillespie (Naphtali Press, 2008) 97–100.


Reasons For Which the Service Book Urged Upon Scotland Ought to be Refused (1638)

George Gillespie


1. It contains divers points and directions, which would breed a change in some articles of that doctrine and discipline of the Church of the said kingdom, which is both warranted in Scripture and approved by Parliament: and it seems to be as well against states-wisdom as against religion, to change anything either in the matter or form of the said doctrine and discipline, without first showing both some evil or defect in the things to be changed, and what good and benefit it is that said Service book will afford more to the edification of the church, or true worship of Almighty God, than the points of doctrine and discipline, which said Service book would breed a change of.


2. In the pretended communion it has all the substance and essential parts of the Mass, and so brings in the most abominable idolatry that ever was in the world, in worshipping of a breaden God, and makes way to the Antichrist of Rome, to bring this land under his bondage again, as may be seen at large by the particulars of that communion; wherein some things that were put out of the Service book of England for smelling so strong of the Mass, are restored, and many other things that were never in it, are brought in out of the Mass book, though they labor to cover the matter. It has the commemoration of the dead; the Table set Altar ways; the oblation of the bread and wine to God before the consecration. It has the popish consecration, that the Lord would sanctify by his Word, and by his Holy Spirit, those gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of his Son, and then repeat the words and institutions of God for that purpose. It has an oblation of it again, after it is consecrated, the consummation by the priest, kneeling before the consecrated bread and wine. It takes away the eating and drinking by faith, mentioned in the English Liturgy. It has the patin chalice, two pater nosters in English before the Mass, and several other particulars that would take a long time to rehearse and confute.


3. Though they would take away the idolatrous Mass out of it, yet it has a number of popish superstitions and idolatrous ceremonies, as twenty-nine holy days, where twenty-two are dedicated to saints, two of them to the Virgin Mary, the one whereof is called, The Annunciation of our Lady. So she is made a Lady to Christians, not being on Earth, she must be a Lady in Heaven: is not this to make her a goddess? It has fourteen fasting days, and some weeks. It has also the human sacraments of Cross in Baptism, laying on of the Bishop’s hand in confirmation, a ring for the outward seal of marriage, a sanctified font, holy water, holiness of churches and chancels, private baptisms, private communions, ceremonies for burial of the dead, and purification of women after childbirth, the priest standing, kneeling, turning to the people, and consequently away from, speaking with a loud voice, and consequently sometimes with a low voice. People standing at Gospels, at Gloria patri, and Creeds; their answering to the minister, and many such like in number above fifty, besides any religious ornament that the king or his successors shall prescribe, and ceremonies that bishops shall determine, or that shall be contained in Books of Homilies to be set forth here after.


4. And though they would take out of the book, both Mass and all those superstitious ceremonies, yet it has a number of other material errors. As, leaving unread about 120 chapters of God’s Word, and putting this reproach upon them, that they are least edifying and might best be spared, and reading sundry chapters out of Apocrypha, under the style of Holy Scripture of the Old Testament. It has a litany more like conjuring than like prayers. It has some places out of which papists may prove that sacraments are absolutely necessary to salvation, in appointing baptism in private, with such haste, that if necessity require, he that baptizes needs not so much as to say the Lord’s Prayer, and out of which they may prove that sacraments give grace by their work wrought, in saying, “Children baptized, have all things necessary to salvation, and be undoubtedly saved.” It has other places out of which they may prove more sacraments than two, which they say every parishioner who is already baptized, shall communicate, and shall also receive the sacraments, and that sacraments two, are generally necessary to salvation, as if there were others, either not so general, or not so necessary. It has other places out of which they may prove universal grace, saying, “God the Father made me, and all the world, and God the Son redeemed me, and all mankind.” One collect pretends to beg from God, that which they dare not presume to name, and a number of others of this sort.


5. Though likewise they amend all these errors, and that there were no material error in it at all: so they read nothing at all but Scripture, yea, and that all their prayers, and exhortations were nothing but words of Scripture, yet such a liturgy were not lawful to be made the only form of God’s worship in public. For, though a formed liturgy may be to serve for rule to other churches and monuments to posterity what forms are used or that may lead the way or be a direction to those that are beginning in the ministry, yet it is not by reading of prayers and exhortations that the Lord appoints his servants of the ministry to worship Him, or edify His people, but he has given gifts to them to exhort, pray, and preach, which they ought to stir up and use, and though they may in their private studies take help of other men’s gifts, yet it is not lawful for a man to tie himself, or be tied by others, to a prescript form of words in prayer and exhortations for these reasons:

(1) Such a prescript form is against the glory of God in stinting to him such a daily measure of service, and so hindering the many spiritual petitions and praises that otherwise would be if God’s gifts were used.
(2) It is against the dignity of Christ, in making his gifts needless. For, though he send down no gifts at all, they can serve themselves with the book, without them.
(3) It quenches the Holy Spirit, because he gets no employment.
(4) It hinders the edification of God’s people; they may as well stay at home and be edified by reading the book themselves.
(5) It is against the conversion of those that know not God: will ever a rat rhyme of words said over without feeling or blessing, work upon an unrenewed heart?
(6) It will never serve to convince an heretic, to check a profane person, or to waken a secure soul. they may long go on [before] such a service bite upon them. Yea, it fosters people in a presumptuous conceit that they are well enough if they be present, and say their part of the service.
(7) It fosters a lazy ministry, and makes way for putting down preaching. they need take no pains, and therefore need no stipend. Yea, they may come from the alehouse, or a worse place, and step to and read their service, without either check or preparation.
(8) It may be done by a boy of seven years old, and so every private man that can read; yea, a Turk if he may read, may be such a minister.
(9) It cannot express the several needs of all people to God, or deal with them, according to their several estates, that will alter otherwise than any prescript form can be applied to.
(10) If any one stinted liturgy had been good, or needful, no doubt but Christ would have set one down for us.​
6. Though a prescript form of liturgy were lawful, yet there is no warrant for imposing of one. For, might not able ministers (at least) make a prescript form to themselves, which would fit them and their people best? But if it were lawful to impose one, then there is one in this country already. Ought not that rather be imposed, than any other, seeing it is already established by Parliament, now of a long time? But now, if a new one ought to be imposed, then it ought to come in by a lawful manner; by a General Assembly, and men chosen to make it that are known to have the gifts of prayer themselves, and not the Mass book translated into English, urged by Antichristian prelates upon God’s people, without consent of any General Assembly or Parliament, against the will of all men, and with no small offense and scandal to the minds and consciences of such as think all liturgies unlawful, that is either in the Mass way, or inconsistent with the practice and peace of the reformed churches of Scotland hitherto, and against the hearts of such as know many things in the English Liturgy and Canons, which the practice of, neither has warrant in God’s Word, nor can bring any such addition, to the profit, honor, or power of the king, that is able to compense the loss he may make of his good subjects affections, by commanding such a change as the urged liturgy would bring to the peace of our church, and respect due to the Acts of Parliament and long custom, whereby our church discipline, order and government has been established.


Printed in the year of God 1638 [at Edinburgh]
Two Books by George Gillespie, Anonymous Writings and Assertion of the Government | Naphtali Press


----------



## Caroline (Jul 8, 2013)

py3ak said:


> Caroline, I think you're missing a vital introductory element in Gillespie's remarks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, I see. Thanks! In that case, I withdraw my objection. That would indeed be obnoxious if no adaptation was allowed. I haven't ever seen something like that, but my experience is admittedly limited. If anything, my experience has been the opposite--people over-emphasize spontaneous prayers and preaching with no preparation as being more spiritual. I suppose there must be something on the other end as well, where people over-emphasize forms to the exclusion of adaptation.

Another sadly common error is for someone to jump to conclusions about the intentions of something by interpreting it through their own particular lens of experience, and then forming judgments on that. And so it seems I have done.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 8, 2013)

Caroline said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Caroline, I think you're missing a vital introductory element in Gillespie's remarks:
> ...





In our own time, it's pretty unlikely that we'd come across something like that. Since your church is neither hierarchical, established, nor seeking a covenanted uniformity in worship, it's normal to find variation from congregation to congregation, and not just in the text from which the sermon is drawn (of course, in churches which follow a liturgical calendar you might not even get much of that). Within certain limits, I think the variety is often a good thing, if it reflects a session considering the capacity of the congregation.


----------



## Elimelek (Jul 11, 2013)

Dear All

I realise the question is what is too much or too little when it comes to liturgy. It made me wonder how liturgies differ. In the Dutch Reformed Church (in South Africa) the basic liturgy is a as follows. I don't think it is high church in anyway, but maybe it is. The basic 'rule' of liturgy here is that it must reflect a dialogue between God and the congregation. This is the liturgy I grew up and it still the basic form of a service here. 

I wonder how the liturgy underneath differs from current liturgies in the USA and the rest of the world.

Votum 
Salutation
Hymn
Reading of the Law (10 Commandments or summary of the Law)
Penitence (through silent or a communal prayer or a hymn)
Acquittal 
Reciting of the Apostles' Creed (or Nicaean of Athanasian Creeds) - can be recited after the Sermon, as suggested by Calvin
Hymn (optional)
Prayer (for the reading of the Word)
Scripture Reading
Sermon
Prayer (often thanksgiving and intercession) [except with the serving of holy communion or baptism, whence it will be the Form for Baptism or Communion, the serving thereof and a thanksgiving prayer]
Offertory
Hymn
Benediction 

Kind regards


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Jul 11, 2013)

Formalism weirds me out, but so does the entertainment driven church.




NaphtaliPress said:


> It hinders the edification of God’s people; they may as well stay at
> home and be edified by reading the book themselves.



i find myself doing this quite a lot.




Caroline said:


> people over-emphasize spontaneous prayers and preaching with no preparation as being more spiritual.



this weirds me out a lot as well. it really bothers me when diligent study, systematic theology, historic grounding and grammatical (original languages) take the backseat to "Well I have the Holy Spirit just read 1 john 2:27 I don't need teachers I just need my bible and the HS and anything historical is outside of the bible and is useless and dangerous and you don't need greek because the HS will fill in the gaps in my knowledge where translators could've made a mistake."

now on the other hand the liturgical churches i've been in for the most part only have a 15 min sermon that a child could have prepared, there was no in-depth because of doing the work and digging through commentary nor fasting and praying. and i'm sure Almighty God himself wouldn't have been offended if i had slept through the entire thing, responsive prayers and all.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jul 11, 2013)

The liturgy itself is not the road to dead formalism, the attitude of the people is where the problem grows out from.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jul 11, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> Formalism weirds me out, but so does the entertainment driven church.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your lack of capitalization in almost, if not, all of your posts here on "The Board," is starting to get me! So, I thought I would share Rule #4 with you... 


> 4. Use Proper Grammar, Punctuation, and* Capitalization*
> If English is not your second language, then you are expected to show other board members the courtesy of properly punctuating and capitalizing your posts. It is commonplace on the web to disregard these rules but improper grammar does not demonstrate consideration toward others who are trying to understand what you communicate. Mistakes in grammar are understandable but willful sloth may result in posts being deleted if they are consistently sloppy.



That said, welcome aboard!


Now, to respond to your comment...

I know where you are coming from regarding what you called "liturgical churches" but I disagree with you when you say that God would not have been offended if you had slept through the entire thing including the responsive readings. Though I agree with Gillespie on this issue of responsive reading, I still believe that corporate worship is to be held in higher esteem regardless of our thoughts concerning the preparation that went into the sermon (or lack thereof). And, I am sure God would have been offended had you slept through it. 

I highly recommend you read  Family at Church  by Joel Beeke 
The Family at Church - Reformation Heritage Books


----------



## dudley (Jul 12, 2013)

I am an ex Roman catholic and I do not like any thing that resembles the papist liturgies. I believe as a reformed Protestant that our worship is to be just what God commands it to be - nothing more, nothing less. This is of utmost importance for us to understand in connection with Biblical, Reformed worship. God does not leave it up to us to determine the manner of our worship of God. God's Word regulates us in how we must worship Him. 
This is the difference between the Lutheran and the Calvinistic branches of the Reformation. Followers of Luther, when reforming the extravagance of the Roman Catholic Church, held to the position that whatever was not explicitly forbidden in the Bible was permissible in church. For that reason, the Lutherans kept a good deal of Roman Catholic practices in their worship. Whether consciously taken or not, this is the position of most churches today. This is not Reformed! 
The Calvinists, on the other hand, held to what is called "The Regulative Principle of Worship." That regulative principle says, "We worship God only as He has commanded us in His Word." For that reason, the worship services of Reformed churches historically have been limited to prayer, singing, sacraments, preaching, and offerings.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Jul 12, 2013)

Sorry my netbook is missing keys and is hard to capitalize, I'll will try to work on it.

Well said Dudley in complete agreement.

You have your prerogative Jessica and as one who has slept through many church services and senses no condemnation I would have to retort with: we will see If I stand offensive to God on those points on the day of judgment and you will see I will not. Do I recommend sleeping through church service no, but I do recommend standing up in your pew and calling out dead Pharisaical religiosity when you see it (or maybe having a one on one with the pastor afterwards lol). 

Thanks for the book recommendation I am always grateful for more books to add to the reading list.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jul 12, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> Sorry my netbook is missing keys and is hard to capitalize, I'll will try to work on it...
> 
> You have your prerogative Jessica and as one who has slept through many church services and senses no condemnation I would have to retort with: we will see If I stand offensive to God on those points on the day of judgment and you will see I will not. Do I recommend sleeping through church service no, but I do recommend standing up in your pew and calling out dead Pharisaical religiosity when you see it (or maybe having a one on one with the pastor afterwards lol).
> 
> Thanks for the book recommendation I am always grateful for more books to add to the reading list.



Here is another book recommendation:
Westminster Confession of Faith - Reformation Heritage Books


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Jul 12, 2013)

I'm reading the WCF currently. I imagine the WFC is what you subcribe to Jessica? Not the LBCF?


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Jul 12, 2013)

oh AA. Hodge's commentary on the WCF for kindle is only .99 on amazon! Also Robert Shaw's commentary on the WCF is free here An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jul 12, 2013)

I was suggesting that book specifically because it has all of the "original" Westminster Standards as well as the Solemn League & Covenant, the Directory of Worship & other documents from the Westminster Divines. 

The Westminster Presbyterian is the website for the US Presbytery of the Free Church of Scotland (continuing) if you are curious as to what I believe/subscribe to!


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Jul 12, 2013)

Sry I didn't realize it was the entire standards i only glanced at it. To be honest I haven't made it through the entire standards. Hey could you do me a favor and pray for me I have food poison or something and my bad kidney right now is in in a lot of pain. I have no idea why I'm asking you but I am.


----------

