Rev. Cecil W. Tuininga is pastor of the College Avenue Christian Reformed Church of Winnipeg, Manitoba. In his article he deals with the report of the Liturgical Committee to be found in the CRC Agenda for Synod 1973, pages 368–379.
Report 38, presented by the Liturgical Committee, confronts Synod 1973 with two items. The first is a translation of the Form for Infant Baptism, the second deals with the Second Sunday Service. On these two items I would like to make some comments as follows:
1. The Translation (New Version) of the Form for Infant Baptism – Although the committee insists that this is a translation, it is more than that, since it has changed import of the form in significant ways. The old form emphasizes that baptism spells out a living relationship with the Lord. It speaks about our children being “received unto grace in Christ” and of circumcision as a “seal of the covenant and of the righteousness of faith.” The old form calls the congregation to thanksgiving that God has forgiven both parents and children all their sins and “sealed and confirmed the same in baptism.” The old form also calls the congregation to pray that the children may be “nurtured in godliness, and grow and increase in the Lord Jesus Christ.” The new version comes far short of saying this.
This new version speaks of “God’s gracious attitude toward our children,” and of circumcision as a “declaration that righteousness comes by faith”; and, instead of a prayer of thanksgiving for sins forgiven for infants, it speaks of a “uniting us with Christ” and of baptism “sealing and confirming these blessings.” And besides this, the new version calls the congregation to pray that infants “may be so exposed to the Christian faith and godliness that they are moved to cultivate a living trust in you.” The old form is clear and positive in teaching that our children are indeed God’s children in the full sense of that term, whereas the new version hesitates to say this, suggesting strongly that covenant blessings depend entirely on man’s acceptance. I fear that if this new version is adopted, that after some years of use it will bring our people to the conclusion that Anabaptists have the better practice.
Besides this, a different conception of sin is introduced. Certainly, to be by nature “sinful,” is not at all the same as being “conceived and born in sin,” and to be “soiled by sin” is something quite different than “impure of soul.” I fail to see how one can escape an underlying semi-Pelagian view, that man is indeed sinful, but not so sinful that even if rightly exposed to the Christian teaching he will not accept Christ as Savior. The old form leaves no doubt about our misery and sin being rooted in our original sin. The new version does much less than justice to this important teaching.
There is also a disturbing use of “you” and “yours” in the prayers. Aside from the question of the right or wrong of “You” and “Thou” in our prayers, it seems to me that we bring the Infinitely Holy Sovereign Cod right down to our finite level when we speak of Him as “You.” If we want to use that form of address we should make it “You,” because we are not speaking to our neighbor John Doe.
2. The Second Sunday Service – This report appeared in Calvinist-Contact sometime ago and received considerable attention. Many readers of THE OUTLOOK have seen the responses to that article, so my response can be brief. I would like to comment as follows:
a. Point I under “Why a Second Service” should be entitled “The Scriptural Approach,” and it should not be dismissed with an unproven assertion that it is “wide open to the danger of a joyless and even a mindless institutionalism.” We can dismiss the other paints that way too. The Scriptural approach should be much more fully explored. Scripture has much to say about the Lord’s Day; and surely, the only way of joy and freedom is to be found in obeying and following God’s Word. Jesus’ words arc significant at this point. He said, “If you love me, keep my commandments,” and “He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings” (John 14:15, 24). People who neglect the second service should be referred to Scripture teaching re: the observance of the Lord’s Day as found in Isaiah 58:13, 14; 56:2; Deut. 5:14, 15; Hebrews 10:24. 25, along with many other passages. The second service is neglected because love to God and obedience to His commands is waning. Those who truly love the Lord seek Him where He may be found, and one of the chief places is in the midst of the congregation gathered for worship around God’s Living Word.
b. One of the factors instrumental in members neglecting the second service is a lack of sound expository preaching in our pulpits. No amount of human wrath or fervor will make up for that. The report suggests that if the pastor warmly greets the congregation, if older (or younger) members propose numbers to be sung, if someone can make a personal testimony, and if people come forward for prayer, then the Spirit can work. Then evidently we are no long:er on a lonely island. Then we can get involved. These are dangerous assumptions. Here we find a shift from a God-centered service to a man-centered one. This report recommends that we go to the way of extreme subjectivism. This surely is not God’s way. All of the congregation ought to be fully involved. But how can we secure this? I submit that where an obedient people comes to worship God around His Word there they will be one (and all fully involved) in prayer, in song, in offerings, in spirit, for there the Holy Spirit can work. He has bound Himself to that Living Word and works mightily where it is soundly proclaimed.
c. The report excuses disobedient members by dismissing present practices of worship as “dull repetition,” “boxed in,” and “time-worn” routines. Since our services are such people stay away and we had better do something about it. But what guidance must we now follow? Does it come from God’s Word? The report leaves this wide open. If we follow these guidelines our denomination will be involved in a chaos of practices, ranging from a fundamentalist altar-call type of service to a discarding-the-Reformed-heritage type of ecumenical service. Allowing some room for variety in a worship service is miles removed from the free-for-all suggested by the committee.
What must we do then? Call our members to repentance in the Lord; urge to a deeper awe and reverence before the holy and sovereign Lord; get on with the sound preaching of the Word; teach our people to see the central importance of the Lord’s Day; and let our ministers lead the congregations in a joyful worship of our Sovereign God. Doing this the cry for emotional man-centered changes will vanish, the second service will come into right focus, for then we will be renewed by the powerful Word of God.
Report 38, presented by the Liturgical Committee, confronts Synod 1973 with two items. The first is a translation of the Form for Infant Baptism, the second deals with the Second Sunday Service. On these two items I would like to make some comments as follows:
1. The Translation (New Version) of the Form for Infant Baptism – Although the committee insists that this is a translation, it is more than that, since it has changed import of the form in significant ways. The old form emphasizes that baptism spells out a living relationship with the Lord. It speaks about our children being “received unto grace in Christ” and of circumcision as a “seal of the covenant and of the righteousness of faith.” The old form calls the congregation to thanksgiving that God has forgiven both parents and children all their sins and “sealed and confirmed the same in baptism.” The old form also calls the congregation to pray that the children may be “nurtured in godliness, and grow and increase in the Lord Jesus Christ.” The new version comes far short of saying this.
This new version speaks of “God’s gracious attitude toward our children,” and of circumcision as a “declaration that righteousness comes by faith”; and, instead of a prayer of thanksgiving for sins forgiven for infants, it speaks of a “uniting us with Christ” and of baptism “sealing and confirming these blessings.” And besides this, the new version calls the congregation to pray that infants “may be so exposed to the Christian faith and godliness that they are moved to cultivate a living trust in you.” The old form is clear and positive in teaching that our children are indeed God’s children in the full sense of that term, whereas the new version hesitates to say this, suggesting strongly that covenant blessings depend entirely on man’s acceptance. I fear that if this new version is adopted, that after some years of use it will bring our people to the conclusion that Anabaptists have the better practice.
Besides this, a different conception of sin is introduced. Certainly, to be by nature “sinful,” is not at all the same as being “conceived and born in sin,” and to be “soiled by sin” is something quite different than “impure of soul.” I fail to see how one can escape an underlying semi-Pelagian view, that man is indeed sinful, but not so sinful that even if rightly exposed to the Christian teaching he will not accept Christ as Savior. The old form leaves no doubt about our misery and sin being rooted in our original sin. The new version does much less than justice to this important teaching.
There is also a disturbing use of “you” and “yours” in the prayers. Aside from the question of the right or wrong of “You” and “Thou” in our prayers, it seems to me that we bring the Infinitely Holy Sovereign Cod right down to our finite level when we speak of Him as “You.” If we want to use that form of address we should make it “You,” because we are not speaking to our neighbor John Doe.
2. The Second Sunday Service – This report appeared in Calvinist-Contact sometime ago and received considerable attention. Many readers of THE OUTLOOK have seen the responses to that article, so my response can be brief. I would like to comment as follows:
a. Point I under “Why a Second Service” should be entitled “The Scriptural Approach,” and it should not be dismissed with an unproven assertion that it is “wide open to the danger of a joyless and even a mindless institutionalism.” We can dismiss the other paints that way too. The Scriptural approach should be much more fully explored. Scripture has much to say about the Lord’s Day; and surely, the only way of joy and freedom is to be found in obeying and following God’s Word. Jesus’ words arc significant at this point. He said, “If you love me, keep my commandments,” and “He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings” (John 14:15, 24). People who neglect the second service should be referred to Scripture teaching re: the observance of the Lord’s Day as found in Isaiah 58:13, 14; 56:2; Deut. 5:14, 15; Hebrews 10:24. 25, along with many other passages. The second service is neglected because love to God and obedience to His commands is waning. Those who truly love the Lord seek Him where He may be found, and one of the chief places is in the midst of the congregation gathered for worship around God’s Living Word.
b. One of the factors instrumental in members neglecting the second service is a lack of sound expository preaching in our pulpits. No amount of human wrath or fervor will make up for that. The report suggests that if the pastor warmly greets the congregation, if older (or younger) members propose numbers to be sung, if someone can make a personal testimony, and if people come forward for prayer, then the Spirit can work. Then evidently we are no long:er on a lonely island. Then we can get involved. These are dangerous assumptions. Here we find a shift from a God-centered service to a man-centered one. This report recommends that we go to the way of extreme subjectivism. This surely is not God’s way. All of the congregation ought to be fully involved. But how can we secure this? I submit that where an obedient people comes to worship God around His Word there they will be one (and all fully involved) in prayer, in song, in offerings, in spirit, for there the Holy Spirit can work. He has bound Himself to that Living Word and works mightily where it is soundly proclaimed.
c. The report excuses disobedient members by dismissing present practices of worship as “dull repetition,” “boxed in,” and “time-worn” routines. Since our services are such people stay away and we had better do something about it. But what guidance must we now follow? Does it come from God’s Word? The report leaves this wide open. If we follow these guidelines our denomination will be involved in a chaos of practices, ranging from a fundamentalist altar-call type of service to a discarding-the-Reformed-heritage type of ecumenical service. Allowing some room for variety in a worship service is miles removed from the free-for-all suggested by the committee.
What must we do then? Call our members to repentance in the Lord; urge to a deeper awe and reverence before the holy and sovereign Lord; get on with the sound preaching of the Word; teach our people to see the central importance of the Lord’s Day; and let our ministers lead the congregations in a joyful worship of our Sovereign God. Doing this the cry for emotional man-centered changes will vanish, the second service will come into right focus, for then we will be renewed by the powerful Word of God.