How Did Presbyterian Worship Become Episcoterian?

processional.jpgIt would be a grave misunderstanding of Old School Presbyterianism (OSP) to think that it is essentially a reaction against contemporary theological movements in the church, or simply a conservative theological position that maintains that when it comes to the doctrine and practice of the church, older is always better. Rather in OSP theology the commanding principle is not is it antique?, but rather is it simple and biblical? Therefore Old School Presbyterianism would reject the slogan Older is Better, in favor of Biblical is Best. This principle is also at the heart of true reformation. The original Reformation of the 16th century was not simply trying to correct some doctrinal and moral abuses that had become commonplace in the church of Rome, the Reformation was a striving to return the church to the only authoritative source for all of our theology and practice – the Word of God.

Naturally there was considerable resistance to this reform movement, not only within the Roman church, but also within the Reformed churches themselves. In many places, men were content to cast off the yoke of Rome and correct many of the moral and doctrinal abuses, but did not want to part with the established traditions of the church. For instance, in England for over a hundred years, the Puritan party in the English church argued for a thorough-going reformation that would finally do away with all the man-made rites, ceremonies, traditions, and church government that had continued. For instance the Reformer John A’Lasco in a letter to Cranmer summed up the critical question regarding worship as “whether in the pubic worship which God himself established in his Church with definite ceremonies, anything else can be used concerning which God has not prescribed nothing at all?” A’Lasco’s own answer to that question was “Nothing ought to be added to public worship concerning which God has given no command.” But having that answer and being able to implement it in the church were different things entirely, and Calvin himself lamented, “I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word.

The love of traditions, as well as ecclesiastical and civil Politics prevented many churches from pursuing the kind of complete reform that the Reformers desired and that included the churches in Scotland, England, and even Calvin’s Geneva. It was not until what is sometimes referred to as the Second Reformation in the 17th century that the kind of thorough-going reformation that the Puritans desired was able to be implemented in the Reformed churches. Indeed from an Old School Perspective, the government and worship of the Presbyterian church hearkens back not to the transitional worship of the 16th century, but the more thoroughgoing reformation of the 17th.

So to appeal in the modern day to the transitional Reformed worship of the 16th century with its vestigial liturgies and ceremonies, and say that these traditional ceremonies and rites of the church are Presbyterian and Reformed is to miss the historical reality that gave rise to them and the political situation that preserved them. Later, when they were done away with, Puritans and Presbyterians certainly did not miss their going as they equated them with the “shadowy” ceremonies of the Old Testament. As Thomas Watson was to put it in speaking in favor of worship without these ceremonies that were still so popular in the Anglican church “To worship him without ceremonies. The ceremonies of the law, which God himself ordained, are now abrogated, and out of date. Christ the substance being come, the shadows fly away; and therefore the apostle calls the legal ceremonies carnal rites. Heb 9: 10. If we may not use those Jewish ceremonies which God once appointed, then not those which he never appointed.”

So how then did these rites and ceremonies, that had disappeared from Presbyterianism between the 17th and mid-19th century reappear in the Episcoterian worship I mentioned in this post? I examined that question in another essay that I wrote on the reintroduction of Holy Days and the church calendar that I published separately. Here is the section detailing how Presbyterians turned away from the simple New Testament worship they had practiced for two centuries and readopted the “shadows” that had preceded the reformation:

Historically Presbyterians had rejected written liturgies, the Westminster divines had made a conscious decision not to create a formal liturgy that would restrict their freedom in worship and for which they saw no warrant in Scripture, but they decided instead to write a simple directory that would give guidance to ministers in preparing their worship. The colonial Presbyterians had inherited the same distrust of liturgies as their Puritan forbears, but their distrust went even further. In 1729 when the American Presbyterians decided to formally adopt the Westminster Standards, they did not officially adopt the Directory for Publick Worship, which had been considered an integral part of the Standards by the Puritans who framed it. This was because of the hostility of many American Presbyters to any document that smacked of usurping the role of Scripture in guiding and shaping their worship. As a result the Adopting Act framed by the Synod of 1729 only “recommended” the directory to its members. In 1786 when the Presbyterian church of the newly formed Untied States again adopted the Westminster Standards as their Creedal statement they opted to “receive” the the Directory as “in substance agreeable to the institutions of the New Testament”.17

This was an important distinction, for of all the documents produced by the Westminster Assembly only the Directory contained an explicit repudiation of the practice of observing Holy Days. As we have seen, Holy Days are clearly inconsistent with the idea of biblical worship as it is abundantly set forth in the Confession, but in later years the concept that biblical worship was only that which was explicitly authorized in scripture (this concept is often referred to as the Regulative Principle of Worship) was to come under attack within the Presbyterian church.

Until the mid 1800s, both the Regulative Principle and tradition were usually enough to ensure that the Church Year had no place in the Presbyterian Church. In 1837 the Presbyterian Church in the United States had split into two separate camps, the “New” and “Old” school. The issues that had caused the split had to do with the feelings of ministers in either wing towards Calvinism and the traditional polity and practice of the Presbyterian church. The New School, which had been profoundly influenced by the sweeping revivals of the 18th and early 19th centuries, tended to believe that evangelistic considerations outweighed issues like strict adherence to Confessional standards. Their worship tended to be less constrained by the Regulative Principle and more inclined to incorporate elements that were to be found in the Protestant traditions that did not descend from Puritanism, or which had moved further away from their roots. Despite this tendency towards adopting new methods, the New School does not seem to have initially been any more eager than their more conservative counterparts to incorporate the observation of the Church Year into their worship. Before that could happen there was to be a more thoroughgoing revolution in Presbyterian attitudes towards worship.

In 1855 a book that began to change the way Presbyterians of both the Old and New Schools thought about worship was published by a Presbyterian minister by the name of Charles Baird. Baird had been heavily influenced by the history of the continental Reformed churches, and in particular he began to discover that the Reformed tradition outside of England and Scotland had a rich tradition of using liturgies. His book Eutaxia, or the Presbyterian Liturgies: Historical Sketches, was the result of his discoveries. By examining of the liturgies used by the likes of Calvin, Knox, and the Huguenots, Baird was able to construct an argument for the reintroduction of liturgical worship into the Presbyterian Church.

While Baird did not advocate a reintroduction of the Church Year in Eutaxia, and his comments on the subject where limited to an observation that even Calvin had observed Christmas on a few occasions, his work paved the way for two important developments. The first was a reassessment of the use of liturgies in Presbyterianism and the second was the opening of a window in which the practices of Reformed churches that had pursued a less thoroughgoing reformation of Worship than the Scots and English Puritans might be introduced. Both played on the growing distaste of some within the Presbyterian church for purely extempore worship.

Baird’s book was to create an opportunity for other Presbyterians who wanted to “improve” Presbyterian worship by making it more liturgical, and in many cases, directly tied in to the Church year. One such individual was a Presbyterian elder and businessman by the name of Benjamin Bartis Comegys. Comegys had no sympathy whatsoever for the older Puritan view of worship. His views were highly colored by his romanticism and attachment to all things Medieval. His sympathies lay so thoroughly in the Anglican camp that one friend commented “A stranger visiting his library would probably conclude that it’s owner was a clergyman of the Church of England, as few clergymen in this country, even those of the Episcopal Church, possessed so complete a liturgical library.”18

This combination of Romanticism and sympathy for high-church Anglicanism led Comegys to an almost total rejection of the Regulative Principle of Worship and in particular the Puritan rejection of Holy Days. Consequently, he endeavored to see Holy Days restored, and while he agreed that these Holy Days had no warrant in scripture, he pointed out that the Presbyterian Church had been gradually introducing other innovations that did not square with the regulative principle and that “no bad effects have followed.” From this he concluded that the average layman (and presumably himself) could not “see why other changes may not be adopted.”19

Comegys even went so far as to say that preaching was not the primary element in Sunday worship: “The grand object of the church service was prayer and praise” he hoped therefore to make Presbyterianism into “a people who express their devotions in well-ordered prayer and praise.”20 To this end Comegys published An Order of Worship with Forms of Prayer for Divine Service in 1885 and then A Presbyterian Prayer Book for Public Worship. His stated intention was to “create a public opinion which will not be startled” by the move away from traditional Presbyterian Worship according to the Regulative Principle to a more expressly liturgical and Anglican model. Both books had an impact on American Presbyterian practice that was so deep that one need not hesitate in concluding Comegys achieved his stated intention. Needless to say both of Comegy’s books included mention of the Church Year. But as yet, there was no official Book of Common Worship that would officially tie the Presbyterian Church to the observation of Holy Days.

The stage had been set for the creation of such a book by the publication of several smaller books of “forms” of worship by the Denominational press – the Presbyterian Board of Publication. The advantage of creating a book of forms for worship over a set liturgy was that it seemed to tie in better with the Presbyterian practice of not forcibly determining exactly how worship should proceed. The first of these books was A. A. Hodge’s Manual of Forms published in 1877. Hodge’s manual was really quite conservative and certainly did not advocate the observance of the Church year in any way. The second of these was Forms for Special Occasions by ex-moderator of the General assembly, Herrick Johnson. Johnson’s book published in 1889 wasn’t that much more radical than Hodge’s work, but it did take another step closer to a set liturgy by including liturgical diction in prayer.

While Hodge and Johnson were cautiously moving towards a more expressly liturgical format in worship, by producing books that were safe enough for the denomination to publish, private individuals like Comegys were producing other volumes that moved considerably more quickly. Eventually these two streams were to merge in the production of an official Book of Common Worship. An important agency that was to pave the way for this was the Church Service Society formed in 1897 by two influential American Pastors – Henry Van Dyke, pastor of the prestigious Brick Presbyterian Church of New York City and Louis Benson an influential Philadelphian and pastor of another prestigious church in the suburbs of that city. Both had worked extensively to privately produce liturgical materials that included the observation of the Church Year.

The effect of forming the Church Service Society was to create an organization that unified the various men fighting for the institution of a standardized Presbyterian Liturgy. Most of these men were gentlemen of “pastoral, esthetic, and literary inclinations”21 and not the foremost theologians of Presbyterianism. One author observed that this was because “most of Presbyterianism’s theologians were too busy fighting in the opening engagements of the fundamentalist-modernist war and defending scholastic Calvinism to take an active part in what became a significant movement”22

While the organization stated their commitment to the Presbyterian Standards in their “Statement of Principles” it seems clear that with individuals such as Comegys on board, this commitment was to a very broad definition of these Standards in regard to worship. The group did no more than survey the practices of churches and the way in which ministers were trained concerning worship, but the effects of the surveys themselves were far reaching. They stirred the Church into concerted action on the issue of worship and led several Presbyteries, most notably that of New York, to comprehensively examine the issue themselves.

The fruits of this examination where to quickly become apparent. In 1903 both New York and Denver Presbyteries overtured the General Assembly to produce forms for public worship. With Henry Van Dyke acting as the chairman of the all-important Committee on Bills and Overtures, the committee quickly resolved to answer the two overtures favorably and appointed a committee to consider the preparation of a simple common book of worship for voluntary usage in Presbyterian churches. This measure too was approved and eventually resulted in the publication in 1906 of the Book of Common Worship. While the General Assembly stressed that the use of this book was strictly voluntary and not officially recommended (the title page simply stated “Prepared by the Committee of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. for Voluntary Use”) it had far reaching effects – it was, after all, an official publication of the denomination. More importantly, as far as the question we are considering was concerned, it contained prayers for Good Friday, Easter, Advent, and Christmas. Barely 71 years since Samuel Miller had declared that “Presbyterians do not observe Holy Days” the denomination had boldly proclaimed that this was no longer true.

The 1906 edition of the Book of Common worship was eventually replaced twenty-two years later by the edition of 1932. The 1932 edition continued the advance towards a liturgical format and included even more emphasis on the Church year, with prayers provided for Lent, Palm Sunday, Pentecost, and All Saints’ Day. The 1932 edition was also the first edition to be officially accepted by the Southern Presbyterian Church. This was even more startling in light of the fact that in 1899 the Southern General Assembly had declared:

“There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance of Christmas and Easter as holy days, rather the contrary (see Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:16-21), and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed Faith, conducive to will worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”23

Apparently the intervening 33 years and the obvious influence of the 1906 edition of the Book of Common Worship had made a world of difference in Southern Presbyterian Attitudes. It is important to note however, that the original declaration of the 1899 General Assembly was never repealed.

As the Book of Common Worship continued to be revised, subsequent editions indicated that Presbyterians continued to become more and more comfortable with the observance of Holy Days. The 1946 edition included prayers for Maundy Thursday, Ascension Day, Trinity Sunday, and thirteen Sundays after Trinity.

By 1955, when Northern Presbyterians were once again considering another revision of the Book of Common Worship, it had become painfully obvious that the Directory of Worship of 1788, which was still technically in force, had little or nothing to do with the actual worship of Presbyterians. Indeed it was questionable whether the Presbyterian practice could even claim to follow the Regulative Principle of Worship outlined in chapter twenty-one of the Westminster Confession, especially now that the gap between Presbyterian and Anglican worship was rapidly closing. The solution, of course, was to revise the Directory for Worship of 1788 and to produce a modern edition that would finally put an end to the need to give lip service to the principles that had guided the worship of the Puritans. Accordingly, the new Directory, published in 1961, stated that worship should draw its order and content not only from Scripture but also from the historical experience and resources of the Christianity. At last the Northern Presbyterian Church (UPCUSA) had altered its theological foundations to allow for what they had already been officially practicing for over 55 years.

Endnotes

17 Julius Melton, Presbyterian Worship in America, (Richmond, John Knox Press, 1967), 17

18 Ibid.102

19 Ibid. 103

20 Ibid. 104

21 Ibid. 121

22 Ibid. 121

23 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (Southern Presbyterians), Deliverance on Christmas and Easter (1899).

Advertisements

About Andrew Webb

I was converted out of paganism and the occult in 1993 and while I was initially Charismatic/Arminian in my theology, I became Reformed and Presbyterian through bible study and the influence of ministries like RC Sproul's. After teaching in local bible studies, and taking seminary courses part time, I began to feel called to the ministry in 1997. I was Ordained as an RE at Christ Covenant PCA in Hatboro, PA in 2000 and as a TE by Central Carolina Presbytery in 2001 when I was called to be the Organizing Pastor/Church Planter for Providence PCA Mission, Cross Creek PCA's church plant in Fayetteville, NC (home to Ft. Bragg and Pope Airforce Base). In 2005 when the Providence PCA Particularized I was blessed to be called by the congregation to be their Pastor
This entry was posted in Old School Presbyterian Churches, Worship. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to How Did Presbyterian Worship Become Episcoterian?

  1. Ben Duncan says:

    Wow! This reads like a seminary paper… hmmm. 😉
    Before I ask my question, let me give a definition that I sincerely believe: Reformed = biblical. (The more Reformed something is, the more biblical I believe it to be.)

    My question(s): If the Continental branch of the Reformed tradition has a “rich history” of using liturgies (what do you say of their practice of preaching from the Heidelburg Catechism?) then is it not at least possible that one can be thoroughly Reformed and not adhere to the Puritanical position? Or would you say that the Continental folks are not truly – or consistently – Reformed?

    Another question… how much of a dally into “liturgicalism” would you say it is if a church uses historically liturgical songs at their historically liturgically appointed point in the service? (I’m thinking of songs such as the Gloria Patri and Doxology?)

    Hope your week is going well!

  2. Andrew Webb says:

    Hi Ben,

    Thanks for your comments. The clip from “Why Do Presbyterians Observe Holy Days?” is from the version that appeared in an RPCNA magazine called “Semper Reformanda” some years ago (I believe they are still publishing but planning on changing their name to “Covenanter Review” now.) The other paragraphs are original blog material.

    Before I tackle your question about the practice of the continental (read Dutch, German, Swiss, and Huguenot) Reformed, let me first caveat my answer by saying I’m not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an expert in their history or the history of their worship. My area of specialization is the Reformed churches in the British Isles and America. I’m more familiar with the theology of the Continentals, than the history of the development of their worship, and my purpose in the above article was more to show how American Presbyterians ended up moving from Old School Worship to a worship that did not have Sola Scriptura or Refromed theology as its organizing principle and that by the mid 20th century they had moved well beyond even the practice of the early reformers or the Dutch Reformed churches. As the quote from the PCUSA directory of worship indicates, by the 1960s scripture rather than being the central concern, had only become one source for worship practice. In essence they had moved in less than one hundred years from the RPW to worship based on tradition, experience, and in practice, “whatever else we happen to like.

    As to your question, please understand that in the quote regarding the “rich tradition” of continental liturgicalism I was not endorsing those traditions nor Baird’s objective of reintroducing them. The Dutch “Puritans” had the same problem as the English in the 17th century in that they were pressing for a “further Reformation” against considerable eccelesiastical and civil pressure. Throughout Europe, most of the Protestant churches in the 17th century were afflicted with a spirit of “enough is enough” in regard to reformation and opted for compromise especially in light of cataclysms like the 30 years war. Traditions quickly became ossified after that and combatting deformation became the first priority. Personally I’m not a huge fan of preaching through the Heidelburg Catechism and wouldn’t suggest that Presbyterians preach through the questions of the Shorter or Larger Catechisms. My Dutch brothers can certainly argue this one with me, but I’m not convinced one can make an argument that this practice is prescribed for us in scripture.

    Regarding the Doxology (which is actually not ancient, it was written in 1673 as the four closing lines of a series of hymns composed for the students at Winchester) and the Gloria Patri, at one time I would not have had a big problem with them, they are after all hymns, but I am becoming more uncomfortable with their recurring use, and personally will be speaking with our session about simply making them part of a series of a rotation of other hymns.

  3. joe says:

    please don’t overlook the fact that the scots always had a rather liturgical approach…nor forget that the Second Helvetic Confession recommends commemoration of the saints, and the keeping of the liturgical year.

    the idea that a church in 1607 or 2007 could recover “simple New Testament worship” is problematic. which new testament model do you follow? one epistle mentions more than seven ministries used in worship, while others mention epsicopoi and the diaconate.

    historical evidence suggests that many new testament communities were centered as much on the table as the pulpit. do you restore weekly communion? or perhaps agape feast?

    these issues cannot be ignored when one looks at new testament worship.

    i suspect what you mean is what the reformers thought was new testament worship, but a simple look at reformed confessions and catechisms revealed no unity there either.

  4. Andrew Webb says:

    Hi Joe,

    During the 16th century the Scottish church certainly had a more liturgical approach to worship than it had during the 17th century. In fact, after the Scottish Kirk adopted the Westminster Standards, the vestigial liturgical forms were decisively done away with, and Scottish Presbyterian worship became a model of biblical simplicity. Knox, like Calvin, recognized that there was a political reality that made doing away with all the existing traditions and ceremonies impossible, and both men advocated a “go slow” approach over and against those advocating radical “reform without tarrying for any.” Later Scots Presbyterians like the commissioners at the Westminster Assembly would argue strenuously for the most thoroughgoing reform in worship. As a result, the Scots became so opposed to the traditions that Scotland didn’t even recognize “holy days” like Christmas as a national holiday until the 1950s!

    The Bible recognizes two central continuing offices in the church, Presbyter or Elder (sometimes called an Episkopoi) and deacon and Paul, in teaching Timothy and Titus how to go about planting new churches only mentions the need for and qualifications of these offices. The office of deacon is clearly one of service, and we do not see a teaching and preaching role outlined for them. The worship of the NT church is simple and consists of only a few easily discerned elements. If you can show me for instance where in the bible we see these “seven offices” actually ministering in a normative and continuing way in the gathered worship of the church, it would help.

    – Andy

  5. Joseph says:

    Hi liked your article. Sure , I could see keeping it simple most likely with an offshoot of the mainline Presbyterian like your Reformed Presbyterian , Orthodox and the like.

    However, remember John Calvins original liturgy as well as John Knox was not in any means ‘simple and non liturgical”, contrary to what people may have been led to believe Presbyterian / Reformed worship was just that the Reformed Roman Catholic liturgy!

    What has happened is that during the time of the Purtians, the Presbyterian church was highly inlfluenced by outside sources. Sadly, that is why we have lost today who we are. Worship varies from the traditional reformed type of service(similar to low episcopal) to a non denominational or Baptist type of feel.

    Church we need to wake up! Do you want to become an non denominational or Baptist church and then loose the Presbyterian Creeds and beliefs. Our beleiefs are one in Christ with these folks as they are with Catholics, Lutherans etc. However we are far from doctrinally close when it comes to sacraments with the Baptists or non denominational, creeds, salvation and even observations and worship.

    So one old school Presbyterian or Orthodox/Reformed Presbyterian may say..we dont need liturgies lets just worship free form.

    Ok, well then you do realize that within the ” Free form Presbyterian Church ” many will NOT recite the Lords Prayer,Nicene or Apostles Creed or any other creed, No COnfessionals, No Doxologies and NO LITURGY at all. No ministers wearing preaching robes or vestments let alone the Choir and no traditional services oh exceot perhaps once a month..it may be called the ” Heritage Service: or Monthly Traditional”. No regular or iregular times for Communion, no coffee time after the service” No quiet time in reverance to God”..so what is you may ask.

    Here you go…Praise Music with peoples hands in the air,Free prayers,occassional hymns, prayers in groups, come as you are appearal..and the minister..perhaps a suit more than likely a Polo Shirt and slacks. Coffee and Water and Juice that you can take in to the service, folding chairs moving away from Pews. Big overhead screens versus ” Order of Worship” printed..and may I go on. Baptisms by immersion..altar calls!1 AND YOU CALL THIS PRESBYTERIAN?? We all need to wake up!!

    Many Presbyterian churches today want to get that” non denominational/Baptist free type of worship cause it attracts and brings the masses.. The sad thing here is that you will loose who we really are and the beautry of Reformed liturgy…think twice!

  6. Andrew Webb says:

    Joseph,

    As you are probably aware, the Westminster Standards are what Presbyterians have historically confessed to be an accurate summary of the doctrine taught in scripture. They rightly point out in Chapter 21.1 that “the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.” At the time the “imaginations and devices of men” they were referring to were the farrago of traditions, rites, and ceremonies introduced after the apostolic age that had no basis in scripture. But the RPW not only forbids ancient innovations, it forbids any human innovations. Therefore it also militates against the “free-form” worship you speak of above.

    The point is we don’t need to embrace ancient “imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan” in order to prevent the introduction of new ones. Old School Presbyterians hold that our worship should be simple and biblical and therefore, timeless. Additionally, there is nothing in this practice to prevent the use of say the nicene creed in confessing the faith, Confessing the Faith

    Also, I addressed the issue of the “hold-over” use of liturgies in the early reformation above:

    Naturally there was considerable resistance to this reform movement, not only within the Roman church, but also within the Reformed churches themselves. In many places, men were content to cast off the yoke of Rome and correct many of the moral and doctrinal abuses, but did not want to part with the established traditions of the church. For instance, in England for over a hundred years, the Puritan party in the English church argued for a thorough-going reformation that would finally do away with all the man-made rites, ceremonies, traditions, and church government that had continued. For instance the Reformer John A’Lasco in a letter to Cranmer summed up the critical question regarding worship as “whether in the pubic worship which God himself established in his Church with definite ceremonies, anything else can be used concerning which God has not prescribed nothing at all?” A’Lasco’s own answer to that question was “Nothing ought to be added to public worship concerning which God has given no command.” But having that answer and being able to implement it in the church were different things entirely, and Calvin himself lamented, “I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word.”

    The love of traditions, as well as ecclesiastical and civil Politics prevented many churches from pursuing the kind of complete reform that the Reformers desired and that included the churches in Scotland, England, and even Calvin’s Geneva. It was not until what is sometimes referred to as the Second Reformation in the 17th century that the kind of thorough-going reformation that the Puritans desired was able to be implemented in the Reformed churches. Indeed from an Old School Perspective, the government and worship of the Presbyterian church hearkens back not to the transitional worship of the 16th century, but the more thoroughgoing reformation of the 17th.

  7. Pingback: Building Old School Churches Blog « One Pilgrim’s Progress

  8. Scott says:

    Presbyterian worship is not necessarily liturgical but formal, as all worship should be. There is nothing wrong with high church/formal worship, that is in order. Reformed faith and Reformed worship, are one in the same. We are Presbyterian in government, that does not mean that we have to be low brow, low church people. A high church/formal, semi liturgical worship service is what more of the masses of society should attend.

  9. Trudy Pomerantz says:

    Do you use instrumental music in worship? If so, what do you allow? And Biblically, why do you allow such? It seems to me that once organs and pianos are allowed, that people are putting their personal preferences above Scripture. The harp makes me “feel” worshipful but guitars do not as I have basically been told. What do you argue for, and how do you justify it Biblically?

    Similarly, with hymns -what hymnal do you use? Do you ever allow the congregation to choose their own? How do you prevent them from choosing those that are theologically unsound? At the church where I am currently a member, psalmody is encouraged but when the congregation gets to choose their favourites, they are almost inevitably man-made hymns. Sometimes, they are even theologically unsound hymns that should never have been put in the new Trinity Hymnal. Why do you think this is the case? Why do people love the hymns and not the psalms? This is a genuine question. Just another thing that upsets me and makes me feel alienated from the church. I feel like I have little in common with people who don’t desire to love the psalms. Because, I will freely confess I do not love the psalms as I ought.

  10. Pingback: How Did Presbyterian Worship Become Episcoterian? « A Daughter of the Reformation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s