David's Daily Diversions

Liturgical Presbyterians

I know that in one sense, every church is liturgical, even the Charismatic churches from whence I sprang. I spent eight years amongst the Presbyterians -- not the liberal pseudo-Presbyterians of course, but rather the ones that range from broadly evangelical to Truly Reformed metrical Psalm singers.

The traditional Presbyterian service is the hymn sandwich. I'm sure you are familiar with the format: Call to Worship, Hymn, Prayer, Hymn, Sermon, Hymn, Benediction. The hymns can be substituted. In the ones with "contemporary" services, substitute not-too-perky worship songs nicked from the Charismatics. The ones that see human-written hymns as the tool of the Devil, substitute metrical Psalms. But at the end of the day, it's like saying you want salami instead of bologna.

Several years ago, some friends visited St Paul's Presbyterian in Orlando, FL and came back with the weekly bulletin. They were all amazed at how great the liturgical (in the traditional sense of the word) service was. Since then I hadn't heard much more about this sort of thing. Recently, however, I stumbled upon the website of St Peter Presbyterian in Bristol, TN because one of the pastors is the very Presbyterian R C Sproul, Jr. (or "Little RC", as he is known by some in the business).

Except for the recitation from the Heidelberg Catechism, their sample order of worship looks like something out of the Book of Common Prayer. This includes a rather Anglican canon of the mass. Are these guys Reformed Episcopal wannabes?

The problem with liturgical Presbyterians is that they seem to miss the point. They want a connection with the past, with the historic Church. That is good as far as it goes. However, it is all form and no substance. They don't see that the shape of the Liturgy (as Gregory Dix called it) only holds and conveys that which is inside it. It is all fine and good to have a Eucharistic Prayer but if you change some of what it says and change the meaning of the bits you keep, what do you have left?

Part of the problem is that Presbyterians don't know what to do with the Sacraments. Of course the first thing they did was toss aside five of them, declaring that there is nothing special about Marriage, Ordination, Anointing the Sick, Chrismation, and by all means Confession. With the two they have left, they are stuck with a sort of half-way covenant. They don't want to go as far as the Baptists (and their progeny), saying they are "ordinances" and have no actual spiritual substance whatsoever. If they give them too much significance they are afraid of magical Popery. (For most of these are folks, Orthodoxy isn't even on the theological radar - after all, Roman theology is what they Reformed and what they are Protesting against.) What to do? What to do?

In eight years and three churches I have to say that I never knew a Presbyterian pastor or elder or layperson who was comfortable discussing the Sacraments beyond the most cursory details - usually a reference to the relevant part of the Westminster Confession (Chapters 27-29, for those keeping score at home) and that was it.

The only ones I've otherwise come across who are happy to discuss them are the small group of paedo-communionists. Since Presbyterians believe that baptised infants are Christians, but not really Christians (since baptism is effective but not that effective), I suppose it is a legitimate point of contention as to whether they have been adopted into the family and are entitled to eat the family meal.

I dearly love my Presbyterian friends, but I'm glad I don't have to go through all these theological gyrations anymore. Rather I trust the Holy Spirit that the shape and substance of the Liturgy and of the Sacraments has been faithfully handed by the Holy Apostles to their protégés the Apostolic Fathers, then to next generation of the Fathers and so on. Avoiding much earlier accretions and erosions by Rome than the Reformers ever bothered about, it has been preserved in Holy Orthodoxy.