When the Reformed Journal zeroes in on some problem it really blows up a storm—and of this its concentration on the matter of the church at worship is a concrete case!

And the language employed is hardly an example of restraint and moderation: “It is no secret that many of the reflective young people who are members of the Reformed churches arc intensely dissatisfied with the current form and manner of worship in their churches.” “I am convinced that they mean their objections so seriously that unless we listen to them and institute reforms they will either leave the Reformed churches for some church which has, in their judgment, a more soundly Christian liturgy, or they will become the sullen, custom-ridden church members which we in the Reformed churches are so adept at producing.” “My conversations indicate that worship in churches of the Reformed tradition is not very vital to many students, young people, and even older people. In fact, some are bored, antagonized, embittered and embarrassed by it.”

This is not weak language, and it adds up to this: the Christian Reformed churches had better get with it liturgically or find that they are no longer in business. As one of the Reformed Journal articles referred to states it, even now such people “find it difficult to accept an institutionalized religious organization as a viable expression of” the Body of Christ.

What is the Complaint?

In this article I’m going to consider just two of the Reformed journal’s attempts* to describe and prescribe for the problem of current disinterest in worship as it is practiced in Christian Reformed congregations. These articles presume, I suppose, the liturgical set-up rather common in our churches. This is not really a completely homogeneous something, as anyone who has been around in the churches well knows. Ever since the churches rejected the Order of Worship suggested by a committee headed by the late Samuel Volbeda, long time professor of liturgies at Calvin Theological Seminary, some forty years ago, uniformity of practice has hardly been the case. Many have heard, I suppose, that Prof. Henry Schultze, one time professor of New Testament in Calvin Seminary and president of Calvin College, has been known to ask as he entered a consistory room prior to conducting services as a guest preacher, “What is your disorder of worship?”

Nevertheless, there are certain principles and customs which are quite commonly expressed in the worship services of Reformed churches today. For one thing, worship is regarded as something under the official regulation of the ciders. For another, certain features are regarded as basic: the reading of the Law of God in the morning service, use of the Apostles’ Creed in the second service, congregational singing from the prescribed collection of psalms and hymns, the receiving of offerings, opening with an official salutation and closing with :l similar benediction. And last but not least, it is usually presumed that the bulk of the time will be spent listening to a serious sermon based upon the Scriptures as the infallibly inspired Word of God.

Well, that is “church” for most Reformed people, I’d guess. And what is so bad about that?

Professor Wolterstorff Agrees with the Critics

In February of this year Calvin College philosophy professor Dr. Nicholas Wolterstorff offers in the Reformed Journal “a general characterization” of the complaints of the reflective young people who are, at least for the present, members of Reformed churches. The title is good and simple, “Thc Young Person and the Liturgy,” the style is clear and unmistakable. That Wolterstorff is not an intruder in this discussion is evident from the fact that he is a member of the Liturgical Committee of the Christian Reformed Church, and that he is presented in this periodical as one who has “long been interested in liturgical renewal.” In other words: Here we have some indication as to the way things are going to go liturgically in the Christian Reformed Church, if he has his way.

Current worship practice in Reformed churches is criticized, says Wolterstorff, on three counts: (1) Young people are sorely dissatisfied because this type of warship renders them inactive, non-participating observers, while they would be active participants; (2) the worship services are not relevant, “they do not bear on his life and on his concerns”; (3) there is not a satisfying experience of community or of fellowship in the worship of the church.

Before we attempt a summarizing of the things this writer reports, we must bear in mind that this article is not merely a report. The closing paragraph spells this out very plainly:

I have not concealed the fact that my sympathies are on the side of these young people. I have not concealed the fact that, in my judgment, the points they make are mainly correct.

For Wolterstorff it is true that “the fundamental structure of a Rcformcd liturgy…is a dialogue, a dialogue between God and His people.” This, says the writer, is so obvious that it needs no argumentation. It is something on which most everyone is generally agreed. What does the term dialogue mean?

The Reformed liturgy, indeed, the Christian liturgy, consists in its basic structure of a series of acts in which God addresses His people and His people address God—the people confess their sins to God, God gives to the people His assurance of pardon, God speaks His Word to the people, the people respond with thanks and praise to God, and so forth, back and forth in dialogue.

Looking at “the current form and manner of worship” Wolterstorff finds that at every point this “dialogue structure” fails to be realized or is obscured. Congregational singing, recitation of the Creed—both examples of direct participation—“appear to him as nothing more than interludes in an essentially passive situation, the paint of the interludes being that he is thereby given a chance to stretch his legs and his lungs so that he can endure the next stretch of passivity.” The Votum is almost always said by the minister alone, the prayers are offered exclusively by him, he reads the Scripture lesson, the choir or soloist sings to and for the congregation, and even the very architecture of most churches makes for a speaker-audience situation rather than for liturgical dialogue.

Worship is Irrelevant

The second charge raised by Prof. Wolterstorff is more basic. In fact, if it is true then public worship in Reformed churches is hopelessly decadent. The things said in the previous section can be repaired even if we have to tear down most of our church buildings and spend the $300,000 to $1,000,000 it would take to get one that is liturgically adequate.

This very basic charge, however. is that “the worship of the church…is irrelevant to their Christian lives throughout the week.” WolterstorH very admirably states that “the wholeness of life before the Lord is what the Reformed tradition has always called for.” This principle, young people tell their professor, is being violated in “the current form and manner of worship in their churches.”

Here we are dealing with “a gut issue” so far as the true nature of worship is concerned. This is evident when Wolterstorff reports that…

…what one often hears the young people saying nowadays is that the day of the sermon is past, that sermons simply do not communicate to the new generation, that the sermonic mode of address is irrelevant to our age. From his experience in the world he is vividly aware of the fact that films, plays, novels, paintings, music, can all be used to make a point, and that in many cases the point can be made far more vividly than by way of discourse.

Please note that Wolterstorff is saying that youth are not critical of the sermons they hear because, say, they are inadequate theologically or exegetically, because they are not sufficiently Scriptural, or because they are of poor quality rhetorically or oratorically. Youth is saying that it doesn’t care about sermons as such. It doesn’t want to be addressed in that fashion seldom if at all. If you wish to speak to me, modern youth declares, you’d better marshal all the resources of cultural development and electronic equipment because I’m more impressed with the skillful application of such devices in communication than 1 could possibly be when somebody just preaches.

Now the professor is not ready to go whole-hog at this point. Although he agrees “that we in the church must attempt new ways of proclaiming the Word of God,” he is “not as convinced” that the day of sermons is past. For him it is a matter of the kind of sermons his younger brothers and sisters hear. Wolterstorff concedes that the preaching he hears is also often guilty of divorcing worship from life, the Lord’s Day and the week day. At least I presume that Wolterstorff is saying this because his article allows for virtually no exception. In his experience preaching is seldom marked by “specific, concrete recognition of the problems of the world, of the nation, of the community, even of the local church” (italics inserted). Listen, as he asks…

How many sermons can really be construed as giving concrete guidance to the people of God for their lives in the coming week? How many can really be construed as speaking the Word of God lo, and for, our lives today?

Still more: sermons take up too great a share of the time in worship, the language of the pulpit is archaic and altogether unlike the forceful language of every day, the music of the church is outmoded (“folk song and contemporary classical music rarely make their appearance”), the church pays little if any attention to the aesthetic, and the architecture of the church is still often quaintly “Colonial” instead of dynamically contemporary.

In other words, the proclamation of the Gospel is stymied by an outmoded lecture style of communication located in a setting completely out of tune with the times. How sad!



No Sense of Fellowship

It would have to follow from the above that the critic who is relating his negative reactions to Prof. Wolterstorff could not possibly enjoy himself as part of such a worshipping community. The reasons why are too obvious: he feels lonesome, as just another individual among individuals engaging in something which is “at best dialogue between God and a large number of individuals.” This individualistic note is struck right at the beginning of worship when the minister calls for “a moment of silent prayer,” and goes on to the individualistic patterns of Holy Communion observance from which we have eliminated both the common table and the common cup.

Still worse, there is no sense of fellowship because there is no sense of a shared purpose and shared concern. “In how many congregations is there a sense of jointly doing God’s work in the world, each member performing a facet of the comprehensive, many-faceted task, and of then assembling for worship in order to gain sustenance for the next week’s work?” This kind of a group is cold and closed, of course. It resists fellowship, develops hostility and secretiveness. “In the church, of all places, he dare not open up, dare not be fully honest, dare not really express his longings and concerns and doubts…his distress and complaints will not be listened to… talk as he may, the consistory will continue to tell him what to do without ever really bothering to listen.”

For these kinds of reactions Wolterstorff has sympathy. in fact, he judges that they are “mainly correct.”

Further Comment from Ann Arbor

That which is guarded and qualified in Wolterstorff is stated without restraint in its sequel, “The Worship of the Church,” an article written by Rev. Donald H. Postema, minister of the Campus Chapel located near the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. It was published in the March, 1969 issue of the Reformed Journal. Mr. Postema is an ordained Christian Reformed pastor, and his work is under the auspices of that church.

The flavor of Postema’s writing can be gained from this quotation:

My conversations indicate that worship in churches of the Reformed tradition is not very vital to many students, you ng people, and even older people. In fact, some are bored, antagonized, embittered and embarrassed by it. The authoritative image of the clergy; the lack of congregational participation; the impersonal, uncreative, unimaginative and inflexible liturgies, sermons and (celebrations of the sacraments make the whole worship experience meaningless and unedifying. In many instances, it all seems so divorced from the realities of life. Some people may go to church because of social pressure or guilt (if they go at all), but they would never ask their friends to share in their worship.

Postema’s Five Presuppositions

There is a serious effort in Postema’s article to give expression lo the basic principles of true, biblical worship. These are reflected in five key observations with their comment. The first of these is…

Worship holds a key to people being excited about Christ, about His Body, and about relating the Christian faith to His world.

The sense of this observation is quite obvious. If worship is deficient then there is no “excitement” so far as Christ or his Church or his service. In other words, Postema recognizes that we can’t really ignore the importance of worship without doing great danger to the Cause of Christ. Agreed!

Observation number two is brief: In worship we should expect something to happen. One can hardly object to the idea that there is an expectancy in worship, or that there ought to be. The Word is a power, as some of us never weary to say, and its effect is decisive and inescapable. But I must quickly add that Postema’s explanation of this reveals to me that the vocabulary of some Christian Reformed thinking and speaking has changed much from the days when we were rather thoroughly steeped in L. Berkhof’s Reformed Dogmatics. To avoid all possibility of misunderstanding we cite Postema’s full explanation under this second observation,

Public worship is the continuation of God’s revelation of Himself and man’s response in faith. God has revealed Himself as our Creator, Father and Savior, who invites, forgives and shows us how to live. That revelation became very real in Christ—His whole life, His death and resurrection declared and accomplished the mighty acts of God for our salvation and reconciliation. This revelation and action creates a “new man” in a new relationship, and faith accepts this relationship. This self-disclosure of God still continues, and we today are caught up in this ongoing event of reconciliation. It has never ended. The work of Christ goes on through the proclamation of the Word in preaching and the sacraments. We believe God will continue to disclose Himself. Thus, we are not in church only to proclaim what God has done (that too, certainly), but also to experience what God is doing. We believe “God himself is with us”—to quote a phrase from a hymn often sung—and we respond to His presence and His mighty acts among us today as well as in the past. We are there to interact with God and each other in the event of revelation (italics inserted) and response, action and reaction. We are there to experience the resurrection again, that is, Christ with His people in Word, sacraments, and in other worshippers. There should be a climate of anticipation. Both pastor and congregation should be excited by the expectation that something will happen as God meets us and as we meet God together.

Candidly, I simply do not fully or readily understand this kind of talk. It seems to me that certain elements of the Gospel proclamation as the preaching of the Word are lacking not only in emphasis by Postema but even go unmentioned. Is preaching simply a disclosure of God as Creator, Father and Savior, the announcement of his invitation, forgiveness and instruction as to Christian living? Why is “new man” placed in quotation marks? Why the emphasis upon the on-going character of not only the revelation but also the very work of reconciliation, to the point that we arc said to be in church in order “to experience the resurrection again?” Why this kind of language when the Heidelberg Catechism says that “the Holy Spirit teaches us in the Gospel and assures us by the sacraments that the whole of our salvation stands in the one sacrifice of Christ made (please note the tense!) for us on the cross?”

Celebration, Participation, Creativity

“If the above is true, then celebration would seem like a proper attitude and atmosphere for our services.” This is observation thrcc. It simply means that there is something festive in worship, a note sometimes lacking or obscured. Number four is more explosive:

Since everyone in the congregation is a (potential) worshipper, everyone should have something to say about the worship, should be actively involved in the preparation and celebration of the liturgy.

Does Postema really mean what this says? Indeed he does! Negatively, he bemoans the fact that in Reformed churches one finds that emphasis upon the particular office of the ministry (“Worship is ‘regulated’ and ‘conducted’ by consistory and minister we are very clergy-centered in our churches, even at worship…the minister is different from other men, God’s special person.”) Worshippers are therefore passive, he avers, an audience which just sits and stares, looking at and listening to “the dominie.”

Positively, Postema urges:

Are not all Christians “ministers,” that is, servants, deacons, waiters who serve up the Word of God? Why can’t all be equally involved in the worship of the church? Each worshipping person should have opportunity to answer the questions; What vehicles would help you express your worship, adoration, of God best? How would you like to say thanks to God in church? What makes or would make worship really meaningful to you? What kind of liturgy would edify you and those you know? By each person I mean young as well as old, simple and educated, weak in the faith and strong—ALL.

Since the last half of Postema’s article indicates just how all this might be implemented, we’ll let that stand for now with the simple observation that this cannot mean anything but a radical departure from everything we have considered to be authorized, valid and proper in worship up till now.

In addition to festivity and wholesale participation, Postema’s fifth observation has to do with the imaginative and the creative. This is formalized by this statement:

Since God is Creator of all, He expects creative use of His universe as our response to Him.

Only the sinful, argues Postema, is outside the proper area of things useful for worship. Not only everyone, but also everything can be and ought to be pressed into liturgical service. “Who are we to limit the areas, events, ‘creations,’ where God and man can interact, where revelation and response can occur, where proclamation and new life can happen?”

Mr. Postema has no intention of leaving us in the dark as to how all of this ought to be applied in the concrete situation which is worship by today’s church. His suggestions are pointed, interesting and…shocking!

Revolutionary Liturgical Practice

In order to set off as clearly as possible Pastor Postema’s suggestions for worship in terms of his principles or observations, I think it best that I simply list them in the order in which they appear. The heading over this section uses the word revolutionary. I mean this literally. Whatever one thinks of these suggestions, they are not palliatives, they are not mildly different nor simply novel. They represent a completely different concept of worship than that which I believe and practice, and a complete different theory than that which I think our current forms usually express. Unless I am altogether mistaken, they call for a radical turn-about in liturgical practice. I dare say that the average church member occupying pew space in the Christian Reformed churches scattered over the North American continent would scarcely recognize Postema’s recommended style of worship as something Christian Reformed, either traditionally or theoretically. Here is the list of Postema’s daring suggestions:

(1) There is no uniform order of worship possible for all the churches. Each congregation must have the right to do as it pleases in its circumstances, with its kind of people, even though this forces for some the rather painful question, “how far ahead of the main body of Church opinion ought one to go?”

(2) There are to be no ecclesiastically (in the sense of denominationally) prescribed and required formularies for baptism, profession of faith, the Lord’s Supper, ordination of elders, deacons, pastors, missionaries, professors of theology, etc., since such compulsory usage limits “creativity and imagination.”

(3) All the people of the congregation should be encouraged to try their hand at writing liturgies for both preaching services and for services at which the sacraments are celebrated. This might well “be a project for Ladies’ and Men’s Societies, catechism and Sunday School classes, retreats, and the like.” This implies that we must face the question “of using silence, kneeling, conversation, poetry, drama, gospel songs, folk music, jazz, simple or complex liturgies, and whatever ways people may use for their celebration.”

(4) There must be actual participation by all in all the elements of worship as well as preparation of them. All members of the congregation (I presume this means baptized as well as those who have made profession of faith ) are to take part in what is now called the pastoral prayer as well as the singing, saying of the Lord’s Prayer, reciting of the Apostles’ Creed, the saying of responses, giving of offerings, etc. This is not the end of the matter: there ought also to be lay participation in Scripture reading and preaching.

(5) The proclamation of the Gospel ought not to be merely monological (that means something spoken by one man standing in front of a congregation), but can with equal or greater power be conveyed by choral reading, poetry, drama, dance, 6hn, dialog, and whatever form of communication is available.

(6) Hoekendijk’s suggestion in The Church Inside Out ought to be given very serious-consideration: “What is done in the congregation can be performed by every member.” This includes, for example, the actual administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It may and ought to be done by any and all in the church, and not only by the minister! Postema dreams dreams and sees visions in connection with his bold rejection of the old and recommendation of something radically new! He concludes:

My point in writing this is that liturgy and worship are closely connected with Christian living, evangelism, and a social ministry. Perhaps this is seen most clearly at Holy Communion. For there we not only partake of Christ’s body, but we are created into His Body. We are not only drawn to Him, but also drawn together in unity and harmony. And this is social dynamite. This is the community that is to result in a new world!…What kind of church will encourage this kind of celebration and ministry? In the light of this paper the answer may be, a church that in its worship is flexible, creative, spontaneous, joyous, honest, God-centered and person-centered; a church that will allow new or different “structures” to occur alongside the present one. Students hope and pray for this to happen. Let’s hope their prayer is answered in our churches soon, before they look elsewhere!

Wolterstorff: the Fateful Concession?

It is time to comment directly and candidly on the positions taken and the suggestions urged by Prof. Wolterstorff and Pastor Postema. There is, admittedly, a remarkable difference in tone and substance between these two contributors to the Reformed Journal. So far as the style and tone is concerned, we have no desire to playoff Wolterstorff against Postema. Our struggle is with the substance of their writings, not the form in which they were cast. In fact, for Postema’s candor and consistency we express sincere admiration, and that right willingly.

With many of the concrete suggestions made by Prof. Wolterstorff there can be little occasion for serious disagreement. In fact, many of these might just be met by a return to the old-fashioned patterns in vogue among us decades ago! For it was in that time that the services were led by lay voorzingers (“song leaders”) who took care of most everything in the service except the official pronouncements, the pastoral prayer and the sermon. And it was the time of the common table and the common cup, certainly badges of congregational participation in worship.

We ought not to be misled, however, into thinking that Wolterstorff’s article has to do with certain less important aspects of the liturgy (if it is possible to speak of more and less important in this connection ). If one preaches he cannot help but wince when this critic of the current liturgical situation joins the youth with whom he speaks to say that preaching today is not relevant. Let’s admit: Preaching that is truly irrelevant is not preaching at all! It may be soothing or pleasing or something, but it simply isn’t Biblical preaching.

I fear, however, that there is here, too, a sad difference of understanding and opinion among us. What is preaching? When is an oral address by a preacher preaching, and why?

It is the occasion for many (poor) jokes, but there was once a rather definite tradition among Christian Reformed and Reformed people as to the nature of a sermon. All the “three points” gibes have as their presupposition the image of a soberly attired, solemnmiened preacher who delivers a very serious, thorough address on a Lord’s Day of the Catechism or a text from Scripture of his choosing. This sermonic effort involved an introduction, the announcement of a theme or subject, and the division of that subject into three parts (usually). We might add that somehow a Jot of people seem to be available nowadays with the ability, intellectual, moral and spiritual, to ridicule this highly stylized, old-fashioned way of sermonizing. If we would give way to the temptation to become ironical, we might wonder out loud just how these people could become so qualified when the preaching they heard was so bad.

All of this is totally bankrupt, reports Prof. Wolterstorff, so far as his youthful critics are concen1ed. It is relatively so for Wolterstorff. But, at any rate, preaching is in disrepute, and “the church must attempt new ways of proclaiming the Word of God.”

In this connection two observations:

First, I do not think that preaching has been traditionally irrelevant among people of the Reformed churches. It was not irrelevant when I was listening to people like Herman Hoeksema, Samuel Volbeda, Louis Berkhof, Y. P. De Jong, H. J. Kuiper, R. B. Kuiper, Henry Schultze, Clarence Bouma, and others. In fact, such men preached so relevantly that the simplest knew well enough what the dominie proclaimed as the will of God for their every-day living, even though in many cases the full depth and complexity of the hour-long (often!) messages might have been beyond them.

You see, relevance is a relative term! Its meaning depends on where you are standing. If you are UI1convinced of the importance of the Church in the world, and still less impressed with the claim of Reformed churches to Truth and Scripturalness, then a sermon which attempts to say something about a doctrinal matter will hardly be relevant. But then, isn’t it also a possibility that you ought to change your stance and alter your position? I’m tempted to multiply illustrations of this sort but I feel it to be unnecessary.

I know of many people who find Mr. Bemstein’s comments on symphony music highly irrelevant. But you know why: they have no taste for nor interest in classical music.

But before I leave this point let me add: If Wolterstorff is only one per cent right at this point, we who preach had better be warned! If our sermonizing is sweet rather than prophetic, a palliative rather than serious, conversion and repentance-demanding admonition, then we had better get on our knees before the Lord. Perhaps this liturgical discussion is intended by God to remind us of our task as preachers, and to re-kindle within the conviction that God’s people need the exposition and application of His everlasting Word, and they need that, to refer to the Catechism, “by the living preaching of His Word” (p.98).

Secondly, as much as Wolterstorffs moderate style and great skill impresses us, we must not fail to recognize that he concedes to his youthful advisers so much as to make the difference between himself and these dissatisfied worshippers rather meaningless. In my opinion Wolterstorff makes the fateful concession.

Both sentimentally and principially the professor goes along with the kind of young people he listens to. His sympathies, he says, are on their side. The points they make, he insists, are mainly correct.

I must say that I am “on the other side.” I am not sympathetic (I do feel concern and pity!) to those who dare to say that “the sermonic mode of address is irrelevant to our age.” I am not going along with people who dare to say that the Word can be proclaimed in the Church during worship by film, drama, dance, panel discussion, conversation, or any other mode of communication the ingenuity of man can invent.

When a Christian Reformed church member is summoned to services by the elders of his congregation in the Name of Jesus Christ he has a right to the ministry of the Word. That means that he may expect to hear from one of God’s anointed “the pure doctrine of the gospel” (Belgic Confession, art. xxix), and to hear that doctrine preached, that is, officially and responsibly proclaimed. There may be no substitute for this either in form or in content, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how “pious” or stimulating or impressive or popular.

When the Reformed Journal zeroes in on some problem it really blows up a storm—and of this its concentration on the matter of the church at worship is a concrete case!

And the language employed is hardly an example of restraint and moderation: “It is no secret that many of the reflective young people who are members of the Reformed churches arc intensely dissatisfied with the current form and manner of worship in their churches.” “I am convinced that they mean their objections so seriously that unless we listen to them and institute reforms they will either leave the Reformed churches for some church which has, in their judgment, a more soundly Christian liturgy, or they will become the sullen, custom-ridden church members which we in the Reformed churches are so adept at producing.” “My conversations indicate that worship in churches of the Reformed tradition is not very vital to many students, young people, and even older people. In fact, some are bored, antagonized, embittered and embarrassed by it.”

This is not weak language, and it adds up to this: the Christian Reformed churches had better get with it liturgically or find that they are no longer in business. As one of the Reformed Journal articles referred to states it, even now such people “find it difficult to accept an institutionalized religious organization as a viable expression of” the Body of Christ.

What is the Complaint?

In this article I’m going to consider just two of the Reformed journal’s attempts* to describe and prescribe for the problem of current disinterest in worship as it is practiced in Christian Reformed congregations. These articles presume, I suppose, the liturgical set-up rather common in our churches. This is not really a completely homogeneous something, as anyone who has been around in the churches well knows. Ever since the churches rejected the Order of Worship suggested by a committee headed by the late Samuel Volbeda, long time professor of liturgies at Calvin Theological Seminary, some forty years ago, uniformity of practice has hardly been the case. Many have heard, I suppose, that Prof. Henry Schultze, one time professor of New Testament in Calvin Seminary and president of Calvin College, has been known to ask as he entered a consistory room prior to conducting services as a guest preacher, “What is your disorder of worship?”

Nevertheless, there are certain principles and customs which are quite commonly expressed in the worship services of Reformed churches today. For one thing, worship is regarded as something under the official regulation of the ciders. For another, certain features are regarded as basic: the reading of the Law of God in the morning service, use of the Apostles’ Creed in the second service, congregational singing from the prescribed collection of psalms and hymns, the receiving of offerings, opening with an official salutation and closing with :l similar benediction. And last but not least, it is usually presumed that the bulk of the time will be spent listening to a serious sermon based upon the Scriptures as the infallibly inspired Word of God.

Well, that is “church” for most Reformed people, I’d guess. And what is so bad about that?

Professor Wolterstorff Agrees with the Critics

In February of this year Calvin College philosophy professor Dr. Nicholas Wolterstorff offers in the Reformed Journal “a general characterization” of the complaints of the reflective young people who are, at least for the present, members of Reformed churches. The title is good and simple, “Thc Young Person and the Liturgy,” the style is clear and unmistakable. That Wolterstorff is not an intruder in this discussion is evident from the fact that he is a member of the Liturgical Committee of the Christian Reformed Church, and that he is presented in this periodical as one who has “long been interested in liturgical renewal.” In other words: Here we have some indication as to the way things are going to go liturgically in the Christian Reformed Church, if he has his way.

Current worship practice in Reformed churches is criticized, says Wolterstorff, on three counts: (1) Young people are sorely dissatisfied because this type of warship renders them inactive, non-participating observers, while they would be active participants; (2) the worship services are not relevant, “they do not bear on his life and on his concerns”; (3) there is not a satisfying experience of community or of fellowship in the worship of the church.

Before we attempt a summarizing of the things this writer reports, we must bear in mind that this article is not merely a report. The closing paragraph spells this out very plainly:

I have not concealed the fact that my sympathies are on the side of these young people. I have not concealed the fact that, in my judgment, the points they make are mainly correct.

For Wolterstorff it is true that “the fundamental structure of a Rcformcd liturgy…is a dialogue, a dialogue between God and His people.” This, says the writer, is so obvious that it needs no argumentation. It is something on which most everyone is generally agreed. What does the term dialogue mean?

The Reformed liturgy, indeed, the Christian liturgy, consists in its basic structure of a series of acts in which God addresses His people and His people address God—the people confess their sins to God, God gives to the people His assurance of pardon, God speaks His Word to the people, the people respond with thanks and praise to God, and so forth, back and forth in dialogue.

Looking at “the current form and manner of worship” Wolterstorff finds that at every point this “dialogue structure” fails to be realized or is obscured. Congregational singing, recitation of the Creed—both examples of direct participation—“appear to him as nothing more than interludes in an essentially passive situation, the paint of the interludes being that he is thereby given a chance to stretch his legs and his lungs so that he can endure the next stretch of passivity.” The Votum is almost always said by the minister alone, the prayers are offered exclusively by him, he reads the Scripture lesson, the choir or soloist sings to and for the congregation, and even the very architecture of most churches makes for a speaker-audience situation rather than for liturgical dialogue.

Worship is Irrelevant

The second charge raised by Prof. Wolterstorff is more basic. In fact, if it is true then public worship in Reformed churches is hopelessly decadent. The things said in the previous section can be repaired even if we have to tear down most of our church buildings and spend the $300,000 to $1,000,000 it would take to get one that is liturgically adequate.

This very basic charge, however. is that “the worship of the church…is irrelevant to their Christian lives throughout the week.” WolterstorH very admirably states that “the wholeness of life before the Lord is what the Reformed tradition has always called for.” This principle, young people tell their professor, is being violated in “the current form and manner of worship in their churches.”

Here we are dealing with “a gut issue” so far as the true nature of worship is concerned. This is evident when Wolterstorff reports that…

…what one often hears the young people saying nowadays is that the day of the sermon is past, that sermons simply do not communicate to the new generation, that the sermonic mode of address is irrelevant to our age. From his experience in the world he is vividly aware of the fact that films, plays, novels, paintings, music, can all be used to make a point, and that in many cases the point can be made far more vividly than by way of discourse.

Please note that Wolterstorff is saying that youth are not critical of the sermons they hear because, say, they are inadequate theologically or exegetically, because they are not sufficiently Scriptural, or because they are of poor quality rhetorically or oratorically. Youth is saying that it doesn’t care about sermons as such. It doesn’t want to be addressed in that fashion seldom if at all. If you wish to speak to me, modern youth declares, you’d better marshal all the resources of cultural development and electronic equipment because I’m more impressed with the skillful application of such devices in communication than 1 could possibly be when somebody just preaches.

Now the professor is not ready to go whole-hog at this point. Although he agrees “that we in the church must attempt new ways of proclaiming the Word of God,” he is “not as convinced” that the day of sermons is past. For him it is a matter of the kind of sermons his younger brothers and sisters hear. Wolterstorff concedes that the preaching he hears is also often guilty of divorcing worship from life, the Lord’s Day and the week day. At least I presume that Wolterstorff is saying this because his article allows for virtually no exception. In his experience preaching is seldom marked by “specific, concrete recognition of the problems of the world, of the nation, of the community, even of the local church” (italics inserted). Listen, as he asks…

How many sermons can really be construed as giving concrete guidance to the people of God for their lives in the coming week? How many can really be construed as speaking the Word of God lo, and for, our lives today?

Still more: sermons take up too great a share of the time in worship, the language of the pulpit is archaic and altogether unlike the forceful language of every day, the music of the church is outmoded (“folk song and contemporary classical music rarely make their appearance”), the church pays little if any attention to the aesthetic, and the architecture of the church is still often quaintly “Colonial” instead of dynamically contemporary.

In other words, the proclamation of the Gospel is stymied by an outmoded lecture style of communication located in a setting completely out of tune with the times. How sad!

No Sense of Fellowship

It would have to follow from the above that the critic who is relating his negative reactions to Prof. Wolterstorff could not possibly enjoy himself as part of such a worshipping community. The reasons why are too obvious: he feels lonesome, as just another individual among individuals engaging in something which is “at best dialogue between God and a large number of individuals.” This individualistic note is struck right at the beginning of worship when the minister calls for “a moment of silent prayer,” and goes on to the individualistic patterns of Holy Communion observance from which we have eliminated both the common table and the common cup.

Still worse, there is no sense of fellowship because there is no sense of a shared purpose and shared concern. “In how many congregations is there a sense of jointly doing God’s work in the world, each member performing a facet of the comprehensive, many-faceted task, and of then assembling for worship in order to gain sustenance for the next week’s work?” This kind of a group is cold and closed, of course. It resists fellowship, develops hostility and secretiveness. “In the church, of all places, he dare not open up, dare not be fully honest, dare not really express his longings and concerns and doubts…his distress and complaints will not be listened to… talk as he may, the consistory will continue to tell him what to do without ever really bothering to listen.”

For these kinds of reactions Wolterstorff has sympathy. in fact, he judges that they are “mainly correct.”

Further Comment from Ann Arbor

That which is guarded and qualified in Wolterstorff is stated without restraint in its sequel, “The Worship of the Church,” an article written by Rev. Donald H. Postema, minister of the Campus Chapel located near the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. It was published in the March, 1969 issue of the Reformed Journal. Mr. Postema is an ordained Christian Reformed pastor, and his work is under the auspices of that church.

The flavor of Postema’s writing can be gained from this quotation:

My conversations indicate that worship in churches of the Reformed tradition is not very vital to many students, you ng people, and even older people. In fact, some are bored, antagonized, embittered and embarrassed by it. The authoritative image of the clergy; the lack of congregational participation; the impersonal, uncreative, unimaginative and inflexible liturgies, sermons and (celebrations of the sacraments make the whole worship experience meaningless and unedifying. In many instances, it all seems so divorced from the realities of life. Some people may go to church because of social pressure or guilt (if they go at all), but they would never ask their friends to share in their worship.

Postema’s Five Presuppositions

There is a serious effort in Postema’s article to give expression lo the basic principles of true, biblical worship. These are reflected in five key observations with their comment. The first of these is…

Worship holds a key to people being excited about Christ, about His Body, and about relating the Christian faith to His world.

The sense of this observation is quite obvious. If worship is deficient then there is no “excitement” so far as Christ or his Church or his service. In other words, Postema recognizes that we can’t really ignore the importance of worship without doing great danger to the Cause of Christ. Agreed!

Observation number two is brief: In worship we should expect something to happen. One can hardly object to the idea that there is an expectancy in worship, or that there ought to be. The Word is a power, as some of us never weary to say, and its effect is decisive and inescapable. But I must quickly add that Postema’s explanation of this reveals to me that the vocabulary of some Christian Reformed thinking and speaking has changed much from the days when we were rather thoroughly steeped in L. Berkhof’s Reformed Dogmatics. To avoid all possibility of misunderstanding we cite Postema’s full explanation under this second observation,

Public worship is the continuation of God’s revelation of Himself and man’s response in faith. God has revealed Himself as our Creator, Father and Savior, who invites, forgives and shows us how to live. That revelation became very real in Christ—His whole life, His death and resurrection declared and accomplished the mighty acts of God for our salvation and reconciliation. This revelation and action creates a “new man” in a new relationship, and faith accepts this relationship. This self-disclosure of God still continues, and we today are caught up in this ongoing event of reconciliation. It has never ended. The work of Christ goes on through the proclamation of the Word in preaching and the sacraments. We believe God will continue to disclose Himself. Thus, we are not in church only to proclaim what God has done (that too, certainly), but also to experience what God is doing. We believe “God himself is with us”—to quote a phrase from a hymn often sung—and we respond to His presence and His mighty acts among us today as well as in the past. We are there to interact with God and each other in the event of revelation (italics inserted) and response, action and reaction. We are there to experience the resurrection again, that is, Christ with His people in Word, sacraments, and in other worshippers. There should be a climate of anticipation. Both pastor and congregation should be excited by the expectation that something will happen as God meets us and as we meet God together.

Candidly, I simply do not fully or readily understand this kind of talk. It seems to me that certain elements of the Gospel proclamation as the preaching of the Word are lacking not only in emphasis by Postema but even go unmentioned. Is preaching simply a disclosure of God as Creator, Father and Savior, the announcement of his invitation, forgiveness and instruction as to Christian living? Why is “new man” placed in quotation marks? Why the emphasis upon the on-going character of not only the revelation but also the very work of reconciliation, to the point that we arc said to be in church in order “to experience the resurrection again?” Why this kind of language when the Heidelberg Catechism says that “the Holy Spirit teaches us in the Gospel and assures us by the sacraments that the whole of our salvation stands in the one sacrifice of Christ made (please note the tense!) for us on the cross?”

Celebration, Participation, Creativity

“If the above is true, then celebration would seem like a proper attitude and atmosphere for our services.” This is observation thrcc. It simply means that there is something festive in worship, a note sometimes lacking or obscured. Number four is more explosive:

Since everyone in the congregation is a (potential) worshipper, everyone should have something to say about the worship, should be actively involved in the preparation and celebration of the liturgy.

Does Postema really mean what this says? Indeed he does! Negatively, he bemoans the fact that in Reformed churches one finds that emphasis upon the particular office of the ministry (“Worship is ‘regulated’ and ‘conducted’ by consistory and minister we are very clergy-centered in our churches, even at worship…the minister is different from other men, God’s special person.”) Worshippers are therefore passive, he avers, an audience which just sits and stares, looking at and listening to “the dominie.”

Positively, Postema urges:

Are not all Christians “ministers,” that is, servants, deacons, waiters who serve up the Word of God? Why can’t all be equally involved in the worship of the church? Each worshipping person should have opportunity to answer the questions; What vehicles would help you express your worship, adoration, of God best? How would you like to say thanks to God in church? What makes or would make worship really meaningful to you? What kind of liturgy would edify you and those you know? By each person I mean young as well as old, simple and educated, weak in the faith and strong—ALL.

Since the last half of Postema’s article indicates just how all this might be implemented, we’ll let that stand for now with the simple observation that this cannot mean anything but a radical departure from everything we have considered to be authorized, valid and proper in worship up till now.

In addition to festivity and wholesale participation, Postema’s fifth observation has to do with the imaginative and the creative. This is formalized by this statement:

Since God is Creator of all, He expects creative use of His universe as our response to Him.

Only the sinful, argues Postema, is outside the proper area of things useful for worship. Not only everyone, but also everything can be and ought to be pressed into liturgical service. “Who are we to limit the areas, events, ‘creations,’ where God and man can interact, where revelation and response can occur, where proclamation and new life can happen?”

Mr. Postema has no intention of leaving us in the dark as to how all of this ought to be applied in the concrete situation which is worship by today’s church. His suggestions are pointed, interesting and…shocking!

Revolutionary Liturgical Practice

In order to set off as clearly as possible Pastor Postema’s suggestions for worship in terms of his principles or observations, I think it best that I simply list them in the order in which they appear. The heading over this section uses the word revolutionary. I mean this literally. Whatever one thinks of these suggestions, they are not palliatives, they are not mildly different nor simply novel. They represent a completely different concept of worship than that which I believe and practice, and a complete different theory than that which I think our current forms usually express. Unless I am altogether mistaken, they call for a radical turn-about in liturgical practice. I dare say that the average church member occupying pew space in the Christian Reformed churches scattered over the North American continent would scarcely recognize Postema’s recommended style of worship as something Christian Reformed, either traditionally or theoretically. Here is the list of Postema’s daring suggestions:

(1) There is no uniform order of worship possible for all the churches. Each congregation must have the right to do as it pleases in its circumstances, with its kind of people, even though this forces for some the rather painful question, “how far ahead of the main body of Church opinion ought one to go?”

(2) There are to be no ecclesiastically (in the sense of denominationally) prescribed and required formularies for baptism, profession of faith, the Lord’s Supper, ordination of elders, deacons, pastors, missionaries, professors of theology, etc., since such compulsory usage limits “creativity and imagination.”

(3) All the people of the congregation should be encouraged to try their hand at writing liturgies for both preaching services and for services at which the sacraments are celebrated. This might well “be a project for Ladies’ and Men’s Societies, catechism and Sunday School classes, retreats, and the like.” This implies that we must face the question “of using silence, kneeling, conversation, poetry, drama, gospel songs, folk music, jazz, simple or complex liturgies, and whatever ways people may use for their celebration.”

(4) There must be actual participation by all in all the elements of worship as well as preparation of them. All members of the congregation (I presume this means baptized as well as those who have made profession of faith ) are to take part in what is now called the pastoral prayer as well as the singing, saying of the Lord’s Prayer, reciting of the Apostles’ Creed, the saying of responses, giving of offerings, etc. This is not the end of the matter: there ought also to be lay participation in Scripture reading and preaching.

(5) The proclamation of the Gospel ought not to be merely monological (that means something spoken by one man standing in front of a congregation), but can with equal or greater power be conveyed by choral reading, poetry, drama, dance, 6hn, dialog, and whatever form of communication is available.

(6) Hoekendijk’s suggestion in The Church Inside Out ought to be given very serious-consideration: “What is done in the congregation can be performed by every member.” This includes, for example, the actual administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It may and ought to be done by any and all in the church, and not only by the minister! Postema dreams dreams and sees visions in connection with his bold rejection of the old and recommendation of something radically new! He concludes:

My point in writing this is that liturgy and worship are closely connected with Christian living, evangelism, and a social ministry. Perhaps this is seen most clearly at Holy Communion. For there we not only partake of Christ’s body, but we are created into His Body. We are not only drawn to Him, but also drawn together in unity and harmony. And this is social dynamite. This is the community that is to result in a new world!…What kind of church will encourage this kind of celebration and ministry? In the light of this paper the answer may be, a church that in its worship is flexible, creative, spontaneous, joyous, honest, God-centered and person-centered; a church that will allow new or different “structures” to occur alongside the present one. Students hope and pray for this to happen. Let’s hope their prayer is answered in our churches soon, before they look elsewhere!

Wolterstorff: the Fateful Concession?

It is time to comment directly and candidly on the positions taken and the suggestions urged by Prof. Wolterstorff and Pastor Postema. There is, admittedly, a remarkable difference in tone and substance between these two contributors to the Reformed Journal. So far as the style and tone is concerned, we have no desire to playoff Wolterstorff against Postema. Our struggle is with the substance of their writings, not the form in which they were cast. In fact, for Postema’s candor and consistency we express sincere admiration, and that right willingly.

With many of the concrete suggestions made by Prof. Wolterstorff there can be little occasion for serious disagreement. In fact, many of these might just be met by a return to the old-fashioned patterns in vogue among us decades ago! For it was in that time that the services were led by lay voorzingers (“song leaders”) who took care of most everything in the service except the official pronouncements, the pastoral prayer and the sermon. And it was the time of the common table and the common cup, certainly badges of congregational participation in worship.

We ought not to be misled, however, into thinking that Wolterstorff’s article has to do with certain less important aspects of the liturgy (if it is possible to speak of more and less important in this connection ). If one preaches he cannot help but wince when this critic of the current liturgical situation joins the youth with whom he speaks to say that preaching today is not relevant. Let’s admit: Preaching that is truly irrelevant is not preaching at all! It may be soothing or pleasing or something, but it simply isn’t Biblical preaching.

I fear, however, that there is here, too, a sad difference of understanding and opinion among us. What is preaching? When is an oral address by a preacher preaching, and why?

It is the occasion for many (poor) jokes, but there was once a rather definite tradition among Christian Reformed and Reformed people as to the nature of a sermon. All the “three points” gibes have as their presupposition the image of a soberly attired, solemnmiened preacher who delivers a very serious, thorough address on a Lord’s Day of the Catechism or a text from Scripture of his choosing. This sermonic effort involved an introduction, the announcement of a theme or subject, and the division of that subject into three parts (usually). We might add that somehow a Jot of people seem to be available nowadays with the ability, intellectual, moral and spiritual, to ridicule this highly stylized, old-fashioned way of sermonizing. If we would give way to the temptation to become ironical, we might wonder out loud just how these people could become so qualified when the preaching they heard was so bad.

All of this is totally bankrupt, reports Prof. Wolterstorff, so far as his youthful critics are concen1ed. It is relatively so for Wolterstorff. But, at any rate, preaching is in disrepute, and “the church must attempt new ways of proclaiming the Word of God.”

In this connection two observations:

First, I do not think that preaching has been traditionally irrelevant among people of the Reformed churches. It was not irrelevant when I was listening to people like Herman Hoeksema, Samuel Volbeda, Louis Berkhof, Y. P. De Jong, H. J. Kuiper, R. B. Kuiper, Henry Schultze, Clarence Bouma, and others. In fact, such men preached so relevantly that the simplest knew well enough what the dominie proclaimed as the will of God for their every-day living, even though in many cases the full depth and complexity of the hour-long (often!) messages might have been beyond them.

You see, relevance is a relative term! Its meaning depends on where you are standing. If you are UI1convinced of the importance of the Church in the world, and still less impressed with the claim of Reformed churches to Truth and Scripturalness, then a sermon which attempts to say something about a doctrinal matter will hardly be relevant. But then, isn’t it also a possibility that you ought to change your stance and alter your position? I’m tempted to multiply illustrations of this sort but I feel it to be unnecessary.

I know of many people who find Mr. Bemstein’s comments on symphony music highly irrelevant. But you know why: they have no taste for nor interest in classical music.

But before I leave this point let me add: If Wolterstorff is only one per cent right at this point, we who preach had better be warned! If our sermonizing is sweet rather than prophetic, a palliative rather than serious, conversion and repentance-demanding admonition, then we had better get on our knees before the Lord. Perhaps this liturgical discussion is intended by God to remind us of our task as preachers, and to re-kindle within the conviction that God’s people need the exposition and application of His everlasting Word, and they need that, to refer to the Catechism, “by the living preaching of His Word” (p.98).

Secondly, as much as Wolterstorffs moderate style and great skill impresses us, we must not fail to recognize that he concedes to his youthful advisers so much as to make the difference between himself and these dissatisfied worshippers rather meaningless. In my opinion Wolterstorff makes the fateful concession.

Both sentimentally and principially the professor goes along with the kind of young people he listens to. His sympathies, he says, are on their side. The points they make, he insists, are mainly correct.

I must say that I am “on the other side.” I am not sympathetic (I do feel concern and pity!) to those who dare to say that “the sermonic mode of address is irrelevant to our age.” I am not going along with people who dare to say that the Word can be proclaimed in the Church during worship by film, drama, dance, panel discussion, conversation, or any other mode of communication the ingenuity of man can invent.

When a Christian Reformed church member is summoned to services by the elders of his congregation in the Name of Jesus Christ he has a right to the ministry of the Word. That means that he may expect to hear from one of God’s anointed “the pure doctrine of the gospel” (Belgic Confession, art. xxix), and to hear that doctrine preached, that is, officially and responsibly proclaimed. There may be no substitute for this either in form or in content, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how “pious” or stimulating or impressive or popular.

Here is THE issue in this discussion: Is it legitimate to replace the ordinary, time-honored preaching of the Word with any other kind of communication, and that in official, ecclesiastical public worship?

To this Wollcrstorlf says Yes, even though he says many good things about various liturgical features. To that question my answer is an unqualified No. I know of no biblical reference nor any creedal statement which gives warrant to anything else but that which is explicitly stated in the Heidelberg Catechism:

Since, then, we are made partakers of Christ and all His benefits by faith only, whence comes this faith?

From the Holy Spirit, who works it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel, and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments (ques. and ans. 65).

Postema: the Total Concession I

To be as forthright as possible, it is my contention that to open up the forms of liturgy to most any kind of cultural or artistic mode of communication is fateful, that is, destructive in consequence for the cause of the true Church on earth.

This is very obvious if we pause to consider the things to which Rev. Donald Postema is led when he follows this principle out to its logical conclusions. Try to imagine this kind of situation in the churches of the Christian Reformed denomination:

– Absolutely no similarity in the practice of worship, every congregation being completely free to do whatever its circumstances, kind of people (not God’s Word!) demands…

– Absolutely no obligation to use prescribed formularies for the sacraments, ordination, profession of faith, etc., for nothing short of the patently sinful may limit creativity and imagination in worship…

Surely this is a total concession to the principle of a revolutionary liturgical revision.

This Cannot Go On!

There are all kinds of troubles, conflicts and disagreements in the church today, and many of us have grown used to the idea that they are always present to do their unhappy work.

Is this just another difference of opinion? A matter of private emphasis? Is this just another quarrel among the theologians, another dispute among those who like to argue, hoping, perhaps, that they will come out of the arena with the champion’s wreath?

I do not think so.

It is significant, I believe, that both Wolterstorff and Postema stress the importance of this whole matter by referring to the deep dissatisfaction and disgust of the people with whom they talk, and whose feelings they report.

But dissatisfaction and disgust are not limited to such people.

While working on this very article my telephone rang. On the other end was a friend, Christian Reformed, now serving his church as an elder, a successful business executive for one of our nation’s largest corporations, a man who loves the Gospel and the Word and the church and the Christian School, and wants to be faithful in his Christian walk of life.

His church has a minister with advanced or progressive or liberal or whatever-you-want-to-call-them ideas on church worship. This elder has seen the motion picture projector replace the evening sermon, he has witnessed the presentation of morality plays by Calvin College students as an integral feature of divine worship.

His reaction? In one word, disgust.

He, too, is thinking of leaving the church. After all, his town owns a flourishing “Bible church” with strong, biblical preaching and an evangelical witness.

“I feel more at home there,” he told me.

The Word is Polarization

We ought not to forget that this whole dispute has to do with our interpretation of the Second Commandment of the Decalogue. You know how it reads:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt.not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing lovingkindness unto thousands of them that love me and my commandments.

When the Heidelberg Catechism offers its interpretation of this commandment (binding, incidentally, for Wolterstorff, Postema and Piersma by virtue of signatures solemnly inscribed beneath the Formula of Subscription) it says,

What does God require in the second commandment?

That we in no wise make any image of God, nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded in His Word. (Italics inserted, J.H.P.)

Similarly, reference is made to the principle that worship must be governed both as to form and content by Scripture in the Belgic Confession when it states:

We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large…

But here is where the spirits divide, I fear. Here is where the polarization in the church (polarization simply means that the two sides of the argument go farther and farther apart) is evident and is being magnified.

Oh, for a return to the simplicity of traditional Christian Reformed worship, with its emphasis upon the beauty of the Gospel of salvation through the blood of the Savior, upon the utter reliability of the Sovereign God of the Covenant, and upon the joy of knowing that where Christ’s representatives as elders call his disciples to worship, there he is in the very midst.

I’m talking about polarization,

It can be overcome, and it is wherever two or three are honestly gathered in his Name, where the question is not, What kind of a new idea or practice can we come up with to make worship exciting?, but rather. How can we all best serve him in strict obedience to his command that we “preach the Gospel”?

*Ignoring for now a series of three articles by Rev. Edwin Walhout (October, November, December of 1968) in which basic exception to Prof. Samuel Volbeda’s ideas on preaching is taken.

Rev. John H. Piersma is pastor of the Bethany Christian Reformed Church, South Holland, Illinois.