Bill Evans, one of the new bloggers on the block at Baptists and Presbyterians Together (also known as the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals), seems to have an issue with a point I made some time ago when I contrasted the arguments of John Frame and Hughes Oliphant Old on worship. Here is how Evans describes my point:
Hart in essence asked the question of why some Reformed theological “conservatives” can be so “liberal” on worship while those further to the left theologically are often so “conservative” on matters liturgical. His test case is a comparison of PCA teaching elder John Frame’s Worship in Spirit and Truth (P&R, 1996) and PCUSA worship scholar Hughes Oliphant Old’s Worship That Is Reformed according to Scripture (John Knox, 1984). As Hart puts it, “In the ‘liberal’ PCUSA, if Old’s book is any indication, the traditional elements and rites of historic Reformed liturgy are firmly in place. But in the ‘conservative’ PCA, using Frame as a guide, the conventional pieces of Reformed worship are in flux.” A bit later, Hart contends, “If sideline Presbyterian denominations such as the PCA and the OPC were as conservative about the Reformed tradition as they regard themselves, then we would expect Old’s book to have come from a PCA or an OPC minister and to have been published by a conservative Presbyterian press. Moreover, if the mainline Presbyterian denomination was as liberal as its conservative detractors insist, then it would make more sense for Frame’s book to have come from a PCUSA officer and publishing house. Yet the opposite is the case. The conservatives have turned modernist, if by modernism we mean the self-conscious adaptation of the faith to modern times. Just as unlikely, the modernists have become the chief defenders of the historic Reformed faith, at least in its liturgical aspects, against efforts to preserve the kernel while refashioning a modern husk.”
Evans explanation for the difference between the “conservative” Frame and the “liberal” Old differs from mine. I had written that evangelical Presbyterians like Frame, motivated by evangelism and biblicism, could turn a blind eye to formal considerations in worship, such as the fitting modes of expressing praise, gratitude, Christian truth, etc. Evans counters that a better account may be aesthetics – in mainline churches where upper-class Protestants worship, choirs and organs are more acceptable than in evangelical churches. But because evangelicals hold on to the importance of evangelism and the authority of Scripture, Evans is willing to put up with the tackiness that sometimes comes with evangelical worship.
In short, is the real problem for some conservative Reformed champions of “traditional worship” that a lot of evangelical worship is, by upper-middle-class standards, a bit tacky? Given an unhappy choice between holding on to the gospel and the authority of Scripture on the one hand and aesthetically pleasing traditional Reformed worship on the other, the issue for me is clear. Why strain a liturgical gnat and swallow a theological camel? Fortunately, that is a false dichotomy, a choice that need not be made.
I don’t know if Evans thinks I favor traditional worship because it is not tacky. Since he uses me to make his point he may think so. So let me be clear. Organs are no more acceptable in worship than guitars. Worship should not follow the ethos of the concert hall any more than it should conform to the feel of a rock concert or television show. In fact, Reformed worship of the Genevan and Scottish kind, when the only music was unaccompanied psalm-singing, avoided the elite idiom of chamber music and would have no trouble rejecting the I-love-Jesus ballads of P&W. Reformed worship actually attempted a cultural idiom that was unique to the task of worshiping God. It was a form of expression set apart for the people of God. This worship could still be beautiful even if austerely simple. According to Evelyn Underhill, for Calvin the abiding reality of worship was “God’s unspeakable Majesty and Otherness, and the nothingness and simplicity of man.” For this reason, “No ceremonial acts or gestures were permitted. No hymns were sung but those derived from a Biblical source. The bleak stripped interior of the real Calvinist church is itself sacramental; a witness to the inadequacy of the human over against the divine.”
The theological rationale for this simplicity came at least with the reasoning of the Westminster Divines when they wrote:
Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations. (7.6)
In which case, pipe organs are no more beautiful than guitars, and upper-, middle-, and lower-class aesthetics have no standing in “traditional” Reformed worship. The reason has everything to do with the theology of the Lord’s Day, when Christians assemble with all the angels and heavenly hosts at Mount Zion in the presence of Christ and offer up their petitions and praise and hear their Lord speak in the word read and preached. Worship is not about earthly but heavenly aesthetics.
And that has a lot to do with why Oliphant is a better guide to Reformed worship than Frame. If worship is a meeting between the king of the universe and his subjects, then would that encounter be reverent and serious or would it be casual and folksy – even humorous? That seems like a perfectly obvious question. But because the Bible does not apparently address questions of style, but is only concerned about the content of worship, for evangelicals as long as a service has correct doctrine its tone can assume a variety of cultural idioms, hip-hop, exclusive psalmody, 1950s, or P&W – they are all the same. (Which is a pretty remarkable argument coming from some who think the Bible teaches how we are going to transform the secular culture. We can be certain of cultural standards for pagans and Christians in New York City but be cultural relativists for Presbyterians and Baptists in worship? Oy vey!)
Forms matter. Forms should, as Paul taught in Titus 2, fit sound doctrine. How informality, breeziness, or vulgarity befit sound doctrine, I’ll never know. But if someone has a clue about civility and manners, and why talking on a cell phone loudly in a public place is inappropriate (but maybe not a sin), he or she may have a pretty good sense why worship that does not reinforce the holiness and transcendence and authority of the God they serve is not becoming to Reformed Protestantism.
79 Comments
Jeff, I’m not talking global either. I’m talking mode, not scale. So I think expressing one’s thoughts to one’s (local) elders about P&W sure beats joining the (local) praise band.
Kane: “The distinction between this and an important conversation or a sermon is that with corporate worship we are singing to God (vertical), not primarily to each other. A sermon or important conversation is primarily horizontal.”
You rightly point out that we worship God and not each other. Many evangelical churches don’t seem to understand that simple point. But from your comment above I see why we differ on the use of the organ: you seem to have a very indidualistic conception of worship, ie., what counts is each individual singing more loudly (and, the thought process continues, the organ encourages louder individual singing hence is superior). But worship has a corporate character. We gather in one place. We take communion together. We worship together. We also sing together; we lose something of the character of worship if our corporate voice gets lost in loud instrumentation.
“When I looked at the link you provided, I wondered if the problem reflects people who are being poorly catechized rather than pragmatism”
I’m sure that on an individual level it’s down to poor teaching and catechesis, but whole churches and denominations tend to move in this direction based on pragmatic arguments. The original quote indicates this – as it appears from the quote that this form of worship is the price to be paid for biblical teaching.
Michael,
Right – Lutherans and Anglicans, and many oldline Presbyterians, are real bastions of individualism when it comes to worship. Nevermind their books of concord and *common* prayer.
Brad,
I didn’t say the horizontal aspect wasn’t important, just that it wasn’t the primary thing, unlike the sermon.
Jeff, at least oldlifers believe in the regulative principle. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard a newlifer quote the psalms on instruments and never do they use a harp or lyre.
Lily, I love Bach, organs, and Glenn Gould’s playing Bach. I do find such beauty to be distracting during worship.
Peter W., I don’t know how reformed worship was contemporary if contemporary worship at the time included the mass and choirs. And if the reformers resurrected psalm singing, that seems pretty early church (which is what Old claims it to patterned after).
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard a newlifer quote the psalms on instruments and never do they use a harp or lyre.
Hah! But they use cymbals.
I enjoy listening to organs and choirs — my iPod is full of them — and 15th and 16th century polyphony, mostly in Latin, makes up much of my entertainment listening. But I don’t want those things in corporate worship. Some of this high church stuff might aid private worship and meditation. Hearing the 51st Psalm sung/chanted in English to Allegri’s Miserere Mei is moving. But I don’t believe it’s appropriate for corporate worship; it’s performance, skillfully calculated to produce an emotional response, sort of like a Finney sermon. This reminds me of the story Bob Godfrey tells of a young Scot who drifted into Anglicanism upon moving to London. After taking his stern Free Church mother to a service he heard these words: “Well, it was beautiful…but a what a thing to do on the Lord’s Day.”
Dr. Hart, I apologize for teasing and do respect the differences in theology that regulate your worship. Sometimes, I find our differences amusing and flunk the the temptation to joke about our differences. The same can be said about my amusement at being Lutheran at times, too.
Chris E,
I see your point and it is very valid. Coming from my neck of the woods, I tend to place the emphasis on a need for well catechized congregants. It was the laity who demanded changes in an LCMS seminary (liberals teaching higher criticism) that was turning out poor pastors – it came to a head in 1974 and ended when many of the liberals (but not enough) left our Synod to form their own. Similarly, it was the laity who rallied when liberals canceled a confessional Lutheran radio program 2 years ago and worked together to remove the CGM/CEO President of our Synod. We are now blessed with an incredible confessional Synod President. I’m not saying we did it without pastors, but it was the laity who rose up and found pastors to help them in these situations. Hopefully, we, the laity are learning our lessons and taking more care to make sure more of our youth are well catechized and more vigilant about what is going on around us.
The problem with P & W are the tunes. They are Kenny Loggins’ bland and boring. If I am going to have to listen to some posh guy play the guitar can we maybe get some Psalms written to this tune?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQlM59sDJVo&
To each his own…This post and most of the comments exude a spirit of personal preference. It shocks me that we you can’t see this. The word “fitting” itself is culturally and personally relative.
I am also shocked to hear that the sermon is a horizontal component of worship. Doesn’t the Second Helvetic Confession say that the Word of God preached is the Word of God? How can God speaking be horizontal?
Finally, the latest research, as I understand it, show that the connections between synagogue and early Christian worship are tenuous at best. This has been the position of historic Presbyterianism and is advocated by Old’s study (both his book on Reformed worship and his earlier Ph.D. thesis. This also has an impact on arguments for exclusive psalmist.
As for those who think that Kenny Loggins is bland and boring–well, more evidence of personal preference rising to the top. And, for those who think that all contemporary worship lyric is trite and shallow…clearly, you’re just repeating arguments that you’ve heard from someone somewhere or you just made it up. I dare you to actually study the corpus and continue the claim. As a whole it fares about as well as hymnody of any era.
Lily, no need for apologies here. Keep the jokes coming. It’s what Lutherans do.
Terry, and yours is a remarkably po-mo argument. The superiority of Shakespeare to Stephen King is merely preference. Yes, praise and worship has made the world safe for multi-culturalism.
Dr, Hart, I’m not sure we can blame the Lutherans for my warped sense of humor.
Terry,
If I may, I would like to respond and explain why I think your observation is unfair. For example: when I look at the differences between confessional Lutheran and Reformed worship, it helps me to understand the body of work behind each tradition’s practices in their Divine Services and what their practices mean. Our traditions disagree, but they are united in the fact that nothing is done or not done lightly. Each is rich in their confessions and practices in worship. I am Lutheran because I am convinced that they are the best expression of Christianity in their doctrines and practices. I think the same could be said for those who are Reformed. Each tradition forms and shapes their adherents into disciples of Christ with great care and attention. Modern evangelical worship is poverty-stricken and tasteless gruel in comparison either tradition. This may be harsh, but I cannot tell much difference between modern evangelical adherents and popular culture. Mostly, they seem to be a confused mess because they have given little theological thought to their worship practices and how the gospel is to be proclaimed in song and how song is to bear witness to Christ.
I don’t think it’s fair to reduce the comments to merely “personal preference.” Sure, personal preference plays a role in our choices and comments, but some of the comments are also tongue-in-cheek (eg: Kenny Logins). I would offer that each tradition’s attention to detail in worship practices will begin to form and shape our tastes for the better while at the same time preach a clear gospel through psalms, hymns, and sermon. I cannot say the same for modern worship services. How each tradition views how the horizontal and vertical are at work when we gather together to worship, I’ll leave to others.
Perhaps it would be more charitable to observe that we are all growing into our head (Christ) and our understanding and/or learning to articulate our faith in our comments is imperfect? I see the conversations here as an opportunity to learn and hone what/why we believe what we do (eg: iron sharpens iron)? Pax.
Dr. Hart,
So let me get this straight – it is fine for a pastor to use the Heidelberg Catechism to select lectionary/sermon texts, but not ok to employ an organ in worship? Who gets to decide what is elemental versus circumstantial? Does the principle allow for harmony, or is it plainchant only?
I grew up in a mainline church, and did not become more versed in Reformed orthodoxy until I was in my late 20s.
To this day, I feel much more comfortable socially in a mainline church. In part, I can find more folks in a mainline church who are likely to share my interests. In a sense, mainline churches are basically an extension of upper-middle class culture. Orthodoxy is probably not as central to mainline church life because an emphasis on orthodoxy may cause a divide among the church’s bridge clubs, golfing foursomes, and the like. So, orthodoxy takes a back seat to the maintenance of relative unity among the upper-middle class churchgoers.
There can be no doubt that Machen split from the mainline church because of his fidelity to Christian orthodoxy. But when I look across the broad expanse of our Reformed evangelical churches, I’m not convinced that Machen’s passions are shared by all of those who left the mainline denominations. In the past ten years, I’d suggest that most PCA churches are no more functionally orthodox than most PCUSA churches. Sure, they’re more orthodox on paper. But attendance at various Bible studies over the years has taught me that theological ignorance runs very high in the PCA. Most PCA folks wouldn’t know orthodoxy if it hit them in the face (which is equally true of most PCUSA folks). For PCA folk, “orthodoxy” has come to mean that one: (1) favors the criminalization of abortion; (2) is opposed to same-sex civil marriage; (3) wants to convert non-evangelicals to evangelicalism; and (4) and believes that the Bible is inerrant (while rarely reading it and having little clue what it says). In everything else, PCA folks generally just adopt the practices of middle-class, suburban, white culture. In other words, Reformed evangelicalism has simply become an extension of middle-class social life.
So, I’d suggest that the contrasting musical preferences between mainliners and evangelicals has little to do with theology. Rather, these differences have to do with our social-class preferences. Mainline Christians like organs for the same reasons that some bars charge $12 for a cocktail: It keeps the rabble out. In the same way, evangelicals like praise bands for the same reasons that some bars don’t stock top-shelf liquor: It keeps the wine-and-cheese crowd out.
Where the rubber meets the road (or where the arse meets the pew), I’m just not sure that PCA churchgoers are any more or less orthodox than PCUSA churchgoers. Sure, the leadership in the PCA is more orthodox. But that doesn’t mean much. The PCA isn’t growing because people are attracted to churches with orthodox pastors. No. It’s growing (or at least was growing) because its churches successfully positioned themselves to coalesce well with the values of white, college-educated, middle-class folk with a family income of 60-150k (or 100-250k in NY).
Kane, preaching the word is elemental, an organ is not. How a pastor chooses his text isn’t even a part of worship. I don’t see the point of comparing catechetical preaching and organs.
Bob, your comments do well describe a significant portion of the PCA (you left out the hipster/transformer/let’s-get-the-U2-fans bunch). There is, however, a militant TR (“truly reformed”/Machenite) faction which is attracted to Genevan/Scottish worship not just because it’s old, but because it is free of many (I didn’t say all) of the cultural accretions of both the high downtown churches, or the low broad evangelical churches. If I were a pragmatist (he said piously) I would advocate simple, acappella Psalm-singing worship just because it in some ways fits the spirit of the age which prefers simplicity, authenticity, and things ancient. I won’t do that though.
Bob, all of this is sensible but the point of my original piece (about which Evans blogs) was that the mainline Presbyterian publishers brought out Old and conservative Presbyterian editors published Frame. Yes, comparing an average PCAer with a PCUSAer is one thing and sociology matters. But Old is not arguing for traditional worship on aesthetic grounds. He’s using good theology and his mainline editors approved. Frame, however, was using non-Reformed ideas to justify multi-cultural worship and “conservative” Presbyterian editors approved.
What in the world?
Terry, why are you doing exactly what baby boomer lit crit’s do — reduce the literary canon to personal preference? I prefer Bach to Bonar. But I have reasons for singing Bonar instead of Bach, not to mention that singing psalms is God’s preference.
I sometimes think that the enemy is having a hay day with worship. He and his host must enjoy the wasted time we put into cutting down contemporary worship or traditional worship. I have been all over the world visiting christian missions and ministries for 25 years. The vast majority of christian’s around the world (2/3rds) worship God in spirit and truth with percussion only. They do not have organ’s, robes and all the bells and smells. I think we need to slow down our focus on how and focus on whom we worship. Stop looking at how others worship and start looking at who we worship. I say this from and life long reformed and evangelical heart. I also like to think of heaven and when I do I think it will be amazing and varied.
Dr. Hart,
So how one chooses the lectionary text or sermon isn’t part of worship? That’s a rather dim view since it, albeit indirectly, informs the very substance of two chunks of the order of worship. On that basis I don’t see why a liturgical calendar is violative of the RPW.
What about reciting the Apostles’ Creed? I don’t see that commended anywhere in the NT. Nor for that matter baptizing infants, which is where the Church of Christ crowd takes the logic.
Kane, the actual selection of a text occurs outside the service. The committee that drafts a liturgy or lectionary, is not meeting during a worship service. Playing the organ occurs during the service.
I think you assume a great deal with the statement,
“If worship is a meeting between the king of the universe and his subjects, then would that encounter be reverent and serious or would it be casual and folksy – even humorous?”
This is a philosophical argument, and while they have their place, I’m not certain that it can be defended biblically. It would actually seem to cause people who would not hold your view of what is involved in honorable worship to dismiss you outright, since it seems to ignore the fact that Jesus calls his followers not just subjects, creation, or slaves, but *friends.*
Does the Church in America lack holy reverence for the things of God? Certainly. But it also seems to lack (in other quarters) the ability to relate as friends to the King who has bought them.
Kane, the real question you are asking is; can the RPW regulate the words of the minister as he is preaching in the service?
As far as I know it can’t. For all the stylistic regulations of the RPW, the words the minister chooses to preach are not regulated as long as they directly pertain to scripture. Now if he deviates from scripture and starts talking about dumb things like “how to listen to a sermon” for example, then the congregation would have full rights to kick him out. A catechism is not in anyway scripture replacement, it is merely a way by which some christians choose to interpret what is written in scripture. It’s like using a lens to look at something, which is why the minister would ultimately still be preaching from scripture.
DGH,
I agree. And sorry for the tangent. I’m living (temporarily) in the South for the past few years, and have become increasingly frustrated that I can’t distinguish most of the PCA churches in my area from the SBC churches.
BTW…the comment on 4/1 at 11:52 is not me, but is apparently someone posing as me. (I, after all, know that pluralizing a noun does not require an apostrophe.)