Liturgical Change in the Christian Reformed Church (1964-1985) — Part 8

Conclusion

By Synod 1986 the Liturgical Committee seems to have been disbanded — although in the 1990s a Committee to Study Worship emerges.  However, by1986, the CRC had been set in a certain direction.  On paper, there were not supposed to be significant liturgical changes in this period.  In practice the story was different.  In some CRC churches the traditional elements of Reformed liturgy were increasingly questioned and/or replaced.  Drama was used in worship service, catechism preaching was marginalized, and choirs became commonplace.  We may characterize these changes as an addition to or subtraction from what had been in place previously.

How does one account for these changes?  There was an unbalanced emphasis on dialogue as the determining factor of Reformed liturgy.  There was no consideration given to what the Reformed confessions say about worship, such as what we find in articles 7 and 32 of the Belgic Confession or Lord’s Day 35 of the Heidelberg Catechism.  This went together with a general weakening of the authority and place of the confessions in the CRC in general in this period.  We can think of the arguments of men like Harry Boer and Lewis Smedes against the doctrine of limited atonement.  The CRC was drifting away from its confessional moorings.  The emphasis on dialogue reflected that trend.

Now, on the one hand, there is much to be said for the notion of dialogue as the “enduring structure for worship,” so long as one informs this notion with the covenant of grace.  But, on the other hand, if this dialogical structure stands all by itself as the only determining factor of Reformed liturgy, it is liable to fall prey to human inventions, additions, and subtractions.  There must be more — and that “more” must be determined by the principle of worship found in the Three Forms of Unity:  we are not “to worship him in any other manner than he has commanded in his Word” (HC QA 96).  Indeed, “the whole manner of worship which God requires of us” (BC art. 7) is found in his all-sufficient Word.

There were other factors involved in these changes in the CRC.  Chief among these was the general societal unrest of the day.  That unrest was felt at Calvin College.  Many of those serving on the Liturgical Committee were professors at either Calvin College or Seminary.  Some, like Nicholas Wolterstorff, were on the leading edge of radical activities at Calvin.  It could be that there was a realization among many professors at Calvin that CRC youth were restless and might go elsewhere if changes were not made.  Furthermore, we also have the general tendency in American Christianity at this time to revolutionize liturgy.  There was an increased desire to be outward looking and a corresponding wish to make worship services more “user-friendly.”

Was there resistance to these liturgical changes?  There was the overture from Classis Hamilton in 1985 about liturgical dancing.  But apart from that, I have been unable to discern any widespread vocal resistance to the work of the Liturgical Committee  in the official ecclesiastical documents.  The Association of Christian Reformed Laymen was opposing these developments, but their voice could not be heard at synods.  It could also be (and I suspect it to be true) that countless letters were written to local CRC consistories with no effect.  Those who were concerned left the matter as is.  Also to be considered is the fact that some concerned members left the CRC in the 1970s and 1980s to form the Orthodox Christian Reformed Church.   Were liturgical concerns partly motivating their exodus?  It could be, but I have not yet researched it.

If there was a certain degree of resistance, why was it not successful?  How did we get to proposals for liturgical dance in 1985?  My theory is that it has to be explained in light of the total picture.  The CRC was in turmoil during this time.  Many battles were being fought by CRC conservatives for biblical and confessional truth.  It was not possible to win them all and, in the end, it was not possible to win many (any?) of them.  Once again, that appears to have been the result of the undermining of confessional authority in the CRC.  Once this was taken away, there was little to no common ground between the concerned and the more progressively minded members.  Discussion became fruitless.

For us in the Canadian Reformed Churches, there are abiding lessons here.  This is a cautionary tale.  We must embrace our confessions, also as they speak in a soundly biblical way to matters of liturgy.  Once the confessions are undermined or neglected in this area, the door is left open to further aberrations.  Traditionalism will not protect us.  “We have always done it this way,” will only go so far.  Eventually a generation will arise for whom that argument is not persuasive.  The principle of worship found in our confessions safeguards the purity of worship and ensures that our worship will be truly pleasing to God.  That is something that an emphasis on the dialogical (or covenantal) structure of worship on its own cannot accomplish.  When we add or take away as we please, even in the name of dialogue (or covenant), we are on the road back to Rome.  May God graciously prevent that the Canadian Reformed Churches ever find themselves on such a road.

Liturgical Change in the Christian Reformed Church (1964-1985) — Part 7

Synod 1985 — Let’s Go Dancing

Acting on a request of some local churches, the 1982 CRC Synod gave the Liturgical Committee a mandate to study the matter of liturgical dancing.  Already in 1966, one can find experimentation with liturgical dancing at Calvin College.  In 1969, a creative dance group participated in a chapel service at Calvin.  In 1975, Donald Postema led a vesper service at Calvin Seminary in which he demonstrated how various arts (including liturgical dancing) could be incorporated into worship services.  For a number of years before 1982, dancing as an art form was being taught at Calvin College and it appears that those teaching it had grand ambitions for its use in worship.  There is also evidence of this a little bit later.  In 1983, dance instructor Ellen Van’t Hof appeared at an annual Ministers’ Institute and gave a lecture and a demonstration.

Obviously the report at Synod 1985 did not fall out of the sky.  This report had been mandated to investigate “the implications and feasibility of the implementation of liturgical dance in the worship services.”  By speaking of “feasibility,” the mandate was already tipped in a positive direction.  Throughout the report, liturgical dance was uncritically accepted.  This is not surprising since this was already the conclusion of Synod 1982:  “It is biblical and altogether fitting that God’s people use appropriate liturgical dance forms for the expression of their deep feelings of praise to their God.”

The report presented to Synod 1985 began with a consideration of the CRC position on dancing in general, dealing with the historical developments.  Synod 1982 had reversed a long trend of synodical decisions inveighing against dancing in general, this despite the fact that it had been taking place at Calvin for quite some time in various forms.  As already noted, Synod 1982 came to a positive view of liturgical dancing, however this view was not without its detractors.  Thus the committee had been mandated to investigate the matter further.

The report went on to discuss the terminology.  At this point, the report also drew on 1968 with its dialogical emphasis:  “liturgy and worship shape the meeting between God and the congregation as a dialogue.  The various elements in the worship service constitute this dialogue between God and his people.”  With that in mind, and following the positive approach of Synod 1982, the Liturgical Committee wanted to discuss the question, “Where is liturgical dance appropriate in our Reformed worship services?”  Note the question carefully.  The question is not whether, but where.  The answer leads us back to dialogue:  “Careful examination leads to the conclusion that, in the worship service, dance may function in two ways.  It may stress the Word of God to man, or it may stress man’s response to God.”  Under the overarching principle of dialogue, liturgical dancing can therefore have its place in a Reformed worship service.  Moreover, liturgical dancing can take the place of just about any element in the worship service, except (quite notably) the sermon.

With that being determined, the report then turned to liturgical dancing in the Scriptures.  It’s remarkable that they did it at this point, after the determination was made that liturgical dancing may have a place.  The impression is given that justification is being sought after the fact.  Nearly all the references were to the Old Testament.  The report asserted that, “This is not surprising, since the New Testament gives us only the very beginning of the New Testament church history.  Apparently the Holy Spirit did not want to bind the church to certain models, customs, or orders of service.”  That last statement seemed out of place.  It sounds like an afterthought intended to ward off criticism.  Again we must ask whether this reasoning is sound.  When we lay it out, the specious character becomes evident:

The Old Testament tells us all about liturgical dancing

The New Testament says next to nothing

Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not want to bind us to certain models, customs or orders of service.

Again, this manner of reasoning is not confessionally Reformed.  It reflects a departure away from the principle of worship found in the Three Forms of Unity.

We cannot discuss every Scripture passage brought forward in the report, nor is it possible to discuss all the historical evidence for and against liturgical dancing.  What we should note here are the types of principles that were used.  The main principle is dialogical.  Dialogue is the one and only thing that matters in Christian liturgy.  A corollary — though it remains unstated — is that the confessions have nothing to say on this matter.  Another element in the discussion is an appeal to existing CRC practices which had previously been discouraged by synods, such as choirs.  The unofficial practices came into the discussion and influenced the outcome.  If we allow choirs, then why should we not allow liturgical dancing?  As long as it fits into the “enduring structure” of dialogue, virtually anything is permissible in Christian worship.

Just like in 1973, the Liturgical Committee had the brakes put on by the CRC Synod in 1985.  Classis Hamilton made an overture to reject the report on liturgical dancing.  The reasoning of this overture was taken over by the synodical committee in its observations.  There was hesitation in the synodical committee and that is reflected in this excerpt:

The report provides numerous biblical references to dancing which are said to point to a significant place for liturgical dance in worship.  We note that many of these texts refer to processionals or to spontaneous festive responses to God’s saving acts.  We question whether the committee has demonstrated a transition from festive dance to liturgical dance that warrants the conclusion that “liturgical dance has a significant place in Scripture.”

The final decision of the Synod was to receive the report as information and refer it to the churches.  Furthermore, the Synod decided to withhold action on any implementation of liturgical dancing in the churches.  It is important to note that this decision was taken at a time of increasing turmoil in the CRC over the issue of women in office.  It appears that the Synod wished to avoid provocations which would further fracture the Church.  One of the grounds for the decision on liturgical dancing reads, “This is in the best interest of promoting unity within our denomination at this time.”  While no positive decision was made, no judgment was issued on the matter either.  As a consequence, Synod 1985 left the matter in the hands of local consistories, even if some question marks were placed behind it.  The end result was that the doors were open not only for liturgical dancing in the CRC, but also for further liturgical changes.

Next time:  Conclusion

Liturgical Change in the Christian Reformed Church (1964-1985) — Part 6

Synods 1977-79 — A Lull in the Action

Very little happened in these years.  The revision of liturgical forms was ongoing, but we do not find substantial reports such as were presented in 1968 and 1973.  One item of note was that the Liturgical Committee recommended in 1977 that a liturgical education committee be appointed for the purpose of “motivating and instructing the membership of the Christian Reformed Church in the history, theology, and practice of Reformed liturgy and music.”  This recommendation was adopted.  However, by 1979 it was becoming clear that the work of this committee was redundant and it was disbanded.

Another item of interest at Synod 1977 was the movement towards a “Contemporary Testimony.”  The Three Forms of Unity were described as “historic creeds” which “do not adequately address themselves to certain facets of the church’s life today…”  This development may be related insofar as the Reformed confessions were sidelined in the earlier discussions concerning principles of worship.

Synod 1978 saw more proposed changes to the liturgical forms and also efforts to revise the Psalter Hymnal.  Otherwise there does not seem to have been anything substantial taking place with the Liturgical Committee at this time.

Synod 1979 was not much different, other than the fact that a form was introduced for the ordination of evangelists.  There was also a situation involving Rev. A. Hoksbergen.  He objected to the Form for Excommunication, since he believed that no single church or denomination may excommunicate from Christ’s kingdom.  He also maintained that excommunication ought to take place at a congregational meeting rather than before the eyes of the world in a public worship service.  In his view, excommunication would then consist solely of excommunication from the fellowship of the CRC.  From the Acts it would appear that Synod 1979 did not give much, if any, consideration to these objections of Rev. Hoksbergen.  The Form for Excommunication remained.

We can also take note of a remark in the Psalter Hymnal Revision Committee report.  This committee was asked by Synod 1978 to report on principles for music in the church.   The report first reproduced the 1953 “Statement of Principle for Music in the Church.”  The report then proposed to modify this statement.  The modification began as follows:  “The music of the church should be appropriate for worship — that is, it should be liturgical and have aesthetic integrity.  The music of worship should serve the dialogue between God and his people.”  What’s noteworthy here is the mention of dialogue again — something which first appeared in 1968.  It comes back here in the Psalter Hymnal report and it will return again, as we shall see in the next instalment.

Next time:  Synod 1985 — Let’s Go Dancing

Liturgical Change in the Christian Reformed Church (1964-1985) — Part 5

Synod 1973 — Pushing the Boundaries

In some ways the report of the Liturgical Committee to Synod 1973 was business as usual.  For instance, it contained a revision of the Form for the Baptism of Children.  However, the remainder of the report attempted to take some steps “forward.”  Within the report was a sub-report on the second service.  The Committee felt obliged to produce such a report because of continued pressure from churches which “keep on asking questions about the place and possibilities of this service in the whole of the Christian life.”  The Committee went on to state that much of what the 1968 report concluded is as applicable to the second service as to the morning service.

The report contained theological, historical, and pastoral reasons for maintaining a second service.  The theological and historical sections were unremarkable.  It was in the pastoral section that some new elements appeared.  First, the report emphasized that the second service must “meet the needs of believers living in today’s world.”  This led to a consideration of the “need for diversity amidst a diversity of needs.”  In this framework, the instructional character of the second service was reaffirmed, but the Heidelberg Catechism was seen as inadequate for the task.  It was alleged that, by itself, the Catechism could not meet the needs of contemporary church-goers.  Said the report, “…the Heidelberg Catechism can still serve as a starting point and an outline, but churches should have the courage to go beyond it and speak with a contemporary voice.”  Thus the Catechism sermons should occasionally be shelved in favour of a sermon on something more immediately relevant.

However, the report went on to note, the pulpit does not lend itself very well to instruction on relevant issues.  Thus we come to this statement:  “We therefore propose that instruction from the pulpit be focused on fundamentals and that this instruction be augmented with panels, interviews, audio-visuals, and group discussion possibly held in another part of the building after the service.”  It is evident, also from the Synod’s reaction to this proposal (which we will see momentarily), that the last clause about meeting in another part of the building only applies to the group discussion.  Here the Liturgical Committee was pushing the outer boundaries with their notion of what a teaching service can entail.

The report went further.  The second service, they said, can be more than a teaching service.  Ecumenical services can also be slotted in here:  “A real blessing could be obtained in an occasional coming together of various congregations in and around a worship service.”  Furthermore, they also proposed a diaconal service in which, for instance, “an occasional CRWRC [Christian Reformed World Relief Committee] film could be shown.”  There could be also be special category services directed towards the youth or the aged.  Finally, there could also be an evangelistic service, for drawing in outsiders, but also because “we cannot blithely assume that all of our members on the records are converted people, true, practicing children of God.”

Through this report, one can detect a development.  There is a difference from 1968.  The earlier report spoke emphatically about the dialogical character of worship.  The 1973 report mentions nothing about that.  It seems that the door was open and the time was right for introducing some innovations.  They did this wishing to meet human “needs.”  There was no concern for what God would have us do in worship and certainly no consideration given to the principles of worship found in the Three Forms of Unity.  Indeed, the Heidelberg Catechism itself came under attack for being out of date.  Catechism preaching lost its preeminent place not only in favour of different, more “modern” forms of teaching, but also in exchange for ecumenical, diaconal, special category, and evangelistic services.  All this because human “needs” were regarded as chief above all.

The Liturgical Committee recommended that its report on the second service be commended to the churches for their “consideration, reflection, and guidance.”  Synod 1973 decided to “refer this report to the churches for their consideration and reflection.”  However, they were quite hesitant, for they stated in the observations that “we believe there are parts of this report that allow for types of services which may be in violation of the Church Order.”  On the basis of the CRC church order, the Synod warned against ecumenical services.  They also saw the pressure this report was placing on the preaching of the Word.  This observation led to the second recommendation:

That Synod remind the churches that whatever practices are followed with respect to the second service, the consistories exercise care to observe Articles 51-55 of the Church Order, particularly Article 54a which states, “In the worship services the Minister of the Word shall officially explain and apply Holy Scripture.”

Thus we can see that Synod 1973 was not prepared to go as far as the Liturgical Committee would have liked.  There was still a conservative element in the CRC which held back a wholesale recommendation or adoption of the liturgical innovations found in this report.  Yet the report was still sent out to the churches…

Next time:  Synods 1977-1979 — A Lull in the Action

Liturgical Change in the Christian Reformed Church (1964-1985) — Part 4

Synod 1968 — A Major Development

At Synod 1968 we find a report from the Liturgical Committee which sets the course for at least the next three decades.  Since this report is quite lengthy, the most we can do here is summarize its highlights.  The report was written because the Committee felt that their mandate could be accomplished only by means of a thorough study.  The primary drafter of the report appears to have been Dr. Lewis B. Smedes, a figure known to push the boundaries of Reformed orthodoxy.

The report was meant to function as  a study primarily of the morning worship service, although much of what was written was recognized as applying equally to the second service.  The report began with some general comments about liturgy and its origin.  The report then moved into a focused discussion on the character of worship.  This was done through surveys of both the Old and New Testaments.  This is where we discover the guiding principle which determined CRC discussions on worship from this moment forward:  “Worship for the people of God has always been a dialogue.”  Dialogue was further said to be “the inherent structure of worship.  The question of liturgy is the question of how the dialogue is appropriately and effectively articulated.”

The report proceeded to speak about “The Enduring Structure of Liturgy.”  It asserted that precise rules are not to be found in the New Testament itself, although several elements may be detected:  prayers, confession of faith, reading, preaching, greetings and blessings, offerings, and the sacraments.  There was great freedom in the liturgy of the apostolic church, but the substance was always about maintaining the dialogical principle.  Much the same is witnessed in the first five centuries of the church.  Even with the Roman mass and all that was tragic about it, the basic dialogical structure was maintained:  “Hid beneath clerical domination and liturgical embroidery is the structure, at least, of the ancient dialogue…while the instrumentation was badly fouled, the symphonic structure was the same.”  Calvin, following Bucer, maintained and even strengthened this dialogical structure.  With respect to the Dutch liturgy of Peter Dathenus, the basic structure was followed again, but with more emphasis being given to the Word.  This was not seen by the report as a positive development.  The conclusion of the report at this point was to ask the question “whether we can truly recapture the enduring structure of the liturgy of the Christian church, and thus become more Calvinistic and more catholic at the same time.”

Four motifs were brought forward to function as criteria for evaluating the liturgy.  The first is the biblical motif.  Here we find a surprising statement:  “The Bible does not prescribe an order of worship; hence we do not contend that the church must do only those things expressly commanded for worship.  But the Bible is our basic orientation.”  Already here we need to stop, analyze, and evaluate this statement.  The reasoning was not cogent.

First, we find the fact that the Bible does not stipulate an order in which worship must be conducted.  Then the conclusion is that we may not argue that worship must contain only those elements which are expressly commanded in Scripture.  This is a non sequitur.  The conclusion does not follow from the premise.  The premise speaks of structure and order; the conclusion speaks of elements.  They’re apples and oranges.

Second, speaking historically, this is not a Reformed conclusion.  This is not the view found in the Three Forms of Unity, for instance in Lord’s Day 35 or Belgic Confession article 7.  The position taken in this report abandoned a basic Reformed principle of worship.  Not only that, but it also represented that confessional position prejudicially.  The addition of the word “expressly” deliberately overstated matters.  Historically, it has been recognized by Reformed churches that God’s Word regulates the elements of our worship in a variety of manners, and not always with “express” commands.

The committee went on to deal with the second motif, the catholic.  This demands “that Christians of any time or place in the past or present ought to be able to recognize our worship as Christian worship.”  The confessional motif was the third one and this served as a counter-balance to the catholic motif.  Here worship is more defined:  “…the church at worship is limited by its confessions; worship ought to be consistent with them at the least and embody them at the most.”  The irony of this statement was that there was not a single place in the report where the confessional data that deals with worship was acknowledged, much less engaged with.  The Reformed confessions were ignored and this results in a lamentable one-sidedness, as we shall see further.

Finally, the report also spoke of a pastoral motif.  Referring here to John Calvin, the report insisted that love must be our guide.  The liturgy and whatever changes are made to it must have edification as its end:  “The liturgy must serve to edify; and what is useful for edification in Manhattan, New York, may be harmful in Manhattan, Montana.”  Thus the committee refrained from looking to synodical regulation concerning liturgical details in the CRC.

From here the report went on to discuss the components of liturgy.  Much of what was presented there is familiar.  The components mentioned were the same elements that one would generally find in any given Canadian Reformed church today.  Even in the section on preaching, there is a traditional, conservative approach.  There were no innovations in this section of the report.

The report concluded with three model services proposed by the committee for experimentation purposes in local CRC congregations.  Notable in these models was the use of abundant vocal response on the part of the congregation.  That would seem to have fit with the strong emphasis on dialogical structure in the report.

Synod 1968 commended “this report to the churches for their study and consideration.”  There does not appear to have been any controversy surrounding the report.  As we conclude this section, I would ask you again to note these two key features:  1) the heavy stress on the dialogical structure of Christian worship; 2) the lack of attention given to what is confessed about worship in the Three Forms of Unity.  These two points will return as we continue our survey.

Next time:  Synod 1973 — Pushing the Boundaries