For some time there had been agitation for revision liturgical Form for the administration of the Lord’s Supper. The Synodical Study Committee on Liturgical Form Revision submitted two different proposed Forms. Synod decided to recommend these two Forms to the churches for “study” and to “allow for provisional use by the churches for a period of four years.”
It is now almost two years since Synod made this decision. The proposed Forms have been in use for sufficient time to allow for a comparative judgment on them and the present “authorized” Form. The editors of TORCH AND TRUMPET felt that a distinct service would be rendered if a cross-section of opinion were obtained with regard to these three Forms.
Therefore a number of pastors were asked to give their candid answer to the question given above. The editor had no knowledge of the personal preference of those asked to participate. The articles are given here in the order received.
It is hoped that this symposium will stimulate further reflection and discussion on this important matter. An editorial in the following issue of this magazine will present some conclusions drawn from the contents of this symposium.
THE EDITOR
PROPOSED FORM NUMBER TWO GEORGE GRITTER Fuller Avenue, Grand Rapids, Michigan
TIle Lord’s Supper is one of Christ’s great gifts to his Church. Who can measure the significance of this holy and blessed sacrament in which Christ is exalted as the Savior of his people, and through which the faith of the saints is strengthened and their spirits are comforted.
It must be admitted that our use of this sacrament is always imperfect. Anything which can improve or enrich our observance of it deserves careful consideration. The form which is used ought to be meaningful and helpful. It should constitute such a beautiful and essential part of the communion service that it is anticipated rather than tolerated.
At the present time the Christian Reformed Church is considering three Forms. One has stood the test of long usage and has been described as “beautiful and well rounded.” Nevertheless it has been subject to increasing criticism so that a serious attempt at improvement is being made. Two revisions have been prepared. These must be evaluated carefully.
Certainly, all are agreed that any Form for the Lord’s Supper ought to be brief without being abrupt. It should be devotional in spirit and beautiful in style. Setting forth the meaning of Christ and his cross in profound yet simple fashion, it ought to inspire and increase the eagerness for blessed fellowship with God. We who walk with our feet in the sand should experience that our hearts are lifted among the stars. The Form must be the open door by which we enter more fully into that most blessed fellowship which earth affords—fellowship with God.
No form will meet all the demands. For an exercise so holy as that of commemorating the Saviour’s death, and appropriating the grace so fully and freely supplied, the ideal is perfection. Never will we construct a Form which is flawless; but we should continue to strive for the ideal.
Concerning the proposed revisions, the Synodical Study Committee states the following; “The two forms embody two possible approaches to liturgical form revision. Form No. 1 is an attempt to rewrite and revise the presently authorized form with a view to making it linguistically and liturgically more acceptable. Form No. 2 is an attempt to write a new form which still embodies all the essentials of a good Lord’s Supper formulary. It will be noted that the second form is dividcd into two parts: a preparatory exhortation, which is to be read on preparatory Sunday; and the formulary proper which is to be read on communion Sunday.”
My preference is the second of the two proposed revisions. This more extensive revision to me offers more hope of a form which will be truly beautiful and well-balanced. Also, it seems altogether fitting that there should be a preparatory exhortation to be read on preparatory Sunday.
The committee has done commendable work, but there are some features in the proposed form which have restrained my enthusiasm. May I suggest the following:
1. It might be debatable whether the form could be reduced without suffering as to style or content. To my mind, greater conciseness could be attained. Why, for instance, quote I Corinthians 11:23–29 in connection with the institution of the Lord’s Supper? The quotation could well end with verse 26, and the succeeding verses could then be introduced as a substitute for some of the reasoning as to proper participation.
2. The beginning seems too abrupt. The very first sentence sounds like a command. Why not begin in a more devotional spirit? Let’s first of all be reminded of the beautiful biblical scene of the Upper Room, and then we’ll be ready to listen to the admonition as to how we shall enter.
3. The sentence, “But this is not designed to discourage the penitent hearts of believers, as if none may come to the Supper but him who is without sin may be grammatically defensible; but it is unacceptable because it needs defense.
4. The paragraph which suggests that troubled saints seek counsel from the minister or an elder arouses mingled feelings. I doubt whether it is necessary or desirable to spell out that such counsel be sought from the minister or an elder. This seems a bit too formal. Much spiritual counsel, I am sure, comes to one along the avenue of sharing one’s doubts and fears with a Christian friend.
5. With regard to prayer participation, the negative element is given undue prominence. The reminder that under certain conditions it may be necessary to abstain is imperative, but let’s not run the risk of allowing it to overshadow the earnest invitation. Is it necessary to introduce the negative element five times? Then, by all means, let the prayer be so phrased that no one can conclude that this negative element refers to others only, and not to oneself.
6. May I group a few minor items. If we are going to refer to the Lord’s Supper as “the sacrament of grace,” let’s at least make it “this sacrament of grace.” Then again, is it desirable to use the pronoun “He” as repeatedly in one sentence as this: “Inasmuch as He commanded us to do this until He comes, He assures us that He shall come again to take us to Himself? And could not the emphasis on the familiar triad of faith, hope, and love be expressed more effectively?
7. Would it be well in the Preparatory Exhortation to present the requirements for proper observance of the Lord’s Supper first of all and then highlight the threefold question for guidance in self-examination by giving it the climactic position at the end, immediately preceding the prayer?
8. It is suggested that while the elements are being distributed, the minister may recite or read appropriate passages of Scripture. I am not disputing the value of this practice, but would like to offer two proposals:
a. Include more biblical language in the Form itself. I am thinking of such passages as: Psalm 51:17; Isaiah 1:18; 53:4, 5; 55:1; Matt 11:28; John 1:29; 1 John 1:7b; 9.
b. Before final decision is made it might be well to consider the advisability of appending to the Form a list of Scriptural passages which would be especially appropriate for use in personal and family devotions during the week of preparation.
Allow me one final comment. Why not discuss our present Form for the Lord’s Supper, as well as the proposed revisions, in our group meetings and in our Sunday evening visits? This would be of genuine spiritual benefit and might also give rise to valuable suggestions. Above all, let us give this matter prayerful consideration so that the Form which is meant to lead us into communion with God may be born out of such communion.
PROPOSED FORM NUMBER ONE ARNOLD BRINK Burton Heights, Grand Rapids, Michigan
At the request of the editor, I am writing this brief article to express my reactions to the three proposed formularies for the Lord’s Supper and to state my preference. The scope of this statement is therefore limited to indicating a preference for one of the three formularies proposed. This can only be done, therefore, with reservations. No formulary is ever going to be a perfect reflection of one’s feelings and desires with regard to participation in this central and deeply moving sacrament.
Much of my reserve in this regard is dictated by the fact that I really am not enthusiastic about any one of the three proposed formularies. My feeling has long been that we are far too didactic and not nearly liturgical enough in our celebration of the sacraments. In baptism, for example, we read a lengthy discussion of the meaning and purpose of baptism—material with which we are all familiar by frequent repetition, not only by the reading of the formularies but by repeated sermons on the subject—and the actual administration of the sacrament is an act of such brevity and simplicity as almost to escape our attention. The same one-sidedness afflicts our Communion service. We preach one or even two sermons in preparation, we read another sermonette on preparation from the liturgy, we preach at least a twenty or thirty-minute sermon on Communion Sunday, we read another sermonette from the liturgy. Then the sacrament is distributed and partaken of in a matter of minutes. Where is the blessing of the sacrament -in the oft-repeated didactic explanation of what it means? Is it not in the faithful, personal participation in the sacramental act? My preference would be all for less of didacticism and much more of personal, individual activity in partaking of the sacrament.
Granted that primary reservation, let me state my reasons for preferring the first of the two newly proposed formularies. It must follow that I write in terms of comparison with the other two.
The older formulary is, I believe, due for revision or replacement. It is too long, too repetitious, and burdened too often with awkward phraseology that smacks of Dutch and somewhat archaic English constructions. The second proposed formulary is not liturgically beautiful It is a little too colloquial and often tends to move through the surface of the deep meanings in the sacrament. It has, however, the distinct advantage which the other two lack, in that it is divided into a section for the Preparatory service and one for the sacramental service.
The first of the two proposed forms deserves preference largely because it avoids most of the weaknesses of the other two. Even so, it is not perfect. The recital of the creed, I think, belongs in the proper order of the liturgy of the day and should not be found sandwiched into the liturgy for the Lord’s Supper. The section enumerating various kinds of sinners who should not partake should not only be left optional, it should be removed entirely as something that is unrealistic and breathes an unscriptural spirit. Why catalogue a list of sins so obvious that it is quite unlikely that if such a one were in the church and minded to partake, he would be inclined to acknowledge such gross sinfulness? Anyway, any catalogue of sins is of necessity incomplete and leaves a false impression. It genders self-righteousness instead of penitence. There are also lapses into awkward phraseology. Why have “let everybody say in his heart”? It is far smoother to read, “And let everyone say in his heart.” Why say “to discourage the contrite heart of believers”? Do believers share one heart?
However, as it stands now, my preference would be No. 1 proposed.
PROPOSED FORM NUMBER ONE RENZE O. DE GROOT First Church, Kalamazoo Michigan
There is much to be said in favor of provisional revision No.1 of the Form for the Lord’s Supper, which the Synod of 1959 recommended to the churches for study and provisional use. This particular revision is what it purports to be, a much closer formulation of the authorized form than is revision No.2. It commends itself for its close adherence to the original formulary but in more up-to-date terms of expression. It commends itself for its recognition of the essential value and historical place of the authorized form. God has given us a Reformed heritage of great spiritual value in that form. It has been very dear to the hearts of our people for scores of years. Revision should not even hint at removing such a foundation which has stood the test of lime so well. Alteration should be held to that minimum that wiU enable the form to convey to us in the best language, the same fulness of the truth it conveyed to our fathers.
In preservation of the full contents of the authorized form, Revision No. 1 does very well. Not streamlining and abbreviation, nor even reorganization of the form, should have been considered the prime requirement in the revision. The old form is not redundant. There is nothing in it that can be cut out. It does not ride herd on some error or sin peculiarly dated to its own age. Neither does it gloss over faults peculiar to that era in which it was originally written. It is too thoroughly biblical for that. It reads the essentials of teaching, purpose, and Significance of the Lord’s Supper to the congregation unhurriedly and fully. We need not be fearful of continuing to do the same in the revision.
However, the language of the authorized form is involved and cumbersome. This is due to what in a sense is a real virtue, that is, absolute faithfulness to the original of which it is a translation. Comparison easily demonstrates the intimate knowledge of and profound respect which the authors had for the Dutch form of which ours is a translation. Nevertheless, it is just for this reason that our form suffers severe linguistic faults, and is so cumbersome. Dutch is a different language. It uses an idiom different from the American language. Done in translation the form truly represents our historical rootage. But that is not enough. It must remain an effective vehicle of thought and meaning for our day too.
Revision No.1 maintains the original order of materials while improving the wording and sentence structure throughout. This makes it truly more readable. But vastly more important, this revision makes a much stronger impact on the present-day listener. This is because it says pretty much what was said in the authorized form, but it says this much better by the use of present-day idiom. The revision will no doubt profit from a later and final draft as well. For example, the last line in introducing, “for what purpose the Lord has instituted His Supper,” reads: “should nourish.” This ought to read: “will nourish,” or at least: “‘intends to nourish.” Furthermore, there should be no allowance of parenthetical material—to be read at option. Especially where this pertains to the enumeration of specific sins against which warning is issued. The Bible names sins and warns against them. The same sins still prevail. Let us not be afraid to issue the warning at the solemn occasion for which the communion form is used.
THE ORIGINAL FORM ANTHONY A. KONING Hollandale, Minnesota
I strongly favor continuing the use of the old Form for Communion in our Church—
NOT —
1. Because I think it infallible. Infallibility cannot and may not be ascribed to any human document. Such a notion is farthest from my thought in this connection.
2. Because 1 think there is no room for revision or improvement. No human document ever written was so composed that it was beyond the need of revision or the possibility of improvement. For instance, the Psalter Hymnal went through many minor changes in its first twenty-three years of use in our churches. Then it went through a major revision, hopefully to end all revision. Criticism of the Psalter section is already becoming vocal.
So the Form for Communion. It is admitted that the Apostles’ Creed seems to be out of place in its present position. There are misgivings as to the repetition of the Lord’s Prayer. I have objections to the use of the illustration, “As out of many grains one meal is ground.” Still it remains a question whether these considerations warrant revision.
No one will maintain that the proposed Forms arc beyond improvement. To mention just one thing, I consider the last paragraph of the Closing Prayer of the Preparatory Part of Form Number II wholly out of place. A prayer like that may well be used at the close of the week of preparation. But certainly not at the beginning, when you are urging the congregation to examine themselves thorough1y in order to come to this united plea for forgiveness.
RATHER —
1. Because of its historicity and ecumenicity. In striving for ecumenicity we seem to proceed, almost entirely, on the assumption that the church of today is the only church. Hence, we feel we have to get together with the churches of today. The question of possible severance from foregoing generations hardly seems to be considered. There is, however, a historical side to this question of ecumenicity. And continuing the use of the form which meant so much to the fathers can be very meaningful for the church of today in remembering historical continuity.
2. Because of its completeness. Conciseness and exactness mark the present form. Yet no basic element which is needed for proper understanding is omitted. Neither is spiritual warning and warmth neglected.
3. Because of its practicality. Among other things, this is especially evident in the listing of various sins. Some may consider that listing too long, or unnecessary, or perhaps even dangerous. But in an age when sin is rapidly becoming “the great unknown” or “the great abstraction” a plain summary is very useful and even advisable.
THE ORIGINAL FORM ALEXANDER C. DE JONG Second Church, Highland, Indiana
Having used the proposed revised forms for the Lord’s Supper I find that I still prefer the original. This is a personal preference. I trust, however. that my reasons for this preference are not purely subjective. In stating my preference I do not wish to detract from the good work of the committee. Nor do I wish to adhere to the original form for reasons of sentiment. The original liturgical form needs revision badly. But it should not be revised as thoroughly as has been done. I have two basic reasons for preferring the original liturgical form.
REASON ONE
The original form embodies a concreteness and personal reference which is lost in both of the proposed revisions. Here are a few examples of what I have in mind when I mention concreteness and personal reference.
1. The first paragraph of the original form under the section “true examination of ourselves” reads, “Let everyone consider by himself his sins and accursedness, that he may abhor and humble himself before God…Revised form No. One reads, “let everyone consider first of all his sin and guilt…” Notice the loss of a note of humble blameworthiness personally confessed. This note needs emphasis in our time of growing superficiality.
2. The third paragraph of the original form under the same section reads concretely, “without any hypocrisy, heartily laying aside all enmity, hatred and envy, earnestly resolves henceforward to live in true love and unity with his neighbor.” Revised form No. One reads, “resolves out of true gratitude to serve Jesus Christ as Lord, and to keep His commandment: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind…and…thy neighbor as thyself.” Again notice a loss of concreteness which serves to sharpen the conscience of the celebrant. Furthermore I do not believe it to be in the best interests of edification to make the specific listing of sins in tile form an optional matter. Biblical instruction in specifics at this point can be very helpful.
3. The fifth paragraph of the original form dealing with self-examination concretely describes our personal shortcomings and miseries with such phrases as “not perfect faith,” “not give ourselves to serve God,” “strive daily.” Obviously the language could be improved at this point. But the new form eliminates the concreteness by using the phrase “full of sin and worthy of death.”
4. In the first prayer of the original form we have the phrase “cherish the blessed memory of the bitter death.” The revision substitutes the words “remember the sacrificial death.” Here I sense a loss of liturgical solemnity and concrete expressiveness.
Perhaps this writer has used the original form too long. In this evaluation there is a matter of taste. And taste is highly subjective. Yet the examples adduced offer some weight to my personal preference. The new forms lose an existential or experiential quality. They are not as con· crete as the original form. Modification of the original is needed, but not revision. Editorial work needs doing. Sentence structure needs simplification. Subordinate clauses which run together can be broken down into simple sentences. Obsolete adjectives and adverbs should be replaced by words current in our language and more meaningful to the congregation who reads along with the officiating minister. In this editorial work, however, we must not lose the personal, the concrete, the existential qualities of the original form.
REASON TWO
I prefer the original form because it displays a theological clarity which is lost in the proposed revisions. This statement refers to theological clarity, not to theological deviations. The mention of a few specific examples may help my readers understand my preference for the original form.
1. The use of such terms as “accursedness,” “abhor,” “humble” “heartily sorry,” “desirous to fight against our unbelief,” serves a didactic purpose in understanding the doctrines of repentance and faith. It is true that the original form is repetitious at times. Such repetition, however, is helpful in a time when so few read so little theology.
2. In the first paragraph of the section introduced with “Now after this manner are we to remember Him by it” we read, “From the beginning of his incarnation to the end of His life upon earth.” This phrase is eliminated in the revisions. Here is a distinct loss of theological clarity, particularly since many believers fail to see the significance of Christ’s entire life in the state of humiliation as being lived under the wrath and displeasure of God.
3. The original form contains a lucid and personal description of the doctrine of justification by faith. It reads, “this sure promise…that the complete righteousness of Christ is imputed and freely given him as his own—yea, so completely as if he himself, in his own person, had satisfied for all his sins and fulfilled all righteousness.” The revision reads, “the perfect righteousness of Christ is also freely imputed to him.” Notice that the teaching is not personally related to the celebrant’s religious experience in the proposed revision.
4. The original form relates Christ’s work to our religious needs in terms of various beautiful parallels. We read of “bound…loosed,” “reproaches…never confounded,” “condemned…acquitted,” “curse…blessing,” “forsaken…accepted.” This is partially lost in the revisions.
5. Something of the profound sacramental mystery appears to be lost in the proposed revisions. At various points the original speaks of “true body and blood” while the revised forms speak of “body and blood.” In the first prayer of the original the sacrament is related to the covenant of grace while this is eliminated from the prayer in the revisions and placed elsewhere.
CONCLUSION
The committee has reduced the number of words between the original and the first proposed. revision by about 550 words. The second revised form -more correctly stated, the new form -is still shorter. This gain in time involves a real loss as is indicated above. I believe the committee did more than was necessary. They could have lightened their load by editorial improvements without eliminating some concepts and adding others. I think we can retain the fine qualities of the original form and still make various editorial improvements. In this way we shall lose neither experiential concreteness nor theological clarity. On the contrary, the original could be made more meaningful to the worshipping congregation. If I must choose between the original and the two revisions, I prefer the original. But then let the original be editorially improved.
PROPOSED FORM NUMBER ONE JOHN C. SCHOLTEN First Church, Highland, Indiana
I prefer Number I of the Proposed Revisions Of The Form For The Lord’s Supper.
The first proposed revision or Number I “is an attempt to rewrite and revise the presently authOrized form with a view to making it linguistically and liturgically more acceptable” (Preface of Proposed Revisions). The question that arises concerning the matter of revision is whether or not the authorized formulary is old enough to warrant a revision due to the fact that language does change thruout the years. Another question concerning the authorized formulary is whether or not it contains cumbersome sentences which make for difficult reading at the time of the administration of the Lord’s Supper. As1 read the proposed revision and as I have used it in officiating at the table of our Lord, I am of the opinion that it is more acceptable both linguistically and liturgically.
The Proposed Revision Number 1 avoids unnecessary repetition. One or two examples will suffice to demonstrate what I mean. In the opening sentence of the authorized formulary the words, “Lord Jesus Christ” are used twice. In the Proposed Revision the improved reading is as follows, “Beloved in the Lord” and, “holy supper of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In the Proposed Revision Number I the Lord’s Prayer is not found twice as in the authorized formulary.
In the statement just preceding the Apostles’ Creed I prefer the words, “let us confess with heart and mouth,” found in the Proposed Revision, to those found in the authorized formulary which read, “of which we make profession with heart and mouth, saying…” It seems to me that the former expression invites more definitely the personal participation on the part of those in the pew in the confession of the Creed.
There are many consistories which have decided to read the first part of our formulary concerning examination in the preparatory service. 1 prefer Revision Number I to Revision Number II because it still permits a consistory to decide whether or not the exhortation concerning examination shall be read at the preparatory service or at the time of the administration of the Lord’s Supper or at both services.
In my opinion the paragraph following the Lord’s Prayer in the Proposed Revision Number I is more properly placed than in the authorized formulary. And further, to confess the Apostles’ Creed just before the serving of the elements to the strengthening of our faith is very appropriate.
There are two things that I suggest as possible improvements for the Proposed Revision Number 1. First, I would prefer that the reference to the words of Christ, “It is finished,” be not omitted. Second, the reading of the list of sins now in parentheses should not be optional. It is the naming of these things as examples that more pointedly calls the attention of those who intend to partake to a particular examination with reference to definite sins in our lives whatever they may be.
It was wise on the part of Synod 1959 to present these proposed revisions for use and consideration over a period of four years. There remain approximately two years more to consider the revisions. The opinions stated above may not be the final conclusion of the writer. There still is ample time for reconsideration and also a change of opinion concerning them.
PROPOSED FORM NUMBER TWO FRED VAN HOUTEN Wyoming Park Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan
The second proposed form, although not perfect, appeals to me most of all. It is obvious to all that there are two grammatical errors on page eight. “God will surely receive at the table of His Son all who repent of their sin and believe in Jesus Christ as their (not his ) Savior.” “But this is not designed to discourage the penitent hearts of believers, as if none may come to the Supper but he (not him) who is without sin.”
The last sentence before the prayer on page ten should be changed. It is not theologically incorrect, of course, but I do not like to say “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.” It is better to use scriptural language for such a sentence and stay with the historical expression “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
However, I like the second proposed form. Here are the reasons:
1. The preparatory section is clearly distinguished from the remainder of the form. It seems to be the custom in most of our churches to read this section on preparatory Sunday and this is laudable. It emphasizes the necessity of self-examination before coming to communion and stimulates proper thinking during the entire week. The words are directed to this purpose clearly and this is proper for edification. A prayer is also included and this gives a spiritual touch.
2. The list of’ sins and sinners is omitted. There is nothing wrong with listing sins in this way; however, it sins are listed in such a form they ought to be sins that are clearly designated in Scripture. It may have been fitting in the day when the original form was written to include certain anti-Romanist expressions, but it is not exactly edifying to repeat every quarter: “all who invoke deceased saints, angels, or other creatures; all who show honor to images.” How many Christian believers in our churches ever think of doing these things?
Furthermore, it is inadvisable to catalogue sins. Many others could always be mentioned and certain bad impressions can be given by including some and ignoring others. Some place must be left for the sermon on preparatory Sunday and also for the sanctified sense of believers.
3. The form is somewhat briefer than the original. As a boy I used to grow weary when listening to it and I always feel now that many in my audience grow weary when I read it. I know that a minister should put forth special effort to read it with meaning, but the effect leaves much to be desired. We cannot always concede to the modern trend toward streamlining, but we have to recognize mental complexes of our day. As beautiful as a form or sermon may be, if it is not effective it does not achieve its purpose.
All my life t have heard about “our beautiful form.” I fail to see it. It is difficult to read those long, complex sentences and to drive them home in the minds of listeners. Our custom is to preach the Word on these Sundays. This is as it should be. We should not try to include too much in a form. This makes it ineffective after a sermon. The sentence structure is improved considerably in these proposed forms.
4. The paragraph on page ten concerning the hope of our Lord’s coming is a beautiful one. I appreciate this very much. The “till he come” asks for something like this. This Christian hope could occupy more prominence in our preaching and church life. Here is an excellent place for its expression.
5. The paragraph on page eleven, just prior to the breaking of bread, is also an excellent one. This is exactly the place for these Scriptural words. When God’s people are about to receive the bread after it is broken by the minister, God’s Word speaks very directly.
6. The “take, drink, remember, and believe” for the wine as well as for the bread is very much in place. I know that the “drink ye all of it” is from the mouth of our Savior; however, this is a translation. If we are going to keep Jesus’ exact words for the wine, why not for the bread. The meaning is clear enough—“all ye drink of it.” Both proposed forms include the “take, drink, remember, and believe.”
7. In the last part of the form Revelation 1:5, 6 and 5:13 after Psalm 103 is very appropriate and beautiful. How inspiring to think of being “loosed from our sins by his blood” and to offer a beautiful doxology to the Lamb.
These are my reasons for preferring the second proposed form.
PROPOSED FORM NUMBER ONE MARVIN R. DOORBOS Bethany Church, South Holland, Illinois
In answer to the question, “Which of the three forms for communion now in use among us do I prefer, and why?” I would answer by saying that the form I prefer is the Proposed Form for the Lord’s Supper Number I. I submit the following reasons for my preference:
First, I prefer the proposed form over the present form as found in the Psalter Hymnal, since, to my mind, it is linguistically more acceptable. I appreciate the introduction of more modem language, and the dividing of the very long sentences into more easily read and understood shorter ones. Because of these changes, I believe that the form is more intelligible to our present generation.
Secondly, I prefer the proposed form over the present form as found in the Psalter Hymnal since it is also liturgically more acceptable. Contrary to what we were taught in the Seminary and to what many of our older ministers feel, I am in agreement with the Committee on Liturgical Form Revision that the Prayer and the Creed should be separated. In my thinking these two acts within the Communion service are completely different. The one is supplication, the other declaration. In the one we implore God for his blessing; in the other we respond to that blessing in declaration of our faith. I am very happy that in the confession of faith the congregation takes a part by repeating it in unison. Too long we have permitted the congregation to remain silent and now they are called upon to make an audible declaration of their “readiness to receive this sacrament in true faith.” We expect this in the sacrament of Infant Baptism, Each time the parents present children for baptism they are again requested “to answer sincerely to these questions:…” The very fact that they are to answer sincerely to those questions heightens the experience of participation. If it is argued, as it was by Rev. J. K. Van Baalen in a recent article in the Reformed Journal (Sept. 1960, p. 20), that we are asking children and young people to make this confession while we withhold from them the sacrament, we can easily avoid this by asking only the communicant members to repeat the creed.
Secondly, I would like to list my reasons for preferring the first Proposed Form for the Lord’s Supper over the second one.
It is granted that there arc many appealing things in the second form, as, for example, the statement in the Preparatory Exhortation, “And since it is necessary for us to come to the sacrament in good conscience, we bid any who cannot find in himself this confidence to come to the minister or any elder of this church that he may receive such counsel as may quiet his conscience and remove his doubts.” Also commendable is the emphasis upon the necessity of preparation when time for such preparation is still available. Nonetheless, I feel that it is much better to have the preparatory exhortation and the formulary in one complete form in order to have the form serve as a conclusion to our preparation rather than as the commencement of that preparation. A preparatory sermon can serve as such a commencement, yet it is also possible that some people have failed truly to examine themselves and thus when they come to the Lord’s table they need to be reminded again of the Lord’s demands lest they “eat and drink judgment unto themselves.” Also increasingly in our churches guest privileges are extended to visitors and it is good to remind them as well of the proper preparation for communion.
I also dislike the omission of the list of sins in the second form and the lack of emphasis upon the recitation of the creed as an “indication of our readiness to receive this sacrament in true faith.”
Having stated my preference for the first Proposed Form for the Lord’s Supper, I would like to add just one or two thoughts about it. I, for one, would like to see the reading of the parenthetical material (the listing of sins ) to be made mandatory rather than optional. In our day when people tend to take sin lightly it is good to be reminded of specific sins. If the present wording does not convey to our people their sinfulness then perhaps a better solution would be to include a list that is more up-to-dale rather than to have no list at all. The second observation is that at the conclusion, when we read from Scripture, couldn’t there be some way in which a smoother transition from the reading of the form to the reading of the Scripture passages be made? I would like to suggest the following: “Beloved in the Lord, since the Lord has now nourished our souls at His table, let us jointly praise His holy name with thanksgiving; and let everyone say ill his heart with the Psalmist as he speaks in Psalm 103: ‘Bless Jehovah, O my soul…’” And again, I suggest a similar transition from the Psalms to the words of Revelation.
PROPOSED FORM NUMBER TWO NICHOLAS DE VRIES Phoenix, Arizona
It is rather easy to state one’s choice, but a bit more difficult to present acceptable reasons for the choice made. However since both are requested, the answers to both questions must be given.
The writer of this brief article prefers Number II of the “Proposed Form(s) for the Lord’s Supper.” At the same time, even though it may be considered presumptuous on his part, he proposes an addition. But of that later.
Reasons for the choice given above: —
1. Of the three forms under consideration the one chosen is the shortest. And that is a distinct asset. Whether we like it or not, complaints are constantly made about the length of the form and the undue prolongation of the Communion service. At the same time it is not so short that it gives the impression of undue haste in completing the service.
2. The distinction that is made between the “Preparatory Exhortation” and the “Formulary” is a good one. This does not mean that the unity of the Form is destroyed. It simply recognizes that there arc two elements in the Form as well as in our method of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, the one preparatory to the celebration. For that reason also there are churches that have accepted the custom of reading the preparatory element at the preparatory service. If that distinction exists why not express it in the Form?
3. The prayer at the conclusion of the “Preparatory Exhortation” is well-placed, well-worded, and serves the good purpose of bringing the reading of this part of the Form to a fitting close.
4. The inclusion of the Lord’s Prayer but once is also a commendable feature. To use this prayer twice would be tautological.
Recommended modification
There seems to be a tendency to shy away from the list of “gross sins” included in the present Form. In the “Proposed Form for the Lord’s Supper, No. 1” a list of sins is included only parenthetically and we find the note at the bottom of the page, “The reading of the parenthetical material is optional.” In the “Proposed Form for the Lord’s Supper No. II” we find only the words “living in disobedience to Christ and in enmity with his neighbor.” To be specific about “gross sins” therefore docs not seem to find too much acceptance.
Though the present writer is not ready to propose such a list, yet he is convinced that such a list should be included. The following reasons are suggested:
1. To speak of “sin” without further designation is rather weak and ineffective. And if one sin is mentioned, viz., “living in enmity with his neighbor,” there would seem to be room for a longer list of those sins that plague the church today.
2. For the church member to examine himself to see “whether he is living in disobedience to Christ” is too general an assignment. But to present to him a list of specific instances of “disobedience to Christ” would be very helpful.
3. Such a list would also be of distinct help to consistories who must exercise supervision over the table of the Lord.
4. Such a list would also further the unity of the Church. Today the Christian Reformed Church stands firm in the matter of its stand against membership in the Lodge. The reason for it is that we have expressed ourselves emphatically on this subject. If however we speak merely of “living in disobedience to Christ” there is room for a great variety of opinion as to what that might cover, and the unity of the Church is not promoted.
THE ORIGINAL FORM HENRY A. VENEMA Second Church, Toronto, Ontario
I prefer the Form found in our Psalter Hymnal. Of course, this is not my preference purely because the old formulary is a product of the past and therefore to be retained at all costs. Rather, I prefer the old formulary because it excels in the pure proclamation of the gospel unto a truly scriptural-spiritual celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Any loss of Scripture is a high price to pay. Loss of Scripture is the cost of the new Forms. Much Scripture with a little archaism is too bad with the old formulary, but since I am asked to choose between the old and the new forms, I take the old.
Let me say at the outset that I regret Synod’s recommendation to allow our churches to use provisionally for a period of four years the two prepared revisions drawn up by the study committee. I realize that this was done for purposes of study. And, “this recommendation and permission,” said Synod, “are not to affect in any way the authorized status of the present formulary.” However, I fear that in these days of superficiality, after our people have been exposed to these popular formularies for four years (which of our consistories would want to be considered uncooperative and closed-minded?), we shall be on a road of no-return.
I agree that the sentence structure of our old Form makes its cumbersome and somewhat difficult to read and understand. I concede that this Form should be shortened without doing violence to its contents. A somewhat shorter Form would encourage reading it in its entirety in our evening communion services. I am not opposed to reading that part of the Form which concerns self-examination at the preparatory service, although 1 believe it would be well to reread it just before Lord’s Supper. Nor am I averse to a revision of the list of gross sins in the interest of making it more meaningful to our people in the light of modern conditions.
Nevertheless, with all due respect to the authors of the new formularies, I regret certain material concessions which they have made in the proposed Forms. For instance, I do not believe that listing of gross sins is “cataloging sin” any more than God is doing so in the Ten Commandments. The new Form Number One has left the reading of this list as optional, and the new Form Number Two has omitted it altogether. I like to be positive as well as negative about the requirement to love the Lord. But we also have to keep his commandments in their negative aspects and dare to rebuke all violations of these commandments as the apostle Paul did, lest we lose our distinctiveness, and the Lord’s blessing at his table.
Some rears ago one of our ministers expressed the hope that the clause “considering that the wrath of God against sin is so great that he, rather than to leave it unpunished, has punished it in his beloved Son Jesus Christ” be deleted from any approved revision of the Form (Acts of Synod, Christian Reformed Church, 1957, p. 97). He won the day with our committee. Their substitution substantiates an impression 1 have that extreme common-grace-theology has a great hold on us. Why should we hesitate to repeat Scripture about the wrath of God? Compare the 1924 Acts of Synod. The preface to our Three Points ought to remind us ever anew that we must continue to proclaim guilt and sin and death and hell so that justification and sanctification and resurrection and heaven will mean more to us.
Further, one need only make a cursory comparison between the old and new Forms to detect that same leveling-off of human sin and divine wrath—at the expense of true comfort and faith’s strengthening with the Word at the Lord’s Supper. Note, for instance, that cumbersome but glorious paragraph in the old Form which begins as follows: “Now after this manner are we to remember Him by it!”’ Observe what little is left in the new Forms to speak peace to contrite hearts. The words, “That He has borne for us the wrath of God under which we should have perished everlastingly,” and “when the weight of our sins and of the wrath of God…in the garden” are gone. But, so are the words which follow: “where we might be loosed from our sins.” All in the name of brevity. A lesson to be learned is that if we fail to say with Scripture that sin is sin then grace will lose its glory as grace. I want to keep those clauses “never be confounded,” “acquitted at the judgment seat of God,” so that we may the more continue to be fully comforted as we celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
I realize that I have been a bit negative and radical, not to mention inexhaustive. Our Synod’s committee has a proposition, and my reaction is “no” so that we may stay positively with Scripture. Besides, I see a dangerous trend to relativism in the new Forms. Finally, anything I say in these few words must be a bit of simplification. I say, let the archaisms be removed from the old Form. I do not believe such expressions as “sin and accursedness,” “abhor and humble himself” to be tautological. Even if they are, they do not nullify their impact on our people any more than Our Heidelberg Catechism does. And, let’s not change that, even if it is old. Let content continue to be primary always, lest we lose the true and complete doctrine of salvation!
THE ORIGINAL FORM ENNO L. HAAN Oak Glen Church, Lansing, Illinois
“Which of the Forms for communion now in use among us do I prefer?” I wish I could give a different answer to that question from that which I feel constrained to give. I had hoped together with others that we would be able to deviate from using the Form that we had been using for so many years, and looked with expectation to receiving the new Forms for use in the churches. However, after using the proposed Forms consistently since they were made ready for their probationary use in the churches, I am led to believe that we may as well continue using the original Form, or at least not replace it entirely with the new Forms.
There are indeed many commendable things that I would say about the work of the committee and the Forms they have produced. Nevertheless, after putting these Forms into use in our probationary period, I am led to believe that we are losing too much and not gaining enough to warrant the replacing of the old with either or both of the proposed new Forms. If the new ones were being introduced as additional Forms to be used on occasion, the matter would be different. I would then very likely use Proposed Form Number I on occasion. I would, however, still be of the opinion that the original Form is the more desirable.
I prefer the original Form to the second of the proposed Forms because of the brevity of this proposed Form, especially its Preparatory Exhortation, and because I feel that its direct language is ineffective in creating the reverence and atmosphere of solemnity and fervency of spirit which should be associated with the observance of this sacrament. I could not help but feel each time that we used this Form that, while its brevity, pithiness, directness and ruction are in keeping with our day, its brevity and lack of liturgical language, warmth and beauty tends to leave the worshippers unmoved.
But what about the Proposed Form Number I? Is it not to be desired above the original Form? At first I was inclined to think so. Its wording is different, sounding like our day. It is somewhat briefer, yet does not suffer because of brevity. At the same time it includes all the important elements of the original Form.
But I take it that others have had the experience 1 have had. As I have used Form Number I, I have felt that there is something lacking. The reading of this Form docs not do what you want it to do. Then upon reading each of these Forms aloud in my study, reading first a paragraph of one Form and then the corresponding paragraph in the other Form, I have concluded that the difference is liturgical. The original Form, though using more words to express the thoughts, is liturgical, having warmth, creating emotions and longings, and building an atmosphere. The proposed Form is weak in this regard. One will note this if he reads aloud almost any of the paragraphs of the proposed new Form and their corresponding paragraphs in the original Form. The paragraphs under true examination and their corresponding paragraphs in the new Form are but examples. Since the original Form excels in its liturgical character I believe it would be unwise to replace it with proposed Form Number I until the language of this proposed Form is rendered more liturgical.
There is another consideration. The two proposed Forms are but restatements of the original Form. In a true sense we can speak of an original and its copies. The thoughts and even sequence of thoughts and even sequence of thoughts are essentially the same. As we continue to use these copies we become more conscious of their character. I seriously question if we are wise in replacing the original with such obvious copies. It will be better to continue the use of the original until another equally liturgical Form can be provided that will also be original in its presentation. Surely this can be done. It will demand original thinking and talent in organization. But with effort a Form with different organization can be formulated that at the same time will bring forth the essential elements that are found in preparation for and observance of the sacrament. When this will be written in a living, liturgical language we can then profit from replacing the old Form with a new one.
PROPOSED FORM NUMBER TWO PAUL C. ZYLSTRA South Grandville, Grandville, Michigan
I shall try to fire into orbit these general observations with a principle: the beauty of a thing is defined by its place and function. The Communion Form must be beautiful as a liturgical form, not as an elaborate “sermon.” Although such a major change of liturgy still needs more testing and the crystallized thought of many minds, I believe Form Number II meets the requirements.
Choice words have replaced archaic terms. Delightfully c1car and easily read sentences have eliminated heavy, involved statements. It is not so strangled by didacticism as to draw such concentrated attention to itself that actual celebration seems like something tagged on to an already complete service. It helps prevent a chain reaction of dislike or weariness—inattention—non-participation. It more effectively leads to a proper and devotional receptiveness for the central and climactic doing, partaking. The sacrament is the thing on Communion Sunday.
Though this may evidence “low church persuasion,” I believe Form Number II loses none of the elements which properly explain Communion and the spiritual requirements for worthy communication. It is cleanly organized, sensitively balanced, one which seems to invite slower, more deliberate recital.
More important, the sacrament’s character as a means of imparting Christ’s life to us is emphasized more adequately. (Emphasis is crucial in a Form.) The Communion isn’t a mere symbol emphasizing the commemorative aspect. The Lord feeds us with his grace, grace objectively present because He promised it and gives it, apart from our moods and feelings at the moment of celebration. We don’t reach out and grasp. God stoops and gives.
I like the addition of a more pastoral element in the Preparatory Exhortation, and an eschatological element in the Communion Formulary. Gone are the remnants of argumentative language of a church of another age reacting against corrupt Romanist ceremonialism and trying to maintain itself against the Lutherans and Anabaptists.
The formal matter of division into two distinct and unified formularies (re-written from the old Form) is simply realistic. The brunt of self-examination should be handled on the Sunday before Communion, when there is yet ample time. This should be a separate formulary, distinct from the form for the Communion service as such. The “Preparatory Exhortation” is a happy provision. Each part is now a fitting whole for distinct and different occasions, logical and proper, and avoiding needless repetition.
The old Form is adapted to division. The part dealing with self-examination, the exhortation to its exercise, and its purpose, is clearly distinct from the second part, dealing with the meaning of the Sacrament. Moreover, a Form that is so “long” that it needs “abbreviation” for whatever reason is not a good Form.
There is a wise omission of sins that bar from the Table. Why not leave the warning against specific sins to the preacher who knows best his congregation’s particular weaknesses? He can compile his own catalogue of prevalent sins. Besides, some sins listed in the other Forms are less than pointed for our day (f.i., praying to saints). We must be alive to the times.
Mention of concrete sins should make people uncomfortable. But any list is bound to be incomplete. Which sins do you leave off? Where do you stop? Who can read hearts to know which sins need special mention in a Form? How does one get at the elder who watches late-night, third-rate TV movies? Or the respectable pillar of the church who never discusses spiritual matters with his children? Or the woman who thrives on gossip?
The good man who finds himself mentioned in any “gross list” may dread coming to the Table as a result. The hypocrite who thinks he is not caught in the exclusive listing will develop more Pharisaism. There are not certain sins which make people unworthy of Communion. The willful persistence in any sin makes one unfit and unworthy.
The omission of the word “wine” is noteworthy. In many churches, such as the one I serve, the use of unfermented fruit-of-the-vine at Communion is a recognition of the frightful menace of alcoholism in our membership. Added to that, it could be significant in promoting the church’s mission outreach. Scripture itself omits the word in the several accounts of the institution.
Our deep personal affection for Forms long used must not sway us in finding for ourselves in this revision the infixed merits of style and content and liturgical propriety. We are not worshipping a Form, but rather the Lord who came in a form—of a Servant.