Sermon Outline, January 2

Sermon Outline, January 2 December 27, 2004

So, What Are We Anyway?

INTRODUCTION

The liturgical changes recently introduced at Trinity might well provoke an identity crisis for members of the church. Have we become Lutherans? Or Anglicans? Or have we abandoned the Reformation altogether? Are we still Protestants? Are we on the road to Rome, Canterbury, Constantinople? What are we? These questions are important, but need to be seen as aspects of a larger set of questions about the direction that Protestants should take in the future.

THE TEXT
?These are the statutes and judgments which you shall be careful to observe in the land which the Lord God of your fathers is giving you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth. You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations which you shall dispossess served their gods . . . .?E(Deuteronomy 12:1-32).

CATHOLICS?
To many, our service might feel like a Roman Catholic service. But in fact there is nothing distinctively Roman Catholic about our worship. We do not venerate the bread; we do not pray to Mary or the saints; we do not claim that we are re-sacrificing Christ. I do not consecrate the elements of the Supper, and we don?t save the bread and wine to chat with during the week. We don?t have any relics in the church. We don?t perform the liturgy in Latin or Greek. And we will never do any of these things.

In fact, the purpose behind the liturgical changes was completely consistent with the reforms introduced in worship during the Protestant Reformation. One of the chief goals of the Reformers was to return worship to the people. During the Middle Ages, the church?s liturgy had increasingly become a specialty of the clergy: The priest said the liturgy in a language that few could understand, and most of the time only the priest received the elements of the Eucharist. Protestant liturgies were written and performed in the language of the people, and Protestants invented the prayer book to help the people participate in the service.

Many of the changes in our liturgy have increased congregational participation in the service. We now pray several prayers together each week. There is more dialogue in worship than before. We sing more service music. All of these changes are consistent with the biblical and Protestant affirmation that all the people of God are priests who have access to God?s house and who have a part to play in the worship of the church.

HUMAN TRADITION?
Other changes might also be troubling. I have begun to wear a robe in worship, and we have begun to decorate the church, as much as we can in our current circumstances, with the traditional colors of the church calendar. Isn?t this a capitulation to Catholicism, or to human tradition?

Before addressing these specifics, we need to think a bit about how Scripture rules our worship. According to the popular formula, Lutherans and Anglicans say that whatever Scripture does not forbid is permitted; but Reformed liturgists say that whatever is not commanded is prohibited. The latter is often describes as the ?regulative principle of worship.?EBut this simple formula simply cannot work. Take the issue of ministerial robes: No one would say that ministers in the New Covenant are commanded to wear robes. By the Reformed ?regulative principle,?Ethen, robes are forbidden. But there?s a problem: Ministers in the new covenant are not commanded to wear anything when they lead worship; therefore?Eyou get the point. And sorry for the image that might have evoked.

The true regulative principle is well-stated in the Westminster Confession. Chapter 21.1 says that ?the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.?EBut chapter 1.6 of the Confession recognizes that ?there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.?EIn short, Scripture teaches us how we are to worship; but Scripture does not give direct commands concerning every circumstance and feature of worship. These are still governed by Scripture, but by the ?general rules?Enot by specific commands.

Let?s consider clothing for the minister. There is no explicit command one way or another concerning liturgical clothing in the NC. But the minister has to be clothed in some fashion. Do we have any general guidance in Scripture about whether the minister should wear something different from the rest of the congregation? Yes. Throughout Scripture, clothing manifests calling and status (cf. the robe in the Joseph stories), and more specifically the Aaronic priests wore elaborate robes that could not be worn by anyone else (Exodus 28). Pastors in the NT are not the same as Aaronic priests, but ministers do have a distinct role in the church as leaders and shepherds. Though this does not amount to a command requiring a minister to wear a robe, Scripture?s general rules suggest that a minister?s calling should be manifested in his clothing, both in worship and outside worship.

What about liturgical colors? Again, there is no explicit command one way or another. But there is also no neutral decision. The church is either colorful or not colorful; the table is either bare or decorated in some fashion. Both possibilities ?send a message?Eand mean something. Which is more consistent with general Scriptural rules? We cannot not send a message; the question is, What message do we want to send? In the OT, places of worship were richly adorned with gold furniture, expensive curtains woven with cherubim, walls carved with cherubim and palm trees and flowers (Exodus 25-31; 1 Kings 6-7). On the other hand, there is no biblical example of a ?plain sanctuary,?Ewithout color and adornment. Further, there is clear biblical precedent for the celebration of a church calendar (Exodus 23; Leviticus 23; Deuteronomy 12-14). Marking the different periods of the church calendar is consistent with the general tenor of Scripture.

WHITHER PROTESTANTS?
These liturgical questions are one part of a larger set of questions about the direction that Protestants should be pursuing in the future. I don?t presume to have the wisdom or clout to set an agenda for Protestantism, but I can offer a few thoughts. First, the Reformers saw themselves as part of the stream of church history going back to the apostles and including the church fathers and medieval church. As Protestants, we should not let the Catholics have Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Bonaventure, much less Gregorian chant, church councils, or liturgical colors all to themselves. These are our fathers, and these are the practices of our fathers, as much as theirs. Second, one of the key goals of Protestants has to be bringing this heritage to bear in our interpretation of Scripture, our theology, our liturgy, and our church life. We don?t accept anything merely because it is old and venerable. It must pass the test of Scripture. But we also don?t reject anything merely because it is old and venerable. That is modern hubris, and modern hubris has done great damage to the church. Finally, we must not compromise one whit on the achievements of the Reformation, either liturgically or theologically. The church can and has erred, and sometimes grievously. We want to be ?catholic?Ein embracing the whole heritage of the church, but if we are to be biblical we must be ?protesting catholics.?E


Browse Our Archives