Why "Old" and "New"?⤒🔗

Liturgy is the manner in which the meeting between God and His congregation on earth takes form. The form has not been prescribed in detail. That is precisely why from our liturgy it becomes clear what we are worth as congregation and as churches together. It will become apparent what we, by faith, think about the meeting between God and us. When I say "we" I don't mean Christians in general, nor each of us separately. It is here a matter of the Reformed church in the twentieth century. In this time, in this country, we need to give form to our deeply held faith convictions. We may and must show in the liturgy, what the Lord is for us and what we want to be for Him.

At this moment we should realize that the Word of God came to us and that it did not begin with us, to speak with the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 14:36). The covenant and the meeting with the Lord does not start with our faith experience. If that would be the case we could set up our liturgy in the manner of a camp-meeting, full of charismatic excitement and filled with lack of historical insight. We would be fixated on the here-and-now. There is, however, in our liturgy not only the here-and-now but also a then-and-there. The church has a history; she has an inheritance, which she must and may preserve. There is a bond between the generations, that must be shown in the liturgy as well. That privilege is a debt of honour.

That is why in the liturgy of the church there is a place for a number of traditional elements. With "traditional elements" I mean, in this connection, all the handed-down forms and ways, which we must continue in this day and age. That gives our liturgy a certain stability of form. As long as these do not petrify, that stability is of great importance. In it we meet with elements not connected with one person – the person of the accidental pastor. They are the supra-personal elements in the liturgy, which are at the same time the strongest community elements

I think here of the forms, particularly the forms which are used for the administration of the sacraments. It is very good at such moments to use words which are not left in the freedom of the minister. Through them it is possible for us to know today, what was prayed for us, when we were brought to church the first time. Not only that: it appears to be the same prayer which since 1525 is prayed in Zurich. That provides a deep and rich understanding of the communion of saints through the ages.

We would never be able to speak and think about the forms when we did not have that kind of histori­cal insight and if we individually and collectively had not developed a feeling for the language of the forms. There lies the basis for our sense of style in the church.

That historical sense must be maintained just as a church building. Once in a while it needs to be redecorated or have a face lift otherwise it decays. That is the reason for the theme: "old" and "new" in the liturgy.

The Sixteenth Century←⤒🔗

It need not be proven here that we, where it concerns the liturgy, as Reformed churches, are influenced by the sixteenth century. The worship in those days was much deformed. In that time one spoke about the MASS. The mass qua structure, in itself is quite an imposing edifice of form, praise and prayers.

On the other hand that liturgy showed its failings left and right. In front of the church, far away, mumbling Latin formulae, stood a priest with his back to the congregation. Sometimes he did it even in an empty church. If there were people, they could only look on.

Why did the priest do that? On behalf of the people he negotiated with God. He presented human achievements and gifts to God, in order to obtain God's favour and buy His mercy. In the name of the church, together with Christ, he brought again the sacrifice of reconciliation in the consecration of bread and wine, the eucharistic sacrifice.

The liturgy was rotten to the core. We think here about the doctrine of good works, the power of the priest who once again could bring the sacrifice of reconciliation, of the idolatry with bread and wine, in which Christ was thought to be present, of the ritualizing of the liturgy, of the prescribed acts and the obligatory spoken formulae by which God's grace became available to the people. The people had no other function than to be present, to watch and kneel before the host-even the singing was done for them.

The great Reformation of the sixteenth century was essentially a reformation of the liturgy. God is the gracious God, and Father of Jesus Christ. He comes to His people in His Word of promises and in the sacraments attached to them. God's people do not live by looking and tasting, but by faith - the faith in the Christ of the Scriptures. That is why the people had to become active, they had to listen, pray and sing in the vernacular! It was emphasized that on the basis of the once brought sacrifice of reconciliation the people must bring their many sacrifices of thanks, praise and adoration and learn to bring the sacrifice of Christian life to God. God is the God of the covenant and that must show in the liturgy: He speaks, therefore, we speak also. As far as the form is concerned: the reformers did not plead for one fixed form, as if salvation depended on it. "Form" may not become an image for that would be sin against the second commandment. The Reformation was for style, and against formalism in the liturgy. That is why there was room for variation and differences between this or that church. It was said to be an "unimportant" matter, a matter in which we must allow each other room, particularly where it concerns churches abroad. We need a sober and styleful liturgy which shows that we expect the return of Christ from heaven. Everyone will under­stand that those insights brought about a colossal renewal of the liturgy.

Yet it is remarkable how in that time people were intent to preserve many old elements. When we place the first part of the Roman mass beside the Strasbourg order, we discover a similarity in struc­ture.

In the beginning of the Strasbourg order we find the confession and the absolution (followed by singing). After that followed the prayer for illumination by the Holy Spirit, scripture reading and preaching. After the sermon the Credo was said or sung. After the Credo came the intercessions and the collection, followed by the celebration of the Lord's Supper. At this point the order sharply deviates from the Mass.

In the meantime you will have noticed that the order of Strasbourg at present is called the order of Kampen, 1975, in The Netherlands. There are two exceptions: God's law is placed at the beginning of the service followed by a response and the Credo has been moved to the afternoon.

Petrus Dathenus published the order of Strasbourg in his church book of 1566. In doing so he gave the Reformed churches a good reformatorial tradition. Some synods kept cutting away at the order, particu­larly when it came to the confession and absolutions. The Synod of Middelburg (1581) is connected with this pruning process.

In the years that followed and even centuries there­after, many liturgical matters have been left in the freedom of the churches. That "freedom of the churches" was often nothing more than "the high-handedness of the ministers". The "freedom in ceremonies", as it was called became dissoluteness and sloppiness.

In the seventeenth century the violent wind of Puritanism wreaked further havoc. The Puritans opposed liturgical forms altogether. In the admini­stration of the sacraments the minister's words threat­ened the prescribed words. There were problems with the form for baptism and with the singing. All in all a chaotic situation in liturgical matters was the result. These are the problems which were stated and evaluated by A. Kuyper, a man of great impor­tance in the reformation of the church and the forma­tion of the Reformed churches in The Netherlands. For the liturgy as well he had and has much significance.

A. Kuyper←⤒🔗

When Kuyper (1837-1920) wrote his history of de­velopment and his life ideal, he emphasized his longing for a church, which would be the mother of all believers in her liturgy as well. For this he kept the English liturgy in mind. Kuyper especially thought here about the important significance of the sacra­ments and the liturgical power of the fixed form. He observed that in his time the disdain for the form had dramatically increased and he considered that proof of spiritualism. Writing about the current philosophy of idealism he remarked:

Since its appearance the disdain for the form has increased, the feeling for the plastic and the symbolic has become less and the one-sided spiritualism has taken possession of the think­ing spirits. Mostly because of this the value of the Sacrament in the eyes of the multitude has ceased to be what it formerly was. An irresistible aversion against the fixed form of dogmatics, catechism and confession began to flourish and the fine discernment necessary to evaluate the right of the liturgy was lost.

The form of the church itself shared in this bankruptcy and more than one is able to discern that this tendency led to the methodistic, dar­bystic and evangelical direction.

Kuyper furthermore saw individualism increase. Even with baptism and the Lord's Supper, it was the individuality of the minister and not the congrega­tion of Christ who determined the character of the spoken word

Kuyper voices his desire for a return to the Reformed tradition "not in the sense of going back but in the way of purification and development". In that framework he pleaded thirteen years before the Doleantie, for the liberation of the church from the state imposed church order and structure. Kuyper story zeroes in on three points:

• teaching service,
• worship service and
• acts of love

In the teaching service he speaks about the confes­sion, in the worship service he protests against the monopoly of the (long) sermon and in the liturgy he pleads for a breaking through the uniformity of the services. That was in 1873.

It is the same Kuyper, who later became a leader of the Doleantie. The church is liberated and Kuyper is given freedom for liturgical reform. In the frame work of the total reorganization of church life, the liturgical question comes to the fore. Kuyper knows how to write about it with much historical insight and with much understanding of modern life. In the years 1897 and 1898 he began to write about it in "De Heraut". The series was interrupted in 1901, because of other duties. Kuyper, however, did not forget the liturgy. In 1911 he finished the interrupted story and published it in his impressive book, Onze Eredienst. In it Kuyper, now 74 years old, ascertained, just as he had done before, the presence of a large measure of high-handedness and individualism in the Reformed churches. That is why he opposes that spiritualistic tendency and at the same time refuses to seek his refuge in a service of forms, which characterizes so many hierarchical societies. Kuyper, it appeared, had many objections against the influences of the Puritans, who so much encouraged formlessness in The Netherlands. His point of departure is the confession that God Himself is present in the wor­ship service. That is why the worship service is not a get-together, but an official meeting held before God's face and which is to be characterized by good style and taste. In that connection he comes to a great number of fresh ideas. I will mention a few:

• not to read the Credo;
   
• re-introduction of the public confession as it was done in the time of the Reformation;
   
• kneeling during prayer;
   
• no long sermons;
   
• standing while singing;
   
• announcements to be placed in the church bulletin or read after the service;
   
• more liturgical activities for the congregation;
   
• a new psalm versification;
   
• new liturgical forms;
   
• the singing of hymns beside the psalms
   
• the celebration of the Lord's Supper as the highlight of the worship service.

Kuyper's Heritage and the Hymn Question in the Reformed Churches←⤒🔗

The question arises: what has become of Kuyper's ideas in the practice of church life? It must be concluded that the results have been rather meagre. Kuyper's program was taken up by the generation after him. It fell partly in the wrong hands, for it, became the possession of the so-called "beweging der jongeren", a movement which was inclined to ethical theology, found the authority of the Scriptures prob­lematic, emphasized the so-called Christ experience and held ecumenical ideas.

The matter of the liturgy was tabled on the Synod of Leeuwarden in 1920. The appointed deputies were given a broad mandate. They had to design a form for the public confession of faith, to review the remaining liturgical forms and where necessary revise them, critically examine the hymnbook ("Enige Gezangen") and if possible expand it with some rhymed and unrhymed Scripture portions. The deputies added a fourth task to their mandate, namely the order of worship. Their mandate contained a lot of controversial material particularly where it con­cerned the hymns.

There were people, even outside Reformed circles, who predicted a schism. It was, therefore, a difficult matter. As far as the liturgical order was concerned: there was, in 1923, much opposition to the idea of giving confession and absolution a place within the worship service. The first result of the 1920 mandate came about in 1933, the so-called order of Mid­delburg. That order does not show much creativity nor much historical insight. There are no apparent ties with Strasbourg, Geneva or Dathenus. The deputies were more ruled by psychological considerations than by history. While the deputies endeavoured to keep the Scripture reading, text and sermon together, the Synod split them apart, whereby the service, in final analysis, rested on the sermon. This order has been correctly called a rather lifeless docu­ment.

The hymn story is a bit more positive. On the one hand, the tendency to push the Psalter in the background in favour of all sorts of subjective songs was rejected. On the other hand, it was firmly main­tained that God does not forbid the singing of hymns in the Old Testament and that in the New Testament we are called to do so. The free song has as much a legitimate place in the worship service as the free prayer. Those sentiments were ably presented by such men as T. Hoekstra, K. Dijk and K. Schilder. There were also important opponents such as S. Greydanus and A. Janse, plus many congregation members who strictly followed the tradition of the Secession. Various arguments from the Scriptures and history were exchanged.

In the meantime the matter slowed down consid­erably, because of the question Geelkerken in 1926. In 1930 Synod accepted a strongly worded report by T. Hoekstra and in 1933 the hymnbook was ex­panded to 29 hymns. The hymn book was further expanded in 1984.

All of that caused somewhat of an uproar, but no schism.

Short Balance←⤒🔗

When we look back at this history, we can draw some conclusions

1. It is not possible to identify Reformed with conser­vative. In the matter of the liturgy the churches proceeded carefully. That carefulness was neces­sary. The continuation of the discussion no less so.
    
2. The quality of the hymns was poor. The principle was safeguarded but with it the level of quality was not raised. The revision of 1984 in this connec­tion can only be called a slight improvement.
    
3. The order of Middelburg (1933) took more account of psychology than of history. It is satisfying that Synod Kampen (1975) made an alternative avail­able which is strongly related to the time of the Reformation. Kampen (1975) has older sources than Middelburg (1933). The question for church historians is not: where does the Kampen order come from, but how did the Reformed churches got the Middelburg order.
    
4. There is much more order in the liturgy than a century ago. The singing is clearly better. The psalm versification has been improved and the liturgical forms no less. In addition there is a growing interest in these matters.

Wish List←⤒🔗

At the same time there is still much left to be desired. We will mention seven wishes which live among us.

5. Let there be more activity for the members of the congregation, in particular for the young people. Let us give the "Amen" back to the congregation. Let us at certain occasions give a good choir the opportunity to sing. That would not rob the con­gregation of her song, but only stimulate it.
    
6. Let us together give attention to such questions as humiliation, confession of sin and proclamation of grace as separate liturgical acts. That, too, in­volves an important pastoral interest.
    
7. Let us confess our faith together and sing it stand­ing.
    
8. Let us strive for a better hymnbook, with more ties with pre-19th century period, yes even with a time before Luther. It would be good if we had more hymns like the present hymn 27.
    
9. Let us strive for a deeper understanding of the Lord's Supper celebration as a communion with Christ, communion with one another, commun­ion with previous generations – communion in a longing for the hereafter. Let us consider the possibility of designing a third form.
    
10. Let us arrange the services of special days some­what freer.
    ​
11. Let us think about a less formal arrangement of our worship services.

Why could the announcements not be made five minutes before the service? Perhaps we could then also welcome the guests especially those that have come from afar. In addition information could be given about sad and glad happenings in the congregation and the elders and/or deacons could say something about the nature of the collec­tions.

Finally from Luther and Calvin we can learn, that when it concerns the liturgy we must not be spasmodic nor zealous. We must have good relation­ships with one another and as congregation talk much with one another. We must show each other, how beautiful it can and may be in the church of Jesus Christ.

We may be rich in the treasures of former days and content with what we have today. To be content, however, is not the same as being satisfied. To be satisfied may not be a characteristic of a Christian's life in this dispensation. Therefore, we must, content with today, at the same time long for the morning and look forward to the beautiful liturgy, when we together meet in the overwhelming praise of God and the Lamb.