Recovering Mother Kirk

In D.G. Hart's work, Recovering Mother Kirk: The Case for Liturgy in the Reformed Tradition, he posits that those in the Reformed tradition accomplish the opening theme ("the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever") of the Westminster Shorter Catechism in one of three ways: by emphasizing doctrine, by stressing the comprehensiveness of the Reformed worldview to all of life, and by embracing a Reformed piety (experimental Calvinism). 

He breaks down many of the institutions in the Reformed tradition accordingly.  For instance, in the doctrinal camp he places Ligonier Ministries, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and the OPC.  In the cultural outlook camp he places the Christian Reformed Church and various Kuyperian expressions of the faith.  In the category of experimental Calvinism he places Banner of Truth Trust, New Life Presbyterians, and the PCA. 

To these categories Hart would like to add a fourth:  liturgicalism.  So now you have four main themes:  doctrinalists, culturalists, pietists, and liturgicalists.  Hart notes that Calvin placed a great emphasis on worship, even ahead of justification, as encompassing "the whole substance of Christianity."  By liturgicalism Hart does not mean only the order of worship during a Sunday service, he means "the life of the visible church through her officers, ordinances, and public worship."  To pursue any of the other themes (doctrine, piety, and cultural life) outside of the church is "to commit a form of religious reductionism." 

So Hart is arguing for a higher view of the church, even in Reformed circles.  Though Luther and Calvin vehemently protested the abuses of Catholicism, they still viewed the church as essential to Christian living--it is "the external means" by which "God invites us into the society of Christ and holds us therein."  A believer has no life outside of the church.  This works against the individualism and subjectivism that characterizes much of evangelicalism.  The liturgicalists emphasize the corporate character of the believer's religious life versus individual devotion.  Life in the faith is nurtured from cradle to grave by taking part in the church's ordinances, worship, and submission to her authority in life, versus an emphasis on a one-time decision, personal morality, and the ups and downs of Christian pilgrimage and religious experience. 

It is interesting to see many evangelicals abandon the low church mentality of populist religion for a fuller expression of the Faith.  The divide is between formalists and informalists, liturgicalists and pietists.  Many look to Rome, Canterbury, or Constantinople.  Hart believes they should look to Geneva.  However, he is also concerned for those in his own tradition.  They seem to have abandoned their Reformed distinctives for evangelical and pietistic practices that make for success (of some sort) and are assumed to be similar.  Hart disagrees, and boldly embraces a divisive or sectarian note as he demonstrates that, "Reformed identity cannot be separated from Reformed practices in church and worship." 

However, he believes a Reformed liturgy is, at the end of the day, ecumenical and catholic.  He writes, "Although these essays may highlight differences between Reformed and evangelicals, they also underscore what Presbyterians, by virtue of a high view of the church and worship, have in common with Lutherans, Anglicans, and even at times, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox." 

He concludes the introduction with these thoughts about worship, "For doctrinalists, worship is a time to teach; for culturalists, it is a time to exhort toward harder work; and for experimental Calvinists, it is a time to emote.  But if worship is a time during which weary pilgrims feed on the Word incarnate through preaching and the sacraments and during which they respond in prayers of praise, thanksgiving, confession, and petition, then the centrality of worship and work of pastors to the life of believers becomes apparent."

Comments

[Joel]

Hart's the man. I'm having a hart time seeing the experimentalist Murray emoting though! Do you have a fuller description of this alleged emoting?

[jon]

Here you go, Joel:

Experimental Calvinists: "These Presbyterians and Reformed often take a keen interest in the Puritans and their forms of devotion. At times this variety of piety can be overly inward looking and subjective, but its overriding interest is in generating and cultivating authentic religious experience....At the same time, experimental Calvinism exhibits a marked determination to chart progress in sanctification. As such, these pietists tend to be more open to revivalism than the other exponents of the Reformed faith, though Calvinists support for revivals extends only to the authentic ones that come from the work of the Holy Spirit as opposed to those dependent on human manipulation. Even so, the piety of experiential Calvinism runs, as does that of revivalism, through the peaks and valleys of the individual believer's encounter with God as he has revealed himself in his Word, creation, and providence."

[Joel]

The liturgical tendency also carries into sanctification because it changes (or at least it seems to me to change) people's attitude toward spirituality. Rather than stressing the individual's growth in personal holiness it seems to stress the individuals incorporation through participation in the ritual. I mean this only as an observation. And it seems the issue here with Murray.

[jon]

I think that is a good observation, Joel. I did not overly respond to Hart's observations in the review because I want to see how the dialogue goes, but it seems one must search for authentic expression in all four areas of emphasis, not just one. I won't use the word "balance," so how about radical commitment to doctrine, cultural expression, holy living, and life in the church. I still like orthodoxy (doctrine), orthopraxy (culture), and orthopathy (piety) lived out in the context of the church (liturgy).

[Champ]

Here are some comments I shared with our church family last Sunday evening: Listen to the controversial words of William Law (1686-1761), an English pastor, who, being denied his pulpit due to matters of conscience with the Church of England, began to preach with his pen. In his influential book, "A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life," Law writes, “There is not one command in all the Gospel for public worship. . . . The frequent attendance at it is never so much as mentioned in all the New Testament.”

It is interesting that a NT study of what believers do/should do when they are assembled (the usually context of discussions about liturgy) barely mentions "worship" (and even that might be debated.

The primary emphasis seems to be upon edification--not the edifying of the body by a few teachers (although that's certainly part of body gatherings), but upon mutual edification by individual believers employing their spiritual gifts (cf. 1Corinthians 14 and other passages about the gifts).

Other elements seen in NT gatherings include prayer, hearing God's Word (taught and read), reporting about God's work, breaking bread, and disciplining unrepentant members.

All this makes me wonder how valid a discussion of liturgy is in the context of assembly, as opposed to a life of liturgy (with which it sounds like Hart might agree).

[jon]

Champ, Though Hart certainly emphasizes that liturgy transcends formal public worship, he is ultimately making a case for a return to more liturgical worship, even among presbyterians. He views evangelicalism (and he would place the fundamentalist movement in that camp) as hostile to liturgy, though any church with an order of service possesses a liturgy.

Hart blames revivalism for much of what has been lost in evangelical/protestant worship. He also blames an emphasis on ministry outside the church (aerobics classes, preschools, bible studies, etc--none of these things wrong, but replacing word, sacrament and prayer so that worship becomes a "rally time" to support the other ministries of the church) and evangelism inside the church (during the worship; altar calls replacing the Lord's table at the end of the service, etc).

He also blames "spiritual positivism"--the view that evangelicals are determined to see direct proof of God's activity...hence, informal, spontaneous worship, charismaticism, testimony time, invitations w/responses, etc. Hart says, "They need a physical manifestation of grace to be convinced it has occurred and are not content with expressions of grace that may be formal, routine, restrained, and conventional."

He believes it essential for a body of believers to provide a pattern of devotion in which a person's faith may be disciplined and nurtured. He is not asking for evangelicals to rediscover liturgy, he is asking for them/us to take stock theologically of what constitutes biblical worship and genuine piety. He contends it will never happen though, for that would be the undoing of evangelicalism. It would send evangelicals off to reformed, lutheran and anglican traditions "in which these matters have been defined and articulated and in which worship is the logical extension of a congregation's confession of faith and lies at the heart of the church's mission."

I think you can see he is all for liturgy of the right sort. And though I embrace the sentiment about the life of the body beyond the formal assembly, when the body is gathered for worship, how should that worship be designed? What is its purpose, character, end? How does one get there? How has the church been getting there for centuries? And should we tap into that stream better than we have to this point?

[Michael]

How prescriptive is Hart in his definition of liturgy? He doesn't call for a "rediscovery of liturgy," but does he allow room for new or evolved liturgical expressions? As you point out, the many reformed churches that use an order of worship have a liturgy.

I guess I'm not sure I see the link between the problems Hart lays out and the solution of historic reformed liturgy. But I speak as a fool because I have not read the book for myself. For that reason I will cut my thoughts short here.

One passage from Douglas Wilson has helped shape my own view of worship:
"Two common practices are much to be deplored in worship....[1] The notion that spontaneity in worship is the thing we want, the order of the day, and that all exhortations should be impromptu, from the heart. Of course all true godliness is from the heart, but so is everything else, sin included. If a vacuous mans shares his heart, all the saints feel is a faint breeze. I was very tired of the sanctified rambling and repetition that had characterized much of my past.

"So I wanted the discipline of writing things down, preparing my thoughts (and heart) beforehand. [2] But the temptation that comes with prepared and set forms is that of drifting into holyspeak, dearlybelovedism, and other ministerial forms of sonorous praying and speaking through the nose." (Exhortatations, p.9).

[jon]

Michael, It is late now, but give me some time tomorrow to page through the book a little more and give you a better answer regarding a definition of liturgy than I can on the fly tonight. I like Wilson's quote. Hart deals directly with the matter of forms:

"A participant in the most charismatic of services can fake speaking in tongues and being slain in the Spirit just as much as a Presbyterian can fake recitation of the Nicene Creed, praying the Lord's Prayer, and paying attention to the sermon. None of us can see the human heart. All we have to go on are outward appearances or a credible profession of faith. Worshiping in a particular manner does not indicate the state of the soul. Once this truth is conceded, once it is a given that all worship will be formal in some sense because we cannot help but use forms in worship, the question then becomes, Which forms of worship does God reveal to us? The answer to that question is not announcements, testimonies, and special music. Rather, the elements or forms of worship revealed in Scripture are the reading and preaching of the Word, prayer, singing of praise, and the administration of the sacraments."

[Champ]

Jon,
You wrote, "And though I embrace the sentiment about the life of the body beyond the formal assembly, when the body is gathered for worship, how should that worship be designed? What is its purpose, character, end?"

I'm thinking that the view I'm most familiar with (i.e., that our assembly times are primarily for worship or worship & teaching) may be out of step with the NT pattern. All this is brand new (and still foggy) to my thinking.

What would our gathered times together look like if we primarily pursued mutual, reciprocal edification among the members and via pastoral teaching? Should we be asking when we are assembled for edification, how should that edification time be designed?

[Scott M]

I was recently discussing with a friend the differences between how the Lord's Table/Communion is observed in various churches (frequency, form, administration, etc). It seems in our circles, the Lord's Table is almost always a solemn, introspective, personal experience. It is mostly formulaic. Although we participate in it corporately, most of our focus is on confession and inward reflection. I wonder if this is the way Christ intended for us to remember him "as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup"?

It seems the bread and cup Christ referred to were the bread and cup of fellowship. He and his disciples were gathered for a meal, not a ceremony. Paul later chastises the Corinthian church for not observing the Lord's Table appropriately. Apparently they were being selfish and gluttonous... some of them getting full and drunk while others went hungry. Paul basically rebukes them for having sinful hearts and not sharing their green bean casserole and potato salad with the other people at the potluck. I mean... it had to be something more like our modern day potlucks, right? You'd have to consume a lot of little wafers and thimble-sized cups of wine (Welch's grape juice) to get full and drunk, if they observed communion the way we do! The Corinthians were clearly too selfish and divided in their observation of the Lord's Table... but I wonder if we're too formal and ritualistic?

I've been asking myself a lot of the same questions Champ brought up. I think I'm much more interested in getting back to the NT version of the church than the reformed version. If reformed worship gets me closer to that ideal... then fine. But if my path to NT Christianity takes me through evangelicalism... I'm equally glad to go that route. I think it's overly simplistic to say that the evangelical practices of testimonies, altar calls, and special music are wrong, while ritualistic liturgical worship is right. If both can be done for the wrong reasons and with the wrong heart, then it follows that both can also be done for the right reasons and with the right heart.

I've mentioned in previous posts an evangelical church that I've visited several times. One of the unique things about this church is the way they 'do' communion. I've not had a chance to attend... but others have described it to me. I think it is probably the most NT-style communion I've ever heard of. There is a separate Sunday afternoon meeting held specifically for communion, rather than a 10-minute add-on at the end of the worship service. (By the way, this is not so unusual... think of the way many churches in our circles have separate baptism services). The special service consists of a meal (real food), foot-washing, fellowship, and a symbolic observance of the cup and the bread. I'm sure many of us would find this type of observance very strange (especially the foot-washing)... but I think it's interesting that a mainstream evangelical church may actually be closer to the NT ideal in their practice of communion than most fundamentalist or reformed churches.

[jon]

Shouldn't several events be happening when the body gathers--formal worship, mutual edification, encouragement, etc? Since the "one anothers" are lived 24/7, and informal worship occurs 24/7, isn't the church gathered a unique event that requires special design and care? What impact does OT worship have on NT worship?

The house church movement seems to model the kind of values you are advocating...where the focus is more horizontal than vertical, and the worship more informal. Why "waste" resources on things like buildings at all if the life of the body is not tied to any form?

I see where you are going with "body life," but I think that should happen alongside carefully designed worship that teaches the congregation how to approach God and nurtures character formation in the congregants. There is no doubt that people are missing the boat when they just attend a worship service once a week and somehow believe that is the life of faith.

[Scott M]

I'm not sure I understand what Hart means (or perhaps what you mean in paraphrasing him) in this paragraph...

"A believer has no life outside of the church. This works against the individualism and subjectivism that characterizes much of evangelicalism. The liturgicalists emphasize the corporate character of the believer's religious life versus individual devotion. Life in the faith is nurtured from cradle to grave by taking part in the church's ordinances, worship, and submission to her authority in life, versus an emphasis on a one-time decision, personal morality, and the ups and downs of Christian pilgrimage and religious experience."

Are you in agreement with this? Surely you're not downplaying the importance of personal devotion (prayer, study, meditation) in the spiritual development of a Christian? Isn't a lack of personal devotion and a submission to the authority of the church the very thing that has led to the corruption of doctrine in the Catholic church and the mindless ritual of many protestant denominations? Is less personal devotion and more submission to the church's authority really a goal we ought to be pursuing? I'm confused. When I stand before God someday, am I going to be responsible for my personal obedience and commitment to Him or to the authority of the church?

[jon]

Just a quick comment regarding observance of the Lord's table, etc. I am not one to get hung up on form, Scott, but one cannot separate form/content from meaning. I don't think it is true that any form conveys the same meaning. The are good/better/best forms for conveying certain meanings. A party atmosphere is clearly wrong at the Lord's table, but an attitude of celebration is not. It is a place for communion with God, and perhaps even mutual edification.

There are many churches that have a meal along with their celebration of communion...this is a good thing. We did that on Easter morning...b-fast, worship, communion...it builds a sense of community when the Lord's table is celebrated in that context of fellowship. Communion should not be a 10 minute add-on.

I would be curious to know how many attendees are at the afternoon communion celebration at Grace. If the table is central to Body-life and nurturing in the faith, I would expect a high percentage should be present. This gets back to my earlier query regarding a regenerate membership....

[Scott M]

From what I understand, one of the requirements for membership at Grace Brethren Church is to be baptized via triple immersion. Even those believers who have previously been baptized by immersion must be re-baptized by tri-immersion in order to join the GBC membership. This is because Brethren churches believe that tri-immersion is the only biblically correct form of baptism. I'm not saying I like the idea of being re-baptized... but clearly the church is concerned that members be regenerate and obedient to scriptural ordinances.

Having communion during the morning service might cause more people to participate... but are they participating by choice or by default? If NHBC had communion on Sunday afternoon... how many people do you really think would show up? Maybe half? Are we really so much different than GBC? Is it better to have half the church at communion by choice or all of the church at communion by default?

Imagine you had a church where on a given Sunday you have a congregation of 2000 people with 200 hundred visitors from the community. Would you really choose to try to administer communion to such a large group and try to explain to them that if they're not believers in good standing with God and others, they should refrain from participating? Isn't it much more likely that you're going to unintentionally encourage people to partake in communion unworthily without even realizing that they've done so? To me, having a separate service for communion makes sense for a large church, and it sets communion apart as something special and not "routine". Isn't this the same reason we don't have communion weekly at NHBC? We don't want it to be a mindless ritual, right?

I have no idea how many people attend communion at GBC... but I know that there is much promotion of the service from the pulpit, and people are invited to come and observe even if they do not choose to participate. You can hardly fault the leadership of the church if the believers in the congregation choose not to attend after the pastor admonishes them to. Likewise you and the other elders at NHBC shouldn't be criticized based on how many of your people attend HEART groups. You promote HEART groups and make it clear that you consider them vital... and then it is up to the members and adherents to choose whether to attend.

As I said before, I have not yet attended a GBC communion service. Perhaps my opinion will be different after I have. But based on word of mouth and what I've read, I think the way they do things is nice and perfectly acceptable (no one has indicated to me that it's a party atmosphere). And though I'm not really excited about washing some other guy's feet, I kind of think that's the point.

[jon]

Grace and tri-immersion...so how many people attend Grace (from other evangelical churches) but never join the church because of this type of view? I am not saying you can answer this question, but I personally know several. One ends up with a church full of people, but some (who knows the %) are not under the authority of the elders, or cannot operate in the capacity of a member. This is a common problem in the mega-church that is not easily resolved. Most churches end up divorcing themselves from such denominational distinctives...there has been a recent split in the brethren movement over this very issue.

Take Grace out of the picture. Is it good to have a church full of people who call themselves Christians but never operate under the authority God has placed in their lives? The answer to this question is obviously, "No," whether one attends a church with 100 or a church with 1000.

If only half the church shows up for a communion service (no matter the church) then we have a problem, again, no matter what size the church.

The liturgy, with communion included, is a means of witnessing to the lost. This is Hart's point in "Recovering Mother Kirk." So I would not want to make it a service exclusive to believers, or for believer's only, though only believer's would be encouraged to participate. I believe eating unworthily refers to believers who knowingly abuse the privilege of the table, not unbelievers who don't know better.

I am sure the Lord's Table is observed with a large degree of reverence at GBC. However, you will have to wrestle with the footwashing issue. Is it an ordinance? Can that be supported scripturally? Does Grace regard this as adiaphora, or as an essential? Etc.

[Scott M]

Good points and food for thought. It's difficult going from a background where the church was operated as a republic with the elders being essentially under the authority of the congregation to more of an oligarchical set-up where the ultimate authority is that of the elders over the congregation. This has always been a bit of a struggle for me in understanding NHBC. I have to admit that my congregationalist roots run deep... and there's a bit of an un-American feel to anything else (although I do see that elder rule is probably more biblical).

I agree about the importance of communion. I wasn't excusing low participation at GBC (if that is the case), but rather pointing out that the method of observing communion at GBC might only be exposing an attitude that is also found in other churches, but might not be so obvious when participation in communion happens almost by default.

Interesting point about "unworthy" participation in communion. Isn't it kind of an unstated assumption, though, that communion is for believers... and that one who is not in the body of Christ is not worthy of being counted in fellowship (in communion) with those at the table?

I believe GBC considers footwashing to be a part of the ordinance of communion, rather than a separate ordinance. Here's a link to their statement on communion. They see communion as a three-part ceremony which includes footwashing, a love feast, and the ceremonial bread and cup. Their support for footwashing comes from John 13:12-17 in which Christ on the same night that he commanded the disciples to eat and drink in remembrance, also commanded them to wash one another's feet as he had washed their feet. He says in verses 14-15, "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet: ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." This seems strikingly similiar in tone and intent to the statement "this do in remembrance of me."

Later Paul, in I Corinthians 12, seems to prescribe the correct way to observe communion. I think this is the passage usually used to introduce and explain the bread and cup during communion ceremonies. But doesn't the context of this passage indicate that Paul is responding to a specific problem with how the Corinthians were partaking of the "feast" of communion? Can we assume that since Paul doesn't talk about foot-washing that it was not part of the ceremony of communion? Perhaps they were doing that part just fine... and all Paul needed to address was the the part about eating and drinking. If we see that the early church took to heart Christ's commands to the twelve disciples regarding eating the bread and drinking the cup, why can we not also assume that they took to heart his other command to the twelve to wash each other's feet? Why would one command be only a "cultural thing" or meant only to apply to the twelve, but Christ's other commands are to be carried on by all of the Church perpetually? Also, we literally "eat the bread and drink the cup" in order to symbolize Christ's body and blood as the sacrifice by which we are justified. But then we turn around and say "oh, footwashing was just an oriental custom... Christ just meant to serve each other." Really? What in the scriptures indicates that Christ's "eat and drink" commands were to be taken literally, and his command about footwashing is to be taken figuratively? I speak as a fool, having not researched the topic of communion in as much depth as I'm sure you have.

As for church membership being necessary in order for a person to put himself under the authority of Church leadership, I respectfully disagree. A member can be just as a rebellious as a non-member, and a regular attender can be just as submissive to elder authority as a member. In my opinion, the only thing membership really does is allow a person access to participate in ministry... and consequently gives the elders responsibility to discipline a member who is unrepentant. I couldn't tell you who is and who is not a member at NHBC... but I feel accountable to all of them. If a person approaches me and admonishes me about something, I don't ask him or her for her membership card before I decide whether to listen.

I think if a person wants to be involved in ministry at GBC or any other church, he has to be willing to support even those things he may disagree with. If he cannot in good conscience join together with the church because of a point of contention, then he is in the wrong church. I became a member of NHBC even though my preference is for congregational-style church government. Likewise, a person might in good conscience agree to triune baptism in order to become a member at GBC, even though he feels he has already been obedient through his previous baptism. What does a second baptism hurt if it is just a symbol of what happened in your heart anyway? I've heard of fundamentalist churches requiring people who were once "sprinkled" to be immersed before they're eligible for membership. What's the difference? If method and mode aren't that important, maybe we ought to be baptized every time we join a new church to give testimony to this new group of people that we are regenerated.