pilgrim people

Good post!

Yes, I believe in the usefulness of creeds and confessions. Still I do not see the usefulness of repeating them in worship (I know, even Knox did). And I bring forth three reasons: 1.It displaces the primacy of the Word (there's precious little of the Word in many, even Reformed, worship services); 2.We become immune to them (like the stuff we put on the refrigerator; and 3. Many people do not understand them. I've heard people puzzle about "descended into hell" and "one baptism for remission of sins." I say, it's better to read Scripture and give a brief exposition (a little sermon). After all, did the Lord suggest a "Patriarch's Creed" to summarize the OT teaching? I'm being a little silly, but perhaps you get the point.

Elizabeth,

First of all, I am not making the point in these posts that creeds and confessions have a useful place in worship. But since you brought this up (as this seems to be something that troubles your conscience), let me briefly address your three points.

With regard to your first concern, I, and the Reformed tradition, disagree with you. Thank you for pointing out that Knox's liturgy contained the Apostles Creed. So did Calvin's (1542, 1545). And Calvin, you remember is the very guy who wrote, The Necessity of Reforming the Church. We also see creeds in worship in Bucer's liturgies and in English Puritan liturgies. To say that it displaces the Word of God is like saying prayer displaces the Word of God.

Precious little of the Word of God in many Reformed worship services? Well, that may be so in some places, but I can think of a lot of Reformed churches that refute your claim. A worship service can have loads of Scripture throughout the liturgy (Call to Worship, Salutation, Reading of the Law, Absolution, loooooong Scripture readindgs [just ask my poor congregation!], exegetical sermon, good Communion forms, Benediction) and still have a creed. Inserting a creed in a liturgy like this does not automatically displace the Word of God. That is an unfair claim. Again, the Reformed tradtion is on my side here.

With regard to your second concern, I am sorry, but to put it bluntly, that is a poor argument. To make the claim that creeds in worship will have the affect of making us immune to them is tantamount to the argument opponents of weekly communion usually make, viz., "it won't be special anymore." A creed ONCE A WEEK in worship, that takes all of two or three minutes, is nothing like a refrigerator magnet that you overlook everyday.

With regard to your third concern, I would say that is why we have a catechism that exposits the creed and helps Christians know what they believe and why they believe it. That is also why we have catechism classes. That is also why, in the URCNA, we preach and teach on these doctrines frequently. If you ahve heard people puzzle over "the descent into hell," then I can almost guarantee it is because they have not received good teaching on that article.

You should keep in mind the great practical benefit of creeds in worship that the Reformers recognized: it has a cumulative effect on the people of God over a lifetime of hearing it in worship and, hopefully, learning its meaning as well. Have you ever wondered why Roman Catholics, for all their doctrinal error, very seldomly depart doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, or his bodily resurrection? You can take the average Roman Catholic who knows almost no doctrine at all, and when the J.W.s or other Arians come to his door, he knows one thing for sure: God is triune and Jesus is divine! He probably knows this more readily than many average evangelicals who grew up in biblicist churches. Why is that? Chiefly, it has to do with a lifetime of hearing the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

As Protestants, we bear the responsibilty of making sure that the next generation is Protestant and continues in the historic Christian faith. Creeds - even in worship, when done rightly - are an aid to that end.

I really appreciate the post. I have a follow-up to the questions re: creeds in worship. What about using the confession in worship?

My (OP) church does this, reading through it systematically during worship. I can sympathize with the desire to have people become more familiar with the WCF, but my instinct is that it ought not be used in the liturgy - for one thing because people are not familiar enough with it for it to really serve adequately as a confession of their faith, and also, because there may be passages that not everyone attending holds to - for example, some may not hold to paedobaptism - so there may be conscience issues involved in reciting a passage one doesn't affirm. Also, the scholastic language sometimes requires several read-throughs for comprehension. (I realize that in the URC, all members subscribe to the TFU so the situation is a bit different). Any thoughts?

I have a question David,

If the OPC is a reformed/presbyterian denomination that holds to Paedobaptism as an orthodox practice, how is it that you could use the example of a member not holding to it. I am am honestly a little perplexed in this regard, could this be a poor example that seldom occurs or are you saying that the OPC only requires its clergy to be reformed but not it's member's? Perhaps this is simply a poor example that seldom occurs. As far as other exceptions that may be taken to WCF, not being Presbyterian, I am not very familiar with it, so don't take me as advocating full subscription to it; from what I gather that is very difficult, I have just never heard of paedobaptism being an exception, because it seems to me that that person is really a calvinistic baptist.

Anyway, just something that was interesting to me.

David,

That is fair question and concern. I admit, I prefer far more to confess our faith from the Apostles' or Nicene Creed in worship than from (in our case) the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, or Canons of Dort. A few thoughts:

1. In principle, your congregation should be able to confess the WCF in good consience. If you have members in your WCF-confessing Presbyterian church who reject infant baptism, then they are, according to WCF XXVIII.5, in "great sin". They are also refusing to submit to the session, which the NT (especially passages such as Heb 13.17) requires. I realize that many OP sessions allow this sort of thing, but it is a sheer contradiction. Either the WCF should be amended on that point, or the members must submit to the elders who DO believe the confession on that point. So, in theory, no *member* of your congregation should have his or her conscience violated by confessing the WCF in public on the grounds that they do not hold to that part of the confession. Perhaps your pastor could preface the confession in the liturgy by saying, "Now, all who hold to this part of our confession, let us confess our faith together..." I am being somewhat facetious, but hopefully you see my point about what it does to the unity that confessions are meant to protect.

2. Using confessional material rather than one of the creeds to confess faith in the worship service should be done with pastoral discernment. In our case, I only do this when I am preaching a "catechetical sermon" (that is, an exegetical sermon from a particular text that teaches a particular doctrine that the Heidelberg Catechism or Belgic Confession teaches), and this is only in an evening service. Otherwise, we use the Apostles or Nicene creed.

3. As far as people in your congregation not being familiar with the WCF, that is something that your pastor should remedy (if in fact that is the case). We can never assume that our congregation knows and understands these things. Teaching through the WCF, or occasionally preaching the type of sermons I mentioned above, is very important for the education of your congregation.

Cheers

David, sorry about the repeated phrase, I was distracted by my daughter waking up.

Pastor Brown, thanks very much for the detailed response. Just to be clear, I am one who has come to the Reformed faith in the last four years and am unspeakably grateful for our confessional documents, both British and Continental. I also agree that it is crucial that members and others be encouraged to become intimately familiar with them and that Sunday school time be allotted for that purpose. I would also be in favor of the PM sermon being devoted to this, though of course that is not the Presby tradition.

Having said this, my question was just based on the very unfortunate reality that the vast majority, even among the members, are not familiar enough with the confession for it to function adequately as a confession of faith in the liturgy.

Another thing that occurs to me is that the Belgic Confession, with its "we confess" and "we believe" language, makes it more suitable for use as a liturgical "confession of faith" than the WCF. Thanks again for your response - I will take it to heart.

Adam, perhaps you don't realize that Presbyterians are not required to subscribe the confession as a condition of church membership. So the issue isn't "exceptions."

But my baptism example may not have been the best one to bring up. My main concern is that due to the prevailing lamentable lack of familiarity with the confession, what is intended to be a confession of the faith, may in reality be for some more like a rote recitation of language they don't understand. To me this raises the issue of intelligibility that was so important to our Reformed forefathers.

David,

You said, "Another thing that occurs to me is that the Belgic Confession, with its "we confess" and "we believe" language, makes it more suitable for use as a liturgical "confession of faith" than the WCF." That is an interesting point, one that has never occured to me. I imagine Rev. Hyde probably deals with that in some way in his latest book, With Heart and Mouth: An Exposition of the Belgic Confession. I should probably pick up a copy!

Your point about folks not being familiar with their own confession is well taken. Let me encourage you to speak with your pastor and elders about this. Based on what you have described, it sounds like your pastor is man very committed to the WCF and see the value of familiarizing his congregation with it. I am sure that he would sympathize with your observations. He very well may be encouraged by your concerns to begin doing more teaching on the WCF. Just a thought...

David, I am and perhaps I should have said that but I was under the impression that there was at least a level of reformed orthodoxy in regard to the use and belief of the confessions in the OPC with regard to parishioners.

But as a follow up question, because I am really interested, do you find, at least in your church, if the fault of a lack of familiarity with your confessions is the direct result of the church officers or the disinterest of the members? I don't mean to pry and if I am I understand if you don't answer.

Pastor Brown, thanks for the encouragement to discuss this with the elders. I will look for an opportunity. As it is, I am in continual discussion with my pastor regarding doctrine and worship issues. (I may be a bit like the proverbial overly zealous recovering alcoholic. My pastor accuses me of "trying to be more Reformed than Reformed") So I need to be discerning and know when to leave the poor guy alone! But yes, he is indeed very committed to the WCF and desires the congregation to be also.

One more thought about the difference between the WS and the 3FU. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that the divines designed the WS for purposes other than liturgical. I would be interested in knowing if there is much precedent for Presbyterians using them in worship - my guess is that if so, it is very minimal. There certainly doesn't seem to be any provision for liturgical use of the Confession in the Westminster directory. My suspicion is that it only began to be used in worship recently by well meaning elders who were despairing of any other means of teaching them to their people.

Adam, I'm not sure what the answer to your question is, or if there is anyone particularly to blame in this. For one thing, our elders are relatively new so they have "inherited" someone else's problems. For another thing, we are in a college town, so many who attend are new to the Reformed faith, or may not even know exactly why our church is "different" than most.

Of course another problem is that in our doctrine-lite feel-good day and age, many just don't resonate with the need to become familiar with doctrine. I also sense that some in the OPC may be more interested in holding the line against perceived threats of liberalism (in keeping with our history) than in taking a full fledged Reformed confessional stance.

I think also the elders may feel the tension between otoh, wanting to invite attendance (and therefore not be overly demanding of those who do come) and otoh, hold people accountable to confess the faith. American evangelicals expect to attend worship (if that) and that's about it.

I'll be interested in learning more about how the URC deals with these sorts of things. Of course I realize you have your "issues" to deal with too.

Just to clarify, I would never say weekly communion is bad because it would no longer be special. It is because it is special that it should be done frequently. Like kissing one's baby on the head. As for the rest of your answer to my post, thank you.

David,

As far as I know, you are right in thinking that the divines did not intend the WS to be used for liturgical worship. But perhaps we can get Danny Hyde to weigh in here with some of his knowledge. One thing we should remember about the use of confessional material in worship is that, by the mid-17th century, catechetical preaching was already an established norm on the continent. I am not saying that everyone should therefore do it, only that history shows it was already going on.

Thanks for the invite, Mike. I do have a few things to put forth here, such as the provisions for the liturgical use of the Heidelberg Catechism, but that will have to wait until later tonight . . . so stay tuned.

Hi men,

In terms of using the Apostles' Creed in worship, this was a standard part of worship on the continent. In Geneva it was sung prior to celebrating the Supper, while in Heidelberg, Strassburg, and the Netherlands, it was recited before the Supper (we still see this in our Form Number 1 for the Lord's Supper, which comes right from Petrus Dathenus' Psalter, which in turn was a version of the Heidelberg Liturgy).

As well, in the Palatinate, the region of which Heidelberg was the capital, the Catechism was preached in the afternoon service, but there was also a prescription in the Kirchenordnung (Church Order) that it be read in the morning service over 9 consecutive Lord's Days, thus being read roughly four times a year.

I hope that helps give a little context to our historic practice(s).

As far as the creeds and/or confessions not being read aloud in worship because of the issue of conscience, this is not an issue for us in the URCNA since our members take a vow that they believe the doctrine taught in our churches is the "true and complete doctrine of salvation." We have a confessional membership as well as confessional clergy and confessional officer-bearers.

Danny,

What about parts of the WS being used in worship. Do you know of any precedence for that amongst the British?

I've often listened on the radio as R. C. Sproul has reminded me of a saying among theologians that orthodoxy owes a debt of gratitude to heresy. He would use this as his way of explaining how often the writing of creeds was a response to some false interpretation that threatened the health of the church, so the orthodox would go back to the drawing board and answer more thoroughly the challenges made by heretics by hammering out a new creed.

I also owe a debt of gratitude to heresy, but in a different way, for it was through reading up on the errors of the Da Vinci Code a few years ago that I discovered a footnote which pointed out to me that 1 Cor. 15:3-7 was a creedal statement developed within a decade of the death and resurrection of Christ! Being a Reforming Baptist, I was thrilled to learn that creeds are in the Bible! So thrilled, in fact, that I couldn't help but write a song summarizing the whole chapter's apologetic of Christ's resurrection, theological defense of resurrection in general, sermon about our hope of resurrection and exhortation to perseverance in the light of that hope. I call it "Corinthian Creed," and I would like to share it with you over at my site.

Go to:

http://capthk.wordpress.com/2006/09/30/corinthian-creed/

In the sidebar, there is also a recording of four of the five verses as performed by an ensemble at my church a couple of years ago. It won't win any grammies, but you'll at least hear how it goes!
You can find that in the black Box.net widget in the lower portion of the sidebar. Enjoy!

Pastor Brown, just to be clear, I'm all in favor of using the WS in catechetical preaching. I'm just questioning whether it's suitable for use as a liturgical confession of the faith.

The great thing about the apostle's creed is that it's brief, comprehensive and easily understood. But the WCF of course can be highly technical and difficult, e.g., "Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."

For this to work, after the recitation, the worship leader would then need to spend the remainder of the morning explaining what is meant by "necessarily, freely, or contingently." Otherwise, people may as well be reading the liturgy in Latin.

Again, I love the WCF and am saddened that many aren't motivated to expend the energy to become familiar with it. It's just this one use of it I'm questioning.

As I mentioned, I think the Belgic works much better. It appears to have been designed for liturgical use as a "confession of the faith." (Although Pastor Hyde does not indicate that it was actually used in the liturgy for that purpose.)

(... although reading his comment more carefully, I now realize that he does say that the HC was recited in the morning liturgy.)

David,

You point is well taken. If I were a Presbyterian minister, I would probably not use the WS in liturgy unless I was preaching a catechetical sermon on that particular article or catechism question. As I said earlier, that is essentially what I do now as a minister in the URC.