A New(ly Reprinted) Book on Worship Liturgies
April 16, 2008 at 4:07 pm (Books (reviews and recommendations))
Charles W. Baird, The Presbyterian Liturgies: Historical Sketches, 1855; reprint, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2006, paperback, 266 pages, no index, reviewed by Barry Waugh.
Worship is a hot topic for contemporary Evangelicals and Reformed Christians. C. W. Baird’s book is concerned to show “from the history and teachings of the Presbyterian Church, what may be considered the proper theory of its worship, and to compare that ideal with our prevailing practice” (1). His method for achieving decent and orderly worship is to recommend the “discretionary use of written forms,” which he believed is “abundantly” warranted by the Westminster Standards and the history and practice of the Presbyterian Church (5). For the author, the Directory for Worship “minutely and definitely” contains regulation of prayer and the other aspects of worship “without rigid confinement to set words and phrases” (3). The regulations provided by the Directory for Worship, he says, do not exclude the use of written forms, but neither do they prescribe the use of forms.
During the course of Dr. Baird’s book, he presents the order of worship of several churches including Calvin’s Geneva, Knox’s Scottish order, Richard Baxter’s liturgy, and the “liturgy of the Palatinate” or the German Reformed. Common to each of these liturgies are the singing of Psalms, the reading and preaching of the Word, prayers in various locations of the order, confession of sin, the use of the sacraments and the use of a benediction. Essential to each liturgical order is the Bible, whether its text is the lyrics for singing, the words read for hearing, the subject matter of the sermon, the words used for the confession of sin, the passages used for administering the sacraments or the benediction—the service is a service to God using the words he has given for his worship. The orders of worship Dr. Baird describes are very simple, so simple that readers of this book might think that he left some things out. For example, there was no collection of the offering, it appears that there were no announcements, no greeting of the visitors, no special appeals from the leaders of special groups and ministries in the church for attendance at their functions, and there were no presentations appealing for a building fund. The liturgies were simple in that they were centered on the Word of God, but they were also elegant because the majestic language of God’s Word was used for adoration, supplication, blessing, and obeisance. Such Scripture centered liturgies would appear strange to many today since nearly all the scriptural elements of the Protestant liturgies either are minimalized or absent from many present day worship services. Sermons are often just devotional snippets that might be published in a self-improvement meditating guide; prayer, if present at all, is limited in the scope and gravity of its supplications and thanksgiving; if there is a Bible reading it is as brief as the sermon; and if hymns are sung, they are limited to a few stanzas. One thing that can be said about the present scene is that the Psalms and other Bible texts sometimes constitute the lyrics of popular choruses.
Dr. Baird ends the book with a concluding chapter, pages 251-266, where he presents his thoughts regarding the history of Reformed liturgy and its relevancy to his contemporary situation. He appeals for “a reverent approach to the Divine Majesty” by means of appropriate language being used to approach the throne of grace. He comments that the same “solicitude” should be used to approach God as one might use to approach “the great and honored among men.” He believed that the historic use of the Westminster Standards by the “Calvinistic Churches of Great Britain and the United States” faced a cross-roads between continuing to follow the Directory for Worship and its historic liturgy, or following the path of rejection of its standards and each minister creating his own liturgy. In the face of the trends, Dr. Baird called for the use of liturgical forms noting that Great Britain and America were the only Calvinistic churches without a liturgy. Dr. Baird went on to propose measures to be taken to turn the tide of worship practice in his own era. The church must begin anew to use the “Scriptural and Apostolic Elements of Worship,” such as the benediction, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles’ Creed.” The author goes on to call for “the regular and continuous reading of the Holy Scripture, at every religious service.” Baird believed that the limited use of the reading of the Word in his own era was due to the disposition of his contemporaries to depreciate “regular and prescriptive…rites of religion.” The key to achieving this rediscovery of reverent worship, according to Dr. Baird, is a stricter adherence to the Directory for Worship.
There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to irreverence. Just as C. W. Baird was concerned for the decline of worship in his own era, many are concerned today about casual, man-centered, unregulated services. Is it just the thinking of this reviewer or is it not absurd to think that Christians could really believe that they can define proper worship apart from Scripture or by picking-and-choosing which liturgical elements to use? Could it be that the erosion of the fundamental elements in some of today’s worship—prayer, reading the Bible, preaching the Word, confession of sin, and singing the Scripture—is due to the ever present Edenic tempting desire to rule one’s self? Concerned parents do not allow their children to define right and wrong for themselves; good parents teach their children to believe God’s Word and follow his commands for righteousness. Good Christian parents exercise authority and tell their children what is right and wrong because God has given them that responsibility, but when it comes to worship, the Christian’s most exalted and edifying experience, people many times choose to define worship for themselves. Some will argue that the depreciation of worship in our era is due to the influences of Schleiermacher, or maybe post-modernism, or possibly the “me-ism” of American individualism, or the anti-organized religion descendants of the Jesus Generation, but worship degenerates into human exaltation when it is designed to appeal to the worshipper rather than God and any philosophy or theology that exalts humanity at the expense of God will affect worship. Charles W. Baird’s book is a helpful reminder of where worship doctrine has come from and a warning to beware of self-indulgence in worship.
For those interested in more study of the doctrine of worship, the following books may be found helpful: first and foremost is the Westminster Assembly’s Directory for the Public Worship of God, which can be found in several editions including those of the Westminster Standards published by the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (my copy is from 1976); the two important books by Horton Davies, The Worship of the American Puritans (Soli Deo Gloria reprint, 1999), and The Worship of the English Puritans (Soli Deo Gloria reprint, 1997); Sean Lucas, On Being Presbyterian (P&R, 2006), particularly 117-21, though the whole book is helpful; D. G. Hart and John Muether, With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship (P&R, 2002), which is an appeal for Scripture regulated and confessional worship; the Anglican theologian, P. E. Hughes, Theology of the English Reformers (1965, 1980, 1997), the discussion of worship begins on page 153; and any of Pastor Terry Johnson’s several worship titles (here, here, and here).
New(ly Reprinted) Book on Worship - The PuritanBoard said,
April 16, 2008 at 4:16 pm
[...] Reprinted) Book on Worship I have published a book review by Barry Waugh of Charles Baird’s newly reprinted book on Reformed Liturgies. __________________ Rev. Lane [...]
greenbaggins said,
April 16, 2008 at 4:24 pm
As another comment, it should be noted that the scope of this book is not directly on the regulative principle, although of course, issues of liturgy impinge rather heavily on that topic. For further review of RP works, see the three-part review in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal.
Chris Coldwell said,
April 16, 2008 at 4:28 pm
The Rev. Dr. Rowland S.Ward in his work on the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God has noted an important mistake in Baird.
[quote]It has been claimed by Charles Baird that Calvin highly approved set forms of prayer from which ministers should not be allowed to vary offering the following translation from Calvin’s Latin letter of 1548 to Lord Somerset…. However, the standard English translation made in 1858 (shortly after Baird wrote) indicates the reference is to the importance of a set Catechism, not to a form of prayers.
Baird … has been followed by too many who partially cite Baird’s purported quotation of Calvin in a context of prayer rather than catechesis, e.g. D. G. Hart, in his Recovering Mother Kirk (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003) 26. Similarly, W. D.Maxwell, A History of Worship in the Church of Scotland (London: Oxford University Press, 1955) 72–73, a standard but not always accurate writer, who purports to cite Calvin’s Latin Opera but it is in identical words to Baird’s translation. Baird also refers to Bingham’s Antiquities but the reference he gives [II, 747] is not relevant to the issue.
[/quote]
Quoted from :”The Regulative Principle of Worship: Sixty Years in Reformed Literature. Part One (1946-1999),” [i]The Confessional Presbyterian[/i] journal 2 (2006) 206.
greenbaggins said,
April 16, 2008 at 4:36 pm
But what do you think of Baird’s work as a whole, Chris? I’m sure that there are mistakes in most books.
Chris Coldwell said,
April 16, 2008 at 4:47 pm
See the aforementioned CPJ series.
I note the mistake as it has been often repeated and since the book is reprinted it is likely to continue to be used to misstate Calvin’s intent.
Steven Carr said,
April 16, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Baird’s book is unfortunate since it was sort of an impetus to set the liturgical movement in the American Presbyterian Church in action. While there was a definite need of renovation of worship in the Presbyterian Church, a move away from the Directory of Worship and towards more Anglican type liturgy was not the answer.
It seems to me that as the Reformation progressed, Reformed liturgies become simpler until we come to the Directory of Public Worship. I am by no means insinuating that the DPW is the final answer, but I am insinuating that it was a logical, yea, necessary, outcome of the Reformation of Worship. Search the writings of the Old Scottish Presbyterians and you will find that they believed that Presbyterian Worship was by far the most pure of all the Reformation Churches, and I tend to think that they were right. And if, indeed, they were right, then we should beware of any step in the opposite direction. As Robert Candlish pointed out, “A Church which, stopping short in the process of its emancipation from a false system, retains certain of the usages of that false system, is in a very different position from a Church which, having advanced farther in the direction of purity and simplicity, volunatarily retrogrades and returns to these usages. To the one they may be comparatively harmless, while to the other they may prove deeply hazardous. In the former instance, the contiuance of them indicates no new leaning towards ritualism, no decline from what is more pure and spiritual. In the latter instance, the adoption of them may have a significancy, and may exert an influence, of a very serious character indeed. A landingplace which is tolerable for those who are going forward, may be the reverse of tolerable for those who are retreating.”
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
April 17, 2008 at 10:22 am
I actually think that both Jeff Meyer’s book–The Lord’s Service–and Mike Horton’s A Better Way are vital reading for worship. Both propose the covenant renewal approach, although from different perspectives. When our church had a Sunday school class on worship, we used Meyers, partially because of his first chapter, where he looks at the basic purposes of worship, and also because of his Trinitarian emphasis. Note bene: using Meyers book or approving of important elements of his approach does not entail agreement with every aspect of his work. Actually, disagreement can be helpful, since it causes one to formulate one’s own opinion in response…
Chris Coldwell said,
April 17, 2008 at 10:55 am
FWIW. Meyers’ and Horton’s books were surveyed in The Confessional Presbyterian 3 (2007) in the series already noted.
Barry Waugh said,
April 17, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Baird’s book seems to me to be a proposal for compromise between those who wanted less definition from the Directory for Worship and those who wanted more. From what I can tell, there was a move to do away with the Directory in Baird’s era and his proposal for optional forms was intended to encourage retaining the Directory while improving the definition of what is acceptable liturgy. His next to the last chapter discusses the attempts in the 1780s to revise or remove the Directory from the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church and his experience in the 1850s seems similar. Anyhow, a major part of my intention for the review was to get some discussion going and it seems like I have done that. I also wanted people to know that the book is available and a worthwhile read even though readers may not agree with all of Baird’s history, thoughts, analysis and proposals. My hope is that we will recognize that the worship of God is a simple and wonderful aspect of the Christian life and that worship is regulated by the Word. Presbyterians have the added benefit of the Directory for Public Worship to systematize and limit our imaginations.
Bob Suden said,
April 17, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Baird may believe whatever he wants to about the “”discretionary use of written forms,” which he believed is “abundantly” warranted by the Westminster Standards and the history and practice of the Presbyterian Church”, but it would be nice if he would bother to read the preface to the WAssembly’s Directory for Worship. And while “The regulations provided by the Directory for Worship, he says, do not exclude the use of written forms, but neither do they prescribe the use of forms,” this is special pleading. Rather they qualify the use of those forms, which while they may be indifferent per se, the use of them is to be the exception and not the rule. In a word, Baird and moderate American presbyterianism do not seem to understand or agree with the Directory about that.
The DPW’s preface grants that the first reformers had a written order of worship and prayers, but the reformation has continued. Further, Christ gives those whom he has called to the office, the gift of prayer which they are to stir up. The prayers in the Directory - which are written out after a fashion - “may, if need be” give some help and furniture to a minister, but they are not something to rest in and use regularly.
Gillespie in his Reasons for Refusing the Service Book appended to NP’s edition of Dispute against EP Ceremonies is even more direct. Among reasons against, even if the errors and popery were removed and only Scripture and prayers with Scripture words were read: Christ’s gifts are slighted, the Holy Spirit is quenched and unemployed, a lazy ministry is encouraged and a boy of seven or a Turk may read the prayers just as well as any minister.
In short I don’t think Baird’s judgement is to be trusted on the matter.
Darryl Hart said,
April 18, 2008 at 6:10 am
So if Baird cannot be trusted on forms, that’s different from the matter of whether they are actually permitted. Can anyone explain what the difference is for the worshiper if his or her minister is reading a prayer, using an outline (detailed or sketchy), or praying extemporaneously (let’s hope he is naturally eloquent)? It seems to me that anyone who is praying along with someone else who is leading in prayer receives the same benefit from either a written or unwritten prayer. No fair if you’re peeking to see.
Steven Carr said,
April 18, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Dr. Hart,
The difference for me is that I have a hard time trusting pastors who can’t or won’t pray extemporaneously. And why would he need to be eloquent? That sounds like the good ol’ Anglican argument. I am sure the Apostle Paul was constantly praying to God for the gift of eloquence.
Darryl Hart said,
April 18, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Mr. Carr, so if a pastor doesn’t need to be eloquent, does that also mean that any old song will do? Shine, Jesus, Shine is just as good as Of the Father’s Love Begotten?
This isn’t Anglican, it’s Presbyterian. Decency and order, man! That suggests addressing our creator and redeemer in a fitting manner.
greenbaggins said,
April 18, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Steven, I have to agree with Darryl here. After all, the exact same point could be made with regard to a sermon. Is a sermon worse or better if the pastor has notes? Mine are sure better! Now, I happen to pray extemporaneously. But I work on prayers, I think about them, about what I should say in prayer, because prayer requires work. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing wrong, in my book, with praying a form prayer, if that expresses what the pastor wants to say. We as pastors can surely work to make everything better in worship.
Steven Carr said,
April 18, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Lane and Dr. Hart,
First of all, I was talking about prayer, not about sermons or singing. I am by no means against form prayers. In fact, I use them every now and then in family worship. Two of my favorite books are the Prayers of the Reformers and the Valley of Vision. My questioning the need for eloquence in prayer should not be translated as me thinking that prayer should not be well thougt out. I am Presbyterian, and prayers that are not well thought out are not my bag, baby. But well thought out does not necessarily mean eloquent.
The main reason why I distrust a pastor who can’t or won’t pray extemporaneously is that a pastor should be such a man of prayer that praying should be second nature to him. If he can’t pray extemporaneously, it may mean his private prayer life is in question. A pastor who does not have a solid prayer life is not worth much in the pulpit, no matter how eloquent he may be. But I agree with you, Lane, pastors need to work on prayers and have them well thought out. And if a form prayer expresses the thought then there is no reason not to use it.
Dr. Hart, I happen to be one of those unfortunate, mal-contented Presbyterians who sing only the Psalms. We psalm-singers tend to get a little uppity over the word eloquent. Those nasty Anglicans used to decry Presbyterian worship because it lacked beauty and eloquence. We love decency and good order, but we do not always equate that with eloquence. We prefer simplicity and clarity over eloquence. That is why, for example we cannot call them “Eloquent Sermons of Samual Rutherford,” no, we must call them “Quaint Sermons of Samual Rutherford.” But we are not totally against eloquence, we see it as an added bonus to simplicity and clarity, but it is not a prerequisite.
Hopefully that clarifies my position.
Steven Carr said,
April 18, 2008 at 7:46 pm
By the way, Of the Father’s Love Begotten, though a beautiful song, smacks too much of Romanism.
RGL Avant said,
April 18, 2008 at 8:18 pm
I want to interject by way of a question. I want to know the missiological implications of your intrpretation of the regulative principal & traditional Presbyterian worship.
Years ago during the Warfield debate on worship b/n Frame & Dr. Hart during the Q&A this question was asked but either b/e of the way the question was asked or understood I felt that it didn’t really get answered.
(Now to be fully open & above board I prob don’t agree w/many of you on worship & how you apply the R.P. I did attend New Life when I was in Philly.)
In other words what are the implications for how you would do worship cross culturally if you hold to an understanding of the R.P. that holds for a more traditional Presbyterian way of worship.
Let me give you a couple of examples.
1. You are planting a Presbyterian church in an area that is predominately black.(or you are ministering in a church where the neighborhood has changed). Do you contextualize or change or even tweak your worship that fits a way in which African American believers worship? (A PCA pastor once told me of his inability to reach the black community in which he found himself b/e he believed strongly in traditional Presbyterian worship)
2. You are ministering in a South Asian community w/mostly Hindus. Do you worship in Hindi or Gujerati? (Indian languages?) Do you have worship by sitting onb the floor? Do you sing bhajans? (songs that may be pattererned after Hindu worship but are focused on Christ). Do you use Indian instruments such as the tabla(drums), sitar, harmonium(organ)? Do you just take a traditional Presbyterian worship & translate into an Indian language?
I’d like your take on this. Esp. Dr hart but I’d like to hear from others as well.
RGL Avant said,
April 18, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I don’t ask these question so much to debate the R.P. & worship but to hear what you have to say abt the missiological implications for traditional understanding of worship.
Chris Coldwell said,
April 18, 2008 at 8:27 pm
A quick FYI. On background over this issue of read prayers at the time of the Assembly see the following work by Mitchell at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=P0o3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA224
ReformedSinner (DC) said,
April 19, 2008 at 12:46 am
Dear Steve #15,
Be careful when you make associations such as bad extemporaneous prayer = bad private prayer life = bad pastor on pulpit (which ultimately = bad pastor.) I think Lane’s point is valid, just as we need to prepared sermons there’s nothing wrong with prepared prayers (for eloquency.) The Holy Spirit doesn’t work with us less when we try to make prayers more eloquent, instead, I see a pastor more humbled doing it because he realized his weaknesses and bother to take the time and effort to spend more time working on prayers in relying on Christ.
Every pastor has different qualities. Some are great exegetical minds, some are great in eloquent delivery, some are great in other areas, I do not see prayers to be any different. After all, once can see some Psalms have prayers that are not extemporaneous but instead prepared with eloquency added on purpose.
Bob Suden said,
April 19, 2008 at 2:08 am
“So if Baird cannot be trusted on forms, that’s different from the matter of whether they are actually permitted.”
Nobody denies that they were permitted, but Baird seems to be considerably more favorable to them than the preface to the DPW or Gillespie allows. And I have been in churches with at least rote form prayers for the administration of baptism and communion. But that is not the uniformity envisioned by the Assembly and laid out quite plainly in the DPW.
“Can anyone explain what the difference is for the worshiper if his or her minister is reading a prayer, using an outline (detailed or sketchy), or praying extemporaneously (let’s hope he is naturally eloquent)?”
Written or outlined by who? The minister or the prayer book? Presbyterians have nothing against premeditated prayer, but Baird isn’t talking about ministers writing out or making notes for their sermons or prayers, unless I really missed something.
“It seems to me that anyone who is praying along with someone else who is leading in prayer receives the same benefit from either a written or unwritten prayer.”
I trust we would all agree that to be a slave to a form or even your own notes or outlines when praying is not the desideratum; it is the exception and not the rule.
cordially
David Gray said,
April 19, 2008 at 3:15 am
>The DPW’s preface grants that the first reformers had a written order of worship and prayers, but the reformation has continued.
That reminds me of the Baptist argument that Calvin is too Roman Catholic and didn’t take the reformation far enough.
Darryl Hart said,
April 19, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Mr. Carr, I happen also to be one of those Presbyterians who wishes we only sang psalms, and would actually prefer that we chant them to get out of the difficulties that follow from making psalms conform to meter. Say what you will about Anglicans, but they certainly know how to chant the psalms. I would contend that this is one of the most eloquent and beautiful and simple parts of Christian worship. In fact, I’m surpised that a psalm-singer would not know the benefits of eloquence since the Bible’s prayers — David’s, Mary’s, Moses’, Miriam’s, are among the most eloquent (and inspired) I know. I doubt the David wrote any psalsm extemporaneously.
As for a pastor’s extemporaneous prayers being a barometer of his spiritual state, we might also want to remember that folks like Bullinger in the Second Helvetic Confession argued that even the preaching of a wicked minister is still effective. That means it is not the eloquence or the spirituality of the pastor that matter — it is the spirit. But just as we want a spiritual pastor, what’s wrong with wanting eloquence?
And what’s really wrong with using read prayers? If some use them in private devotion, why not in public? It does seem to be a matter of being able to admit that some prayers are superior to others. I don’t see why eloquence can’t be one factor in determining that.
Mr. Gray, why do you assume that read prayers are Roman Catholic? Or better, why do you assume that anything that smacks of Rome is bad? Rome reads the Bible, preaches, prays, sings hymns, administers communion and baptism. It does many of these things in error and with confusion. But just because it does them, does that mean that Protestants shouldn’t?
RGL, I think your question about the RPW on the mission field has less to do with the RPW than it does with the way we conduct foreign or home missions. I don’t believe in a liberate Iraq approach to foreign missions, any more than I believe in a Starbuck’s franchise model for home missions. Which is to say that you need a Reformed base or nucleus to plant a church. It is a rare thing to go somewhere and simply start from scratch. Look at Christianity in the U.S. It came by sending not only ministers of the word, but people who would fill those churches. And when the people from the Old World arrived in the New World, low and behold they discovered that the RPW still worked — until the revivals happened.
RGL Avant said,
April 19, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Dr Hart we live in a world now where the mission field is next door to us. You have in California one of the most international communities in the USA.
How do you have a reformed nucleus for a group of people who may be near you but are totally different from you culturally?
But even my example of a white church finding itself in a majority black neighborhood is not an example of a vast cultural difference. Would it be permissable for a Reformed church to at least “tweak” its worship in an African American direction. (ie New City Fellowship in Chattanoga & St. Louis)
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:01 pm
When I think about the worship at our church, I wonder what’s so “white” about it?
I wear a Geneva gown (kind of like the attire worn by ministers in Pentecostal or Roman Catholic churches where many blacks/hispanics attend), and we sing psalms and hymns, many of whose tunes predate white, European tastes (no, it’s not “black” sounding, but it doesn’t sound like anything on white radio either), and we have prayers, preaching, and communion every week.
Reformed liturgy finds its roots in Patristic worship, which finds its roots in the early Christian church, which finds its roots in the Jewish synagogue.
My guess is that inner city blacks would rather I reach them by giving them something rooted in ancient Christian (non-white) history than by my saying “mos’ def,’ fo-shizzle” to prove how down I am with urban culture.
RGL Avant said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“I don’t believe in a liberate Iraq approach to foreign missions”
So you think Carey was wrong & the Baptist minster who told him to be quiet God will save the heathen in his own time was right. (prob a bad paraphrase). Was Carey taking a short term approach & the Baptist minister a long term approach?
RGL Avant said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I was definetley not saying that you contextualize your worship w/urban black rap or hip hop expressions.
I asking would you “tweak”(maybe a bad way to state it.) your worship to reflect worship in historic African American worship styles. Worship that predates Pentecostals.
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:15 pm
RGL,
Well, is your current worship “tweaked” or modified to appeal to white people? That was the point of my comment, i.e., that I’m not convinced my church’s worship appeals to anyone, which is just about right.
RGL Avant said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Maybe appeal is not the best word fr me to use. Would you(if your church was in a predominant black neighborhood) adjust the worship to reflect at least the music styles found in African American churches?
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I’m sorry, RGL, but the question sounds racist to me. I mean, if I don’t “modify” it for white people, why would I do it for black people? Are they less inclined or less able to worship biblically?
Plus, you’re assuming a monolithic African American culture, as if they all like a certain kind of style of music. Do we do that with whites? What does “white music” sound like? In the south it may sound like Toby Keith, here in Seattle it sounds like Modest Mouse. But that’s only among the youth. If Darryl Hart doesn’t know who Modest Mouse is, then wouldn’t forcing him to worship in that white style be as silly as asking Bill Cosby to worship to 50 Cent?
RGL Avant said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Maybe a better way to state it would be this: Could you adjust your worship to reflect historic African American worship & still be faithful to a traditional understanding of Reformed worship.
My other example was that of South Asians. Could you adjust your worship to reflect their culture (sitting on the floor, shoes off, hymns & psalms sung in the style of bhajans, use of the tabla/dolki{drums}, sitar, harmonium(Indian organ) & still be faithful to a traditional Reformed understanding of worship?
RGL Avant said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I’m not really talking abt popular forms of music but music as seen in the African American church for the past 200 years. Maybe you’ve never been to a predominantly black curch but the music & style is different. I’m asking is it ok to have these styles in a Reformed church as New City fellowship in Chattanoga & St Louis have done. (as well as a few predominently African American PCA churches have done)
Jason J. Stellman said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:44 pm
If we properly distinguish between elements and circumstances, then I’d answer “yes” to most of those questions. It would be somewhat smug (as well as racist) for me to assume that the circumstantial parts of our worship, such as sitting in chairs, somehow reflects a heavenly blueprint. Especially since the congregation would often stand in Jesus’ day while the rabbi would sit.
When I lived in Uganda the worship of most churches was played on drums alone (they call it “exlusive drumnody”). Not really, but my point is that circumstances are ordered by factors other than just the Bible.
When it comes to forms, though, I think we must be careful to allow the elements to help determine the form that is used. So that rules out speed-metal, since that form is an inconsistent vehicle to carry the content of, say, Psalm 23.
And of course, that’s why our evangelical friends’ music sounds the way it does–they have placed form first in importance, and then crafted content to match it (rather than the other way around). So during the Jesus Movement, when you had worship bands that sound like The Eagles, it makes perfect sense to sing “Amazing Grace” to the tune of “Peaceful Easy Feeling.”
RGL Avant said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I think that answers some. Would a PCA worship service that was similar to historic black worship be w/in the bounds? For example: a black choir leading in the singing, a more proclamation/celebration style, ansering back. A black worship style might emphasize celebration more than reverence. (or at least there would be times of reverence times of celebration.)
RGL Avant said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Amazing Grace to Peaceful Easy Feeling? Not even at New Life.
RGL Avant said,
April 19, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Let me give you a better example. Did you ever see the movie Ray? based on the life of Ray Charles. Ray Charles experienced a great deal of opposition from the black church b/e he took the black gospel music style & secularized it. Thats the style of music I’m talking about. Classic black gospel music. Is that acceptable in a traditional Reformed worship.
RG
ps thanks for the input so far
David Gray said,
April 19, 2008 at 2:18 pm
>Mr. Gray, why do you assume that read prayers are Roman Catholic? Or better, why do you assume that anything that smacks of Rome is bad? Rome reads the Bible, preaches, prays, sings hymns, administers communion and baptism. It does many of these things in error and with confusion. But just because it does them, does that mean that Protestants shouldn’t?
Dr Hart I have zero idea where you got any of that from. I don’t hold a single position which you seem to attribute to me in the above statement. All I was pointing out was that the criticism which Mr. Suden had made of the early reformers is the same criticism that Baptists (including in my family) make of John Calvin (i.e. too Roman Catholic). I think highly of Calvin and don’t share that view but I do have to deal with it on a recurring basis.
Darryl Hart said,
April 20, 2008 at 6:22 am
Mr. Gray, thanks for the clarification. Your point in #22 was so terse that I thought you were saying Calvin still had too much Rome in him. (A point that even Charles Hodge made in his debates with Nevin on the Lord’s Supper.)
RGL — it doesn’t sound to me like you’re talking at all about missions when you’re trying to use forms or styles from African-American churches. If blacks are churched, do they need to be evangelized? So what you seem to be saying is that white churches need to adapt to their environments if they are living in an African-American neighborhood. And then you go on to make points about music and celebration. If you can find styles or forms in other cultures that are fitting for the Reformed stress on reverence, simplicity, decency, and order, then fine — use them. But I’m still waiting for John Frame to show how celebration makes sense of reverence and awe. I guess if you looked at it multi-perspectivally.
Anyway, I thought P&W was celebrative. You mean Christian soft rock love ballads won’t appeal to African-Americans? Oh my, what is our culture coming to?
RGL Avant said,
April 20, 2008 at 9:50 am
You’re right African Americans are not an unreached people group(unlke my other example). They have a rich & long Christian tradition. Most blacks as well as most Americans have some idea of God in the biblical sense. (unlike Hindus or Muslims). But many PCA/OPC & other churches have found themselves in a changed neighborhood & have to ask the question adjust to their neighborhood or move. I was trying to press the question regarding how much adjusting is permissable when reaching out to a different community w/either a slightly different culture (as in African Americans)or completley different(as in South Asians).
What I have seen in the PCA (I’m not aware of any predominantly black OPC churches) in regards to planting either black or multiracial churches is that the worship reflects the African American tradition of worship.
Also since you brought it up Dr. Hart, I would like an answer to my other followup question reg Iraq liberation missions. If this is wrong(why?) then was Carey wrong & the pastor right?
Darryl Hart said,
April 20, 2008 at 8:42 pm
RGL: John Frame and I had an extended debate about this on line. It is still available at a number of websites, even at Frames. My own conviction is that worship is not chiefly evangelistic. It is the assembly of God’s people with their risen Lord to offer up praise, thanksgiving, and petition and receive his instruction, counsel, and blessing. Non-Christians may attend, and the preaching of the word is an instrument of evangelism. So as long as the service is in a known tongue, and as long as it has a sermon, it reaches out. My observation is that for many changes in worship the rationale is always evangelistic while the subtext is to placate members of the church (or their children).
BTW, I’m not sure what traditional African-American worship is. Does that mean Church of God in Christ, any number of Baptists, African Methodist Episcopal, or the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America? There is actually much more theological and liturgical diversity among African Americans than the ethnic designation lets on.
On Carey, he didn’t go into India alone. Most Protestant missionaries went in the wake of colonial empires — American Protestantism included.
RGL Avant said,
April 20, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Yes Carey did go along w/the empire but he did go “liberation style” to an unreached people. In fact when Carey went he missions was outlawed by the East India Company(they didn’t want to upset trade). Carey ended up going to Serampore which was then under the jurisdication of the Dutch so he could share the gospel freely. He was actually identified as a lawbreaker. Most Protestants who went to India wnet there to minister to Europeans not Indians. That close identity w/the colonial empire is one reason why there are so few Indian believers today. Carey went on his own apart from & in spite of opposition from the East India Company. Was he wrong & the older pastor right b/e he went in Iraqi Liberation style?
On African American worship & theological tradition you are right there is diversity & I wasn’t dening that but there are some common threads in most of these traditions. These similarities can be found in the worship of some of the predominatly Black & multiracial churches of the PCA. (New City Fellowship, New SOng Baltimore, etc) I’m not aware of any of these types of churches in the OPC. Maybe you are.
Darryl Hart said,
April 21, 2008 at 4:22 pm
RGL, interesting what you say about New City and New Song (what’s the bias against “Old”?). If these are multi-racial churches, that means that either the worship involves some kind of mixture of styles from the various races, or that if one of the race’s styles dominates, the other races may worship in that style. This would suggest that it is actually possible for one race to worship according to the style of another race or according to a mixed style that is not integrated with its own racial identity. In that case, I’m not sure why we need to adapt worship for a certain demographic (beyond questions of language). Your own case suggests that humans are far more flexible and less culturally determined than your original questions suggest.
RGL Avant said,
April 21, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Rom 6:4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Subsitute old for new & it just dosn’t make any since. Why do you have to assume that if a church has New in its name that it must be New School?
New Song in Baltimore is mostly black while I believe New City(subsitute Old & it dosen’t work. God is going to create a Old City? God is going to create a Old Heaven & old Earth?) is multi racial w/a number of mixed race couples.
RGL Avant said,
April 21, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I’d still love to hear yr answer to my Carey question in regards to missions.
Darryl Hart said,
April 22, 2008 at 8:11 am
RGL, as I understand history, Jerusalem is an ancient city. And the Reformed faith is an old faith. A stress on newness is out of character for people who look to the past — if they still look to the past.
I don’t know all the particulars about Carey’s work. What I do know is that he did not go off to India on his own. He needed the empire.
RGL Avant said,
April 22, 2008 at 8:49 am
Its not an either/or situation. Sure old & ancient is important. But the old points to the new. You can’t escape the stress on the New in the Old or New Testament. And you can’t assume that just b/e someone has the the biblical name of New in their church name that they must be New School.
You assume that the empire was advanced for the gospel. It wasn’t but to make the British rich. They did become very rich. (while in some cases there were benefits). Carey went forward on his own(although sponsered by Baptists he was sent very little money). The East India Company outlawed all missionary work in India so as not to distract from trade.
If there was anyone who was doing “Iraq liberation” mission work it was carey. At some point I would like to hear your opposition to missions towards unreached & untouched by the any reformed or christian witness.
The point of my original question was how does culture affect worship & do you (those who support a strongly traditional view of reformed worship) believe that you can make adjustments based on those cultures.
Zrim said,
April 22, 2008 at 3:36 pm
RGL,
What seems to pervade your view is the same thing that pervades so much of everything from “incarnational/missional/accomodational” views of worship to eschatology/views of history: human beings and their world both are more different than they are alike. But it is really the opposite. (Just as God “reveals himself by hiding,” the theology of the Cross and Calvinism teaches us that our natural instincts are just plain wrong.) We are more alike than we are different. So is time and place.
Treating human beings and their contexts as more different than the same has the opposite effect. With all the accents falling on diversity these days, if you want true unity this simply must be understood. This isn’t to undermine the necessary differences or be cavalier about it, but in good Reformed spirit, yes, it really is that simple and yet that profound.
Bob Suden said,
April 22, 2008 at 8:25 pm
“The point of my original question was how does culture affect worship & do you (those who support a strongly traditional view of reformed worship) believe that you can make adjustments based on those cultures.”
RGL, it might help to note, if we haven’t already at least in this thread, that the “regulative principle” of reformed worship is built upon the Second Commandment, rather than some vague esoteric theological concept or worse the cultural (racist) preferences of middle class ethnic European church goers. That last two options generally seem to be the impression I get from many who tout multi-cultural diversity and oppose the old ‘fuddy duddy’ way of doing things. (Does the name John Frame or Steve Schlissel ring a bell?) Yes, I’ll grant that some presbyterians do things only because ‘that’s the way we have always done it’ rather than doctrinal convictions, if not that that is the extent of it.
Still, most non reformed Christians implicitly understand that the Trinity is not explicitly taught in Scripture, but they believe it anyway because it is the necessary consequence of what the Bible teaches about God. So too the RPW is the good and necessary consequence of again, the Second Commandment and Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments.
Of course, if the Fourth has been explicitly waived in contemporary evangelicalism of whatever complexion, culture or color, so too the Second, probably without even realizing it. But God hasn’t forgot about it and neither ought we. New School/New Life Presbyterianism might emphasize evangelism at the expense of theology, but we are not to do evil that good might come - break the Ninth on the Second in order to “fulfill” the Great Commission.
In other words, it is because we have departed from historic and confessional presbyterian worship as set forth in the West. Assembly’s Dir. of Public Worship - the reading and preaching of Scripture, the singing of Scripture and prayer - that the cultural thing becomes a far bigger deal than it really is. It’s not culture, it’s the residual depravity of man that despises the simplicity of God’s worship, much more that the worship of God is a command performance, not something we do on Saturday because traditionally/culturally we go snow skiing or to the lake on Sunday.
cordially
Bob S
RGL Avant said,
April 22, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I’m not denying or rejecting the regulative principle but that worship will look different depending on the culture. A worship service in a village in India will look different from a chrurch in Georgia even if both are reformed.
RGL Avant said,
April 22, 2008 at 9:29 pm
By the way I belive it is misleading to draw a straight line from 19th century New School Theology to 20/21st New life Presbyterian & Redeemer NY. A better comparison would be the Old Side/New Side of the 18th Century.
Bill Stephens said,
April 22, 2008 at 10:19 pm
How will it look different? I think it would be good to talk about specifics. What does Anglican worship look like in Uganda? What aspects of Reformed worship will not work in Brazil, Africa, Asia? What doesn’t work and why?
RGL Avant said,
April 22, 2008 at 11:05 pm
I did not say that Reformed worship would not work in other countries & cultures. I said that Reformed worship would look different in other cultures.
Darryl Hart said,
April 23, 2008 at 6:11 am
RGL, beileve it or not, New School and New Side were more Presbyterian than New Life. Space here does not permit a full development of that argument, and I see lots of parallels between Jack Miller and Gilbert Tennent. But New Life arose in a post-denominational setting. The structures of church polity have been regarded as those characteristics of an ingrown church. I can appreciate your desire to defend New Life. But I would like to see you actually cite specifics of New Life commitment to Presbyterianism rather than simply appealing to parallels with the New School or New Side (which you sometimes like and sometimes disavow).
If the RPW will look different in different cultures — who could deny that — what exactly was the different culture that emerged in suburban Philadelphia that required a different application of the RPW? That’s what your thread seems to avoid. African-American worship may look different. The fact that it’s in the West would compromise that concession. But I might agree on some level. But what about white, suburban, SUV driving New Life Presbyterians? What cultural difference is that?
Also, on the selection of New vs. Old, the fact that so many charismatic and non-denominational churches have chosen the phrase, New Life, would suggest some caution in a Presbyterian church selecting that as its name. I’d be hard pressed to name a congregation after the blessed virgin.
Finally, I didn’t say I’m opposed to evangelism or missions — but thanks for the Jack Miller guilt trip. I am questioning the way it has been done. I’m also asking for New Lifers to concede that preaching every Sunday in public worship is evangelistic because it is the means God has appointed to reach the lost.
RGL Avant said,
April 23, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I actually didn’t want to get into a prolonged debate defending New Life. My original purpose was to ask the missiological consequences for a traditional Presbyterian view of the RPW. (I was actually more interested in non western cultures but I also mentioned African American & multi racial churches since there are now a number of these churches in the PCA. Churches w/worship u may or may not find acceptable)
I would concede that New School “looked” more Presbyterian than New Life but that New Life is a far cry from the likes of Finney & Beecher. (yes I’ve read Dr. harts arguments reg the worship in New School & PCUSA as sometimes more Presbyterian)
While their worship is contemporary & not traditional I doubt you would find the theological deviations that you would find in a Finney or Beecher.(although I know you would say their non traditional worship is a deviation.)
As far as their orthodoxy all I’m going to say at this point is that New life was accepted by the OPC & when they left the OPC begged them to stay. They were recieved gladly by the PCA. As I said on another site if any of you seriously believe New Life is New School then bring up charges in presbytery.
RGL Avant said,
April 23, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Dr. Hart, At some point I would like to hear more abt ye views towards missions & evangelism. If not on this post then perhaps another or another time. Esp. how yr views apply toward unreached people groups.
RGL Avant said,
April 23, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Actually I agree w/the RPCNA & exclusive psalm singers. I agree w/them the WCF does call for exclusive psalm singing in worship. Thats why I take an exception to the WCF b/e I believe you can sing other hyms & spritual songs.
Bob Suden said,
April 24, 2008 at 1:31 am
“I’m not denying or rejecting the regulative principle but that worship will look different depending on the culture. A worship service in a village in India will look different from a church in Georgia even if both are reformed.. . . .
I did not say that Reformed worship would not work in other countries & cultures. I said that Reformed worship would look different in other cultures.”
RGL, Reformed worship is reformed worship. It might look different superficially and on the surface as regards circumstances, but substantially it has to be the same or it is not reformed worship. Again according to the Directory the commanded elements are the reading and preaching of Scripture, singing Scriptural hymns, prayer and the sacraments.
When Knox was in exile in Frankfurt, those who opposed him said they wanted a church with an English face and so brought in the Anglican liturgy. Knox’s desire was only that the Lord would grant it to have the face of Christ’s Church. Conformity in rites and ceremonies was accordingly sought with other Christian churches reformed (Works 4:42). Substantial uniformity is both the commanded ideal and a practical and attainable reality.
An argument could be made that each respective New Side/Light 1700’s, New School 1800’s, New Life 1900’s departed further from historic presbyterianism. But modern American presbyterians are ahistorical and suffer from ecclesiastical and confessional amnesia. They don’t know that they don’t know tickety boo. Whether it will be terminal remains to be seen.
Further, in that the FV focuses on the visible and material church, covenant, baptism, if I didn’t know better your questions/comments might seem to focus on the material and visible circumstances over and at the expense of the elements.
We also know the FV misrepresents the RPW and argues for reviving the colorful and cultural, sacrificial and ceremonial worship of the temple. Confessionally they are judaizers, but someone like Jordan (w.o. opposition from the rest) will argue that the OT economy was representative of the new heavens and new earth yet to come (and this according to Kline?) It is not typical of Christ and the Holy Spirit and fulfilled at Calvary and Pentecost. Which makes FV that much more of a fretting leprosy to be avoided.
cordially
RGL Avant said,
April 24, 2008 at 2:03 am
“Reformed worship is reformed worship. It might look different superficially and on the surface as regards circumstances, but substantially it has to be the same or it is not reformed worship. Again according to the Directory the commanded elements are the reading and preaching of Scripture, singing Scriptural hymns, prayer and the sacraments.”
Of course I belive that reformed worship has to have these elements but in a differemnt culture these elemts will appear different. For example in india the songs may be in a bhajan style which may even sound like a Hindu hymn but will be focused on Christ.
“An argument could be made that each respective New Side/Light 1700’s, New School 1800’s, New Life 1900’s departed further from historic presbyterianism. But modern American presbyterians are ahistorical and suffer from ecclesiastical and confessional amnesia”
Yeah Presbyterian of all stripes suffer from some form of amensia. As I said earlier New Life has much more in common w/18th C. New Side than 19th C. New School. (even Dr. Hart conceded that Jack Miller & Gilbert Tennant had things in common. Except I never heard anything abt Jack Miller saying anythng negative abt someone who opposed him whereas Gilbert Tennant is known for his sermon Unconverted Ministry).
But even those who are traditional Presbyterian or are self conciously old school usually have some New Side theology published by Banner of Truth on their bookshelf. Whitefield, Log College, Great Awakening, or something by J. Edwards.
I don’t know enough about FV at present to comment but I bet if I asked a question- How does FV affect worship & missions everybody & their mother would have piped in by now.
Darryl Hart said,
April 24, 2008 at 8:59 am
RGL Avant, the Presbytery of Philadelphia wanted New Life to stay because it is un-Presbyterian to leave a Presbyterian Church. This desire for New Life to remain did not reflect approval of all that New Life did. The Presbytery had expressed concerns for years.
The similarities between Jack Miller and Gilbert Tennent are that both believe a minister can only be effective if he is spiritually good (Miller’s word was pacesetter). That conflicts with the view that the Spirit is what makes the ministry effective. And it is not inconceivable to read Outgrowing the Ingrown Church as a critique of the OPC, akin to the Danger of an Unconverted (read: Ingrown) Ministry.
As far as my own view of reaching unreached peoples, I wonder RGL if you’ll put your own views out there for inspection. Your question seems to imply that I am deficient here. So I’d like to see first how sufficient your views are.
RGL Avant said,
April 24, 2008 at 11:54 am
You may be right that Jack Miller had the OPC in mind when he wrote “Outgrowing the I.C.” but I’m not aware that he ever pubilically said that it was. Even though you might think is that is still only an assumption while Gilbert Tennant left little room for doubt.
The Presbytery expressing concern is not the same as the presbytery taking action. In fact when you say that the presbytery expressed concern that dosen’t say much. DId they pass some sort of motion that expressed concern? Did they reprimand New Life after a sessional review? Or did just a few elders w/in presbytery publically express concern on the floor of presbytery? Or did some just complain privately abt New Life? I don’t know? But I do know they were recieved as an OPC church. I’m not aware of any discipline process. They were released to the PCA w/out any problems. (I don’t see the transfer of a church from one reformed Presbyterian Ch to another as the same thing as a church going into independency or into a liberal denomination. Esp when you consider that both are NAPARC churches & esp since the OPC has also recieved PCA churches).
As I’ve said before if you belive that New Life, Redeemer or other PCA or OPC churches are “New School” & you are drawing a straight line from 19th Century to churches today then take action.
RGL Avant said,
April 24, 2008 at 11:59 am
In regards to missions my view is simple. Support & develop mission & evangelism locally, nationally & worldwide . Preach the gospel inside the church(worship) & outside the church. Now that said when you are in a country w/a Reformed Church then you work alongside that church. If they don’t have one help develop one. If you are in a country/area in which there are few or none Christians learn the language, learn their religous background, learn their culture, Share the gospel, start the church.
RGL Avant said,
April 24, 2008 at 12:02 pm
By the way I apologize if I hinted that your views on missions are defiecient. I don’t really know what yr views are to judge. I thought yr comment on Iraq liberation missions puzzling but I could also see ways that I could agree w/that. But you didn’t fully explain it for me to judge.
Elder Hoss said,
April 24, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Darryl - While I suspect we would be largely sympatico in our overall views of both New Life churches, and - more recently - the whole Redeemer phenomena, (which mirrors the former in some important respects), this is a rather startling observation you’ve offered, viz: “The similarities between Jack Miller and Gilbert Tennent are that both believe a minister can only be effective if he is spiritually good (Miller’s word was pacesetter). That conflicts with the view that the Spirit is what makes the ministry effective.”
This is a rather amazing (and unsupportable) dichotomy you seem to be advocating. Why must the work of the Spirit and the piety of a minister be at odds? Is not the latter entirely dependent on the former? Here one is reminded of what is said of Barnabas, “FOR HE WAS A GOOD MAN, FULL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND OF FAITH - AND A GREAT MANY PEOPLE WERE ADDED TO THE LORD.” (Acts 11:24).
RGL Avant said,
April 24, 2008 at 4:20 pm
“The similarities between Jack Miller and Gilbert Tennent are that both believe a minister can only be effective if he is spiritually good (Miller’s word was pacesetter). That conflicts with the view that the Spirit is what makes the ministry effective.”
I don’t think jack Miller saw this as an either/or. Those who were closer to him could prob answer better than I.
Darryl Hart said,
April 24, 2008 at 5:19 pm
E. Hoss and Mr. Leverett, Jr., my point about the spirituality of the pastor in distinction from the work of the Spirit was only to call to mind the Second Helvetic Confession’s point that the preached word is still the word ofGod even when preached by an evil minister. The biblical support for this would be Paul’s affirmation in Phil. of those preaching the gospel even out of spite or envy. The point then is that the Spirit makes the preaching good, not the character of the minister. That’s not an argument to call evil ministers. There’s plenty of biblical teaching to say that’s not the way to go. But the Second Helvetic Confession is trying to affirm that there is a formal or objective norm for preaching that may transcend the spiritual or subjective state of a pastor.
Mr. Leverett, you keep trying to get me to initiate discipline. Because New Life is now in the PCA, it’s not in my jurisdiction. Believe it or not, I also believe in picking your battles. But I see nothing wrong with trying to show historical continuities between the New Side, New School, and New Life churches, or in trying to show discontinuity between the News and the older Reformed faith and practices. How is that wrong? After all, you seem to be sympathetic to Enns and Miller. They were/are critical of conventional views. Why can’t criticism also be useful, helpful or appropriate for the conveationality of New Life?
I probably share most of your views about evangelism and missions. My point about Iraq was a shot against the war and importing democracy to places not congenial to democracy. I do wonder if similar points can be made about exporting Christianity. Look what happened to Native Americans and their culture in North America.
RGL Avant said,
April 24, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I’m not trying to get you necessarily to initiate discipline since I recognize that u are in the OPC but to make the point that when you accuse someone of being “New School” ie Finney & Beecher(as oppossed to New Side ie Gilbert Tennant & Whitefield & Edwards) that that is a serious charge. Of course you are free to critcize & to show conttinuties & discontinities just as I have a right to discuss these w/you. I think criticism can be helpful.
But as I said a blanket charge of “New School” without distingishing the differences b/n 19th Century New School & 20th Century New Life is not helpful. Its like saying Finney was New School. Miller sarted New Life. New School=New Life. New Life =Finney. Miller=Finney.They must have an anxious bench at New Life. Now I’m not actually accussing you of that but when you make a blanket statement identifying New Life/Redeemer w/New School it can sound that way.
Since I believe that accusing someone of being New School is a serious charge thats why I say if you truly believe so then you should intiate charges. So critcize but remember there is a fine line b/n criticism & charges.
As far as Enns I am not in a position to defend or attack his book. I am concerned that everything is done fairly.
Yes we may share many views abt missions & evangelism. India is a good example. The empire came first & some missionaries were ideentified more w/the empire than they were w/Christ. This is still a contentious issue.
Darryl Hart said,
April 24, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Mr. Leverett, Jr., you are actually more critical of New School Presbyterianism than I am. I only think the New School was fundamentally evangelical and only loosely Reformed. You seem to think the New School was fundamentally liberal or worse. If you are so strict about not tolerating New School views, I’m surprised that you would be such a defender of New Life since you seem to be to the right of Old School — TR as it were.
Can you point me to any where in the literature on New Life or by New Life pastors where the movement is critical of New School Presbyterianism?
RGL Avant said,
April 24, 2008 at 10:05 pm
My understanding is that New School Presbyterianism was a mixed bag theologically w/some being Reformed believers that most of us could identify with but that there were others that are not even reformed ie Finney.
My point was that in identifying New Life as New School w/little or no explanations regarding the continuties/discontinuties that those less discerning than you will just make the jump to Miller=Finney. I’m sure if I could time travel New Schoolers to the present that we could find some who would fit fine in the OPC/PCA. But I doubt that those like Finney would fit.
RGL Avant said,
April 24, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Can you point me to any where in the literature on New Life or by New Life pastors where the movement is critical of New School Presbyterianism?
I havn’t attended a service at any New Life Church in over 10 years. Being a church as opposed to a seminary I’m not aware of anything. If you want to know then I suggest you contact Clair Davis since in addition to being on the WTS faculty was also on the pastoral staff at New Life. He may be able to answer that question.
I did not intend to get into a discussion defending New Life or Redeemer. I honestly wanted to hear different opinions on traditional views of RPW & the missiological consequences.
Elder Hoss said,
April 24, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Darryl - Re your first sentence in #65, that’s true enough, but I can’t imagine Jack Miller or others would dispute that. How could they? God used a donkey to convey His truth, and thus He could so use reprobate ministers with speaking gifts on par with donkeys.
So then, what of the Acts 11:24 passage? No dichotomizing or bifurcating of the spiritual qualities of the minister (”Barnabas was a good man”
and the work of the Spirit (”fully of the Holy Spirit and faith” 
are in view there. The Scripture in fact affirms the opposite (at least in this text) from what you put forth.
I must confess a certain polarity of thought w/regard to New Life/Redeemer type churches insofar as, on the one hand, there is this commendable zeal to reach people with what they understand to be “the gospel,” but on the other, the store is arguably given away with regard to some core confessional commitments (I believe you’ve pointed this out, aptly, w/regard to “coalition this and that” between baptists, charismatics, and presumably confessional Presbyterians in the PCA).
Perhaps there is some ecclesiastical via media between the broad churchism rampant in the PCA, and the shriveling/dimunition of numbers that appears to be occurring in many OPC ranks.
At any rate, for what it’s worth, I would seriously (and do seriously) commend you for being one of the few folk out there who have voiced serious concerns about New Life and - more recently - Redeemer NYC, as a great deal of what is glittering there could very well be veritable fool’s gold.
RGL Avant said,
April 24, 2008 at 10:28 pm
By the way Dr Hart you might have contacted me before you pasted my full name on this site. ranted I didn’t work real hard trying to maintain an alias(I used my intials, I gave you my real address when you mentioned newsletter). But you didn’t bother to ask why I didn’t use my last name.
I’m not trying to hide out but I do have reasons which if you want to know I’m open to share.
Darryl Hart said,
April 25, 2008 at 1:25 pm
E. Hoss, no real disagreement on the Acts passage. I’m just trying to remind folks of the Anti-Donatist heritage.
RGLA, if you are worried about your identity, you may reassured to know that there are at least two Presbyterians with your last name in Baton Rouge. I regret if my using your last (as opposed to full) name has caused you harm. Still, I don’t think it’s exactly fair to debate someone on fairly serious matters in public and not know who the person is.
As far as New Life resemblances to New School, I’ll also concede that New Life is generally Calvinistic in its soteriology and entrepreneurial in its understanding of the Great Commission. That is, I have a sense that some New Life proponents expect the entire nation and world to come to Christ. For that reason, all efforts must be made even if it means not following the book of church order (say, that actually sounds like the New Side also). It seems to me that somewhere between New Life optimism and hyper-Calvinist opposition to a free offer of the gospel is a sober estimate of the church, her responsibilities, and God’s sovereign plan.
And for what it’s worth, I had Clair Davis for Modern Age and he was a colleague for 7 years. During those times I did not receive a sense that the differences between Old and New School mattered. (I also recall that during a time when students at WTS had a sense that the differences between Old and New School were more than trivial I saw one faculty member — not Clair — taking George Marsden’s book on the New School to a faculty meeting. He didn’t seem to understand what the kerfuffle was about.)
RGL Avant said,
April 25, 2008 at 1:40 pm
If you felt it neccesary to know my name you could have easily asked my & I would have emailed you. I think common courtesy would have called at least for that. While blog debates often deal w/serious issues I tend to view them as friendly debates as opposed to formal debates. I have my reasons for limiting my name on the net & would have gladly communicated if you had asked first. If you or anyone else wants to know then you can email me at:
avant6161ATYahooDotCOM
Barry Waugh said,
April 25, 2008 at 3:17 pm
It is amazing how far these discussions can wander from the original subject matter! Yes, this is a comment with no substance, but guys (yes, I am assuming the screen names are all males), go back and look where all of this started.
Zrim said,
April 25, 2008 at 4:09 pm
“It seems to me that somewhere between New Life optimism and hyper-Calvinist opposition to a free offer of the gospel is a sober estimate of the church, her responsibilities, and God’s sovereign plan.”
Finally. See, if you wait just long enough Hart not only surfaces with what every old-schooler thinks but condenses it into succinct versions that could be unpacked for weeks and weeks. And weeks.
Elder Hoss said,
April 25, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Darryl - “It seems to me that somewhere between New Life optimism and hyper-Calvinist opposition to a free offer of the gospel is a sober estimate of the church, her responsibilities, and God’s sovereign plan.” If you’ll allow me, this is somewhat of a red herring, although the impetus for it is commendable, and it is certainly the case that scylla/charybdis navigation needs to occur here.
But after all, HOW MANY Presbyterian and Reformed churches in the USA reject the “free-offer” of the gospel? Other than some Protestant Reformed (Hoeksema/his descendents), or other singular instances, say of a Gerstner, virtually no one does, at least on a corporate level.
Perhaps what could be said instead of “opposition to a free offer of the gospel” is “opposition to corporate evangelism.”
In any case, it seems that the broad churchism unfortunately at work in many segments of the PCA produces multiple “spurious religious excitements,” as Dabney so termed it, whereas in the more self-consciously confessional segments of Presbyterian and Reformed, the only “professions” occurring over, say, as much as a 10 yr period in a given church, are those of its covenant youth (at least the ones not tragically lost to the world through non-catechizing parents, public education, etc.).
Stream ‘o consciousness for a moment, but in one PCA church (traditional on many accounts) where our family was members for ca. 5 yrs, EE efforts (commendable in some respects, at least insofar as there was a desire to reach people, though EE does not follow the apostolic kerygma, and is largely man-centered in its message) resulted in 45 professions of faith in one year. Not a single individual could be found committed to the local church, of those 45.
Conversely, an OPC church nearby has witnessed 2 professions in the last 8 yrs, both of covenant youth.
Then we have a flagship New Life-esque PCA church in a major city whose pastor asserts recently that “Good Christians disagree about homesexual unions” and holds conferences with Baptists and church growthists like Rick Warren.
Should these excesses be deemed as somehow normal?
For all of the obsessing one witnesses back and forth between TR types and FV afficianados, would that 1/50th of ministers’ work schedules addresses these more egregious problems staring them right in the face, LD after LD.
Putting it another way, this or that FV figure, popular or fringe, whether his exegesis is more restrained, or more extravagant, is utterly irrelevant to the problem of why 90% of the families in our current PCA assembly do not practice family worship, or why the very fine OPC brethren nearby have the same 17 (excuse me, now 19) members they did 7 yrs ago.
Darryl Hart said,
April 26, 2008 at 9:40 am
E. Hoss, I’m not about to answer the conundrum you identify. I am still sufficiently committed to traditional Presbyterian means for church growth and evangelism. I especially think that family worship would grow the church, meaning that covenant children might see the importance of making profession in a Reformed communion. This may be the source of the OPC’s inability to grow. (Though I can imagine non-OPers have other reasons in mind.)
Thanks, Zrim. (Good to see you.)