From 1874, Scottish Presbyterian A. B. Bruce on worship...

The aim and effect of the liturgical system is to make the mass of worshippers as independent as possible of the individual minister; the aim, if not the effect of our system, is to make individual ministers as valuable as possible to the worshippers, for their instruction and edification. The one system may secure a uniform solemnity and decency, but the other system tends to secure the more important qualities of fervor, energy, and life; and we believe, whatever fastidious critics may allege, it does to a considerable extent secure them. At lowest, the non-liturgical method secures that the worship of the church shall be a true reflection of her life, and therefore, however beggarly, at least sincere. -from A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve p. 58.

Tags: 

Comments

Flummery.

Jefferson said: "Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Liturgies seem to fill a similar role. Will the time come to review the results of the contemporary revolution in our churches (which has *completely* changed worship at most places in the past 20 years). What the non-liturgical (more accurately, weak liturgical) system tends to do is separate the church from its past (the historic communion of saints) and often from the Bible itself. Once you wing it, entertainment sooner or later follows. As stiff as a liturgical service can be, does anyone doubt that the content is more Biblical? We don't even need to discuss the "reverence" side. I've seen people eating coffee and donuts at these contemporary services - it just "seems" ok -- but never at a liturgical one. Does anyone deny that contemporary services lose all the elements of worship, often lacking the time to even do simple Bible reading? And now that the horse is out of the barn, it's difficult to ever return to something more... Biblical... because people won't stand for it. Imagine trying to introduce a psalter today, even one with better melodies in it. Sure, contemporary services can have palpable energy, but most don't. And even when they do, is that energy because I'm hearing a cool song I like, just as it did when I heard it on Christian radio in my car, or because I'm worshipping? Few talk about the arrogance of this age... Worship has changed over the centuries, but has it changed to the extent it has in the last 20 years? Why was it not until the Boomers ascended and the church growth movement took off that music conformed completely to the popular culture? Churches didn't dump their hymns (the product of its history) for big band music in the 40s or rockabilly in the 50s, but we must do so because people are now demanding it. It will be interesting to see where the runaway train goes, and if people will finally decide it's time to jump off. I guess I did a year or two ago.

BTW, I have seen 'traditional' services, elements of worship and liturgies intact, that still had extemporaneous prayer and other "free" elements in Presbyterian worship. A.B. Bruce would likely recognize it. But would he recognize what passes for worship today in most evangelical denoms?

It's interesting to see it admitted in as many words that anti-liturgicalism is designed to magnify the individual.

I suspect that, were all of us commenting below this quote to get together with Bruce and talk, there would be much more agreement than at first blush, and much agreement even between those of us who are contemporaries than it might appear from these comments. But to deal with only one matter: if we're agreed that the text of Scripture should be preached by a minister of the Gospel with a heart on fire, explaining and applying that text to the flock God has given him the care of, why would we want to remove the jar of clay in prayer? Why should preaching be dead when it's texts alone--and in the case of Scripture, perfect texts; but prayers alive when it's texts alone--and most excellent, but still imperfect (sorry to break it to you, Bill) texts? Bruce is not arguing for individualism, but for leadership that's alive and active in worship as in preaching.

I find it troubling, Elizabeth, that you would accuse Bruce of magnifying individuals. Apparently Bruce's desire--fervor, energy and life in worship--amounts to nothing more than magnifying the individual in your mind. This is the kind of thinking which suggests that the Old Testament sacrificial system was salvific in itself rather than a spur to faith. Do you think the judges had nothing to do with the spiritual climate of Israel during their tenure? That David was just like Saul so long as the Israelites had their orthodox liturgy? Methinks you'll be changing your name to Michal ere long.... David Bayly

Is there a reason my comment here was deleted?

Dear David, I can't remember deleting any comments under this post, but who knows? One possibility is that it was deleted accidentally when we were in the process of deleting the many pornographic spam comments submitted to our site. Often, these comments are in the hundreds for a single day. So when we check them in a box for deletion, sometimes we check a non-spam comment by mistake. Usually, I catch that and send an E-mail to the person, notifying them of my mistake, but I won't always know when it's happened. Of course there are also occasions when the comment is out of line and we delete it for that reason. But I can't recall doing so recently, nor more specifically under this post. Sorry I don't have a better answer. Was your comment marginal in tone or content, do you think? If so, maybe I did delete it. But I doubt it. Warmly, Tim Bayly

>Was your comment marginal in tone or content, do you think? No, must have been an accident I guess. [[[NOTE FROM TIM: Yup, that's what I'm guessing. Wish I could have read it.]]]

I think it was something to the effect that some of the very finest preaching I have heard has been in a liturgical Presbyterian church. All churches have litugies (unless they are truly random in nature and I doubt anyone here is advocating that). Most of the non-liturgical churches I've attended were every bit as formulaic but in a way which was not thought out. We are all prone to wander and worship consciously structured to emphasize God's glory and our need is an aid, not a hindrance. And any liturgical service I've attended, including high-church Anglican when I lived in England, has non-structured prayer for the minister as well as written prayer. In my experience I am likely to most fully realize man's chief end in a thoughtful and reformed structure of worship.

Also that a liturgical service does nothing to stop or inihibit the preacher from preaching the word. From what I've read Calvin's favoured form of service would be liturgical and he took a high view of preaching and I don't think he was ever accused of being inhibited from the pulpit.

Add new comment