I am not sure kneeling is a good idea in my context, even if Catholicism is not known in my main, immediate area of focus. For one thing, I don't wanna get muddy knees, and also the prospect of having people kneel in front of the one dispensing the Lord's Supper seems strange since I've only seen it done myself in Catholic and Lutheran settings. I would hate to do anything to detract from my main desire to stress that the preparatory work before taking the Supper is the inward prep of the heart and not of bodily postures.
Is kneeling permitted in worship?
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Then do not kneel...though I would not go to the point as saying it is not permitted.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Of course I was just responding to some other posts that say it is not permitted. Baby out with the bathwater In my most humble opinion.
Dregs out with the bath water actually.
One really has to deal with the issue of "why kneel". If it has no meaning, then why not use the scriptural posture of participating in a meal? If kneeling is customary for a meal in some culture that would be some consideration. But beyond that, if kneeling is done in the act of receiving, it is for some reason to displace the scriptural pattern of the overall posture of a meal.
One really has to deal with the issue of "why kneel". If it has no meaning, then why not use the scriptural posture of participating in a meal? If kneeling is customary for a meal in some culture that would be some consideration. But beyond that, if kneeling is done in the act of receiving, it is for some reason to displace the scriptural pattern of the overall posture of a meal.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Curious. Why do we not have a full course meal when we take the Lord's supper? This seems to be the "pattern" presented in scripture. Correct me if I am wrong.
---------- Post added at 09:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------
Curious. Why do we not have a full course meal when we take the Lord's supper? This seems to be the "pattern" presented in scripture. Correct me if I am wrong.
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
Do bodily postures not train the heart? Most Christians do teach their children particular postures for prayer. Posture does teach. That, I think, is the basis of both the people who advocate the posture and those who prohibit it. One side thinks that the posture teaches something appropriate, the other something inappropriate. We can distinguish but should not oppose the spiritual and the bodily. The body is the vehicle of the spirit's actions.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
That being the case, it would seem to me that standing to receive the Lord's Supper is also out, would it not?
Yes, those are my thoughts, too:
I have tried to ask myself the alternate question just to more fully think things through, "Why not kneel" but it makes no sense in context of a meal.
---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------
Yes, those are good points.
---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------
Hmmmm.....isn't sitting the customary pattern in most churches?
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Good point......Thy shall not stand, kneel, where do we stop?
Last edited:
We should be content to stop at God's prescriptions and patterns. Otherwise we are free to take communion standing on our head if it were possible. If that sounds impious, why is it not impious to take it kneeling which sorts us with idolaters as the Puritans would say? What I'm saying is hardly novel.
Here's Ridgley briefly on the subject:
A body of divinity: wherein the ... - Thomas Ridgley - Google Books
Here is Philip Henry's objections to kneeling at the Lord's supper (Matthew's daddy):
The life of the Rev. Philip Henry, A ... - Matthew Henry - Google Books
Knox/Hopper on the subject.
Southern Presbyterian review - Google Books
Thomas Shepherd (from his life)
The works of Thomas Shepard: first ... - Thomas Shepard - Google Books
I'm not sure if anyone more recent goes into this as minutely as George Gillespie or not. He puts the question of actual idolatry within these bounds (which he then follows with arguments, in his popish ceremonies part 3 chapter 4):
§7. The question about the idolatry of kneeling between them and us stands in this: “Whether kneeling, at the instant of receiving the sacrament, before the consecrated bread and wine, purposely placed in our sight in the act of kneeling as signs standing in Christ’s stead, before which we, the receivers, are to exhibit outwardly religious adoration, be formally idolatry or not?”
If anyone seriously wants to dive into this question with Gillespie I will offer my new version of that section (about 30 pages) which is more easily followed I think than the 19th century version online. To big to post and you will need to agree to use it for private use only as I intend publication in early 2013. Private message me if interested in the PDF.
I'm sorry that my interaction on this is so spotty, but this is really all I have time for. Perhaps some of our other defenders of Puritanism can step in if these resources are not enough?
Here's Ridgley briefly on the subject:
A body of divinity: wherein the ... - Thomas Ridgley - Google Books
Here is Philip Henry's objections to kneeling at the Lord's supper (Matthew's daddy):
The life of the Rev. Philip Henry, A ... - Matthew Henry - Google Books
Knox/Hopper on the subject.
Southern Presbyterian review - Google Books
Thomas Shepherd (from his life)
The works of Thomas Shepard: first ... - Thomas Shepard - Google Books
I'm not sure if anyone more recent goes into this as minutely as George Gillespie or not. He puts the question of actual idolatry within these bounds (which he then follows with arguments, in his popish ceremonies part 3 chapter 4):
§7. The question about the idolatry of kneeling between them and us stands in this: “Whether kneeling, at the instant of receiving the sacrament, before the consecrated bread and wine, purposely placed in our sight in the act of kneeling as signs standing in Christ’s stead, before which we, the receivers, are to exhibit outwardly religious adoration, be formally idolatry or not?”
If anyone seriously wants to dive into this question with Gillespie I will offer my new version of that section (about 30 pages) which is more easily followed I think than the 19th century version online. To big to post and you will need to agree to use it for private use only as I intend publication in early 2013. Private message me if interested in the PDF.
I'm sorry that my interaction on this is so spotty, but this is really all I have time for. Perhaps some of our other defenders of Puritanism can step in if these resources are not enough?
Last edited:
What? Bread and Wine are not full course meals and the specific purpose behind having a full course meal and partaking of the Lord's supper are so distant in meaning that I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion. If you are referring to the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 there was abuse and misunderstanding taking place. The Lord set the elements and Paul restated what those were. They were not a full course meal. Their purpose is even defined with specificity.
Concerning the original post, kneeling is disruptive and just an outward show. We should have hearts full of humility (bowed hearts). Posture in Church should not be disruptive or for show. We can take many illustrations from scripture and apply them to ourselves in an ill manner. Because the publican smote his breast and wouldn't look up to heaven, should we all do this in a service or allow it? I submit that the point of this text in Luke 18 isn't telling us how to physically perform as much as trying to illustrate the attitude of despising one's sin and pleading for mercy. To make a show in front of others is readily condemned in scripture. To have an attitude of humility of heart and not drawing attention to one's self is highly commended. The prayer closet is not the worship service. And the worship service is not the prayer closet.
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
If the whole church is doing it as a matter of custom, I fail to see how it is disruptive or a show. If an individual suddenly decided to kneel in a congregation that normally does not, then that could be disruptive and/or a show.
On a different note, none of the masses I've visited recently have had kneeling. The partakers stood and came forward in a line. On the other hand, both the Lutheran and the Anglican churches I've attended did kneeling. So, maybe it's not so popish anymore.
The problem is not just a popish idolatry as I've tired to indicate without posting a whole book.
Guys,
This 33 pages of Gillespie that Chris has offered is not the easiest thing to read but it is a treasure. It actually answers the OP in my estimation and addresses issues that we should have to deal with in our own hearts and in our own Churches. I am going to have to spend a few days looking more intently at understanding what Gillespie is saying but he brings out a lot of the ramifications and applications that we should deal with concerning worshipping God in the mediate and immediate. He points out something that I believe I gained a better mindset on when concerning worshipping Christ. Many in today's Church worship the physical as well as the spiritual aspects of Christ's person and in so doing fall into Idolatry. We even can fall into idolatry at the Lord's table by not understanding the differences of worship concerning mediate and immediate. You might wonder what I mean by that last statement but I don't feel I am up to par as being able to communicate it as good as I need to. I highly recommend you ask Chris for this and work your way through this 33 page nugget of gold.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Is there a thread that discusses this above here? Especially the part where it appears to say we are not to worship the physical aspects of Jesus.
---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------
I am hesitant to post again here till I read over what Chris referenced....but here I go.
Though I would not worship at an orthodox church the point that if one finds oneself at a good Lutheran church I would suggest to not sit down while the entire congregation is kneeling.
Charlie,
I hope you will pardon me. I think I have an answer to this but I really don't have the time nor do I want to take the time to go into all of this at this time.
Last edited:
Earl,
I recommend you ask Chris for the excerpt of the book. It really does do a good job defending the simplicity of worship and addresses the confusion that has entered into the theology and practice of worship. It is a work well worth having in my estimation. It really addressed these issues as we are dealing with them today. Who would have thought that the same things that plague the Church today plagued it back then? After all it is said that the issues the Church needs to address today are different than those during the time the Standards were being worked out. One of the problems I see is that we are dealing with symptoms that might look differently today but they are directly related to us as they were then. The symptoms might appear different today but the problem is that we aren't addressing the root problems so the symptoms just show more signs of infirmity because the disease is progressed a bit more. At least that is what I am seeing.
Earl just ask Naphtali if he will send this to you and work your way through it. You won't regret it.
I recommend you ask Chris for the excerpt of the book. It really does do a good job defending the simplicity of worship and addresses the confusion that has entered into the theology and practice of worship. It is a work well worth having in my estimation. It really addressed these issues as we are dealing with them today. Who would have thought that the same things that plague the Church today plagued it back then? After all it is said that the issues the Church needs to address today are different than those during the time the Standards were being worked out. One of the problems I see is that we are dealing with symptoms that might look differently today but they are directly related to us as they were then. The symptoms might appear different today but the problem is that we aren't addressing the root problems so the symptoms just show more signs of infirmity because the disease is progressed a bit more. At least that is what I am seeing.
Earl just ask Naphtali if he will send this to you and work your way through it. You won't regret it.
Last edited:
Earl,
Here is a quote from the book that addresses this issue.
Review: George Gillespie’s English Popish Ceremonies | Naphtali Press
Naphtali Press is updating and republishing this book. Evidently he did it many years ago. I imagine there was a lot of hard work put into doing it. For one thing it is a major work to take something from the old English and put it into the English we read today spelling wise. Symbols that resembled F's are S's today as V's were U's. Chris also took the old archaic words and gave modern definitions of the old language parenthetically as well as he did this with the Latin also. Chris has done an excellent job so that someone like me could read this book.
I just reread Joel Beeke's endorsement of the book from the 1995 edition. This was my exact same thought on just the 33 pages I read.
I am excited that this book is going to be republished.
I am excited that this book is going to be republished.
I just reread Joel Beeke's book review concerning the 1995 edition from the Westminster Theological Journal, 57, 1, 1995. This is the last paragraph of that book review. It was my exact same thought on just the 33 pages I read.
I am excited that this book is going to be republished.
I am excited that this book is going to be republished.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
This may be over my head a tad but what this is appears to be saying is a total seperation of the human and divine nature of Jesus. For instance, doubting Thomas worshiped Jesus when he saw his resurected body. How can seperate his (Thomas) act of worship from the body of Jesus?
Plus the part that says "But the humanity of Christ cannot save us nor help us" may be very problematic? For we are indeed saved by His death on the cross and it was not the divine nature that died but His human nature.
Thomas worshiped Christ and not his physical body. His body proved the work he did. We are not saved by his physical body but by what Christ did in his body. You might want to study the doctrine of the hypostatic union. In Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
"His body proved the work he did"......Jesus proved the work He did by His Resurection and miracles while in the body. No doubt you meant this,
So far as Thomas worshipping Jesus I do believe he (Thomas) worshiped Jesus Who has a body. Now how can one seperate His natures especially the risen glorified Jesus who is still both human and divine?
So far as being saved by His body....well it was the body of Jesus that was the "instrment" that died for our sins and that same body rose from the grave glorified and wothy of worship. In other words, no doubt we may kneel in front of His body (which is essential to His human nature) when we are resurected in gratitude....no?
---------- Post added at 08:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 AM ----------
I have been gleeming through the references Chris posted and the main problem with the kneeling issue is the RC doctine the bread and wine actually being turned into His body and blood. In other words, as protestants we do not believe such and thus should not kneel in front of the bread and wine.....Now IF ONE ASSUMES the bread and wine do indeed turn then the RC's may have an point. Of course they are wrong, but what is happening here is that we may be forgetting we may worship Jesus in spirit or in faith knowing He is really present (in His divine nature) when we partake. So in essence I think, though I may be wrong, that it wold be OK to kneel during communion knowing He is really before us.
Read the defense of kneeling by the English/Scottish Anglicans and Gillespie's responses. The former were not RCs and I already gave the main thesis somewhere above that Gillespie identifies as the question.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Thank you Chris. I have started reading the PDF this morning and have not gotten to the part you refered to in this thread. May I ask to keep this thread open for a while because reading Gillespie is a little tough even with you help, which is greatly appreciated.
Also which part of the book does Knox present against kneeling?
Well, it's tough for me too. At some point some real theologians need to weigh in; but we can pick out the general argument perhaps. Now, I should also say, that even if all there were against kneeling in communion, was the RCC practice, that should be enough to rule out kneeling [as a posture for the Lord's supper]. I have pointed out the reforming rule for lack of a better term before on threads about the sign of the cross and alluded to it above somewhere. Badges/monuments of idolatry should be removed.
Last edited:
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
I see the question "Is kneeling permitted in worship?" breaking down into three specific questions.
1. Is it permitted to kneel at the Lord's Supper?
2. Is it permitted to kneel at any other time during public worship?
3. Is it permitted to kneel at any time during private worship?
I don't think a negative answer to one of these necessarily and automatically requires a negative to the others.
1. Is it permitted to kneel at the Lord's Supper?
2. Is it permitted to kneel at any other time during public worship?
3. Is it permitted to kneel at any time during private worship?
I don't think a negative answer to one of these necessarily and automatically requires a negative to the others.
- Status
