The CRC Synod of 1973 had a relatively light agenda on liturgical matters. There were only two matters before it from the Liturgical Committee. The one matter was an updated rendering of the Form for Baptism of Infants. The other matter dealt with the program of worship for the second service on the Lord’s Day. To say that Synod had a light agenda on liturgical matters is not the equivalent of saying that it had an unimportant agenda. While the first item was virtually a translation of the present Form for Baptism of Infants and somewhat non-controversial, the second item was one with far-reaching implications.
Form for Baptism of Children
Synod adopted the recommendation of the Liturgical Committee on the Form for the Baptism of Children without too much debate. A few questions were asked in order to ascertain the accuracy, or point, of the translation in a few places. However, there was no serious problem in reaching the decision: “That Synod recommend the updated Form for Baptism to the churches for provisional use for a period of three years, with a view to eventual adoption by Synod, and request that reactions to the form be presented to the Liturgical Committee.”
This action of Synod is entirely in accord with that of previous synods which have adopted new forms provisionally for a period of three years. At the conclusion of this period, the form is either approved for permanent use in our churches or it is set aside. Hopefully, this updated form will find acceptance with our people and will finally be designated for permanent use in our churches, after minor corrections and changes have been made during the trial period.
The Second Sunday Service
The second matter from the Liturgical Committee caused more concern among the delegates as the serious discussion of the matter indicated. This matter dealt with the Liturgical Committee’s REPORT ON THE SECOND SUNDAY SERVICE.
The Liturgical Committee engaged itself in a study of the second Sunday service which concerned itself basically with two matters, namely, why do we have a second service, and how can we improve and revitalize the second service? In its report, the Liturgical Committee came out in favor of having a second service on the Lord’s Day. However, it seemed to feel that the manner of worship in the second service in our churches stands in need of improvement and enrichment.
To quote the words of the Liturgical Committee: “It hardly needs saying that opportunity for mutual edification is now rarely provided in our worship service” (Agenda for Synod 1973, p. 373). The Liturgical Committee provided Synod with an example “of an evening service that actually occurred in one of our Christian Reformed churches.” This example was set forth to show “what may happen when the opportunity is provided” (Ibid.). Having set forth five different approaches to conducting the second service (Instructional, Ecumenical, Diaconal, Special Category, and Evangelistic), the Liturgical Committee asked “That synod recommend the report on the second Sunday service to the churches for their consideration, reflection and guidance” (lbid., p. 379).
The Advisory Committee of Synod, reporting through Rev. Harlan C. Vanden Einde, called Synod’s attention to the fact that there had been no speci6c mandate given for a study of the second Sunday service. The Liturgical Committee undertook this study because of “pressure” from the churches. It justified this study in terms of the broad mandate given it by the Synod of 1964, namely, “to study liturgical usages and practices in our churches in the light of Reformed liturgical principles and past synodical decisions” (Ibid., p. 368). The Advisory Committee also observed “that the Church Order does not exclude variation in the second service under the supervision of the consistory. Yet we believe there are parts of this report that allow for types of services which may be in violation of the Church Order.”
In light of the above-mentioned history and observation, the Advisory Committee recommended the following:
1. “That Synod refer this report to the churches for their consideration and reflection.
Grounds:
a. The first section of the report is of an informative and illustrative nature, and calls for further reflection.
b. The second section contains suggestions for certain types of services which Synod ought not to adopt with an official endorsement, since in this way the possibility may be opened for types of services which would be in violation of the Church Order (e.g., the ecumenical service), or the intent of one of the questions asked at Church Visitation. (When guest ministers or unordained men are invited to preach, does the consistory employ only persons who are of Reformed persuasion and who are properly licensed? Question 2b.)
2. That Synod remind the churches that whatever practices are followed with respect to the second service, the consistories exercise care to observe Articles 51–55 of the Church Order, particularly Article 54a which states: ‘In the worship services the minister of the Word shall officially explain and apply Holy Scripture.’”
The above-quoted advice of the Advisory Committee was finally adopted by Synod but not without considerable attention being given to the matter. It must be observed, first of all, that the Advisory Committee dropped the word “guidance” from the Liturgical Committee’s recommendation. Synod’s decision, therefore, is that this report shall now be before the church for “consideration and reflection.” No church must regard this report on the second Sunday service as being presented for its “guidance.” It must be observed, further, that Synod emphasized the centrality of preaching in any worship service by reminding the churches to observe carefully the Church Order and particularly Article 54a which regulates the preaching of the Word.
In the discussion that took place on the floor of Synod, there was some sentiment to withhold action on the entire report and the recommendations since the matter of the second Sunday service had not been specifically mandated. A motion was actually made to withhold action, but it failed to carry the majority of Synod. Thereafter the first recommendation of the Advisory Committee was adopted by Synod.
When the second recommendation of the Advisory Committee was before Synod, some objected to it on the ground that consistories need not be reminded of their duties. Others objected to including the quotation of Article 54a in the recommendation. A motion was then made to delete the reference to Article 54a of the Church Order. However, this amendment failed to pass. Finally. Synod adopted the second recommendation of the Advisory Committee as presented.
In my opinion, Synod was served well by the Advisory Committee and did well to adopt its advice. Changes have come and will continue to come in our worship services. This is especially true of the second Sunday service. However, whatever changes are made should be carefully weighed. I, for one, am not ready to introduce an “altar call” into the worship service yet. I believe the “altar can” is basically foreign to Reformed worship and is a questionable practice. Likewise. the implications of “special category” worship services and of “ecumenical” services ought to be thought out more carefully before they become common practice in our churches. I think Synod took a wise course in referring this report to our churches “for their consideration and reflection.” Let us hope that our churches give consideration and thought to this report and react to it for the benefit of all congregations within our denominational fellowship.
It was wise, too, for Synod to remind our consistories to observe carefully Articles 51–55 of the Church Order with special regard to Article 54a. All churches should take seriously the centrality of preaching in the worship service. The history of the second Sunday service in the churches of America should convince us that when sound preaching declines, the people’s interest declines also. None of our churches should attempt to revitalize the second Sunday service by the omission of that which is vital to it, namely, the preaching of the Word. Whatever variations we make in our worship services, let us be faithful to the biblical injunction: “Preach the word, by urgent in season and out of season” (II Tim. 4:2).
Harry G. Arnold, pastor of First Christian Reformed Church of Lansing, Illinois, attended the 1973 CRC Synod as a delegate from Classis Illiana.
Form for Baptism of Children
Synod adopted the recommendation of the Liturgical Committee on the Form for the Baptism of Children without too much debate. A few questions were asked in order to ascertain the accuracy, or point, of the translation in a few places. However, there was no serious problem in reaching the decision: “That Synod recommend the updated Form for Baptism to the churches for provisional use for a period of three years, with a view to eventual adoption by Synod, and request that reactions to the form be presented to the Liturgical Committee.”
This action of Synod is entirely in accord with that of previous synods which have adopted new forms provisionally for a period of three years. At the conclusion of this period, the form is either approved for permanent use in our churches or it is set aside. Hopefully, this updated form will find acceptance with our people and will finally be designated for permanent use in our churches, after minor corrections and changes have been made during the trial period.
The Second Sunday Service
The second matter from the Liturgical Committee caused more concern among the delegates as the serious discussion of the matter indicated. This matter dealt with the Liturgical Committee’s REPORT ON THE SECOND SUNDAY SERVICE.
The Liturgical Committee engaged itself in a study of the second Sunday service which concerned itself basically with two matters, namely, why do we have a second service, and how can we improve and revitalize the second service? In its report, the Liturgical Committee came out in favor of having a second service on the Lord’s Day. However, it seemed to feel that the manner of worship in the second service in our churches stands in need of improvement and enrichment.
To quote the words of the Liturgical Committee: “It hardly needs saying that opportunity for mutual edification is now rarely provided in our worship service” (Agenda for Synod 1973, p. 373). The Liturgical Committee provided Synod with an example “of an evening service that actually occurred in one of our Christian Reformed churches.” This example was set forth to show “what may happen when the opportunity is provided” (Ibid.). Having set forth five different approaches to conducting the second service (Instructional, Ecumenical, Diaconal, Special Category, and Evangelistic), the Liturgical Committee asked “That synod recommend the report on the second Sunday service to the churches for their consideration, reflection and guidance” (lbid., p. 379).
The Advisory Committee of Synod, reporting through Rev. Harlan C. Vanden Einde, called Synod’s attention to the fact that there had been no speci6c mandate given for a study of the second Sunday service. The Liturgical Committee undertook this study because of “pressure” from the churches. It justified this study in terms of the broad mandate given it by the Synod of 1964, namely, “to study liturgical usages and practices in our churches in the light of Reformed liturgical principles and past synodical decisions” (Ibid., p. 368). The Advisory Committee also observed “that the Church Order does not exclude variation in the second service under the supervision of the consistory. Yet we believe there are parts of this report that allow for types of services which may be in violation of the Church Order.”
In light of the above-mentioned history and observation, the Advisory Committee recommended the following:
1. “That Synod refer this report to the churches for their consideration and reflection.
Grounds:
a. The first section of the report is of an informative and illustrative nature, and calls for further reflection.
b. The second section contains suggestions for certain types of services which Synod ought not to adopt with an official endorsement, since in this way the possibility may be opened for types of services which would be in violation of the Church Order (e.g., the ecumenical service), or the intent of one of the questions asked at Church Visitation. (When guest ministers or unordained men are invited to preach, does the consistory employ only persons who are of Reformed persuasion and who are properly licensed? Question 2b.)
2. That Synod remind the churches that whatever practices are followed with respect to the second service, the consistories exercise care to observe Articles 51–55 of the Church Order, particularly Article 54a which states: ‘In the worship services the minister of the Word shall officially explain and apply Holy Scripture.’”
The above-quoted advice of the Advisory Committee was finally adopted by Synod but not without considerable attention being given to the matter. It must be observed, first of all, that the Advisory Committee dropped the word “guidance” from the Liturgical Committee’s recommendation. Synod’s decision, therefore, is that this report shall now be before the church for “consideration and reflection.” No church must regard this report on the second Sunday service as being presented for its “guidance.” It must be observed, further, that Synod emphasized the centrality of preaching in any worship service by reminding the churches to observe carefully the Church Order and particularly Article 54a which regulates the preaching of the Word.
In the discussion that took place on the floor of Synod, there was some sentiment to withhold action on the entire report and the recommendations since the matter of the second Sunday service had not been specifically mandated. A motion was actually made to withhold action, but it failed to carry the majority of Synod. Thereafter the first recommendation of the Advisory Committee was adopted by Synod.
When the second recommendation of the Advisory Committee was before Synod, some objected to it on the ground that consistories need not be reminded of their duties. Others objected to including the quotation of Article 54a in the recommendation. A motion was then made to delete the reference to Article 54a of the Church Order. However, this amendment failed to pass. Finally. Synod adopted the second recommendation of the Advisory Committee as presented.
In my opinion, Synod was served well by the Advisory Committee and did well to adopt its advice. Changes have come and will continue to come in our worship services. This is especially true of the second Sunday service. However, whatever changes are made should be carefully weighed. I, for one, am not ready to introduce an “altar call” into the worship service yet. I believe the “altar can” is basically foreign to Reformed worship and is a questionable practice. Likewise. the implications of “special category” worship services and of “ecumenical” services ought to be thought out more carefully before they become common practice in our churches. I think Synod took a wise course in referring this report to our churches “for their consideration and reflection.” Let us hope that our churches give consideration and thought to this report and react to it for the benefit of all congregations within our denominational fellowship.
It was wise, too, for Synod to remind our consistories to observe carefully Articles 51–55 of the Church Order with special regard to Article 54a. All churches should take seriously the centrality of preaching in the worship service. The history of the second Sunday service in the churches of America should convince us that when sound preaching declines, the people’s interest declines also. None of our churches should attempt to revitalize the second Sunday service by the omission of that which is vital to it, namely, the preaching of the Word. Whatever variations we make in our worship services, let us be faithful to the biblical injunction: “Preach the word, by urgent in season and out of season” (II Tim. 4:2).
Harry G. Arnold, pastor of First Christian Reformed Church of Lansing, Illinois, attended the 1973 CRC Synod as a delegate from Classis Illiana.