Not a few consistory members (and even more members of the congregation who are usually the victims of it) have probably cursed the day on which Synod appointed a standing Liturgical Committee with a sweeping and almost unlimited mandate. Every year again we are faced with a new product of its labors, and each year the confusion increases. Very few consistory members, and still fewer members of the congregation have any idea of the exact status of these proliferous forms. Adding to the confusion is the variety of Psalter Hymnal editions. Supplements to the Psalter, and supplementary booklets containing certain forms. It‘s pretty difficult to make head or tail out of the whole business.
But bad as that is, it’s not the worst feature of the entire matter. In years or decades to come we’ll hopefully all have the same up-to-date, standardized hymnals (wishful thinking?).
The worst feature is that one never knows what to expect next in the way of liturgical prizes or surprises (mostly the latter it seems). It‘s hard to know what direction the Liturgical Committee is actually trying to lead us. Indeed, on paper it sounds good. Synod mandated the Committee “to study liturgical usages and practices in our churches in the light of Reformed liturgical principles . . . . . This year the Liturgical Committee requested Synod to mandate it, along with the Psalter Hymnal Supplement Committee and representatives of the Education Committee, “to devise and present to the Synod of 1978 recommendations for motivating and instructing the membership of the Christian Reformed Church in the history, theology, and practice of Reformed liturgy and music.” One of the reasons given for this is that “there is a possibility that our Reformed theology will be undermined by non-Reformed hymnody and liturgy.” That is a good and noble motive, and no doubt that danger is not imaginary.
But that’s now exactly where I have my problem. I wish I could trust the Liturgical Committee itself on this score. Rather, I see evidence that the Committee itself at times tends (intentionally or unintentionally) to undermine our Reformed theology in some of the newer proposed forms. Indeed, in my worst moments I ask, after the fashion of Nathanael, Can anything Reformed come from the Liturgical Committee?
Every time a new form comes along, crucial elements either seem to be missing or they are present in a much less clear and obvious manner. The sharp edges seem often to be taken off. That was true in the new form for Infant Baptism and also in the new “translation.” Only after considerable reaction from the churches is the matter (reluctantly?) rectified to an extent. I often wonder why this has to be the case. Liturgy is supposed to be edifying to the churches; perhaps they should have a greater say in producing suitable forms.
No, I’m not for long forms. Fact is, some of the newly adopted forms, both for the Lord‘s Supper and Infant Baptism, are too long. But the important elements must be present, and what is said must be said clearly. The Reformed teaching, inasfar as that has to be present, must be unequivocally stated, so that he who runs may read.
This year the Liturgical Committee has proposed a new form for the Solemnization of Marriage. The first question to be asked is: Who said we needed this? Or was this part of the original mandate too, even though marriage is not strictly an ecclesiastical affair?
In any case, we are presented with it. And here we have another example of what I mentioned above. I miss some important Reformed (Scriptural) emphases, and on that score the present form is far superior to the proposed one. Again, I should say. That was and is true, generally speaking, of the older Lord‘s Supper and Baptism forms also. The new doesn‘t measure up to the old in that respect. That is true here too, in the Marriage Form.
Look only at the fact that there is no reference at all to the husband being the head of the wife, and thus the vows spoken by both bride and groom are completely identical. In the Preface to the proposed form the Committee says that “there should be a clear and concise statement on what the Bible teaches about the meaning and purpose of marriage. But here a very important part of that teaching is simply ignored. And in the face of a lot of unbiblical ideas nowadays as propagated by the Women‘s Liberation movement, such an omission is so much the more inexcusable. It does not show a great deal of biblical sensitivity to the spirit of the age. And surely that is what we may expect of the church.
Without a doubt this omission is itself influenced by the Women’s Lib movement. But instead of capitulating to the secular spirit of the age, we ought to throw up a bulwark against it.
It won‘t do to say that in the past the headship role was often misinterpreted or misused. That may be true, but to fall into the opposite error is equally bad. It won‘t do either to stress the concept of “mutuality” in subjection to each other. That concept itself is biblical enough, and Paul mentions it in Ephesians 5:21. But right after that he admonishes wives to be subject to their husbands, and not the other way around. Mutual subjection holds for parents and children too, and for servants and masters also. But that does not do away with the unique role or function that each party has to the other. One cannot say that because we all must be subject to one another, children need not obey their parents. Nor does it follow that therefore wives need not be subject to their husbands. The old Form also mentions mutual subjection: “Thus the liberty of both husband and wife is glorified by mutual loyalty to law.” Real liberation for both women and men comes by obedience to the ordinances which the Lord has instituted for marriage, not in trying to overthrow them or change them around. Too bad the Liturgical Committee didn‘t understand that.
It is to be hoped that many consistories will send in their reactions to this proposed Form, so that once again the Committee will be forced to back down. And before trying to instruct the membership of the church in the theology of Reformed liturgy, it is well that the members of the Committee steep themselves in it more thoroughly. Or, better yet, perhaps we ought to “layoff” this Committee and call for a ten-year moratorium on liturgical change, for we seem to be getting less liturgical renewal than liturgical retrogression.
