Deformed Worship

Deformed Worship – Part One

I wouldn’t give it much thought if a person from a Baptist Church or Pentecostal Church or the Hip-Deep-In-Glory Worship Center came to a service at Redeemer and thought it was ‘catholic’ or ‘weird’ (and I’ve heard both adjectives). What we do on Sunday certainly is very different from those approaches to Lord’s Day worship, and that’s easily understood. No problem! I love all my Baptist, Bible Church, and Pentecostal brothers and sisters and can sing ‘Shine Jesus Shine” with the best of them, just not here. What I do find most odd and troubling is when Presbyterians show up and think our liturgy is weird or Catholic…or Episcopalian, or Lutheran, or Orthodox. Moreover, I find it really, really distressing when members of our congregation move elsewhere and discover that they can’t find a Reformed and Presbyterian Church anywhere that has a formal liturgy with confession, absolution, the thundering of God’s word, and the glories of the Lord’s Supper surrounded and reinforced by hymnody that is beautiful and historical. Sometimes their children are debarred from the Table in the new church as well. What kind of catholicity is that? Then to cap it off someone goes and says something like our liturgical structure, added to the fact that I wear a robe and a collar, must mean that I’m about to swim the Tiber and probably lead you all to the Vatican with me. Well now, pax vobsicum.

In fact, the destination of the liturgical journey I’ve been on, and the locale our Lord’s Day worship embodies, is Geneva. On my way there, I’ve been told I was headed for Canterbury, Constantinople, or Rome. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that all of the aforementioned cities are somewhere east of Atlanta, and what they share in common gives the heebie jeebies to post-modern American evangelical schismatics and revivalists who want to keep re-inventing the Church in every generation. Let me put this bluntly: when it comes to worship, I’m a High-Church Presbyterian, a Genevan-Calvinist, and that means strong liturgy, meaty sermons, and sacramental communion with the Almighty in an atmosphere that reflects reverence and awe. And yes, I am even for candles – great big ones that remind us of the One who stands in the midst of the candlesticks – and incense too. You don’t have to swing it around, just burn it at the front so we’re reminded that in worship we left the world behind and ascended to the heavenly holy of holies where the biggest incense altar you’ll ever see is very prominent indeed (Revelation 1 and 8). People who think Calvinism is five points from Netherlands need to read an actual history or theology book written before 1975. They need to recall that what began and took root there was a liturgical renewal as well as a theological renewal, and keeping the former means embracing the latter. Tossing aside Calvin on worship, while claiming him on theology, is ecclesiastical schizophrenia.

Since this is the 500th anniversary of Calvin’s birthday, I though I might just mention some of his views on the Church’s worship. The contrast with today’s practices in most Presbyterian settings is striking and demands an explanation. Presbyterians should start recovering their own tradition, while always being prepared to learn from those of others. Indeed, the Presbyterian ‘tradition’ that arose in Geneva is itself deeply rooted in the Patristic period of the Church, especially in the theology of Cyprian and Chrysostom, and the glorious Christology of the Council of Chalcedon. Those roots are our roots too!

The Priority of Worship

So, which truth do you suppose Calvin valued above the other: a) worship or b) justification? Go the head of the class all ye who answered (a). DG Hart wrote, “In addition to clarifying the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the great French Reformer believed that the Protestant reformation would not amount to much without the reform of worship. In fact, Calvin placed worship ahead of justification in his list of things that, as he put it, ‘encompassed the whole substance of Christianity’: ‘first, of the mode in which God is truly worshipped; and second, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained’” (Hart is quoting Calvin’s The Necessity of Reforming the Church, published in 1544). For what its worth, this at least means that Presbyterians can hardly claim indifference when it comes to the worship of the Church and the way in which we pursue the goal of glorifying God and enjoying him forever.

Why would Calvin take this view? It is eminently Biblical of course. But in addition to this we have to realize that the public worship of the visible church holds theology, piety, and culture together. In other words, life flows from the sanctuary. How we pray reflects and further shapes our view of God, which shapes our families and work, and so on. Theology, Ecclesiology and Liturgy are inseparable, just as the old familiar formula says, “Lex orandi, Lex Credendi” – ‘the law of our praying is the law of our believing.’

The Great Divide

The split in American Protestantism goes back to the first and second Great Awakenings, events that completely revolutionized the American Church scene and turned the Church in the New World into something very, very different from the Church of the Old World from whence it arose. Men like Nevin and Schaff opposed such novelties, but the revivalist influence of Edwards and, later with the heretic Charles Finney, spread like a fire across the country, transforming the Church from sanctuary for communion to theatre for entertainment. It made personal private convulsive experiences of the Spirit rather than baptism, catechism, preaching, and the table the means of conversion and spiritual growth in grace. This movement has been more than adequately documented in Hatch’s The Democratization of Christianity. In short, evangelism ceased being covenantal and churchly, and moved away from the church, into the arena. Church’s that wanted to ‘keep up’ downplayed sacraments, majored on preaching as event, put the musicians at the front, and got on with the show. Finney’s movement in particular was completely Pelagian, and his heirs, while probably rejecting his gross errors, seek to improve on his methods, making Sunday morning into a show designed to ‘reach the un-churched’. This confuses the worship of the Church in the heavenlies, nurturing her members, with the mission of the Church in the world, proclaiming the Gospel to the lost.

Down to this day, many Presbyterian congregation substitute Welch’s for Wine (a 19th century American innovation born out of Finney’s Gnostic legalism), and refuse to celebrate communion each Lord’s Day. Calvin of course wished for the Supper ‘frequently’, and sought to have it served at each service, accompanied by the preaching of the Word. We don’t believe that the bread and wine are mere symbols (as Zwingli did); on the contrary, we hold that the Holy Spirit makes the Lord’s Supper a true means of grace unto the elect, that what we have in the Supper is the ‘real presence’ of Christ. Sure, we make a distinction ‘between sign and thing signified’, but, just as with Calvin, this is a distinction not a divorce. In the sacraments we receive ‘Christ and all his benefits’. This means that our worship, rather than being a Rock Concert with a Creed, is a dialogical encounter with God: he meets with us, calls us to himself, speaks to us, and we respond in prayer, praise, and offering our gifts to him in covenant love, receiving from him the renewal of his covenant oath. This is also one reason why we have men reading God’s word – for the Father is speaking to us, and we all together form the betrothed in responsive love. For Calvin, this also meant the writing of prayers for Pastors to use in worship and for Church members to use every day. Written prayers are prepared in terms of truth that is revealed rather than mere emotion that is experienced, filled with words that do not reflect the majesty of the occasion or the Person being addressed.

Dead Church, Live Church; True Church, False Church

People complain that liturgy can deaden a congregation and the hearts of the members. It is sin, rather than liturgy, that does that. Jesus worshipped liturgically and his heart was just fine. The influence of certain strands of Puritanism and Pietism led many in years gone by to start looking for ‘signs of life’, inevitably subjective evaluations, in people and churches as a barometer of validity. Calvin and the other reformers would never have taken this approach. For them the issue was whether or not one saw a true church or a false church. The signs delineating that distinction were objective: the word was faithfully preached, the sacraments, were faithfully administered, and discipline was faithfully applied. There are no goose bumps in that formula. We’re not supposed to be looking for ‘revival’, we’re supposed to be looking for the Church! The worship of God’s people is not a pep rally where we shout, “We’ve got spirit, yes we do! We’ve got spirit, how ‘bout you!?”

This novel, deformed, approached to Church, even in the name of Presbyterianism, is muddle-headed and harmful. It flies in the face of the Standards (see Shorter catechism, question 88 on how the benefits of redemption become ours). Our children are holy, so we will baptize them; we are the covenant people, priestly people, built into a spiritual Temple, so our worship is going to look ‘Temple-ish’, which is awfully formal and very liturgical, rather than like an 8th grade sock-hop or late-night talk show.

Does that mean we are devoid of feeling? On the contrary! In the words of the Psalmist, we ‘rejoice with trembling’ (Psalm 2). We offer acceptable worship with reverence and awe (Hebrews 12). Our hearts are not removed from our lips, and we ‘make his praise glorious’ for God is great and greatly to be praised. I frequently worship in tears on Sunday, mourning my sin, rejoicing in mercy, sharing the sufferings of my brothers and sisters, moved to unspeakable glory at the sight of baptisms. Flippancy never, the fruit of the Spirit, always – and in abundance please!

Next week: Part Two, which is about more of the same.