THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER:
ITS VIRTUES & VICES
OR
THE ALTERNATIVE WESTMINSTER DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC
WORSHIP (1645) CONSIDERED
Being the substance of a paper first presented to the
1989 Westminster Conference in London
by Dr Alan C. Clifford
It would appear that in some respects, current confusion in the realm of worship is more difficult to cure than more theoretical theological differences. While it is ultimately true that faulty theology lies behind faulty practice, not all those who have abandoned traditional Reformed worship have rejected Reformed theology, at least notionally. What a former FIEC president has recently written in his church magazine gives us a measure of the problem:
Within the service of worship we are also trying to proclaim God's truth, and here too there is room for variety. The sermon as we think of it, is a relatively modem invention. There is room for all kinds of ways of reading the Scriptures, and also, I believe, for testimonies, interviews, and drama. We have to distinguish very honestly between what dishonours God, and what annoys our sensibilities.1
And all this in a magazine which happily, in the same issue, quotes as a SOP for traditionalists? from Matthew Henry and Thomas Watson! Without pursuing our subject in pure academic and historical isolation, we may surely ask if the Westminster divines can help us nearly three hundred and fifty years on? At least they might help us to understand our confusion a little more clearly!
The Regulative Principle and Its Limits
The famous Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, together with their Independent and Particular Baptist derivatives, are well known throughout the international Reformed constituency. The Directory of Public Worship is less well known although it was the first document to be produced by the Assembly of Divines. That it ever commanded agreement is truly remarkable, for unlike the drafting of the Confession of Faith, the Directory's passage in committee and debate was often stormy.2 For the most part, differences of opinion concerned matters which the Scriptures shed no specific light on, a fact which serves to underline the difficult task before us, namely, that 'the speaker is asked to consider to what extent the Directory — as a replacement for the Book of Common Prayer — advanced the cause of the reformation of worship and to evaluate critically its biblical basis.' The task is made no easier when one learns, in the words of Dr. Horton Davies, that the Directory was in fact 'a compromise between the three parties, the English Presbyterians, the Scottish Presbyterians and the Independents.'3
An evaluation of the Confession of Faith would have been easier to make: the subject matter in question is all contained in the Bible. But apart from certain leading principles, adopting the 'regulative principle' found the various parties at considerable odds where the Directory of Worship was concerned. It is easy to discern from the Scriptures that preaching, scripture reading. prayers and the singing of God's praise are the main elements of Christian worship and that the two divinely instituted symbolic ordinances are baptism and the Lord's Supper. Undergirding this is the New Testament stress that all worship should be both 'orderly' and 'spiritual'. But concerning the precise form of sermons and prayers', the structure of a service of worship, the number of psalms (and/or hymns) to be sung, the frequency of the Lord's Supper, the conduct of marriages and funerals, such matters are not determined in the New Testament. In short, what exactly does it mean to be biblical in the details as well as the principles of worship?
The Westminster divines soon realized that their attachment to the regulative principle did not solve all their problems. It was relatively easy to detect the unbiblical elements in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), but not so easy to replace them by valid alternatives. Hence the Preface states that in laying 'aside the former Liturgy, with the many rites and ceremonies formerly used in the worship of God ... our care hath been to hold forth such things as are of divine institution in every ordinance; and other things we have endeavoured to set forth according to the rules of Christian prudence, agreeable to the general rules of the Word of God'. Whereas these criteria were sufficient to ban the sacerdotal and superstitious overtones of the BCP — and still are sufficient to ban drama and dance as well as women preachers and priests of either sex, areas of potential disagreement still remained. This is hardly surprising, for three distinct outlooks faced one another in the Assembly. The English Presbyterians were ex-Anglican Puritans, who, in their 'nonconformity' had been used to 'reformed' editions of the BCP. The Scottish Commissioners had used the Book of Common Order, the so-called 'Knox's Liturgy', which reflected the forms of Calvin's Genevan liturgy. These two groups both accepted the validity of liturgical worship. And then there were the 'proto-charismatic' Independents who were opposed to any kind of service book. Such was the rather ominous lament of Robert Baillie, one of the Scottish Commissioners: "While we were sweetly debating on these things, in came Mr. Goodwin, who
incontinent assayed to turn all upside down, to reason against all directories... I hope God will not permit him to go on to lead a faction for renting of the kirk."4
PART 1
Introduction
Had this Westminster Conference been commissioned by Her Majesty's Government to reform British Christendom, some of us would doubtless relish the opportunity. Others would hasten back to their pastorates, utterly intimidated by the sheer scale of the task. For the boldest spirits among us, the charge of Erastianism notwithstanding, the prospect of sending the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Durham and a few more prelates to the Tower even if they didn't lose their heads would be doubtless irresistible. The thought of not only disestablishing but abolishing the Church of England (as the Puritans did in 1643) in favour of a more biblical institution would excite our most fervent expectations. However, would a hypothetical Westminster Assembly of the 1990s have even a fraction of the success of its seventeenth-century forerunner? Probably not, for the ecclesiastical situation we face today is infinitely more confused and intractable than that faced by the Westminster divines. Even if our proposals were to pass through Parliament and receive the Royal Assent, the current confusion of British evangelicalism would hardly ensure their acceptance in the country. At least seventeenth-century evangelicals were convinced of the need for continuing reform and there was little doubt in their minds that the criteria of reform were to be determined exclusively by Holy Scripture.
Had this Westminster Conference been commissioned by Her Majesty's Government to reform British Christendom, some of us would doubtless relish the opportunity. Others would hasten back to their pastorates, utterly intimidated by the sheer scale of the task. For the boldest spirits among us, the charge of Erastianism notwithstanding, the prospect of sending the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Durham and a few more prelates to the Tower even if they didn't lose their heads would be doubtless irresistible. The thought of not only disestablishing but abolishing the Church of England (as the Puritans did in 1643) in favour of a more biblical institution would excite our most fervent expectations. However, would a hypothetical Westminster Assembly of the 1990s have even a fraction of the success of its seventeenth-century forerunner? Probably not, for the ecclesiastical situation we face today is infinitely more confused and intractable than that faced by the Westminster divines. Even if our proposals were to pass through Parliament and receive the Royal Assent, the current confusion of British evangelicalism would hardly ensure their acceptance in the country. At least seventeenth-century evangelicals were convinced of the need for continuing reform and there was little doubt in their minds that the criteria of reform were to be determined exclusively by Holy Scripture.
It would appear that in some respects, current confusion in the realm of worship is more difficult to cure than more theoretical theological differences. While it is ultimately true that faulty theology lies behind faulty practice, not all those who have abandoned traditional Reformed worship have rejected Reformed theology, at least notionally. What a former FIEC president has recently written in his church magazine gives us a measure of the problem:
Within the service of worship we are also trying to proclaim God's truth, and here too there is room for variety. The sermon as we think of it, is a relatively modem invention. There is room for all kinds of ways of reading the Scriptures, and also, I believe, for testimonies, interviews, and drama. We have to distinguish very honestly between what dishonours God, and what annoys our sensibilities.1
And all this in a magazine which happily, in the same issue, quotes as a SOP for traditionalists? from Matthew Henry and Thomas Watson! Without pursuing our subject in pure academic and historical isolation, we may surely ask if the Westminster divines can help us nearly three hundred and fifty years on? At least they might help us to understand our confusion a little more clearly!
The Regulative Principle and Its Limits
The famous Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, together with their Independent and Particular Baptist derivatives, are well known throughout the international Reformed constituency. The Directory of Public Worship is less well known although it was the first document to be produced by the Assembly of Divines. That it ever commanded agreement is truly remarkable, for unlike the drafting of the Confession of Faith, the Directory's passage in committee and debate was often stormy.2 For the most part, differences of opinion concerned matters which the Scriptures shed no specific light on, a fact which serves to underline the difficult task before us, namely, that 'the speaker is asked to consider to what extent the Directory — as a replacement for the Book of Common Prayer — advanced the cause of the reformation of worship and to evaluate critically its biblical basis.' The task is made no easier when one learns, in the words of Dr. Horton Davies, that the Directory was in fact 'a compromise between the three parties, the English Presbyterians, the Scottish Presbyterians and the Independents.'3
An evaluation of the Confession of Faith would have been easier to make: the subject matter in question is all contained in the Bible. But apart from certain leading principles, adopting the 'regulative principle' found the various parties at considerable odds where the Directory of Worship was concerned. It is easy to discern from the Scriptures that preaching, scripture reading. prayers and the singing of God's praise are the main elements of Christian worship and that the two divinely instituted symbolic ordinances are baptism and the Lord's Supper. Undergirding this is the New Testament stress that all worship should be both 'orderly' and 'spiritual'. But concerning the precise form of sermons and prayers', the structure of a service of worship, the number of psalms (and/or hymns) to be sung, the frequency of the Lord's Supper, the conduct of marriages and funerals, such matters are not determined in the New Testament. In short, what exactly does it mean to be biblical in the details as well as the principles of worship?
The Westminster divines soon realized that their attachment to the regulative principle did not solve all their problems. It was relatively easy to detect the unbiblical elements in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), but not so easy to replace them by valid alternatives. Hence the Preface states that in laying 'aside the former Liturgy, with the many rites and ceremonies formerly used in the worship of God ... our care hath been to hold forth such things as are of divine institution in every ordinance; and other things we have endeavoured to set forth according to the rules of Christian prudence, agreeable to the general rules of the Word of God'. Whereas these criteria were sufficient to ban the sacerdotal and superstitious overtones of the BCP — and still are sufficient to ban drama and dance as well as women preachers and priests of either sex, areas of potential disagreement still remained. This is hardly surprising, for three distinct outlooks faced one another in the Assembly. The English Presbyterians were ex-Anglican Puritans, who, in their 'nonconformity' had been used to 'reformed' editions of the BCP. The Scottish Commissioners had used the Book of Common Order, the so-called 'Knox's Liturgy', which reflected the forms of Calvin's Genevan liturgy. These two groups both accepted the validity of liturgical worship. And then there were the 'proto-charismatic' Independents who were opposed to any kind of service book. Such was the rather ominous lament of Robert Baillie, one of the Scottish Commissioners: "While we were sweetly debating on these things, in came Mr. Goodwin, who
incontinent assayed to turn all upside down, to reason against all directories... I hope God will not permit him to go on to lead a faction for renting of the kirk."4
No comments:
Post a Comment