With less division [than over church government], the Westminster Assembly also drew up an order or worship and a confession of faith. The Directory for Public Worship, accepted by the Parliaments of England and Scotland alike in 1645, carved a middle ground between the Presbyterian desire for a fixed liturgy and Independent attachment to extemporary prayer by specifying the order of services but merely suggesting sample prayers. Distilling the practices of the “best Reformed churches†and adding a dash of English Sabbatarianism, it prescribed the discontinuation of all “festival days, vulgarly called Holy Dayes,†instituted a simple seated communion, and called for the “Lord’s Day†to be given over entirely to such acts of piety, charity, and mercy as singing psalms, repeating sermons in family groups, visiting the sick, and relieving the poor. No ceremonies whatsoever were to accompany funerals, and the pouring or sprinkling of water on the newborn was the sole approved ritual action of baptism, which could be performed only by a minister at a regularly scheduled worship service. (Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed, p. 401)
If only today’s blends were as good.
Old Life 
The only problem with that thesis, is that the worship prescribed by the Westminster Assembly was not and is not a blend. Blended worship is what you get when you add the other nonsense to what scripture teaches about the worship of God. What the Westminster Assembly was able to do was not to blend a number of traditions, but rather to apply the word of God across the spectrum of reformed practice and arrive at the most reformed expression (yet achieved) of scriptural teaching on worship. They were explicit about not allowing the traditions of men or the suggestions of Satan to direct our practice in the worship of God.
Anyone who really confesses the Westminster Standards, should really know better than to write or approve of such as what you’ve quoted. Arriving at more-or-less the right doctrine by the wrong reasoning leaves one vulnerable to be easily dissuaded from the truth.
LikeLike
But Andrew, why didn’t Westminster follow Geneva?
LikeLike
Why do you claim to follow Westminster, vis-a-vis OPC ordination vows, and not Geneva? Oh, yeah, that’s right, its that containing the system of doctrine clause. The teaching of Westminster with respect to worship is conveniently outside of the system of doctrine, isn’t it, at least in your view, you just like the brew, with a couple of your own special ingredients.
LikeLike
Andrew, it is a historical point. As for what I follow, it is the OPC’s new Directory. (BTW, why do you keep trying to accuse me of positions I don’t hold? It’s not Sunday. Why not listen to the Phillies game?)
LikeLike