Archive for the ‘Book of Common Worship (1993)’ Tag

The Light of Christ, Part IV   1 comment

Above:  Icon of the Resurrection

Image Scanned by Kenneth Randolph Taylor

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Collect:

Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning:

Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them,

that we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of life,

which you have given us in our Savior Jesus Christ,  who lives and reigns

with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.

The Book of Common Prayer (1979), page 236

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Assigned Readings:

At least three of the following sets:

Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Psalm 136:1-9, 23-26

Genesis 7:1-5, 11-18; 8:6-18; 9:8-13 and Psalm 46

Genesis 22:1-18 and Psalm 16

Exodus 14:10-31; 15:20-21 and Exodus 15:1b-13, 17-18

Isaiah 55:1-11 and Isaiah 12:2-6

Ezekiel 20:1-24 and Psalm 19

Ezekiel 36:24-28 and Psalms 42 and 43

Ezekiel 37:1-14 and Psalm 143

Zephaniah 3:14-20 and Psalm 98

Then:

Romans 6:3-11

Psalm 114

Matthew 28:1-10

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The history of the Great Vigil of Easter is interesting.  We do not know when the service began, but we do know that it was already well-established in the second century C.E.  We also know that the Great Vigil was originally a preparation for baptism.  Reading the history of the Easter Vigil reveals the elaboration of the rite during ensuing centuries, to the point that it lasted all night and was the Easter liturgy by the fourth century.  One can also read of the separation of the Easter Vigil and the Easter Sunday service in the sixth century.  As one continues to read, one learns of the vigil becoming a minor afternoon ritual in the Roman missal of 1570.  Then one learns of the revival of the Easter Vigil in Holy Mother Church in the 1950s then, in North America, in The Episcopal Church and mainline Lutheranism during the liturgical renewal of the 1960s and 1970s.  Furthermore, if one consults the U.S. Presbyterian Book of Common Worship (1993) and The United Methodist Book of Worship (1992), on finds the ritual for the Great Vigil of Easter in those volumes.

The early readings for the Easter Vigil trace the history of God’s salvific work, from creation to the end of the Babylonian Exile.  The two great Hebrew Biblical themes of exile and exodus are prominent.  Then the literal darkness ends, the lights come up, and the priest announces the resurrection of Jesus.  The eucharistic service continues and, if there are any candidates for baptism, that sacrament occurs.

One of the chants for the Easter Vigil is

The light of Christ,

to which the congregation chants in response,

Thanks be to God.

St. Paul the Apostle, writing in Romans, reminds us down the corridors of time that the light of Christ ought to shine in our lives.  May that light shine brightly through us, by grace, that we may glorify God every day we are on this side of Heaven.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

MAY 29, 2018 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF PERCY DEARMER, ANGLICAN CANON AND TRANSLATOR AND AUTHOR OF HYMNS

THE FEAST OF SAINT BONA OF PISA, ROMAN CATHOLIC MYSTIC AND PILGRIM

THE FEAST OF JIRI TRANOVSKY, LUTHER OF THE SLAVS AND FOUNDER OF SLOVAK HYMNODY

THE FEAST OF JOACHIM NEANDER, GERMAN REFORMED MINISTER AND HYMN WRITER

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Adapted from this post:

https://lenteaster.wordpress.com/2018/05/29/devotion-for-the-great-vigil-of-easter-years-a-b-c-and-d-humes/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Advertisements

“Let Us Break Bread Together”: The Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church in North America, 2001-2014   28 comments

2001-2013 Dutch Reformed

Above:  My Copies of Sing! A New Creation (2001), Worship the Lord:  The Liturgy of the Reformed Church in America (2005), Psalms for All Seasons (2012), Lift Up Your Hearts (2013), Our Faith (2013), and The Worship Sourcebook  (2013)

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

U.S. DUTCH REFORMED LITURGY, PART VII

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let us break bread together….

Let us drink wine together….

Let us praise God together….

–Hymn #837, Lift Up Your Hearts:  Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs (2013)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I.  PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION

This post flows naturally from its six predecessors.  I, to make navigation as easy as possible for those with even the slightest inclination to use all the tools available at this weblog to find something here, have created a guide post for this series, a project I have assigned myself as a hobby.  Yes, I am an intellectual.  Yes, I enjoy the vibrant life which takes place between my ears and behind my eyes.  Besides, I trust that God gave me my intelligence so that I may use it well.  And I am grateful for the educational level I have attained, so I refuse to hide my light under a bushel.  I have dialed down the linguistic showiness from my peak level, which often includes a peppering of French, Latin, and Greek terms not translated into English, but my knowledge base is impossible to hide.

This post rests upon a foundation of many sources.  I have listed the hardcopy sources at the end of the post.  Most sources, however, are electronic.  Thus you, O reader, will find URLs behind some parts of the text.  And, if you wish to follow my tracks further, you may find and download the germane Agendas for Synod and Acts of Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA or just CRC) here and those of the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) here.  The Acts and Proceedings of the General Synod of the Reformed Church in America (RCA) are available here.  I have relied upon summaries and reports of proceedings of the recent bi-national (U.S. and Canadian) gatherings of these denominations, along with previously posted Agendas thereof, to complete preparations for this post.  I have endeavored to check facts and write accurately without becoming lost in the details and hope that I have succeeded.

From 2001, the beginning of the new millennium (there was no retroactive year Zero of the Common Era), to the middle of 2014, the RCA and the CRCNA moved closer to each other while recognizing that major issues continued to separate them.  The two denominations admitted the reality of these differences while working together on much they could do better cooperatively.  Meanwhile the URCNA, which split from the CRCNA in 1995, engaged in ecumenical work to the theological right of the RCA and the CRCNA.  The URCNA commenced work on a joint hymnal with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) as the RCA and the CRCNA neared the completion of labors on their shared hymnbook, Lift Up Your Hearts (2013).  The desire for greater unity, even if not in the form of merger, was in the air.

II.  THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

Liturgy is an extension of slavery.  For example, what is the content of a particular rite?  And why does someone decide to create or not to create a certain ritual?  Thus I lay a firm foundation before moving along to analysis of hymnals, et cetera.

Ecumenical Relationships

And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you.  Holy Father, protect them in your name thta you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.

–John 17:11, The New Revised Standard Version (1989)

+++

+++The Reformed Collaborative:  The Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church in North America+++

+++

The RCA-CRCNA relationship, the Reformed Collaborative, has come to involve a range of activities, from having a common supplier of church publications to sharing one benefits provider to cooperating in planting congregations to authorizing union churches to creating and authorizing a new official hymnal.  Other examples of cooperation fall into the realms of ministering to people with disabilities; creating a shared translation of the three traditional Reformed doctrinal standards/Forms of Unity:  the Canons of Dort, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic Confession; holding bi-national denominational meetings simultaneously in 2011 and 2014; arranging for the “orderly exchange of ministers” across denominational lines; studying the Belhar Confession (1986) simultaneously and approving it (the RCA as the fourth Form of Unity in 2010 and the CRCNA as an Ecumenical Faith Declaration two years later); and laying aside old animosities.  The 1857 schism in the RCA which created the CRCNA resulted from ill will and created more of it.  That antipathy continued well into the twentieth century.  Certainly some tension remains, for some people will always retain grudges and other negative attitudes, but at least good will has been more plentiful lately.

For a thorough explanation of the Reformed Collaborative one may consult the CRC’s 2014 Agenda for Synod, pages 279-286.

There had been simultaneous meetings of the RCA General Synod and the CRCNA Synod at Calvin College, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1989, with leaders of both denominations encouraging delegates to mingle.  The pace of rapprochement quickened six years later, when the RCA General Synod approved an overture

to explore avenues of reconciliation between the Reformed Church in American and the Christian Reformed Church in North America for additional programmatic cooperation.

–Quoted in the RCA Acts and Proceedings, 2001, page 101

In 2002 the CRC Synod approved dialogue with the RCA

to ascertain how our ministry and mission throughout the world might be strengthened by greater cooperation between our two denominations.

Acts of Synod, 2002, page 498

Five years later, on the occasion of the anniversary of the CRCNA’s schism from the RCA, the RCA General Synod commended its offspring “for one hundred and fifty years of faithful ministry” and looked forward to

increasing cooperation in ministry, joint appointments of overseas missionaries, common publishing and distribution of print and multimedia materials, and orderly exchange of ministers

as the RCA anticipated “even greater cooperation and ever deeper fellowship as we, separately and together, follow Christ in mission to this world so loved by God”  (Acts and Proceedings, 2007, page 270).  In 2011 the CRC Synod approved “A Resolution of Appreciation” for Dr. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, who was retiring from the post of RCA General Secretary, which he had held since 1994.  And the RCA General Synod of 2014 and the CRCNA Synod, meeting in a joint session, approved unanimously a resolution declaring that

the principle that guides us, and the intention that motivates us is to “act together in all things except those in which deep differences of conviction compel us to act separately.”

Those 2014 bi-national meetings overlapped in an opening worship service, a Sunday evening service, daily morning prayer, and three joint sessions.

+++

+++The National Association of Evangelicals, the National Council of Churches, and the World Council of Churches+++

+++

The CRCNA remained a member of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), an organization the RCA would have joined had the NAE consented.  Part of the RCA–one regional synod and some congregations–had affiliated already, for the decentralized nature of the denomination had made that possible.  Yet the RCA itself sought to join the NAE while remaining a member of the National Council of Churches (NCC) and the World Council of Churches (WCC), something the NAE had forbidden.  On March 6, 2000, however, the NAE changed that policy.  Thus the RCA applied for membership later that year.  Yet, in March 2001, the reversed the new policy and the RCA’s application became a dead letter.

Some quarters of the RCA continued to harbor anti-WCC sentiments.  An overture to the General Synod of 2012 requested reconsideration of membership in that Council and the presentation of a report to the following year’s General Synod.  The WCC, the author(s) of the overture claimed, had supported Zimbabwean Communists financially, opposed the State of Israel, and demonstrated Universalist tendencies.  The overture failed for, as the rebuttal said, some of the charges were twenty years old and, even if true then, were no longer applicable.  The rest did not survive fact checks.

The CRCNA continued to have an observer on the NCC’s Faith and Order Commission until after the Synod of 2007.  After the observer died the denomination’s ecumenical council, for reasons the Agendas for Synod and Acts of Synod do not reveal, sent no replacement.

+++

+++The Formula of Agreement and Allied Denominations+++

+++

The RCA entered into the Formula of Agreement with the United Church of Christ (UCC), the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)], and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) in 1997.  Thus full communion–including the recognition of each other’s ministers–came into being among the four denominations.  The ELCA was also in full communion with the North American provinces of the Moravian Church, a global ecclesiastical body.  And the UCC had full communion with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) [CC(DC)].  These close relations created some tension with the UCC and the ELCA over questions regarding their increasing inclusive policies regarding non-celibate homosexuals and positions of church leadership.  (I will leave that thread unresolved until later in this post.)  And the RCA entered into bilateral and multilateral dialogue involving the Moravian Church.

The Moravian-RCA-CRCNA-UCC-CC(DC)-PC(USA)-ELCA Consultation on Scripture and Moral Decision-Making (2011-2012) started partially because of disagreements over expressions of human sexuality.  The germane report to the RCA General Synod of 2013 (Acts and Proceedings, pages 281-291) indicated that “Jesus is Lord” constituted the starting point of the discussions regarding moral discernment.  The participants:

  • Affirmed human dependence on grace;
  • Rejected cheap grace, that which demands nothing of us;
  • Affirmed God’s call to help the oppressed and to work for justice;
  • Supported honoring God in all ways, including sexuality; and
  • Agreed that Christian love entails admonishing and building each other up.

+++

+++The Roman Catholic Church+++

+++

Vatican Flag

Above:  The Flag of Vatican City

Image in the Public Domain

The RCA, CRCNA, UCC, and PC(USA) entered into dialogue with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity over a period of years.  These discussions, which Pope John Paul II initiated, grew from a round of dialogue at the Vatican in December 2000.  As time progressed the number of participating Reformed denominations increased until becoming four.  This dialogue resulted in statements on Baptism and the Holy Eucharist/Lord’s Supper before moving along to the theology of ordained ministry and its relationship to the theology of sacraments.

Dialogue of this sort entails mutual respect.  That much constitutes a vast improvement over the ecclesiastical hostility of just a few decades prior.

+++

+++The Split Peas, Et Cetera+++

+++

Burning Bush Logo

Above:  The Burning Bush Logo

Image in the Public Domain

From that happy note I turn, O reader, one of my accurate and unfortunate conclusions based on much evidence:  some of the self-identified pure are purer than others.  This explains many ecclesiastical schisms as groups break away to preserve the purity of the faith, as they understand it.  Thus, regardless of how conservative a denomination might be, there is usually at least one group to its right.  This fact helps to explain why so many denominations exist inside a particular nation-state.  The Presbyterian and Reformed family of churches in the United States and Canada constitutes a prime example of this reality.  I have to keep track of all these denominations.  I know, for example, the difference between the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the American Presbyterian Church (APC).  I can distinguish between the Presbyterian Reformed Church (PRC) and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA).  I do not confuse the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (1956-1965) for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (1981-).  Yet sometimes I experience great difficulty in discerning major differences between and among some of the denominations, some of them very small (as in just four or five congregations), in the Presbyterian and Reformed family in North America.  Certainly this kind of fractiousness was not what our Lord and Savior had in mind during his time on Earth.

+++

+++The Protestant Reformed Churches in America+++

+++

Consider, O reader, the case of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (PRCA), which split off from the CRCNA in the middle 1920s.  The founders of the PRCA rejected Common Grace theology, the affirmation that even those not among God’s Elect could function as instruments of grace.  Thus, the logic said, the holy people of God should cooperate with a variety of individuals to perform good deeds and honor God.  Common Grace theology rejected Christian separatism.  But the founders of the PRCA were hyper-Calvinists who were among the purest of the self-identified pure.  As I wrote in previous posts in this series, the Orthodox Protestant Reformed Churches in America (OPRCA) broke away in 1953, only to return to the CRC fold eight years later.  The PRCA considered the OPRCA, on the eve of its reunion with the CRCNA, to be “erring brethren” who had embarked upon an evil path in 1953.  Not surprisingly, the PRCA rebuffed all CRCNA attempts at dialogue, as late as 2003.

The CRCNA split in the 1990s; part of its right wing defected to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and another segment formed the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) in 1995.  Not even the very conservative URCNA proved sufficiently pure for the PRCA, which brought up the issue of Common Grace for three years until, in 2004, the young denomination conceded the impossibility of meaningful conversations with such an unwilling church.

+++

+++The Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches+++

+++

The URCNA, meanwhile, courted the Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches (OCRC), which traced its existence to the late 1970s and early 1980s.  The founders of the OCRC had found the CRCNA, a conservative body, too liberal, so they left.  The URCNA, after nine years of trying, succeeded in absorbing the OCRC in August 2008.

+++

+++The North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, and the United Reformed Churches in North America+++

+++

The North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) had suspended the membership of the CRCNA in 1997.  The CRCNA’s offense had been to open all church offices (especially those of elder and minister) to women.  The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) had led the charge, but the four other members at the time–the Korean American Presbyterian Church (KAPC), the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC), the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA), and the rump Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS)–had voted to suspend the CRCNA’s membership.  That membership ended formally in 2002.  By then the PCA, the OPC, the KAPC, and the rump RCUS had terminated ecclesiastical relations with the CRCNA.  The RPCNA followed suit in 2003.  Nevertheless, the ARPC insisted for a few years that this matter would not affect their relationship with the CRC.  Then the ARPC broke off relations in 2011.

Thus, at the time of the CRCNA’s Synod of 2012, the list of North American denominations in ecclesiastical fellowship had shrunk to two–the RCA and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), to whom it sold Christian education materials.  In 2014 the CRCNA expanded that list to three names by adding ECO:  A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, a 2012 offshoot of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)].  The PC(USA) had moved toward becoming more inclusive of non-celibate homosexuals in church offices.  Many of those who opposed this remained within the PC(USA), but others left.  Two of the destinations for those leaving were the EPC and the nascent ECO.

Most of the CRCNA’s erstwhile friends and allies in North America established relations or contact with the URCNA, which joined NAPARC in 2005.  The ARPC and the RPCNA had been ordaining women as deacons for a long time.  The URCNA  noted that this practice predated late twentieth-century feminism and was therefore “not the result of a liberalizing or destructive hermeneutic” (Acts of Synod, 2012, page 221).  The URCNA entered into Corresponding Relations, the entry-level relationship, with the RPCNA in 2004 and took the relationship to the next level–Ecclesiastical Fellowship–in 2012.  Contact with the ARPC, PCA, and KAPC remained intermittent through 2014.  The rump RCUS entered into Corresponding Relations in 2001 and Ecclesiastical Fellowship three years later.  The OPC entered into Corresponding Relations in 1999 and Ecclesiastical Fellowship eight years later.  Then, in 2012, the URCNA accepted the OPC’s invitation to create a joint hymnal, perhaps due for publication in late 2016, shortly after the simultaneous meetings of the URCNA Synod and the OPC General Assembly.

The URCNA sought other ecumenical partners in North America.  It came close at the Synod of 2014 to resolving to develop a plan to merge with the Canadian and American Reformed Churches (CanRC), a body with Dutch origins and founded in 1950.  At that same Synod delegates learned more about the Free Reformed Churches of North America (FRCNA), another denomination with Dutch Reformed roots and founded in the 1950s.

+++

+++South Africa+++

+++

In this series of posts I have referred to relations between and among North American and South African Dutch Reformed denominations, especially in the context of Apartheid.  Now I continue that practice.

  • The RCA and the CRCNA pursued and deepened relationships with the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa (URCSA), the 1994 merge of the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa (DRCA) and the Dutch Reformed Mission Church (DRMC).  Thus the URCSA became Black and Colored.
  • The CRCNA established relations with the rump DRCA.
  • The CRCNA maintained relations (established in 1982) with the Reformed Church in Africa, a denomination of mainly Indian ethnicity.
  • The CRCNA continued to relate to the Reformed Churches of South Africa (RCSA), in its several synods.  Relations, which the CRC had suspended with the national synod before the end of Apartheid because of that synod’s support for the racist policy, but restored them in the 1990s.  Nevertheless, some injured feelings persisted in the RCSA’s national synod.
  • The URCNA established relations with the RCSA in 2001.  Three years later the former cautioned the latter not to admit women to the offices of elder and minister.  The RCSA followed that advice, much to the satisfaction of the URCNA.
  • The CRCNA established relations with the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa (DRCSA), the largest White denomination in the Republic of South Africa.  The RCA was already friendly with the DRCSA, which had apologized for supporting Apartheid with theology.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Flag of South Africa

Above:  The Post-Apartheid Flag of the Republic of South Africa

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Belhar Confession and Its Implications

But let justice roll down like waters,

and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

–Amos 5:24, The New Revised Standard Version (1989)

+++

+++Background and Summary of the Belhar Confession (1986)+++

+++

The Belhar Confession (1986) and the adoption of it by the RCA and the CRCNA are germane to much material in this post.  Thus I begin this section with a summary of the Confession and its background.  All quotes come from the translation which the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) prepared and the RCA and the CRCNA published in Our Faith (2013), pages 145-148.  That translation is also available here.

The story of the Belhar Confession started in 1982, in the context of Apartheid in the Republic of South Africa.  The former Dutch Reformed Mission Church (DRMC), which went on to merge into the Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa (URCSA) in 1994, approved the Belhar Confession in 1986.  In 2010 the RCA made it the fourth Form of Unity, alongside the Canons of Dort, the Belgic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism.  The CRCNA adopted the Belhar Confession not as the fourth Form of Unity but as an Ecumenical Faith Declaration two years later.  The CRC Synod of 2012, citing a lack of consensus in the denomination regarding the definition and role of a confession, appointed a committee to study the issue and report to the Synod of 2015.

The process of studying, debating, and approving the Belhar Confession in the RCA and the CRCNA was not without controversy.  There was a consensus that Apartheid had been sinful and unjust, and therefore consigned properly to the trash bin of history, so racism was not a major issue.  No, the Belhar Confession’s implications in other arenas made many people uncomfortable and continue to do so.  But, as an old saying tells me, one purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable, as in the Beatitudes and Woes (Luke 6:20-26).  So be it.

The Belhar Confession addresses issues of church unity, human unity, reconciliation in church and society, and divine justice.  Any human system which sets people at enmity with each other

is sin which Christ has already conquered, and accordingly…anything which threatens this unity [in Christ] may have no place in the church and must be resisted,

the document says.  Therefore the Belhar Confession rejects any role for racism in determining church membership, as it did in South Africa.  The text goes on to emphasize reconciliation via Jesus and the Holy Spirit and to

reject any doctrine which, in such a situation [of forced separation of the races] sanctions in the name of the gospel or of the will of God the forced separation of people on the grounds of race and color and thereby in advance obstructs and weakens the ministry and experience of reconciliation in Christ.

You, O reader, might be thinking something like, “So far so good.  What has been–and remains–so controversial and objectionable, except among and to White Supremacists?”  To answer that question I move along to the fourth section of the Belhar Confession, which emphasizes God’s call to establish justice and peace among people, the divine preference for the poor and the oppressed, and the church’s obligation to

stand by people, in any form of suffering and need, which implies, among other things, that the church must witness against any form of injustice, so that justice may roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream

and, “as the possession of God,” to

stand where the Lord stands, namely against injustice and with the wronged; that, in following Christ the church must witness against all the powerful and privileged who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and harm others.

The document therefore rejects “any ideology which would legitimate forms of injustice and any doctrine which is unwilling to resist such an ideology in the name of the gospel.”  The Belhar Confession concludes:

Jesus is Lord.

To the one and only God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be the honor and glory forever and ever.

What are the injustices which the church must witness against and oppose actively?  Pondering that question has made–and continues to make–many people uncomfortable.  Most of the arguments against the Belhar Confession I have read online criticism start with the “I’m not a racist, but…” defense.  Yes, Apartheid was an abomination, but there are good reasons having nothing to do with race, racism, ethnicity, and/or xenophobia to oppose the Belhar Confession, these critics write.

+++

+++Racism and Multiculturalism+++

+++

The most obvious implications of the Belhar Confession in the RCA and the CRCNA, historically and predominantly White denominations, pertain to racism (often unintentional and institutional) and multiculturalism.  The two denominations had been conducting anti-racism training  and seeking to diversify their ranks on all levels for decades by 2010 and 2012.  Since the 1980s, for example, the CRCNA had encouraged its congregations to observe All Nations Heritage Week, with a focus on a different racial or ethnic group each year.  The week ended with All Nations Heritage Sunday, the first Sunday in October.  Money from a special offering that day increased the ability of the CRC’s Race Relations Committee to award grants and scholarships to promote more diversity in denominational leadership.  And churches could combine this observance with World Communion Sunday quite easily.

The RCA General Synod of 2010 started the process which culminated in the 2013 report on White Privilege (Acts and Proceedings, page 142-163).  The report analyzed White Privilege in society and the RCA and led to a resolution to “develop an online and interactive RCA resource for freely discussing, understanding, and dismantling” it and another resolution to promote congregational partnerships across racial and ethnic lines.

+++

+++Gender:   Roles of Women+++

+++

Venus Symbol

Above:  The Venus Symbol (for Females)

Image in the Public Domain

So far, so good.  Now, however, the really controversial applications of the Belhar Confession enter the picture with issues of gender.  The sociological definition of sex is anatomy-based.  Gender consists the societal and social implications of that anatomy for one.  Does one, for example, have a glass ceiling?  And is one bitch or merely assertive?  And some cultures, by the way, have recognized more than two genders since time immemorial.  Gender is a social definition, not a biological reality.

The first gender issue to analyze in this post is that of the roles of women in the church.  I recall a story about a Roman Catholic schoolgirl.  Someone asked her how many sacraments there are.  She replied that the answer depends on whether one is male or female–a reference to the exclusively male priesthood.  The Reformed, of course, have ordination yet not as a sacrament.  Nevertheless, many women in the RCA and the CRCNA have experienced much difficulty and frustration regarding church leadership and continue to do so.

As I established in the previous post in this series, the RCA opened the offices of deacon and elder to women in 1973, six years before doing the same regarding the ordained ministry.  Then, in 1980, the RCA put two conscience clauses into place to maintain church unity and to protect ministers and other office holders who disagreed.  Over the years, however, abuses and misuses of the conscience clauses held women back and became divisive in the denomination.  The CRCNA, after more than twenty years of arguments, opened all offices to women effectively in 1995.  By 2010, however, related arguments continued and some of the Classes still refused to grant women equality in the church.

At the RCA General Synod of 2002 President John C. H. Chang noted in his report that, if his daughter did have a vocation to ordained ministry, she would “hit the wall of no-opportunity” in the denomination.  This was wrong, he said: “I’m wondering how many of our churches can accomplish the mission the Lord calls us to and keep telling our daughters ‘no'” (Acts and Proceedings, page 37).

This is a good time for numbers:

  1. Nearly two-thirds of the members of the RCA are women, and
  2. RCA seminaries, which provide strong support for female students, graduate nearly equal numbers of men and women.

Yet, according to the 2012 report of the denominational Commission for Women:

  1. There were 1,556 active clergy in the RCA.
  2. 271 (17.4%) were female.
  3. Of those 271 female ministers, 100 (36.9%) served in parish settings, 128 (47.2%) served in other capacities, and 43 (15.9%) were without charge.
  4. Of the 1,285 male ministers, however, 729 (56.7%) served in parish settings, 425 (56.7%) served in parish settings, and 131 (10.2%) were without charge.

That report continued, observing that many female ministers still experienced

instances of exclusion, inequality, and pain.  Women are still required to defend their calling and their ordination in the assemblies of the RCA, including on the floor of the General Synod, in a way that their male colleagues are not.

The General Synod of 2012 voted to remove the conscience clauses.  The requisite two-thirds of Classes had approved this change to the Book of Church Order by the time the General Synod of 2013 convened.  That year the General Synod Council decreed:

The RCA will be a fellowship of congregations in which all women are equipped and empowered to fully exercise their gifts in the life, ministry, mission, and offices of the church.

Acts and Proceedings, page 212

That report went on to detail procedures for helping women advance in the denomination.

The passage of time will reveal the resolution of this matter.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++

+++Gender:  Homosexuality and Homophobia+++

+++

Marriage Equality

Above:  The Marriage Equality Sign

Found in many places on the Internet

The RCA and the CRCNA are not ready for this yet.

The most common objection I have read to the Belhar Confession in “I’m not a racist, but…” critiques online regards homosexuality, a concept the document never mentions to alludes to directly.  One can, however, recognize the Belhar Confession’s implications regarding homosexuality and homophobia quite easily.

Both the RCA and the CRCNA contain a wide range of attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuals; official documents have admitted this frankly.  And both denominations continue to maintain officially, with nuances, that, although the proper approach to these questions is one grounded in compassion, brotherly love, and the theology of the image of God (Genesis 1:27), same-sex desire is sinful (even if one has not chosen it) and ordination and same-sex unions are off-limits.

I do have one question before I proceed:  Can sin exist in the absence of choice?

Both the RCA and the CRCNA have also recognized their official failings to live up to their pastoral statements regarding the spiritual care of homosexuals since they started making such statements in the early 1970s.  Yes, homophobia is alive and well in the church, unfortunately.

Debates over homosexuality have threatened the unity of the RCA, which has a stronger liberal wing than does the CRCNA.  A dialogue regarding the topic started in the 2005 and continued for a few years.  During that time the General Synod rejected a barrage of anti-homosexual overtures and urged Classes and congregations not to press judicial actions.  Assemblies followed that advice according to a notice at the General Synod of 2011.

The RCA, which restated its support for full civil liberties and rights in 2006, refused to consider the question of same-sex unions and marriage solely in the context of human rights and civil rights, adding Reformed theology to the mix.  At the conclusion of the multi-year dialogue, in 2012, the General Synod resolved that “any person, congregation, or assembly which advocates homosexual behavior or provides leadership for a service of same-sex marriage or a similar celebration has committed a disciplineable offense” and created a committee “to pray and work together to present a way forward for our denomination” regarding the issue.  And the General Synod of 2014 started the process of amending the Book of Church Order to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Delegates to the General Synod of 2014, according to the official summary available at the RCA website, “chose not to state that the history of the RCA’s stated position is nuanced and that a wide array of perspectives regarding same-sex relationships exists in the RCA.” This puzzles me, for I understand the documented reality of the matter.  First, the history of the RCA’s stated position is nuanced.  I refer you, O reader, to “A Historical Survey of the Actions of the General Synod with Regard to Homosexuality:  1974-2012” (Acts and Proceedings, 2012, pages 334-340).  As for choosing not to say that a wide array of perspectives regarding same-sex relationships exists within the RCA, I could point to numerous examples to demonstrate that such an array exists, but two will suffice.  (I will not “flip note cards” on you, O reader.)  A report to the General Synod of 2009 reads in part:

Widely scattered views characterize RCA members’ beliefs about homosexuality….It would be unfair to many RCA members to represent their positions as lying along a line that is drawn, for example, between “open and affirming” on the one hand and “hate the sin but love the sinner” on the other.

Acts and Proceedings, page 105

And, four years earlier, the Commission on Christian Action report regarding homosexuality acknowledged the lack of consensus, even among its own members.  Instead the report of 2005 (Acts and Proceedings, pages 364-372) contained verbatim perspectives of the commission members.

Homosexuality became a sticking point with some of the RCA’s ecumenical partners who had moved to ordain non-celibate homosexuals.  Thus the RCA, rejecting overtures to terminate these ecumenical relationships, entered instead into dialogue first with the United Church of Christ (UCC) then the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).  These dialogues entailed statements of disapproval and concern sometimes, but the old RCA desire for church unity over ecclesiastical purity won the argument.

Perhaps the most publicized case regarding homosexuality in the RCA was that of the Reverend Doctor Norman Kansfield, President of New Brunswick Theological Seminary until June 2005.  Kansfield got into trouble when, in June 2004, he presided over the wedding of his daughter, Ann Margaret Kansfield, to Jennifer Aull.  This act of a doting father and father-in-law led to his suspension from ordained ministry and removal from the presidency of the seminary.  The General Synod of 2005 also denied him the status of General Synod Professor Emeritus on the grounds that it had removed him from office.  The three charges, as Acts and Proceedings, 2005, pages 43-52, contain them, were that:

  1. Kansfield had acted “contrary to our faith and beliefs as affirmed by the Holy Scriptures and the decisions of General Synod concerning the relationship of active homosexuality;”
  2. He had contradicted his ordination affirmation:  “I promise to work in the Spirit of Christ, in love and fellowship within the church, seeking all things that make for unity, purity, and peace;” and
  3. He had violated his promise to submit himself “to the counsel and admonition of the General Synod, always ready, with gentleness and reverence, to give an account of my understanding of the Christian faith” by not doing so at the General Synod of 2004, prior to the wedding in Massachusetts.

Kansfield’s period of suspension ended in October 2011.  By that time the UCC had ordained both his daughter and daughter-in-law, who, as I type these words, serve as co-pastors of the Greenpoint Reformed Church, Brooklyn, New York, New York.  The RCA might not ordain practicing homosexuals, but its decentralized structure provides a back door by which a RCA congregation may call a practicing homosexual minister.

The CRCNA also contains a range of opinions regarding homosexuality.  The First Christian Reformed Church of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, is one of the most liberal congregations in the denomination.  It became the first church within the CRC to call a female pastor.  And, in 2002, it opened church offices to homosexuals living in monogamous relationships.  The Classis forced the congregation to back down, but the the First CRC website, as of the day I type these words, presents the Statement of Faith and Action, dated September 29, 2002:

We believe that all people are created in the image of God and are unconditionally loved by God. We are committed to embrace people of all ages, races, genders, sexual orientation, differing abilities, ethnic origins, and economic circumstances. We affirm that all who seek to live faithfully, that is confessing Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, are full participants in the life, membership, sacraments and leadership of this congregation. Our desire is to build community in the midst of differences and strive to honour God’s greatest commandment, to love one another as Christ loves us.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++

+++Economic Justice+++

+++

Thus says the LORD:

For three transgressions of Israel,

and for four, I will not revoke the punishment,

because they sell the righteous for silver,

and the needy for a pair of sandals–

they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth,

and push the afflicted out of the way….

–Amos 2:6-7a, The New Revised Standard Version (1989)

Another implication of the Belhar Confession is economic justice, one of the major themes–more prominent than sexuality and expressions thereof, in fact– in the Bible.  I could provide an extensive catalog of RCA and CRCNA actions regarding economic justice, but three examples will suffice:

  1. In 2007 the RCA supported the living wage–a higher minimum wage–as a moral issue.
  2. That year the RCA called for a change in U.S. policies regarding Cuba, for “The new restrictions and the ongoing embargo are driven not by Christian love but by the political fears of an administration that benefited from sustaining a conflict from long ago.”  The RCA favored “a better way of being in relation to Cuba, a way that is built on unity, reconciliation, and justice” (Acts and Proceedings, pp. 259-260).
  3. In 2009 the CRCNA supported the Accra Confession:  Covenanting for Justice (2004), a response to economic injustice, environmental degradation, and the failure of the church to address these issues properly, especially in the Third World.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

apotheosis-of-war

Above:  The Apotheosis of War, By Vasily Vereshchagin

Image in the Public Domain

+++

+++War and Peace+++

+++

Yet another implication of the Belhar Confession concerns questions of war and peace.

The CRCNA made a pronouncement about war and peace in 1939.  The denomination has updated that position occasionally over the subsequent decades while maintaining much consistency.  There are just wars and unjust wars, the CRC says.  Both militarism and full-blown pacifism are errors, it tells people.  And selective conscientious objectors deserve the church’s support.  This last point has proven controversial within the CRC for some time.

The CRCNA updated its policy to reflect post-9/11 realities in 2006.  The denomination reaffirmed the 1982 conclusion that nuclear weapons are not “legitimate means of warfare” and the related call to reduce the supply of such weapons.  The CRCNA, stressing the call upon Christians to make peace, addressed the question of preemptive military action.  Such action

is justified under certain circumstances, when the threat of attack is imminent.  However, preventive warfare, initiating military action against a country or government that poses no near-term threat, amounts to little more than illegitimate aggression by the country that initiates the military action.

Agenda for Synod, page 382-382

The 2006 report which the Synod adopted, also called for good treatment of selective conscientious objectors in the military.  When the discharge comes, it should be an honorable one, the CRC stated.  This point caused much consternation at the Synod.

The CRCNA was talking about the war in Iraq without using the country’s name.  The RCA did use the name “Iraq,” voting down an overture to call for an end to that conflict.  The previous year the RCA had rejected an overture to condemn preemptive warfare.

The RCA General Synod of 2003 referred a report, “Thinking Critically About Security:  Following Christ in an Age of Terror” (Acts and Proceedings, pages 116-121) to congregations for study.  According to that document, the principles for thinking about security were:

  1. God is the all-in-all; security is not;
  2. Security is inclusive of the world, not restricted to particular nation-states;
  3. National self-interest is not global security;
  4. Insecurity is holistic of sin, racism, injustice, disease, hunger, et cetera; and
  5. Superpowers do not bring about global security; love does.

Both the RCA and the CRCNA have joined the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT), founded in 2006.  Thus both have endorsed the following statement:

Torture Is a Moral Issue

Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear.  It degrades everyone involved–policy-makers, perpetrators, and victims.  It contradicts our nation’s most cherished ideals.  Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatments are shocking and morally intolerable.

Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of the nation.  What does it signify if torture is allowed in deed?  Let America abolish now–without exceptions.

Acts and Proceedings, 2008, page 230

Flag of Israel

Above:  The Flag of the State of Israel

Image in the Public Domain

The RCA also made pronouncements regarding the issue of Israel-Palestine, especially the conditions in the Occupied Territories and the circumstances of Palestinian Christians.  The General Synod of 2010 approved an overture to form the Working Group on Peace and Justice in Israel and the Occupied Territories.  The Working Group’s interim report of 2011 (Acts and Proceedings, pages 90-92) told stories of Palestinians and Israelis who had suffered from violence.  The 2012 report (Acts and Proceedings, pages 109-121), citing the Belhar Confession, called for:

  1. the end of the Israeli occupation,
  2. safety and security for Israel and Palestine,
  3. full rights for both populations, and
  4. the cessation of violence in the area.

The General Synod approved the report.

Flag of the Palestinian National Authority

Above:  The Flag of the Palestinian National Authority

Image in the Public Domain

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

III.  WORSHIP AND LITURGY

As I have written in this post, liturgy is an extension of theology.  So, for example, theology of marriage influences the content of a form for the wedding ceremony and the existence or absence of a rite for same-sex unions.  I have, therefore, covered some liturgical ground in the previous section, “Theological Foundations.”  Now we are off to the races.

Diversity and Theology of Worship

I read on Facebook recently that, when a new wind blows, some people build a wall and others erect a windmill.  Which response is proper depends upon the nature of the new wind, for not everything new (or at least new to one) is inherently positive nor is all that is traditional bad (or at least outmoded) by nature.  Likewise, not all that is traditional is inherently good nor is everything that is new (at least to one) good by nature.  The best policy is to evaluate each tradition and innovation on its own merits or lack thereof.  That is, of course, a subjective decision; how can it be otherwise?

CRCNA officialdom evaluated traditions and innovations in worship.  The Synod of 2008 approved the revised Our World Belongs to God:  A Contemporary Testimony (1986), intended for use in worship and updated to the post-Cold War, post-9/11, new technological, and other realities.  A report to the Synod of 2011 expressed concerns regarding the widespread discontinuity with tradition in the denomination:

There is an increasing diversity of worship in the churches.  While this can indeed be healthy, it can also introduce the danger of liturgical anarchy, a loss of distinctly Reformed worship, and a loss of the adhesion of an important “glue” that might hold us together in our increasingly fragmented denomination.

+++

+++Pentecostalism+++

+++

One element of this diversity was Pentecostalism, something which caused grave concern in official CRC circles.  The General Synod of 1971 approved an overture to appoint a committee to study and offer guidance regarding the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the context of the Charismatic movement, or Neo-Pentecostalism, “as it is creeping into our denomination” and causing “unrest and confusion” in the CRCNA.  The subsequent 1973 report rejected the Charismatic movement as non-Scriptural and non-Reformed, describing it as an “error” and led to the denomination barring from church office anyone who affirmed the second-blessing teaching.  In 2007 and 2009 the CRCNA addressed Third Wave Pentecostalism, cautious of the theology of prophecy as well as of emotionalism in worship.

+++

+++The Reformed Church in America and the Worship Survey of 2004+++

+++

The RCA’s 2004 Worship Survey yielded interesting results.  Some of these pertained to the choice(s) of hymnal(s) on the congregational level.  Partial results follow.

There was no single hymnbook dominant in the RCA, despite the existence of an official main hymnal and an authorized supplement to it.  The top rankings, in descending order, were:

  1. The Hymnal for Worship & Celebration (non-denominational, 1986)–16.2%;
  2. Sing! A New Creation (RCA and CRCNA, 2001)–16%;
  3. The Celebration Hymnal (non-denominational, 1997)–8.7%;
  4. The Hymnbook (RCA, Presbyterian Church in the United States, Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., United Presbyterian Church of North America, and Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, 1955)–6.9%;
  5. The Worshiping Church (non-denominational, 1990)–6.2%;
  6. Hymns for the Family of God (non-denominational, 1976)–4.9%;
  7. Hymns, Psalms and Spiritual Songs (ecumenical edition of The Presbyterian Hymnal, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 1990);
  8. Sing Joyfully (non-denominational, 1989)–3.5%;
  9. Praise! Our Songs and Hymns (non-denominational, 1979)–3%;
  10. Rejoice in the Lord (RCA official hymnal, 1985)–2.7%; and
  11. Hymns for the Living Church (non-denominational, 1974)–2.7%.

Sixty-eight other hymnals, some of them local productions, rounded out the English-language list.  Also, 1.9% of congregations reported using non-English-language hymnals.

Non-Denominational

Above:  Copies of Some of the Non-Denominational Hymnals from the Worship Survey of 2004

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

How many Scripture readings do people hear read in Sunday morning worship?

  1. One–56.2%
  2. Two–37.3%
  3. Three–14.3%
  4. No response–2.4%

From which translation?

  1. New International Version (NIV)–62.2%
  2. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)–25%
  3. Revised Standard Version (RSV)–8.9%
  4. Other–11.8%

73% of congregations reported extemporaneous prayers.

84.7% of congregations reported following the basic structure of worship the RCA set forth in its Liturgy.

How often do congregations celebrate the Lord’s Supper annually?

  1. More than twelve–24.2%
  2. Six–19.9%
  3. Twelve–15.5%
  4. Five–10.1%
  5. Eight–8.3%
  6. Four–7.4%
  7. Seven–7.1%
  8. Ten–4.7%
  9. Nine–2.2%
  10. Eleven–0.5%

Does the minister wear a robe?

  1. Never–43.2%
  2. Always–28.5%
  3. Sometimes–28.2%

Are there paraments?

  1. Yes–68.5%
  2. No–31.5%

If so, does the church change the colors according to the church year?

  1. Yes–92.6%
  2. No–6.2%
  3. No reply–1.2%

Are there banners?

  1. Yes–73.5%
  2. No–26.5%

Which seasons of the church year do congregations observe?

  1. Advent–96.8%
  2. Christmas–92.9%
  3. Ordinary Time/Season after Epiphany–44.9%
  4. Lent–90.4%
  5. Easter–92.6%
  6. Ordinary Time/Season after Pentecost–50.8%

80.3% of congregations reported using praise choruses.

Which creed(s) do congregations use in worship?

  1. Apostles’–87.7%
  2. Nicene–44.3%
  3. Other–27.9%

Regional differences became clear:

  1. Worship was more traditional in the East than in the Midwest and the West.
  2. Use of the lectionary was more common in the East than in the Midwest and the West.
  3. Children were most likely to be welcome to take the Lord’s Supper in the Northeast.
  4. Paraments were most common in the East.
  5. Banners were most common in the Midwest.
  6. 62% of congregations in the Synod of the Far West used a RCA-approved rite for the Lord’s Supper.  Over 80% of congregations in the other synods did this.

Overall, the use of approved baptismal and Eucharistic rites remained constant (about 85-90%) from the previous survey, that of 1994.

+++

+++Bible Translations+++

+++

Both the RCA and the CRCNA expanded their lists of Bible translations approved for use in worship.  Going into 2001, the RCA had approved, among others, the NIV, the RSV, and the NRSV.  The latter was the preferred official translation.  In 2007 the RCA added Today’s New International Version (TNIV) to the list.  The CRCNA, going into 2001, had approved the Authorized (King James) Version (1611/1769), the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, the RSV, the NIV, and the NRSV.  To this list it added the English Standard Version (ESV) in 2007 and the New Living Translation (NLT) the following year.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Forms

Some denominations have books of worship to which parishioners have access in congregations.  Roman Catholic publishers make available an array of Missals and Missalettes.  Lutherans have, as a matter of tradition, included forms for worship in their hymnals.  And my adopted denomination, The Episcopal Church, uses The Book of Common Prayer (1979), supplemented by subsequent authorized resources.

Other denominations have official yet seldom-used books of worship.  In the U.S.A., for example, there has been a lineage of Books of Common Worship in mainline Presbyterianism since 1906, the most recent debuting in 1993.  Likewise, the current United Methodist Book of Worship (1992) is the third volume in a lineage which reaches back to World War II.  Most United Methodists I have asked since 1992 and the majority of members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I have asked since 1993 have not heard of their denominational book of worship.  Most of that minority which has heard of it has not seen it.  Yet I, an Episcopalian, have a copy of each.  It is bad when one knows less about one’s own denomination than someone outside of it.

Methodist-Presbyterian

Above:  My Copies of These Books

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

Both the RCA and the CRCNA have, as a matter of tradition, well-defined liturgical forms, most of which have been available to lay members and clergy alike.  In the old days these came bound with the hymnal.  Today, however, one may find them or most of them available easily at denominational websites.  Yet, given the variety in worship in the RCA and the CRCNA, there is demand for a volume of resources consistent with the Reformed orders of service that is not a formal book of services.

+++

+++The Worship Sourcebook (2004 and 2013)+++

+++

The Worship Sourcebook (First Edition in 2004, Second Edition in 2013) is not a volume like the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship (1993), that is, a full-blown service book.  No, the Sourcebook is exactly what the title indicates–a book which functions as a source of numerous prayers, litanies, et cetera, grouped according to element of worship, such as Prayers of Confession or Assurances of Pardon or Prayers of the People.  It does, however, derive much content from the Book of Common Worship (1993), which, in turn, quoted resources of a wide range of denominations.  The first edition of the Sourcebook sold well–“beyond expectations,” as a report to the CRCNA Synod of 2005 stated.  This volume, a joint project of Faith Alive Christian Resources (the common publisher of the RCA and the CRC) and the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, went into the second edition in 2013.  I own a copy of this edition.

The 844-page Second Edition, which comes with a CD inside the back cover so that people can add content easily to church bulletins, opens with a Prologue explaining the history of Reformed worship and justifying the volume’s existence.  Traditionally, worship in European Reformed churches was “by the book,” as it was during the early colonial period in North America.  Yet Pietism, Revivalism, and the conditions of the American frontier took their tolls.  The abandonment of tradition became its own tradition.

The Preface to the Second Edition, on page 9, offers this reflection on styles of worship:

Broadly speaking, worship in just about any style suffers when it slips into mindless routine that fails to appreciate the formative power of habitual action to shape us as Christian disciples.  Worship also suffers from endless innovation that constantly casts about for the latest fad.  Between these two extremes lies the wisdom of “disciplined innovation,” in which pastoral leaders, like jazz musicians, draw upon ancient patterns and forms and then prayerfully, communally, adapt them to address local needs, circumstances, and opportunities.

In other words, freedom requires structure in order to avoid becoming anarchy.

+++

+++Liturgies of the Reformed Church in America+++

+++

The RCA has published revised and formal volumes of Liturgy occasionally, placing between two covers all the authorized services as of a certain time.  Thus, since the dawn of the twentieth century, the denomination has done this in 1906, 1968, 1987/1990, and 2005.  In the previous post in this series I wrote about Worship the Lord (1987) and listed forms which the RCA had authorized between then and 2000.  I will not repeat that content here.

Worship the Lord:  The Liturgy of the Reformed Church in America (2005) a handsome gray volume with three tastefully colored ribbons, contains all the forms authorized in the RCA as of the date of publication.  Thus it contains much material the denomination authorized prior to 2001.  The service forms approved for regular use since 2001 are:

  1. Order for Profession of Faith,
  2. Order for the Ordination and Installation of Elders and Deacons,
  3. Order for Commissioning Christians to the Ministries of the Church,
  4. Order for Recognition of Ministries in the Church,
  5. Order for Christian Marriage,
  6. Order for Christian Burial:  A Service of Witness to the Resurrection,
  7. Order for Ordination to the Office of Minister of Word and Sacrament,
  8. Order for Reception into the Classis and Installation of a Minister of Word and Sacrament, and
  9. Order for Commissioning a Minister of Word and Sacrament into a Specialized Ministry.

Since the publication of Worship the Lord (2005) the RCA has made other forms available for use.  Two of these are the Proposed Order for the Organization of a New Chruch and the Order for Commissioning a Commissioned Pastor (2011) are two of them.  The next three pertain to Christian initiation.  Baptism and profession of faith are occurring more frequently in adults not raised in Christian households.  The RCA’s former default setting was infant or child baptism.  Now, however, adult baptism has become the default setting.  With this reality comes an amplification of missional emphases in new forms for these services.  Thus the newest RCA forms for Christian initiation are:

  1. Celebrating the Baptismal Covenant:  A Combined Order for Baptism, Profession of Faith, and Reaffirmation of Faith;
  2. Celebrating the Baptismal Covenant:  The Order for Profession of Faith and the Baptism of Youth and Adults; and
  3. Celebrating the Baptismal Covenant:  The Order for Baptism of Children.

+++

+++A Common Form for the Baptismal Certificate+++

+++

Dialogue among the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the RCA, the CRCNA, the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)] resulted in two reports–one on Baptism and the other on the Holy Eucharist/Lord’s Supper–in 2011 then in denominational studies of them.  One tangible result of the study on Baptism was a common Certificate of Baptism (CRC, Agenda for Synod, 2011, page 356), the text of which follows:

Name was baptized with flowing water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit at name of the congregation by name of the minister.  Signature.  Date.

This shared certificate comes with the mutual recognition of Baptism across these denominational lines–Reformed and Roman Catholic.

+++

+++Reformed Ecumenicity in Liturgy+++

+++

The CRCNA Synod of 2013 expanded the range of authorized forms for Baptism and profession of faith with rites based on the most recent germane RCA rituals (CRC, Agenda for Synod, pages 333-347).  This action filled some needs in the CRCNA and demonstrated ecumenicity with the RCA.

+++

+++Approved Eucharistic Rites for Occasional Use+++

+++

Meanwhile, the RCA was approving Eucharistic rites for occasional use, especially in congregations which used contemporary worship and often improvised abbreviated forms.  In 2008, after several years of study and contemplation, the Commission for Christian Worship proposed to write some briefer forms but mainly to solicit them and to suggest extant third-party forms for the General Synod to approve.  So, with General Synod approval for this plan, the Commission went to work.  In 2009 the Commission suggested the following, all of which the General Synod approved:

  1. The Lima Eucharistic Liturgy (1986),
  2. The Consultation on Church Union Liturgy (1988),
  3. The Formula of Agreement Liturgy (1998), and
  4. Occasional Use Liturgy Number 1 (2009).

Acts and Proceedings, pages 278-288

+++

+++The United Reformed Churches in North America+++

+++

The United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA), formed in 1995 from the CRCNA, had adopted the liturgical forms in the Psalter Hymnal (1959/1976) in 1996 and modified the Form of Subscription to the Canons of Dort the following year.  These decisions made sense, for most of these congregations sang out of the that hymnbook anyway, having not switched to the Psalter Hymnal (1987) years before.

The time to revise old forms and create new ones did arrive, however.  So, starting in 2007 and continuing through 2012, the URCNA developed, revised, and adopted the following:

  1. Prayers,
  2. Form for Frequent Celebration of the Lord’s Supper,
  3. Form for the Reception of Families,
  4. Form Number 1 for the Baptism of Infants,
  5. Form Number 1 for the Profession of Faith,
  6. Form Number 1 for Adult Baptism,
  7. Form Number 1 for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper,
  8. Form for Excommunication,
  9. Form for Readmission,
  10. Form for the Installation of a Minister of the Word,
  11. Form for the Installation of Elders and Deacons,
  12. Two forms for the Solemnization of Marriage,
  13. Form Number 2 for Baptism (based on Form Number 3 from the Psalter Hymnal of 1959/1976), and
  14. Form Number 2 for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper (based on Form Number 3 from the Psalter Hymnal of 1959/1976).

As of the conclusion of the URCNA Synod of 2012, unfinished business included the translations of the three ecumenical creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian) and the three Forms of Unity (the Canons of Dort, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic Confession).  (Sources for this information = Acts of Synod, 2007, pages 298-308; Acts of Synod, 2010, pages 485-537; and Acts of Synod, 2012, pages 355-438.)  The Acts of Synod for 2014 are not available as of the time of the drafting and typing of this post, but official summaries of the Synod of 2014 available at the denominational website tell me that the Synod of 2016 will inherit the unfinished business I have described.

And, by the way, according to the Acts of Synod for 2010, the Bible translation quoted in revised forms is the English Standard Version (ESV).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Relationship Between Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

The RCA decided in 1988 and reaffirmed the following year to admit baptized children who had yet to make a profession of faith to the table of the Lord’s Supper, at the discretion of local congregational leaders.  The CRCNA refused to go that far in the 1990s.  Instead it insisted that the only children permitted to take Communion were those who had made a profession of faith.  Therefore the CRCNA Synod of 1995 approved a new form for the public profession of faith by children as the denomination pushed for professions of faith at younger ages.

The CRCNA came around to the RCA’s position in 2006, adopting the recommendation allowing “for the admission of all baptized members to the Lord’s Supper on the basis of their membership in the covenant community.”  The Synod of 2007 appointed a committee to study the issue.  The Faith Formation Committee’s 2011 report affirmed the decision of 2006:  Profession of faith is not a requirement for partaking of the Lord’s Supper in all congregations.  No, “age and ability-appropriate obedience” constitutes the proper context for understanding participation in that sacrament.  The same report affirmed the sacrament of Baptism as a prerequisite for taking Communion.

The RCA revised and updated its advisory materials for congregational leaders regarding the admission of young children to the Lord’s Table.  In 2013 the General Synod Council prepared an interactive resource to accompany the CRC’s 2011 document, A Place at the Table:  Welcoming Children to the Lord’s Supper:  A Guide for Congregations.  And, the following year, the General Synod approved updated guidelines for permitting young children to participate in the sacrament, which the RCA had requested all of its congregations to celebrate more frequently ten years prior.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Infant Baptism and Infant Dedication

These discussions regarding admitting young children to the Lord’s Table overlapped with questions of infant dedication, which some RCA and CRCNA congregations permitted in lieu of infant Baptism.  The Baptism of infants is consistent with Reformed sacramental practice and tradition.  It is also consistent with the sacramental practice of tradition of the vast majority of Christianity.  The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Anglican denominations, and many Protestant communions–such as the Lutherans and the Methodists–also baptize infants and have done so for a long time–almost two thousand years in the case of Rome.  All these communions constitute probably at least 80% of the Christian Church, so they are hardly outliers.  Yet the RCA and the CRCNA had to deal with questions of the legitimacy of infant Baptism in the 200os.

The RCA General Synod of 2004 reminded people that the practice was not only normative but rooted in covenant theology.  The CRCNA Synod of 2007 agreed and also discouraged infant dedication.  The Synod of 2011 repeated this affirmation of infant Baptism.    The next year’s Synod stated that the practice is consistent with Scripture and repeated the discouragement of infant dedication.  The Synod continued:

Congregations should minister to those who will not present their children for infant baptism with a spirit of gratitude to God for the gift of these children, offering encouragement and accountability to parents as part of faithful, pastoral ministry

while teaching regarding infant Baptism (Acts of Synod, 2012, page 775).

And who may present a child for the sacrament of Baptism?  The RCA dealt with that issue.  The General Synod of 2006 required that at least one guardian or adult relative be a “confessing member” of the congregation in which the sacrament occurs.  The next year’s General Synod resolved that church elders, already responsible for deciding who may join a congregation, having a role in hearing public processions of faith, and governing admission to the Lord’s Table, will also decide where primary parental responsibility resides regarding the Baptism of a child.  This last provision is necessary sometimes, given the realities of shared custody of children after divorce.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hymnals

+++

+++Sing! A New Creation (2001)+++

+++

I wrote about Sing! A New Creation (2001) in the previous post in this series, for work on it was mostly complete before 2001.  Yet the topic bears repetition here.  The joint RCA-CRCNA project, containing 294 songs, all from the latter half of the twentieth century, contained a variety of styles, including Taize music, world music, praise songs, and Roman Catholic folk hymns.  It sold well, according to Faith Alive Christian Resources reports to CRCNA Synods.  And it sold beyond the core RCA-CRCNA market, for one of my sources mentioned that he knew of Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) congregations which sang out of it.  As I have written already in this post, the 2004 Worship Survey revealed that only 16% of RCA congregations sang out of Sing! A New Creation.  That survey also documented the plethora of hymnals (mostly mildly Evangelical and quite contemporary) in use in the RCA.

Lift Up Your Hearts

Above:  Lift Up Your Hearts (2013), Its Two Official Predecessors, and Our Faith (2013)

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++

+++Lift Up Your Hearts and Our Faith (2013)+++

+++

Work on Lift Up Your Hearts:  Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs (2013), successor to the CRCNA’s Psalter Hymnal (1987), official successor to the RCA’s Rejoice in the Lord (1985), and actual successor to a bevy of hymnals RCA congregations used, started in 2007.  Along the way Faith Alive Christian Resources created some precursor hymnals:

  1. Contemporary Songs for Worship (2008), with 37 hymns;
  2. Singing the New Testament (2008), with 260 hymns;
  3. Hymns for Worship (2009), with 256 hymns; and
  4. Global Songs for Worship (2010), with 57 hymns.

A 2007 survey of CRC congregations helped to define the reality of the context in which the joint hymnal committee worked:

  1. 60% of congregations had blended worship services,
  2. 70% had the Psalter Hymnal (1987) in the pews or chairs,
  3. 12% had the Psalter Hymnal (1959/1976) in the pews or chairs, and
  4. 60% always or usually sang out of a hymnal.

Official hymns of the two denominations, as a matter of tradition, contained the confessions of faith.  Yet, by 2011, few RCA and CRCNA congregations used those in worship.  Also, the joint committee targeted the ecumenical Reformed market, not just the two primary denominations.  So the creeds and confessions found a home in Our Faith (2013), a paperback book, and more songs filled the space of those documents would have occupied otherwise.

During my research for this post I consulted the website for Lift Up Your Hearts, a treasure trove of useful information despite the fact that it refers to the Psalter Hymnal (1959) as being from 1957.  There I read the names of congregations which had purchased the new hymnal.  Most of these came from the RCA and the CRCNA, but others belonged to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)] and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), as of early July 2014.  (Yes, I checked congregational websites.)  And I read that, of the more than 850 songs in Lift Up Your Hearts,

  1. 136 came from the Psalter Hymnal (1959/1976),
  2. 302 came from the Psalter Hymnal (1987),
  3. 214 came from The Worshiping Church (1990), and
  4. 126 came from Sing! A New Creation.

Glory to God

Above:  Glory to God:  The Presbyterian Hymnal (2013) and Its Three Immediate Predecessors

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a cousin of the RCA and CRCNA, also published a new hymnbook in 2013.  Glory to God:  The Presbyterian Hymnal and Lift Up Your Hearts are more contemporary than their immediate authorized predecessors.  The Hymnbook (1955), traditional when it was new, is a forebear of both 2013 hymnals, in fact.  Both Glory to God and Lift Up Your Hearts contain praise songs, world music, Roman Catholic hymns, Taize music, and traditional hymns.  Yet Glory to God tilts toward the traditional and Lift Up Your Hearts toward the contemporary.

Lift Up Your Hearts comes in a variety of editions–pews, reading, digital, and projection.  This diversity of formats appeals to a range of tastes, from the traditional, “give me a hardcover hymnal” school to those who project words onto a screen.

The organization of songs and other content in Lift Up Your Hearts indicates two headings with sections and subsections present.  The first heading is “The Story of Creation and Redemption,” or from creation to the Second Coming and the new creation.  This, by the way, is the entire organizational principle of the much-maligned (especially in the RCA) Rejoice in the Lord (1985).  The second heading is “Worshiping the Triune God,” with material arranged according to the Reformed order of worship, from “Opening of Worship” to “Sent Out.”

The very nice companion volume to Lift Up Your Hearts is Our Faith:  Ecumenical Creeds, Reformed Confessions, and Other Resources (2013).  It includes three sections:

  1. Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian),
  2. Confessions (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort), and
  3. Testimonies (Our Song of Hope, RCA, 1978; and Our World Belongs to God:  A Contemporary Testimony, second edition, CRCNA, 2008).

+++

+++Psalms for All Seasons:  A Complete Psalter for Worship (2012)+++

+++

Another product of Faith Alive Christian Resources intended for the RCA, the CRCNA, and the ecumenical Reformed market is Psalms for All Seasons:  A Complete Psalter for Worship (2012).  This volume, at more than 1132 pages, with Psalm settings filling pages 2-1110 and Canticle settings (the Songs of Zechariah, Mary, and Simeon) filling pages 1012-1029, is the largest Psalter in North America.  It contains hymns based on Psalms as well as translations from a range of sources.  Some of these sources include:

  1. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), from which the first translation of each Psalm comes;
  2. The New International Version (NIV);
  3. The New Living Translation (NLT);
  4. The Message (Eugene Peterson);
  5. Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), the hymnal-service book of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA); and
  6. The Book of Common Prayer (1979), of The Episcopal Church.

In the back of the book one finds the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) and the following services:

  1. Morning Prayer;
  2. Noon Prayer;
  3. Evening Prayer;
  4. Night Prayer; and
  5. Service of Prayer for a Meeting, Class, or Conference.

URCNA-OPC

Above:  URCNA and OPC Hymnals

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++

+++The United Reformed Churches in North America+++

+++

As I have written in this post, most congregations of the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) sing out of the CRCNA Psalter Hymnal of 1959/1976, a book whose reprinting the URCNA Synod has authorized twice.  Nevertheless, work on a new hymnal has been underway–with some changes of course along the way–since 1997.

The URCNA Synod of 2001 authorized work with the Canadian and American Reformed Churches (CanRC) on a joint metrical Psalter.  The CanRC was developing a successor to its Book of Praise (1984), the dominant portion of which was the Psalter.  Likewise, the Psalter was to constitute the main portion of the next URCNA hymnal.  Until the URCNA Synod of 2007 URCNA and CanRC hymnal committees were under the impression that they might be working on the same future hymnbook.  The URCNA Synod declared, however, that such ideas were mistaken.  The assignment was to work on a joint metrical Psalter alone.  So the CanRC Synod of 2007 authorized a revision of the Psalter work completed so far in advance of the publication of the new Book of Praise in 2010.  I found the PDF version of that 2010 hymnal with a simple Google search and have added it to my collection.

So, for five years (2007-2012), the URCNA labored to produce its new hymnal as a solo project.  Since hymnal revision costs money and publishers seek to recover their costs, concern over how to accomplish that goal was understandable.  There were also purposes to keep the cost per copy to a minimum and to maintain unity and identity within the URCNA.  Thus the Synod of 2012 approved an overture to require that congregations purchase the new hymnal when available.

Then, in 2012, the URCNA accepted an invitation from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) to work on a joint hymnal.  Thus the new hymnbook would succeed both the Psalter Hymnal (1959/1976) and the Trinity Hymnal–Revised Edition, the 1990 joint hymnbook of the OPC and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).  The estimated date of publication of the embryonic hymnal is late 2016, shortly after the anticipated approval by the URCNA Synod and the OPC General Assembly, meeting simultaneously in the same city.  There are plans for separate URCNA and OPC editions, due to different rites.  The most recent news I have found is that the URCNA Synod of 2014 approved the Psalter portion.

All my attempts to learn what plans the PCA has for its next hymnal have proven fruitless.  Some options come to mind, however:

  1. Singing out of reprinted editions of old hymnals is a feasible option.  The OPC’s Trinity Hymnal (1961) remains in print and in use, after all.  The same could become true of the 1990 OPC-PCA Trinity Hymnal.
  2. Some PCA congregations might use the new URCNA-OPC hymnal.  Besides, many congregations outside the OPC and the PCA sing out of the 1990 Trinity Hymnal.
  3. Some PCA congregations might find Lift Up Your Hearts (2013) to be a good fit.
  4. And there are, of course, for those who prefer hymnals yet find none of the above options palatable, non-denominational hymnbooks.

+++

+++Informed Musings on Shared Official Reformed Hymnals+++

+++

Sharing an official hymnal in the history of U.S. Presbyterian and Reformed bodies does not necessarily precede organic union.

  1. The Hymnal of the Reformed Church (1920) did not lead to the union of the RCA and the old Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS); the latter became part of the Evangelical and Reformed Church (ERC) in 1934 instead.  Today its legacy lives mainly in the United Church of Christ (UCC).
  2. The Hymnbook (1955) was common to the RCA, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC), the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS), the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (PCUSA), and the United Presbyterian Church of North America (UPCNA).  The PCUSA and the UPCNA merged in 1958 to create the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (UPCUSA), which joined with the PCUS in 1983 to form the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)].  The RCA and the ARPC remain separate, however.
  3. Between 1955 and 1983 came The Worshipbook–Services and Hymns (1972), common to the PCUS, the UPCUSA, and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (CPC).  The PC(USA), successor to the PCUS and the UPCUSA, cooperates with the CPC, sharing a Book of Common Worship.
  4. The OPC and the PCA published the revised Trinity Hymnal in 1990, after two failed attempts at organic union–one in 1982 and the other four years later.

So I wonder about the future of relationships involving the RCA, the CRCNA, the URCNA and the OPC, especially in the context of the sharing of hymnals.  Will the RCA and the CRCNA ever come to the point of formal reunion?  Will the URCNA find at least one more partner for organic union?  Only time will tell, and I will watch from the sidelines, in the See of Canterbury.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IV.  CONCLUSION

This long post is about coming together while remaining mostly separate and addressing societal-theological issues.  My research reveals that sometimes, as in the RCA and the CRCNA, there is at least as much disunity within a denomination as there is between them.  This proves especially true regarding matters of theology and worship.  And sometimes, as deceptive as a shared denominational label can prove to be regarding actual ecclesiastical unity, the existence of denominational separateness can mask a greater, underlying unity.  In other words, appearances and tightly-held identities, which provide psychological comfort for many people, can prove to be deceptive.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ADDENDUM

According to this report on the 2014 General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2018 has become the probable publication date of the proposed URCNA-OPC hymnal.

KRT–AUGUST 29, 2014 C.E.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HARDCOPY SOURCES

Brumm, James Hart, ed.  Liturgy Among the Thorns:  Essays on Worship in the Reformed Church in America.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.  The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America, No. 57.

Glory to God:  The Presbyterian Hymnal.  Louisville, KY:  Westminster/John Knox Press, 2013.

The Hymnal for Worship & Celebration.  Waco, TX:  Word Music, 1986.

The Hymnbook.  Edited by David Hugh Jones.  Richmond, VA:  John Knox Press, 1955.

Hymns for the Family of God.  Nashville, TN:  Paragon Associates, 1976.

Hymns for the Living God.  Carol Stream, IL:  Hope Publishing Company, 1974.

Lift Up Your Hearts:  Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2013.

The Liturgy of the Reformed Church in America Together with the Psalter Selected and Arranged for Responsive Reading.  New York, NY:  The Board of Education of the Reformed Church in America, 1968.

Our Faith:  Ecumenical Creeds, Reformed Confessions and Other Resources; Including the Doctrinal Standards of the Christian Reformed Church in North America and the Reformed Church in America.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2013.

Praise! Our Songs and Hymns.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Singspiration Music, 1979.

The Presbyterian Hymnal:  Hymns, Psalms, and Spiritual Songs.  Louisville, KY:  Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990.

Psalms for All Seasons:  A Complete Psalter for Worship.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2012.

Psalter Hymnal.  Grand Rapids, MI:  CRC Publications, 1987.

Psalter Hymnal:  Doctrinal Standards and Liturgy of the Christian Reformed Church.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Publication Committee of the Christian Reformed Church, 1976.

Psalter Hymnal:  Doctrinal Standards and Liturgy of the Christian Reformed Church.  Centennial Edition.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Publication Committee of the Christian Reformed Church, 1959.

Rejoice in the Lord:  A Hymn Companion to the Scriptures.  Edited by Erik Routley.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

Sing! A New Creation.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2001.

Smidt, Corwin et al.  Divided by a Common Heritage:  The Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America at the Beginning of the New Millennium.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.  The Historical Series of the Reformed Church in America, No. 54.

Trinity Hymnal.  Philadelphia, PA:  Great Commission Publications, 1961.

Trinity Hymnal–Revised Edition.  Suwanee, GA:  Great Commission Publications, 1990.

The Worshipbook–Services and Hymns.  Philadelphia, PA:  Westminster Press, 1972.

The Worship Sourcebook.  Second Edition.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2013.

Worship the Lord.  Edited by James R. Esther and Donald J. Bruggink.  Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.

Worship the Lord:  The Liturgy of the Reformed Church in America.  New York, NY:  Reformed Church Press, 2005.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JULY 5, 2014 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINT ANTHONY MARY ZACCARIA, FOUNDER OF THE BARNABITES AND THE ANGELIC SISTERS OF SAINT PAUL

THE FEAST OF SAINTS ADALBERO AND ULRIC OF AUGSBURG, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS

THE FEAST OF H. RICHARD NIEBUHR, UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST THEOLOGIAN

THE FEAST OF WILLEM A. VISSER ‘T HOOFT, ECUMENIST

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Posted July 5, 2014 by neatnik2009 in Amos 2, Amos 5, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Genesis 1, John 17, Luke 6, Moravian (General), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Predecessors, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Predecessors' Offshoots, Reformed (General), United Church of Christ

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Incense, Mustiness, and Sanctity   7 comments

Book of Common Worship 1993

Above:  The Title Page of the Book of Common Worship (1993)

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One does not plead for the use of incense–Presbyterians are not likely to come to that–but at least one may protest against mistaking a general odor of mustiness for the odor of sanctity.

–Kenneth J. Foreman, Professor of Philosophy and Bible, Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina, in “Better Worship for Better Living,” Presbyterian Survey, August 1932, page 482

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Foreman’s words struck a chord with me a few years ago, when I found the quote while conducting research.  In fact, I chuckled quietly, as I was in a library at the time.  And, as I have affirmed since, Foreman was correct.

The worship of the living God ought to be an activity characterized by decorum and great dignity.  This attitude of mine explains why I dislike revivalism, the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, and contemporary worship, and why I gravitate toward good liturgy.  And yes, I like the use of incense.  Some of the rural United Methodist congregations my father served in southern Georgia, U.S.A., were musty by Foreman’s standard.  Prolonged exposure and subjection to bad liturgy starved my soul.  Now, fortunately, good liturgy has become my steady diet.

U.S. Presbyterianism, despite its strong Puritan-influenced rejection of formal worship, comes from the Church of Scotland, which had a formal liturgy in the 1500s.  (The Church of Scotland, which has had its liturgical ups and downs over the centuries, retains an edition of the Book of Common Order.)  Formal worship–including frequent Holy Communion–is part of the Reformed Christian heritage–its tradition.  Yet this fact constitutes news to many pious Reformed Christians, especially in the United States, where many such congregations follow worship patterns influenced more by Puritanism and bygone rugged frontier conditions than their Protestant Reformation heritage.  As The Worship Sourcebook, Second Edition (2013), a product of the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, states:

The biblical Psalms may well have functioned as a prayer book for the people of Israel.  Some of the earliest Christians compiled their advice about forms and patterns of worship into church order documents, the first of which, the Didache, dates back perhaps into the first century A.D.  Over time, especially in the early Medieval period, these documents grew very complex, with detailed instructions about every aspect of worship.

In the Reformation period Martin Luther and John Calvin called for significant changes to recommended or dictated patterns of worship by simplifying the structure and testing every text by theological criteria.  Out of the various Reformation traditions, the Anglican and Lutheran traditions retained the most detailed instructions.  The Anglican tradition preserved common patterns and texts for worship in the famous Book of Common Prayer, while the Lutherans did so in several editions of service books, adapted for use in each town. The Reformed tradition was also a service book tradition, albeit with far simpler liturgy.  In addition to the influence of Huldrych Zwingli’s liturgy, Calvin’s Genevan liturgies were adapted for use in Scotland and Hungary, while new liturgies that were developed near Heidelberg, Germany, became influential in the Netherlands.  Throughout the early decades of the Reformation, pastors did not create new orders of service for worship each week, as so many do today.  Worship was, to the surprise of many contemporary readers, “by the book.”

Despite this tradition, most evangelical and even many Reformed and Presbyterian congregations in North America have resisted the use of formal service books and set liturgies.  This resistance resulted partly from the influence of Puritan critiques of “by the book worship, which were much more stringent than critiques offered by the Reformers.  Other influences included the formation of early Methodist, Baptist, Anabaptist, and other “free church” congregations. as well as the spread of North American populism, pragmatism, and revivalism.  Congregations in many streams of North American Christianity have long resisted being told how to structure worship and have cherished their ability to respond to their own preferences and sense of what is most effective.

As a result, thousands of North American congregations today owe a great deal both to both a two-thousand-year history of service books and to the legacy of North American freedom and populism.  In recent years amid remarkable changes in the practice of worship, hundreds of those congregations are looking for new ways to appropriate both of these aspects of their identity.  Some efforts go by the names “blended worship,” “convergence worship,” or even “ancient-future” worship.  But despite vast and remarkable growth in contemporary music based on popular styles, many of the best-selling books on worship today are, ironically, studies of worship in the early church, prayer books for formal daily prayer, and books about the recovery of the sacraments.  Recent innovations under the umbrella of terms like “postmodern worship” and “alternative worship” sometimes feature even greater interest in traditional forms and texts than in the “contemporary worship” of the 1980s and 1990s–though in configurations that elude easy categorization.

–Pages 28 and 29

Worship the Lord 2005

Above:  The Cover of Worship the Lord:  The Liturgy of the Reformed Church in America (2005)

Image Source = Kenneth Randolph Taylor

Laudable Reformed Christian rituals and service books exist.  I point, for example, to the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship (1993)  and Book of Occasional Services (1999) as well as to the Reformed Church in America’s Worship the Lord (2005), all of which grace my liturgy library (the Book of Occasional Services as a free PDF).  But how many PC(USA) churchgoers know of their Book of Common Worship?  And how many Reformed Church in America worshipers attend congregations which make little use of the 2005 liturgy?

The first words which enter my mind when I ponder worship in the Presbyterian Church are

decently and in order.

In other words, I think of decorum and great dignity–even if the forms are simpler than they are elsewhere.  Worship patterns vary within denominations, of course, so this generalization does not apply universally among Presbyterians (or members of other denominations).  Yet I affirm the historic Presbyterian commitment to dignity and decorum in worship.

There is a High Church Presbyterian movement; it has existed in its renewed form since at least the middle 1800s.  I have availed myself of archive.org and downloaded certain congregational and semi-official and official service books from Reformed churches.  Such downloaded files join volumes, such as every edition of the U.S. Presbyterian Book of Common Worship (starting with the 1906 edition) as invaluable parts of my liturgy library.  I have found denunciations of these “Episcoterian” tendencies in certain online forums.  Perhaps the authors of some of these posts need to review the history of their own tradition and ponder Professor’s Foreman’s critique.

I will be in my Episcopal parish, bowing to the high altar and to processional crosses most Sunday mornings.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

MARCH 7, 2014 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF JAMES HEWITT MCGOWN, HUMANITARIAN

THE FEAST OF SAINTS DRAUSINUS AND ANSERICUS, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF SOISSONS; SAINT VINDICIAN, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CAMBRAI; AND SAINT LEODEGARIUS, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF AUTUN

THE FEAST OF EDWARD OSLER, ENGLISH DOCTOR, EDITOR, AND POET

THE FEAST OF SAINT PERPETUA AND HER COMPANIONS, MARTYRS

Glory to God: The Presbyterian Hymnal (2013)   3 comments

Glory to God The Presbyterian Hymnal November 16, 2013

Above:  My Copy of the Hymnal

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am, in the words of someone I know, a “liturgy geek.”  I am also the kind of Episcopalian who, though closer to Lutheranism than to the Reformed tradition, understands U.S. Presbyterian history better than most U.S. Presbyterians.  Part of my family tree is Presbyterian, so that interest comes to me naturally, even though my spiritual type is Anglican-Lutheran-Catholic, in that order.  (Yes, I was born to be an Episcopalian, even though I had to convert to that denomination.)

My credentials for writing about U.S. Presbyterian worship are strong.  I have written at length on the topic at this weblog, focusing mostly on editions of the Book of Common Worship (1906, 1932, 1946, 1970/1972, and 1993).  My library includes official Presbyterian hymnals from 1874, 1901, 1927, 1933, 1955, 1972, 1990, and now 2013, not to mention all editions of the Book of Common Worship.  Reference works on U.S. Presbyterianism sit on shelves, as do copies of the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Once upon a time I was on a track to become a historian of U.S. Presbyterianism, focusing on the prehistory of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) via analysis of the racist and reactionary magazine which midwifed it, but that path ended when my major professor at The University of Georgia (UGA) cut my doctoral program short seven years ago.  Perhaps it is for the best that I have taken a different path; I prefer to focus on the positive side.  But, in the words of an old song,

No, no, no, they can’t take that away from me.

I remain well-informed on U.S. Presbyterianism.  And I still have every note card documenting every editorial defense of racial segregation (usually recycled defenses of slavery) and every criticism of the Civil Rights Movement.  (At least the PCA General Assembly had the decency to apologize for such racism about ten years ago.  I give credit where it is due.)

Presbyterian Books November 16, 2013

Above:  The Presbyterian Hymnal (1990), Book of Common Worship (1993), and Glory to God (2013)

Some explanation of the background of Glory to God might help.  The Worshipbook–Services and Hymns (1972) was a combination service book-hymnal, a successor to the 1946 Book of Common Worship and The Hymnal (1933) and The Hymnbook (1955).  Unfortunately, the organization of hymns in The 1972 volume was alphabetical order.  The Worshipbook‘s two immediate successors were The Presbyterian Hymnal:  Hymns, Psalms, and Spiritual Songs (1990) and Book of Common Worship (1993).  Now the latter volume has a new companion:  Glory to God:  The Presbyterian Hymnal.

The Presbyterian Hymnal (1990) broke new ground in U.S. Presbyterianism by using the church year as an organizing principle.  Thus “Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus” was hymn #1.  Glory to God, without abandoning the church year, subsumes it inside the organizing principle of salvation history, focusing primarily on what God has done, sequentially, in good Reformed fashion.  Thus Trinitiarian hymns lead.  The first hymn is “Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty!”  After the Trinitarian hymns come other sections (also under the heading, “God’s Mighty Acts”) labeled:

  • Creation and Providence;
  • God’s Covenant with Israel;
  • Jesus Christ;
  • Gift of the Holy Spirit;
  • The Church;
  • The Life of the Nations;
  • Christ’s Return and Judgment; and
  • A New Heaven and a New Earth.

Then the headings “The Church at Worship” and “Our Response to God,” each subdivided, follow.

The Theological Vision Statement explains the rationale for the salvation history theme:

This collection of hymns and songs, however, will be published different conditions than those that molded previous hymnals.  It will be offered in a world in which trust in human progress has been undermined and where ecclectic spiritualities often fail to satisfy deep spiritual hungers.  It will be used by worshipers who have not had life-long formation by Scripture and basic Christian doctrine, much less Reformed theology.  It is meant for a church marked by growing diversity in liturgical practice.  Moreover, it addresses a church divided by conflicts but nonetheless, we believe, longing for healing and then peace that is beyond understanding.

To inspire and embolden a church facing these formidable challenges, the overarching theme of this collection will be God’s powerful acts of creation, redemption, and final transformation.  It will also bespeak the human responses that God’s gracious acts make possible.  In other words, the framework for the collection will be the history of salvation.

Glory to God, page 926

Glory to God, unlike its 1990 predecessor, includes my favorite hymn, “I Bind Unto Myself Today.”  (Score one for the new book!)  In The Hymnal 1982, which I use each Sunday, that hymn has seven verses and fills three pages.  The Presbyterian version, however, has six verses and fills three pages.  The omitted verse follows:

I bind unto myself the power of the great love of cherubim;

the sweet “Well done” in judgment hour;

the service of the seraphim;

confessor’s faith, apostles’ word,

the patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls;

all good deeds done unto the Lord,

and purity of virgin souls.

The last two lines cross run afoul of Reformed and Lutheran theology, for the the current U.S. Lutheran hymnals I have checked which include this hymn also omit that verse.

Glory to God contains more services than most of its predecessors, with The Worshipbook (1972) being the exception.  

  1. The Presbyterian Hymnal (1874) and The New Psalms and Hymns (1901) offered just words, music, and indices.  
  2. The Presbyterian Hymnal (1927) included responsive readings.
  3. The Hymnal (1933) included responsive readings, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, one page of Opening Sentences, and the two-page Brief Statement of the Reformed Faith (1902, Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.).
  4. The Hymnbook (1955) contained responsive readings plus a short section called “Aids to Worship,” which included Calls to Worship, Invocations, Prayers of Confession, Assurances of Pardon, Prayers of Thanksgiving, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Nicene Creed, and the Apostles’ Creed.  
  5. The Worshipbook–Services and Hymns (1972) incorporated the entirety of The Worshipbook–Services (1970), really the fourth Book of Common Worship.
  6. And The Presbyterian Hymnal (1990) included the outline of the Service for the Lord’s Day (with texts) as well as the Creeds in English, Spanish, and Korean.
  7. Glory to God offers the Service for the Lord’s Day, the Sacrament of Baptism, Reaffirmation of the Baptismal Covenant, Morning Prayer, Midday Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Prayer at the Close of Day.  These services are edited versions of the full forms from Book of Common Worship (1993), sometimes with material not in the 1993 volume.  The new hymnal also offers the Creeds, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the denominational Brief Statement of Faith in English, Spanish, and Korean.

I have read of some minor controversy regarding Glory to God online.  The hymnal committee, unable to acquire a copyright holder’s permission to alter a certain new hymn, chose to omit it.  C’est la vie.  The omitted hymn, in its unaltered form, affirmed the Penal Substitution understanding of the Atonement, a barbaric theology.  I am more of a Classic Theory of the Atonement man, so I have no problem with this editorial decision.  And I know that Presbyterians have been arguing about hymnals in North America since at least the 1750s, when the New York City congregation purchased an Isaac Watts hymnal which included hymns not based on Psalms.  Those who seek an argument will always find a basis for one.  I dislike contemporary praise music and most spirituals, preferring wordy European hymns.  Thus I would have made some choices which the hymnal committee did not.  But the book contains more meritorious content than dross, so I affirm the good and focus on it.

Among the meritorious aspects of Glory to God is its Lectionary Index, which lists hymns matched to the Revised Common Lectionary.  The three-year break-down by Sunday and holy day impresses me.  I think of The Book of Common Worship (Revised) (1932), with its lectionary barely deserving of that title, and realize how far these Presbyterians have come.

I look forward to exploring the riches of Glory to God:  The Presbyterian Hymnal (2013) for years to come.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

NOVEMBER 17, 2013 COMMON ERA

PROPER 28–THE TWENTY-SIXTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST, YEAR C

THE FEAST OF SAINT ROSE-PHILIPPINE DUCHESNE, ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTEMPLATIVE

THE FEAST OF SAINT HUGH OF LINCOLN, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP

THE FEAST OF SAINT ROQUE GONZALEZ DE SANTA CRUZ, ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Revised slightly on November 19, 2013

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Solemn Promises: Baptismal Vows in Rites of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Predecessor Bodies, 1906-1993   8 comments

124002pv

Above:  Pulpit and Baptismal Font, First Presbyterian Church of Ulysses, Trumansburg, New York

Image Created by the Historic American Buildings Survey

Image Source = Library of Congress

(http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ny1328.photos.124002p/)

Reproduction Number = HABS NY,55-TRUM,1–10

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I.  MY PURPOSE

My purpose in this post is to write about baptismal vows in Directories for Worship and baptismal rites of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its predecessor bodies, following chiefly the five editions of the Book of Common Worship (1906-1993) so far.  I am aware of germane material relating to this topic in certain other bodies, such as the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC), the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).  Yet that material resides beyond the purview of this post and my interests today.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

II.  BACKGROUND

The first of four denominations (two of them concurrent) to bear the name Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.) (PCUSA) met in General Assembly for the first time in 1789.  The commissioners adopted the Directory for the Worship of God (http://archive.org/details/formofgovernment00pres), adapted from the original Directory for the Publick Worship of God (1645).  Although John Knox had provided ritual forms for the Church of Scotland in the 1500s, Presbyterianism came under Puritan influence shortly thereafter, this Directories, with their guidelines and suggestions, replaced service book (https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/a-brief-history-of-u-s-presbyterian-worship-to-1905/).  The Church of Scotland, by the way, recovered Knox’s service book in the 1800s (http://archive.org/details/bookofcommonorde01chur).  And High Churchmanship here and there in the PCUSA during the 1800s led to the first, authorized Book of Common Worship (http://archive.org/details/bookcommonworsh00assegoog) in 1906.  But Puritan influences continue to shape Presbyterianism.  And Puritanism clashes with my spiritual type.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

III.  THE DIRECTORY FOR THE WORSHIP OF GOD (1789)

The Directory for the Worship of God (1789) was in effect in the succession of bodies called the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (PCUSA) through 1958 (when the last one merged with The United Presbyterian Church of North America to form The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.)., in The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.  (UPCUSA) through 1961, and in mostly Southern Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) through 1894.  Thus the 1906, 1932, and 1946 versions of The Book of Common Worship had to conform to this document.  That fact makes the 1789 Directory more relevant than it would be otherwise to my inquiry today.

The 1789 Directory contains guidelines for conducting baptism.

The minister, when conducting the baptism of a child, reminds the parents/guardians that children are holy but

that we are by nature, sinful, guilty, and polluted, and have need of sanctifying influences of the Spirit of God.

Next the minister instructs the parents/guardians

That they teach the child to read the Word of God; that they instruct it in the principles of our holy religion, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; an excellent summary of which we have in the Confession of Faith of this Church, and in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, which are to be recommended to them, as adapted by this church, for their direction and assistance, in the discharge of this important duty; that they pray with and for it, that they set an example of piety and godliness before it; and endeavour, by all the means of God’s appointment, to bring up their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Then the minister blesses and baptizes the child.

Later, when the baptized has learned to recite the Catechism, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer, has learned the faith as taught to him or her, and has

come to years of discretion,

while being

free and scandal,

appearing

sober and steady,

and having

sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord’s body,

therefore being ready to begin to take Communion, he or she, before the church elders,

shall be examined

as to his or her

knowledge and piety

to the elders’ satisfaction.

Unbaptized people seeking to join to church must

after giving satisfaction with respect to their knowledge and piety, make a public profession of their faith in the presence of the congregation; and thereupon be baptized.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IV.  THE DIRECTORY FOR THE WORSHIP OF GOD (1894)

The Southern Presbyterian Directory for the Worship of God (1894) (http://archive.org/details/constitutionofp00pres) contains some optional forms, but not one for baptism.  Its guidelines regarding Christian initiation retain the 1789 standards, adjust some language slightly, and add questions.  There are now, for example, three optional model questions to follow the minister’s instructions to the parents/guardians:

Do you acknowledge your child’s need of the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ, and the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit?

Do you claim God’s covenant promises in his behalf and do you look in faith to the Lord Jesus Christ for his salvation, as you do for your own?

Do you now unreservedly dedicate your child to God, and promise, in humble reliance upon divine grace, that you will endeavor to set before him a godly example, that you will pray with and for him, that you will teach him the doctrines of our holy religion, and that you will strive, by all the means of God’s appointment, to bring him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

Likewise, the 1894 Directory establishes four model questions for those professing their faith and seeking to join the church:

Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving his displeasure, and without hope save his sovereign mercy?

Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Saviour of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon him alone for salvation as he is offered in the gospel?

Do you now reserve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to walk as becometh the followers of Christ, forsaking all sin, and conforming your life to his teaching and example?

Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

V.  THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA, 1858-1958

The United Presbyterian Church of North America (UPCNA)  (http://archive.org/details/testimony00unit) adopted its revised Book of Government and Worship (http://archive.org/details/digestofprinci00unit) in 1910.  The 1926 version of it, containing amendments passed from 1911 to 1925, provides guidance regarding baptism.

Parents/guardians must answer the following questions:

Do you now take God as your God in covenant, and as the God of your children?

Do you renew the profession you made when you were admitted to the Church?

Do you solemnly promise, if God shall spare your life and that of your children, to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; to instruct them in regard to their lost condition by nature, and to lead them to the Saviour; to pray with them and for them, to worship God regularly in your family; to set before them an example of piety; and to use all the appointed means of salvation?

People baptized as adults make a public profession of faith and receive baptism by water.  They promise

to cultivate the spirit of Christian fellowship and brotherly love, and to seek the welfare of the congregation

while a member of it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

VI.  THE BOOK OF COMMON WORSHIP (1906), THE BOOK OF COMMON WORSHIP (REVISED) (1932), AND THE BOOK OF COMMON WORSHIP (1946)

The 1870-1958 incarnation of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. published three versions of The Book of Common Worship (BCW).

The 1906 BCW (https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/the-book-of-common-worship-1906/), although authorized by the General Assembly, was unofficial and optional.  And many PCUS ministers found some of its contents useful, despite the fact that the Southern Presbyterian General Assembly never authorized its use.  The PCUS General Assembly did authorized the use of the PCUSA’s 1932 and 1946 versions of the BCW, however.

The 1906 ritual for baptism requires the parents/guardians to answer the following questions affirmatively:

Do you accept, for yourself and for your Child, the covenant of God, and therein consecrate your Child to Him?

Do you promise to instruct your Child in the principles of our holy religion, as contained in the Scriptures, to pray with him and for him, and to bring him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

Adults being baptized answer the following questions:

Do you receive and profess the Christian faith and in this faith do you desire to be baptized?

Do you confess your sins, and turn from them with godly sorrow, and put all your trust in the mercy of God, which is in Christ Jesus; and do you promise in His strength to lead a sober, righteous, and godly life?

One who confirms baptismal vows confesses

Christ as Lord,

adhering

to the Christian faith,

ratifying and confirming his or her baptismal vows, and promising

with God’s help to serve the Lord, and keep His commandments all the days

one one’s life.  Then one answers the the following question:

Now desiring to be received to the Lord’s Supper, do you promise to make diligent use of the means of grace, submitting yourself to the lawful authority and guidance of the Church, and continuing in the peace and fellowship of the people of God?

The 1932 (https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/the-book-of-common-worship-revised-1932/) Christian initiation rites are identical to those of 1906.

The 1946 (https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/the-book-of-common-worship-1946/) Christian initiation rites are similar to those of 1906 and 1932, with one notable change:  Adults being baptized and renewing their baptismal covenants affirm the Apostles’ Creed also.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

VII.  THE WORSHIPBOOK (1970/1972)

Different language appears in the baptismal rites in the late 1960s and early 1970s (https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/the-worshipbook-services-and-hymns-1972-services/).

The questions (with answers), directed to parents/guardians or to the baptismal candidates, follow:

Who is your Lord and Savior?

Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.

Do you trust in him?

I do.

Do you intend (your child) to be his disciple, to obey his word and show his love?

I do.

Will you be a faithful member of this congregation, giving of yourself in every way, and will you seek the fellowship of the church wherever you may be?

I will.

At confirmation one answers the first two questions and a variant of the fourth.

These rites are consistent with the 1961 Directory of The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (UPCUSA) and the 1963 Directory of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

VIII.  BOOK OF COMMON WORSHIP (1993)

The Directory for Worship (1989) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) lists the required elements of baptism in that denomination.  Among these are:

Those desiring the Sacrament of Baptism of their children or for themselves shall make vows that

(a)  profess their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior,

(b)  renounce evil and affirm their reliance on God’s grace,

(c)  declare their intention to participate actively and responsibly in the worship and mission of the church,

(d)  declare their intention to provide for the Christian nurture of the child.

–W-3.3603

The Book of Common Worship (1993) (https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/book-of-common-worship-1993/) provides a variety of baptismal texts, which I will quote here quite partially.  The renunciations, long parts of the baptismal rituals in many denominations, appear now in Presbyterian rites.  The baptismal candidates, for example, renounce

evil and its power in the world

in two options and

all evil, and powers in the world which defy God’s righteousness and love

plus

the ways of sin that separate you from the love of God

in another.  There is also the Consultation on Common Texts service for baptism, in which one renounces, in order:

Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God;

the evil powers of this world, which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God;

all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God;

evil and its power in the world, which defy God’s righteousness and love;

the ways of sin that separate you from the love of God.

The renunciations and affirmations associated with baptism recur in the confirmation ritual and the rite for the public profession of faith.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IX.  CONCLUSION

There is no single correct way to cover the serious liturgical work of baptismal vows.  One can do much of it via renunciations, but, if one words affirmations properly, one can cover the same content in purely positive terms.  How to do it best is a matter of taste.

As I read the texts for this blog post I noticed much continuity amid change from one generation to the next.  I chose not to quote extensively from the 1993 texts, but they echo and quote previous Presbyterian liturgies while expanding upon them.  The 1993 texts are, I think, the best which the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) tradition offers.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JULY 30, 2013 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINT WILLIAM PINCHON, ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP

THE FEAST OF HORATIUS BONAR, SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER AND HYMN WRITER

THE FEAST OF RUDOLF BULTMANN, BIBLICAL SCHOLAR

THE FEAST OF WILLIAM WILBERFORCE, ABOLITIONIST

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First I acknowledge my brain, given the years I have spent becoming an expert on U.S. Presbyterianism.  Citing my brain is quicker and easier than seeking print sources for certain details.

I consider any document to which I have provided a hyperlink cited properly already.

I also used certain books while drafting this post.  Those credits follow:

Book of Common Worship.  Louisville, KY:  Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.

Book of Common Worship, The.  Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1906.  Reprint, 1922.

Book of Common Worship, The.  Philadelphia, PA:  Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1946.

Book of Common Worship (Revised), The.  Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1932.  Reprint, 1942.

Confessional Statement and The Book of Government and Worship of The United Presbyterian Church of North America, The.  Pittsburgh, PA:  United Presbyterian Board of Publication and Bible School Work, 1926.

Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), The.  Part II.  Book of Order 2004-2005.  Louisville, KY:  Office of the General Assembly, 2004.

Psalms and Hymns Adapted to Social, Private, and Public Worship in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.  Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Education, 1843.

Worshipbook:  Services and Hymns, The.  Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1972.

KRT

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

He Descended: Christ’s Descent in the Apostles’ Creed   4 comments

Harrowing of Hades

Above:  The Harrowing of Hades

A Medieval Russian Orthodox Icon

Image in the Public Domain

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

U.S. LUTHERAN LITURGY, PART XVII

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Christ himself died once and for all for sins, the upright doing for the sake of the guilty, to lead us to God.  In the body he was put to death, in the spirit he was raised to life, and, in the spirit he went to preach to the spirits in prison.

–1 Peter 3:18-19, The New Jerusalem Bible

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

…He descended into hell….

The Book of Common Worship (1946), page 47

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I.  INTRODUCTION

I take a break from focusing on specific U.S. Lutheran volumes to write about a related theological question instead.  When I grew up in The United Methodist Church, we said the Apostles’ Creed weekly.  Item #738 in The Methodist Hymnal (1966), renamed The Book of Hymns after the 1968 merger, is the Apostles’ Creed.  That version omits

He descended into Hell,

relegating it to a footnote.  Items #881 and 882 in The United Methodist Hymnal (1989) are the Apostle’s Creed–traditional and ecumenical versions.  Both follow the 1966 Hymnal‘s practice.  And both explain that “catholic” means universal, something which the editors of the 1966 Hymnal saw no need to do.  But that is a different matter and a rabbit I will not chase here.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

II.  POSSIBLE MEANINGS OF THE DESCENT

Philip H. Pfatteicher, the great Lutheran liturgical scholar, points out that the literal translation of the Latin text of that line from the Apostles’ Creed is:

He descended to the lower [world].

Furthermore, Pfatteicher writes, there are three main interpretations of what that means:

  • It emphasizes that Jesus was dead.
  • It indicates that Jesus went to battle Satan.
  • It indicates that Jesus freed the souls of the dead.

The English Language Liturgical Consultation (1988) version of the Apostles’s Creed renders that line:

he descended to the dead,

which applies to all three interpretations.

I prefer the traditional form:

He descended into hell.

This has been the standard U.S. Lutheran rendering, based on my secondary reading and opening of hymnals-service books in my liturgy library.  It remains the text in conservative U.S. Lutheran hymnals-service books and was likewise in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) line until Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), which uses the ecumenical version, with

He descended to the dead,

and places the traditional

He descended into hell

in a footnote.  But the descent is present.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

III.  MATTERS LUTHERAN AND REFORMED

Christ’s descent has been a hot potato for many Protestants over time.  Methodists have tended to avoid it, but at least Presbyterians have wrestled with it.  The Book of Common Worship (1906), of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., for example, placed

He descended into hell

inside brackets and provided an alternative text in a footnote:

He continued in the state of the dead, and under the power of death, until the third day.

The Book of Common Worship (Revised) (1932) removed the brackets but provided a different alternative text:

He continued in the state of the dead until the third day.

The Book of Common Worship (1946) said simply that Christ descended into hell, but our Lord and Savior has descended to the dead since 1970.  That is more than many Calvinists were willing to say for along time.  The Heidelberg Catechism (1562), Question 44 explains the descent into hell this way:

That in my severest tribulations I may be assured that Christ my Lord has redeemed me from hellish anxieties and torment by the unspeakable anguish, pain, and terrors which he suffered in his soul both on the cross and before.

The Book of Concord, however, affirms Christ’s descent into hell.  The Formula of Concord, Epitome IX (1577), says:

This article has also been disputed among some theologians who have subscribed to the Augsburg Confession:  When and in what manner did the Lord Christ, according to our simple Christian faith, descend to hell?  Was this done before or after His death?  Was this done before or after His death?  Did this happen only to His soul, only to the divinity, or with body and soul, spiritually or bodily?  Does this article belong to Christ’s passion or to His glorious victory and triumph?

This article, like the preceding article, cannot be grasped by the senses or by our reason.  It must be grasped through faith alone.  Therefore, it is our unanimous opinion that there should be no dispute over it.  It should be believed and taught only in the simplest way.  Teach it like Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, in his sermon at Torgau in the year 1533.  He has explained this article in a completely Christian way.  He separated all useless, unnecessary questions from it, and encouraged all godly Christians to believe with Christian simplicity.

It is enough to know that Christ descended into hell, destroyed hell for all believers, and delivered them from the power of condemnation and the jaws of hell.  We will save our questions and not curiously investigate about how this happened until the other world.  Then not only this mystery but others will be revealed that we simply believe here and cannot grasp with our blind reason.

The Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration IX (1577) affirms:

Even in the Ancient Christian teachers of the Church, as well as among some of our teachers, different explanations of the article about Christ’s descent to hell are found.  Therefore, we abide in the simplicity of our Christian faith.  Dr. Luther has pointed us to this in a sermon about Christ’s descent to hell, which he delivered in the castle at Torgau in the year 1533.  In the Creed we confess, “I believe….in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who…was crucified, died, and was buried.  He descended into hell.”  In this Confession Christ’s burial and descent to hell are distinguished as separate articles.  We simply believe that the entire person (God and man) descended into hell after the burial, conquered the devil, destroyed hell’s power, and took from the devil all his might.  We should not, however, trouble ourselves with high and difficult thoughts about how this happened.  With our reason and our five senses this article can be understood as little as the preceding one about how Christ is placed at the right hand of God’s almighty power and majesty.  We are simply to believe it and cling to the Word.  So we hold to the substance and consolation that neither hell nor the devil can take captive or injure us and all who believe in Christ.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IV.  CONCLUSION

The descent of Christ is an important theological point, not one which any Christian should sweep under an ecclesiastical rug.  But it is also a theological point replete with mystery and ambiguity.  Self-identified orthodox Christians have, since the Patristic era, offered competing interpretations of it.  I prefer the Harrowing of Hell version, but it is sufficient for me that a version of the Apostles’ Creed contain Christ’s descent.  Whether it says that he descended into hell or to the dead is a minor issue.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JULY 26, 2013 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINTS ANNE AND JOACHIM, PARENTS OF SAINT MARY OF NAZARETH

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ambassador Hymnal for Lutheran Worship.  Minneapolis, MN:  Association of Free Lutheran Congregations, 1994.

Book of Common Worship.  Louisville, KY:  Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.

Book of Common Worship, The.  Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1906.

Book of Common Worship, The.  Philadelphia, PA:  Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1946.

Book of Common Worship (Revised), The.  Philadelphia, PA:  Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1932.

Book of Hymns.  Milwaukee, WI:  Northwestern Publishing House, 1917.  Reprint, 1932.

Christian Worship:  A Lutheran Hymnal.  Milwaukee, WI:  Northwestern Publishing House, 1993.

Commission on the Liturgy and Hymnal, The.  Service Book and Hymnal.  Music Edition.  Philadelphia, PA:  United Lutheran Publication House, 1958.

Common Service Book of the Lutheran Church.  Philadelphia, PA:  The Board of Publication of The United Lutheran Church in America, 1917, 1918.

Concordia:  A Collection of Hymns and Spiritual Songs.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1917.

Concordia:  The Lutheran Confessions–A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord.  2d. Ed.  Paul Timothy McCain, General Editor.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 2006.

Concordia Hymnal, The:  A Hymnal for Church, School and Home.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1932.

Constitution of the Prebyterian Church (U.S.A.), The.  Part I.  Book of Confessions.  Louisville, KY:  Office of the General Assembly, 1996.

Evangelical Lutheran Hymnary.  St. Louis, MO:  MorningStar Music Publishers, Inc., 1996.

Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, The.  The Lutheran Hymnal.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 1941.

Evangelical Lutheran Worship.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Fortress, 2006.

Fevold, Eugene L.  The Lutheran Free Church:  A Fellowship of American Lutheran Congregations, 1897-1963.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1969.

Hymnal and Order of Service, The.  Lectionary Edition.  Rock Island, IL:  Augustana Book Concern, 1925.

Hymnal for Church and Home.  3d. Ed.  Blair, NE:  Danish Lutheran Publishing House, 1938.

Hymnal Supplement 98.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 1998.

Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship.  Lutheran Book of Worship.  Ministers Desk Edition.  Philadelphia, PA:  Board of Publication, Lutheran Church in America, 1978.

__________.  Lutheran Book of Worship.  Pew Edition.  Philadelphia, PA:  Board of Publication, Lutheran Church in America, 1978.

Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship for Provisional Use.  Contemporary Worship 2:  Services–The Holy Communion.  Philadelphia, PA:  Board of Education, Lutheran Church in America, 1970.

Lutheran Hymnary Including the Symbols of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, The.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1935.

Lutheran Intersynodical Hymnal Committee.  American Lutheran Hymnal.  Music Edition.  Columbus, OH:  The Lutheran Book Concern, 1930.

Lutheran Service Book.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 2006.

Lutheran Worship.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 1982.

Methodist Hymnal, The:  Official Hymnal of The Methodist Church.  Nashville, TN:  The Methodist Publishing House, 1966.

Pfatteicher, Philip H.  Commentary on the Lutheran Book of Worship:  Lutheran Liturgy in Its Ecumenical Context.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Fortress, 1990.

Pfatteicher, Philip H., and Carlos R. Messerli.  Manual on the Liturgy:  Lutheran Book of Worship.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1979.

Reed, Luther D.  The Lutheran Liturgy:  A Study in the Common Service of the Lutheran Church in America.  Philadelphia, PA:  Muhlenberg Press, 1947.

__________.  The Lutheran Liturgy:  A Study in the Common Liturgy of the Lutheran Church in America.  2d. Ed.  Philadelphia, PA:  Fortress Press, 1959.

United Methodist Hymnal, The:  Book of United Methodist Worship.  Nashville, TN:  The United Methodist Publishing House, 1989.

With One Voice:  A Lutheran Resource for Worship.  Minneapolis, MN:  Augsburg Fortress, 1995.

Worship Supplement.  St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 1969.

Worshipbook, The:  Services and Hymns.  Philadelphia, PA:  Westminster Press, 1972.

KRT

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

An Incomplete Recovery of the Holy Eucharist   7 comments

Snapshot_20130703_1

Above:  My Copy of the 2004/2005 PC(USA) Book of Order

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This post follows these:

https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/a-brief-history-of-u-s-presbyterian-worship-to-1905/

https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/the-book-of-common-worship-1906/

https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/the-book-of-common-worship-revised-1932/

https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/the-book-of-common-worship-1946/

https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/the-worshipbook-services-and-hymns-1972-services/

Reading them first will enhance one’s comprehension of this post, which refers to the book covered in another post:

https://blogatheologica.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/book-of-common-worship-1993/

THE AUTHOR

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BODY

In 1983 The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (UPCUSA) reunited with the mainly Southern Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) to form the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [PC(USA)].  At reunion the denomination adopted the Directory for the Service of God, a revision of the 1961 UPCUSA Directory for the Worship of God and the 1963 PCUS Directory for Worship and Work.  The 1983 Directory says in part:

The ordering of public worship shall maintain fidelity to the Scriptures and the practices of the New Testament church, taking account and utilizing the historical experiences of the universal church that are consistent with a right demonstration of the gospel.

The service of worship is to be ordered so that all participate.  Worshipers should not be mere spectators, but participants who, together with the minister, are engaged in a joint ministry of service to God through corporate worship….

Book of Order (Louisville, KY:  The Office of the General Assembly, 1988, S-2.0400)

Of the Holy Communion the 1983 Directory says:

Since the Sacrament is an action in which the whole church participates and is part of the public witness of the church to the power of the Word, it is normally celebrated in the regular place of worship as the culmination of the public worship of God.  It should not be isolated from the acts of worship which precede and follow it.  Thus it will be preceded properly by the reading and preaching of the Word, during which the people may prepare to receive and appropriate the Word of God offered to them in the Sacrament, that the sacramental Word may be shown forth in full unity with the written and preached Word.

–S-3.0500.a

The PC(USA) 1989 Directory of Worship, in continuity with its 1961 and 1983 predecessors, affirms that

In the life of the worshiping congregation, Word and Sacrament have an integral relationship.  Whenever the Lord’s Supper is celebrated it shall be preceded by the reading and proclamation of the Word.

Book of Order (Louisville, KY:  The Office of the General Assembly, 2004, W-2.4008)

This is to occur

regularly and frequently enough to be recognized as integral to the Service of the Lord’s Day.

–W-2.4009

This means

in no case less than quarterly.

–W-2.4012

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CONCLUSION

Last year I reviewed the Book of Common Worship (1993).  Recently I began to review its four predecessors (1906, 1932, 1946, and 1970/1972), contextualizing them.  One recurring theme in this series of seven posts (ordered almost as oddly as novels in Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series, I know) is the effort to recover that which was lost.  The Worshipbook (1970/1972) and the Book of Common Worship (1993) stand on the shoulders of giants and reflect the times in which committees forged them.  Unfortunately, the recovery of that which was lost–good liturgy and weekly Communion–remains incomplete.  The rejection of Christian tradition (even John Calvin’s tradition) has become a tradition itself.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JULY 3, 2013 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF HENRY THOMAS SMART, ENGLISH ORGANIST AND COMPOSER

THE FEAST OF ELIZABETH FERRARD, ANGLICAN DEACONESS

THE FEAST OF SAINT ELIZABETH OF PORTUGAL, QUEEN

THE FEAST OF JOHN CENNICK, BRITISH MORAVIAN EVANGELIST AND HYMN WRITER

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++