In the western church for well over a millennium, the historic shape of the liturgy has encompassed a number of elements deemed essential to its proper celebration. Together these have formed the ordinary of the mass, including in outline form:
The Confiteor
The Kyrie
The Gloria in Excelsis
The Scripture Lessons
The Sermon
The Credo
The Offertory
The Sursum Corda
The Eucharistic Prayer
The Sanctus
The Agnus Dei
The Post-Communion
The Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer retained much of this shape of the liturgy; however, under the influence of the continental reformers, it moved a reading of the Decalogue to the beginning of the liturgy and moved the Gloria in Excelsis to the end, where it became a post-communion thanksgiving hymn. The Lutheran churches retained this structure as well, although only the ante-communion segment was used on Sundays when communion was not celebrated.
The Reformed and Presbyterian churches undertook a more radical reform, virtually eliminating the ordinary of the mass and substituting for it a liturgy which, while generally following the same order, nevertheless abandoned the historic hymns which had once made it up.
It has long seemed to me that, in so doing, the non-Lutheran reformers were doing more than just to reform; they, and more particularly their successors, came close to creating a new liturgy – one that would inevitably seal the 16th-century breach within western Christendom. Had they taken a more measured approach, namely, to remedy the defects while preserving what was right and good, they might have seen fit to keep much of what we know as the ordinary of the mass.
Imagine, if you will, an alternative history in which Reformed Christians have grown up singing and loving the Gloria in Excelsis, knowing the Sanctus by heart, praying with heartfelt passion the Agnus Dei, and seeing in these hymns a liturgical treasure shared with all other Christians in the western tradition. There would be one less cause of division among these traditions, even where genuine confessional differences remained, because we would all hold in common something very beautiful and ancient – a way of worshipping God in spirit and truth.
March 23rd, 2010 | 11:17 am | #1
David,
I grew up Baptist, and am now Presbyterian, and because of my interest in the historic liturgy, I’m just hearing some of these hymns for the first time! Change is coming in our Reformed tradition, albeit slowly. Next week, for the first time ever, my church will be celebrating the Great Vigil of Easter, and we will be singing classics like the Exultet and Te Deum Laudamus! I pray that greater commonality in liturgy can foster unity amongst the churches in other areas as well.
As always, thanks for writing!
March 23rd, 2010 | 12:04 pm | #2
The biggest and best change for Reformed churches will be to abandon Calvinism.
March 23rd, 2010 | 12:14 pm | #3
Perhaps you ought to specify which version of the Book of Common Prayer you are referring to.
The shape of the liturgy changes in important and interesting ways in the various historical manifestations (1549, 1552, 1559, and 1662).
March 23rd, 2010 | 12:28 pm | #4
James, of course you are right here that I hadn’t specified which edition of the BCP did this. However, when I was worshipping at an Anglican church in Toronto three decades ago we used the Canadian 1962 Prayer Book, which had the Gloria at the end of the communion service. This is the case with the 1928 US Prayer Book as well. Both follow the precedent set by the 1662 Prayer Book.
By the way, my biggest beef with the Canadian Prayer Book is that it censors the Psalms!
March 23rd, 2010 | 1:13 pm | #5
Bro,
I was a Calvinist BECAUSE I read Sproul. I read Bryson and Walls LONG after I left it behind. I became a non-Calvinist after thinking through the Bible, theology, philosophy, and Church history.
March 23rd, 2010 | 2:24 pm | #6
I am ACNA. One of our biggest obstacles is the presence of Calvinism in our ranks. It’s one of the issues that has hindered dialogue with the Orthodox.
March 23rd, 2010 | 2:40 pm | #7
Mr. Benson,
I would recommend that orthodoxdj read historic Reformed authors like Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr Vermigli. This is especially the case if orthodoxdj is Anglican since during the reign of Edward, Thomas Cramner invited Bucer to become Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge and Peter Martyr to become Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford. Both have had a great impact on the CofE.
Having had Sproul in class I have to say that I don’t think he is the best representative out there; and I know you’re a fan of Horton, Mr. Benson, but the Reformed tradition is much broader and richer than his more Westminster construal of it.
March 23rd, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #8
I’m under the impression that folks think that if I just read enough (or read the right books) that at least one of two things will happen: 1) I will realize I’ve been wrong about what Calvinism is 2) I will become a Calvinist.
Neither is going to happen. I understand what it is and I don’t like it. I think it’s worse than Word of Faith. After all, what’s worse to say: “God wants you to be totally healthy and wealthy” OR “God wants you to go to Hell?”
I work with two Calvinists who are both very scholarly, erudite, and very serious about their Calvinism. I’m not confused about it.
Calvinism was a never a belief of the Early Church. It’s not in the Fathers anywhere. Obviously, I don’t find it in the Bible, either.
March 23rd, 2010 | 3:11 pm | #9
Orthodoxdj,
I am definitely not Reformed. I am a Pentecostal. However, I really like the first generation Reformed theologians like Bucer, Peter Martyr, et al. You don’t have to become Reformed to see the richness that is there. In addition, you can see that the Reformed tradition is much broader than some of its contemporary representatives.
So, my aim is not trying to convince you or anyone of a position I do not share. I just think contemporary folks like Sproul make Reformed theology more one-dimensional than it really is.
March 23rd, 2010 | 3:20 pm | #10
Dale,
I appreciate your sanity. I was raised Pentecostal, and while early in my Christian walk I began to be very critical of it, I have since grown to be thankful for that upbringing. I now consider myself a charismatic. People NEED the Holy Spirit.
March 23rd, 2010 | 3:29 pm | #11
Orthodoxdj: I’d be interested to hear your take on Al Wolters’ Creation Regained, which I mentioned in my top ten plus books. I strongly recommend it to you.
March 23rd, 2010 | 5:52 pm | #12
But it’s a shame Calvin and company choose to engage in destructive behaviors when it came to the church’s visual arts.
March 23rd, 2010 | 6:05 pm | #13
I’m Presbyterian myself, but more in the Neo-Calvinist vein.
Could someone explain to me why Eastern Orthodoxy tends to see Calvinism as a heresy? When Metropolitan Jonah addressed the Anglican Church in North America, he said that Calvinism was one of the biggest obstacles to full communion with ACNA. When I heard that, I was a little surprised, to be honest.
Why is this? Is it because of the traditional Reformed “iconoclasm”? Or is there a deeper theological issue like total depravity or limited atonement at work here?
March 23rd, 2010 | 6:58 pm | #14
Blake,
Maybe I could offer some possible reasons:
1. Orthodoxy has traditionally embraced synergism whereas the Reformed tradition has always held to monergism. This is probably the most troublesome in my view since everything in Orthodoxy, from its Christology to its ecclesiology, revolves around synergism.
2. Most Orthodox thinkers see Augustininian predestination as a theologoumena, i.e., a theological development peculiar to the churches of the West and not ecumenically necessary
3. The iconoclasm within Reformed theology (as the Rev. McCain has pointed out) makes it quite difficult for Orthodoxy
4. Orthodoxy tends to function within therapeutic models of salvation that emphasize deification and sanctification (not necessarily the same) whereas Reformed theology can, at times, appear to be most at home in juridical models that emphasize guilt and forensic justification. This is not true of all Reformed thinkers, but, sadly, many contemporary representatives of Reformed theology act as though the legal metaphors are the most prevalent.
5. Reformed theology tends to hold to penal substitionary understanding of the atonement whereas Orthodoxy tends toward a Christus victor model in sync with its understanding of synergism. However, Orthodoxy also sees the incarnation itself as the critical ground of deification because even prelapsarian humans could not bridge the chasm from finitude to infinity apart from God becoming flesh. This is different than even Calvin’s way of talking about union with Christ, which remains connected to a fall–redemption–glorification framework rather than a creation–deification framework.
Well, these are some of the differences. I think the Reformed camp, generally speaking, is probably the farthest away from Orthodoxy. This is not to say that bridges cannot and have not been made.
March 24th, 2010 | 7:03 am | #15
You don’t notice the tradeoff. Roman Catholicism kept a few old hymns, but didn’t develop the huge outpouring of new ones that Protestantism did. I wouldn’t trade our 1,000 new ones— better ones, too— for 5 or so old ones. (To be sure, the Anglicans have the best of both worlds.)
March 24th, 2010 | 1:17 pm | #16
Some Anglican parishes, like my own, use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and also use an Anglican Missal (There are a couple common versions.) which places the Gloria after the Kyrie. The 1979 Prayer Book does this, too.
There’s that Rule among Presbyterians (Is it called the “Rule of Order”?) about how whatever is not explicitly commanded or allowed in Scripture is forbidden in corporate Christian worship. My understanding is this is what makes Psalms OK, but not New Testament canticles, like the Magnificat. This is why the Agnus Dei is not in the Book of Common Prayer and why we have Psalm alternatives for the New Testament canticles in the Offices. It was the Puritan influence. If Calvinists are to embrace a richer liturgy, they must abandon or rethink this Rule.
March 24th, 2010 | 1:26 pm | #17
I am a Charismatic from a Wesleyan/Arminian tradition who has come to appreciate Reformed and Anglican traditions more through the years.
I am however, quite impoverished in my exposure to the Orthodox tradition and would love to learn more. What recommendations do any of you have as a good introduction to Orthodox theology, worship and ecclesiology? (By introductory, assume I know nothing beyond some basic history and a little reading in the Church Fathers).
March 24th, 2010 | 1:43 pm | #18
Steve, many Christians who convert to Orthodoxy start with Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church, It is probably one of the best introductions to Orthodoxy.
March 24th, 2010 | 1:50 pm | #19
Alison,
Thanks for the recommendation.
March 24th, 2010 | 2:27 pm | #20
I would also recommend Anthony Ugolnik, The Illuminating Icon, which I read close to 20 years ago and found quite compelling. It was published the same year as communism collapsed in the former eastern Europe.
March 24th, 2010 | 2:43 pm | #21
I recommend the author Anthony Coniaris.
March 24th, 2010 | 4:28 pm | #22
Thanks, David and orthodoxdj
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact