Last month’s issue of this magazine featured a symposium of twelve articles, by as many writers, on the question: “Which of the Three Forms for Communion Do I Prefer, and Why?”

The purpose of the symposium was to present a cross section of the reactions of our ministers to the two new Forms for our communion services which have been used for a couple of years in our congregations on a trial basis.

It is well to stress the fact that the “Old Form” is still our official Form for communion, the two new Forms having been approved only for experimental use.

The contents of this symposium were a surprise to us and perhaps to many. It is significant that each of the three Forms under consideration was preferred by an equal number of writers! And all presented more or less impressive reasons for their preference.

What conclusions may we with good reason draw from this equal division of opinion?

Let us assume that if all our ministers were to vote on the question of their preference, the proportions would be about the same. We feel this is a safe assumption. This would mean that each of the two new forms would be favored by only one third of our ministers! (What the preference of our elders and “laymen” would be no one can say but it would be interesting and profitable to know their reactions.)

Does it follow that the two thirds of the ministers who expressed preference for the first or the second of the two new Forms are really satisfied with the revisions? Hardly. Each one of these six men had reservations or criticisms of the Form which he liked best. It is true, the three men who argued for the retention of the old Form also ask for some change, either in its length or in some of its other features. And so the question naturally arises: Should the Synod in its ultimate decision in the matter (we trust it will not merely legitimize the two new Forms and make the use of all three optional!) decide on making some minor revisions in the old Form or on perfecting the first or the second of the new Forms?

Former recommendations to or decisions of our Synods on this entire matter should not be ignored. It struck me when I read those decisions that much emphasis was placed on the desirability of making no extensive changes in the old Form. For example, we read in the Acts of 1953 that the Study Committee made the following recommendation, among others:

“No extensive abbreviation and revision of our beautiful and well-rounded Form should be made. Grounds: 1. It is ‘the pearl of our liturgical forms’ (Prof. Biesterveld) and radical revision will tend to mar its effectiveness and beauty. 2. The Form is not too long if the sermon, which is frequently too lengthy, is kept within proper limits, and given less prominence.”

That Synod requested the Committee to solicit the responses of our consistories to its recommendations. In its report to the Synod of 1954 it stated that the recommendation which “advocated that no extensive revision or abbreviation of our Form be made…received almost unanimous endorsement, 271 for and 41 opposed (italics mine-K.). Thus it is evident that mOst of our consistories feel no need of radical revision. A few letters were received arguing the necessity of such revision, but several also suggested making no revision at all.” That 1954 Synod “declared that no extensive revision or abbreviation of our beautiful and well-rounded Form for the Lord’s Supper shall be made.”

The Synod of 1955 repeated the instruction of the 1954 Synod that “No extensive revisions or abbreviations of our beautiful and well-rounded Form for the Lord’s Supper shall be made.” However, the new committee appointed by that Synod was not in agreement with that decision and reported that in its judgment “a thoroughgoing revision of both form and content is imperative” (Acts 1956). It found “discordant elements,” “archaisms and tautological phrases” and an “obvious imbalance” of theological emphasis, particularly as compared with the Belgic Confession, article 35. It was also of the opinion that the place of the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer in the form is questionable.

That Synod disagreed with the sentiments of this Committee. We can easily understand that it did. Personally we have never found the discordant elements of which the Committee spoke, even though it appealed to the authority of Wielenga. As to the “obvious imbalance” of doctrine, the basis adduced for this charge is that while our Belgic Confession stresses the fact that the Lord’s Supper is intended for our spiritual sustenance through communion with the body of Christ, our Form emphasizes the element of remembrance. The obvious answer is that the Lord’s Supper is a commemorative ordinance as well as a sacramental means of grace. In fact, Jesus himself said: “This do in remembrance of me.” One of our weaknesses as a Reformed people is that we often fail to realize that the first and primary purpose of this sacrament is not to feed our souls but to honor Jesus Christ by remembering his sacrificial suffering and death. Again, a few examples are given of needless repetition, one of these being: “our sins and accursedness.” But where is the repetition? The curse is not the same as the sin but is the inevitable penalty of our sin.

H is not strange therefore that the Synod of 1956 disagreed and appointed another committee giving it the same mandate as before. That committee reported in 1957, presenting a Form for the preparatory service and a Form to be used at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This Form was a limited revision of the old Form.

That Synod of 1957 decided, in connection with a com· mwtication from the Reformed Chnrches of the Netherlands pertaining to the matter of liturgy revision, to appoint a committee to evaluate the Forms proposed by former committees, to correspond with the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands regarding the matter, and to draw up a proposed revision of the Form to be presented to the Synod of 1959.

The Synod of 1959 considered two Forms which the committee presented, the two now being used on a trial basis in our churches, and decided that the churches should have the privilege to use these two Forms on such a basis for a period of four years, with the understanding that this would not in any way affect the authorized status of the present formulary.

When the twelve articles in the September issue of TORCH AND TRUMPET were written, the two new Forms had been in use by our churches, in so far as they felt the need of using them in a provisional way, for a period of two years. Those who contributed to the symposium have come to certain definite conclusions. It is safe to say that the Synod of 1963 will not be able to record that our churches have reached a unanimous verdict. The probability is that the variety of reactions will be as great as in last month’s symposium. For that reason a discussion in our various publications of the merits and demerits of the revisions might be fruitful.

Our personal reactions are as follows:

We have long favored a limited revision of our present authorized Form for the Lord’s Supper. It is rather long and some of the sentences arc quite involved. On the other hand, that Form has a warmth, a depth, a “theological clarity,” as Dr. Alexander De Jong expressed it, which we fail to find in either of the other Forms now in provisional use. Listening to the reading of these new Forms, we were strengthened in the conviction that the Church would suffer spiritual loss if the old Form should be discarded.

We believe there are some good features in the two new Forms. And yet, they sound rather flat compared with the stately Form which has become so familiar to us. With many of the criticisms made of these new Forms in the symposium of last month we agree. We shall not repeat them. But we also agree that some changes should be made in the old formulary.

We agree, for example, that the Lord’s Prayer should be used only once, and that at the very end of the Prayer of Thanksgiving with which the document closes. We dissent definitely from the opinion sometimes expressed that the Perfect Prayer should be used only as a guide and never literally. Our fathers had a better conception. Note that everyone of the many prayers in our liturgy concludes with this Perfect Prayer. It seems to us that the realization of the imperfection of all our own petitions should prompt us to make more frequent use of the prayer which Christ himself has taught us.

We also favor strongly the elimination of the Apostles’ Creed from the Form, whether as part of the prayer before communion or as a separate clement. We have not used it as part of the Form for many years. There is no need of it since it is read or recited in one of Sunday services each Lord’s Day. All feel that the old Form is rather long. Here is one way of making it a bit shorter. One committee advocated its continued use for “liturgical and historical reasons,” but those reasons were not explicated.

We also favor the revision of the list of gross sins ill the preparatory part of the form. The idea that sins should not be catalogued does not find an echo in our soul. We believe it is contrary to the example of Scripture itself. We find such “catalogues’ in more than one New Testament passage. We mention 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; 1 Timothy 1:10; 11 Timothy 3:2-5; Titus 3:3; Rev. 21:8, and 22:15. Scripture speaks not only of sin in general but of specific sins. In doing so it condemns especially the sins that were rampant in those days and constituted special temptations for believers then living. For that reason any list of “gross” sins which our Form mentions should also be up to date in the sense that it should warn us against sins that are regnant and popular in our day. At the same time the thought that only those who persist in these sins should abstain and that impenitence in the case of any and every sin should deter us from partaking of the Lord’s Supper should also find expression in the section on self-examination.

It has been recommended that the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper should be eliminated. But what can be more important than to remind the congregation f)f those inspired words which explain the meaning of this sacrament and at the same time warn us against eating and drinking judgment to ourselves? That warning is necessary especially in our day when practically every confessing member considers participation in the Lord’s Supper to be a matter of course. However, the second quotation from Scripture in the paragraph beginning with the words: “And that we might firmly believe that we belong to this covenant of grace” could very well be reduced, as in one of the proposed revisions, to the brief words of Christ: “Do this in remembrance of me.”

We are confident that if the 1963 Synod would appoint a committee to review carefully all the suggestions that have been made for the improvement of the old Form the final result would be a document that would satisfy the largest number of office-bearers in our churches. For no one will ever succeed in producing a Form that meets with approval by all our people.