Originally posted by historyb
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, so if it's not feel free to move it.
I have been thinking about Liturgical worship of late and I was wondering how it squares with the reformers. Basically is it allowed or frowned upon in reformed circles?
The word
liturgical is a loaded term. It connotes in some circles: "people doing things in worship they shouldn't...."
It is derived, however, from a NT word: leitourgeo (
leitourgew) which occurs in Rom 15:27. The abstract noun
leitourgia (
leitourgia) occurs in Luke 1:23 and Phil 2:7.
Those who
formulated our RPW, however, did not see an ordered, planned, service with read prayers as opposed to the RPW. In fact they (including Calvin) thought the RPW required a "liturgy" (as opposed to what? a free-form service waiting for the "Spirit" to tell the minister what to do next?). You can read three of those
here.
You should also see B. Thompson's
Liturgies of the Western Churches.
In my experience, virtually everyone has a "liturgy" whether they recognize it. The liturgy may be informal or formal and it may be good or bad, but a certain order and pattern is unavoidable. Even the most "Spirit-filled," and "Spirit-led" Pentecostal churches (not usually considered "liturgical") have a liturgy. In my experience, the "Spirit" usually leads the same folks to do the same things at more or less the same time in the service. It's interesting how the "Spirit" is so regular in his spectacular, supernatural operations.
It is certainly true that some have abused and deformed the Reformed liturgies or have created liturgies that defy the RPW and such is happening today. We should not let the fact that the FV fellows (some of whom I have seen ignorantly wearing a ROMAN tab collar rather than the protestant collar worn with honor by confessional Protestant ministers for centuries-- more evidence that these are just children pretending at "church" and over reacting to liturgically barren fundamentalism) are resurrecting the some of the errors of the
Tractarian and
Mercersburg movements bring discredit on the idea of liturgy" altogether.
Liturgy does not denote "Anglo-papist" or "Papist" worship
per se anymore than the phrase "doctrine of God" denotes "Open theism."
Trying to worship without a liturgy is akin to trying to talk about God without doing theology. It's not possible. So the next questions are "whose liturgy" and "does it conform to the revealed will of God as understood and confessed by the Reformed churches?
On this see D. G. Hart,
Recovering Mother Kirk and Hart and Muether,
With Reverence and Awe.
As you can see from the liturgies linked above and many other sources, the Reformed churches have long had a liturgy. The fact that even these liturgies strike some as "high" (i.e., as tending toward Anglo-papism) indicates the degree to which revivalism and religious subjectivism has colored our conception of worship.
rsc
[Edited on 2-19-2006 by R. Scott Clark]
[Edited on 2-19-2006 by R. Scott Clark]