Home > About Us > Collaborators > Christian Reformed Church > Resources > Worship

Worship Rumbles

Harry Boonstra

This article originally appeared in Origins the Historical Magazine of the Archives of the Hekman Library at Calvin College (Vol. XVI, Number 1, 1998) and is used with permission.

Prelude

Looking at the worship scene in the Christian Reformed Church today, one cannot help noting an incredible variety of worship practices. In contrast, a century ago the worship in CRC congregations looks very uniform. Below, I will sketch out the shape of that early liturgy and high-light its sameness. However, in this essay I am suggesting that views and practices of worship throughout this early history are not as uniform as they first appear. Already then one finds questions, disagreements, controversies, and music wars. Focusing on some of these controversies is not to suggest that the worship service was a continual battleground. The worship life of the church could be and was an expression of profound devotion and a source of spiritual nourishment. At the same time, a survey of some of the disputes often demonstrates what was important to the people, and it helps to define and characterize the early CRC.

Shape of the Liturgy

The shape of the liturgy in the early immigrant churches tended to be uniform. The churches inherited the liturgy as it had evolved in the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, often with the particular slant of the Secessionist churches. Although the order of worship was not derived from a denominationally approved book of worship or the Church Order, the uniformity among the congregations was very high. The Acts of Synod 1928 (p. 287) lists the common order as it was inherited from the Dutch churches:

            Votum or Invocation

            Salutation

            Psalm

            Law

            Scripture Reading

            Psalm

            General Prayer

            Psalm and Offering

            Sermon

            Closing Prayer

            Psalm (and Doxology)

            Benediction

            Let me add a few details to that bare outline. The churches retained the tradition of the Reformed churches and sang only versified psalms. Initially the singing was without musical accompaniment, usually with a song leader (voorzanger) prompting the people. However, as financial resources increased, the purchase of organs increased. (Bert Polman's essay discusses music in detail.) The morning and afternoon/evening service were nearly identical except that in the morning the Ten Commandments were read and in the evening the Apostles' Creed. Normally one of the sermons was based on the Heidelberg Catechism (usually the second service). The service took approximately an hour and a half, the sermon lasting about an hour. Until 1900 nearly all the services (except for those in the German churches and the churches of Classis Hackensack) were conducted in Dutch. The pastor led all of the service, including a solo reading of the creed.

            The Sunday worship services were extremely important to the immigrant community. The social dimension was obviously of great import, since Sunday was often the only time that parishioners could meet and socialize. More significantly, the times of worship served to build the community spiritually and theologically. Good sermons were treasured, the psalms were a source of comfort, and the prayers were an indispensable part of their spiritual lives. Still, the worship life of the immigrant community was also a source of lively controversy, and to those differences we now turn.

Feast Days

The Church Order of Dordrecht had mandated the observance of Christmas, the Circumcision of Jesus, Good Friday, Easter, Pentecost, and the Ascension. Although the Day of the Circumcision soon dropped out of the Reformed calendar, the other feast days were generally observed in the Reformed churches of the Netherlands. But not without question. The Secessionist churches were not of one mind on feast-day observance, and the immigrant churches inherited this ambivalence. Already at the first meeting of Classis Holland (Apr. 23, 1848) the issue was discussed at length (Minutes of Classis Holland, p. 21). Some attested to the great blessings such observance produced; others felt that the church should not fix dates to commemorate these events since the Lord in his Word has left us in ignorance as to the exact time.

            The question rose again in 1851. Two additional objections were adduced. The churches should not appear to take our stand with the Roman Catholics and Episcopalians and thus offend other American Protestants who might not observe these days. A more practical objection was voiced by an elder from Grand Haven: ...if the Hollanders withdrew on such days, the operation of the saw mills would be stopped (Classis Holland Minutes 1848-1858, p. 59).

            Even though Classis Holland generally ruled that observance of feast days was to be a matter for each congregation to decide, controversies apparently continued. The meeting of April 28, 1853, dealt with a nasty quarrel between the brethren resident at Drenthe, against the minister of the church, Rev. R. Smit (Classis Holland Minutes 1848-1858, p. 117). A major cause for the quarrel was disagreement about feast days.

            The issue continued to be problematic in the separated Christian Reformed Church. A pro and con pair of articles in 1876 dealt in some detail with the principles involved. Rev. A. H. Brink pointed to the Old Testament examples of religious feast days and saw the Christian Pentecost as a continuation of such tradition. Even though there is no explicit commandment in the New Testament to observe holy days, he discerned great spiritual benefit in the keeping of those days. Yet he warned that to bring Christmas trees and candies into the church celebration was totally inappropriate (De Wachter, Jan. 6, 1876, p. 3). A response by J. van der Hil, followed by a second response by both, indicates the importance ascribed to the question. Van der Hil cited the usual objection that observance of the days is not explicitly taught in Scripture and that he and others should feel free to ignore the Church Order.

            Another reason for the observance of feast days dealt with the potential misuse of such days. Since Christmas, for example, was a civic holiday, it would be wise for churches to plan a worship service on that day--to keep their members decently occupied. Otherwise, they might do nothing, walk the streets, or drink liquor in the saloons. The author [Rev. Hemkes?] further argued that people (both heathen and Israelites) always wanted and needed days of celebration. Then it is certainly appropriate for Christians to celebrate the great events of their faith (De Wachter, Feb. 13, 1879, pp. 2-3).

            The tradition of a limited observance of the Church Year carried the day, and the celebration of the principal feast days continued in virtually all congregations. Interestingly, disagreement later focused on the second day of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. Although these days were usually observed in European churches (and legislated by the Synod of Dordt), they were not observed in American life. As late as 1886, a Mr. H. Marling brought a protest to synod that his church (Zeeland) had not observed the second Christmas Day.

Lord's Supper

Questions about the Lord's Supper involved several issues--admission to and supervision of Communion, the use of individual cups, the choice between wine and grape juice, and the manner of distribution.

            Reformed churches had always practiced restricted admission to the Lord's Supper--fencing the table. Depending on the mesh of the fence, this restriction at various times ranged from close to closed, The Secession of 1834 reiterated the importance of this practice, and the immigrant churches abided by the tradition. The issue became more pointed in an immigrant community with the presence of strangers--no doubt a much more frequent occurrence in America than in the old country. In 1849 and 1852 Classis Holland judged that strangers should be allowed to participate if they exhibited remorse for sin and intended to join the congregation (Classis Holland Minutes 1848-1858, pp. 31, 86).

            A more contentious question was a particular practice of the denomination in which they found themselves. In 1855 Gijsbert Haan reported to Classis Holland that at the recent General Synod the invitation to the Lord's Supper had been a general invitation to all Christians (Classis Holland Minutes 1848-1858, pp. 180-81). Even though Van Raalte contested that observation (Classis Holland Minutes 1848-1858, p. 203), this admissions policy of the RCA continued to be questioned by the new immigrants. One of the objections presented by the seceding Graafschap congregation in 1857 was that the RCA was guilty of "inviting (men of) all religious views to the Lord's Supper, excepting Roman Catholics (Classis Holland Minutes 1848-1858, p. 242). Henry Beets repeated the allegation in his De Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk in Noord America (p. 109).

            The CRC retained its close-communion practice by insisting that the table is open only to members (in good standing) of the local congregation and to guests from other CRC congregations--after they have received permission from the elders. As W. Heyns summarizes, The elders are seated at the table to watch that things are done in an orderly fashion--to make sure that everyone receives the bread and wine and that no stranger or person under censure is seated (Liturgiek, p. 244). The practice received brief challenge during World War II, when chaplains in the armed services were under pressure to administer the sacrament not just to our boys from the CRC but to all servicemen and women who wished to participate. H. J. Kuiper demurred to patriotism at the expense of Church Order (The Banner, Oct. 2, 1942, pp. 876-77). With increased mobility of both members and visitors and the increased openness to other Christian denominations, CRC practices increasingly moved away from close supervision. Synod 1976 in effect allowed each congregation to do what was right in its eyes with regard to visitors at the Lord's Supper.

            A more emotional issue concerned the change from the common cup to individual cups. The Banner editor Henry Beets left no doubt about the need for change:

Now, what does science say as to bacteria that may be involved in the use of the common cup? ... The communion cup of the Fourth Baptist Church of Rochester, New York had numerous pus-cells in the dregs.... Diseases transmissible from mouth to mouth by using one drinking vessel are syphilis, cancer, tuberculosis, diphtheria, scarlatina, influenza, tonsillitis, whooping cough and others; many mouths are unclean by neglect of teeth, which in turn means breeding-grounds for many germs.

            (The Banner, Oct. 11, 1917 p. 645)

            The editor was also solicitous on the ground of tenderness in sparing the feelings of those who are brought up delicately and refined:

They have revulsion of feelings creep over them involuntarily when they see someone immerse a portion of his mustache into the cup, until it is lifted out drippingly.... Or when they know of those whose lips are cracked with repulsive sores or have suspicious-looking spots, or of whom they know that a toothbrush never was guilty of causing the blackness and decay manifested by their teeth whenever they open their mouth.

            (The Banner, Oct. 11, 1917, p. 645)

            But the change did not come without a challenge. Heated articles, editorials, and letters made a case for the continuation of the common cup. Some thought the medical reason less than convincing. In a response to the editor, Simon Lieffer wrote,

A great many of so-called cultured people are evolutionists and believe the ape to be their forefather. I have been wondering ever since I read your first article whether it would be safe to kiss my wife.... If the Master meant the individual cup, let us have it, but if He meant the cup of communion, don't let us deviate from it because some nice cultured people and some great M.D.'s say so. The point is, what did the Master say and what did He mean when He said, Drink ye all of it? Namely the cup.

                        (The Banner, Nov. 1, 1917, p. 706)

            Synod again ruled for congregational option (Acts of Synod 1918, p. 44). The change was prompt in some congregations (especially because of the danger of influenza), others kept the common cup for decades, but eventually virtually all churches made the change. However, as late as 1934 a protest about individual cups was lodged with synod.

            The discussion about the use of wine or grape juice was also a spirited one. In his Liturgiek, Heyns espoused the traditional use of wine but was willing to make an exception for converted drunkards, who could be served a special glass "with something that looks like wine (p. 243). Others expressed their views more vigorously. De Wachter of April 5, 1916, carried a report of Classis Pacific, strongly condemning the use of grape juice. Buttressing their views by quoting Scripture, Abraham Kuyper, and Charles Hodge, the authors concluded,

Respect for Jesus' institution and the practice of the apostles must keep us from all arbitrary actions about holy things: and that is what will happen if we no longer use wine in our celebration of the Lord's Supper, and substitute grape juice, which is not wine. This arbitrary action becomes worse if it is prompted by misplaced prohibition fervor.

            The report closes with a ringing declaration that even if a prohibitionist state would forbid the use of wine, Classis Pacific would stand firm:

Here it is also true, "One must obey God rather than man," and we must have complete freedom to serve God according to our conscience, especially in our country, where we, in God's grace, have freedom of religion.

            (De Wachter, Apr. 5, 1916, p. 7)

            But Brother C. Van Loo was not convinced, as he took on both Abraham Kuyper and Classis Pacific:

Kuyper calls wine exaltio vitae? He could have better called it "exaltatio mortis." This idea of making the exaltation, produced by fermented liquor, by alcohol, which instead of strength and life produces just the opposite, typical of spiritual life, is so abhorrent that my whole being revolts against it. To me it is blasphemy. [If theological reasons will not persuade the erring brethren, perhaps medical reasons will.] Alcohol, which is always and everywhere not a food but a poison, which is never assimilated when taken in the stomach, but passes in breath, respiration, urine and evacuation out of the body ... to make this product of death and dissolution typical of the spiritual life imparted by our Savior is, to my mind, unutterably horrible.

            (The Banner, June 1, 1916, p. 354)

            Another very practical question was the mode of distribution. The predominant method in Reformed churches in the Netherlands had been distribution to communicants seated at tables set up for the Communion service. In large churches communicants would come forward in groups, receive the elements, and return to their pews as more groups replaced them at the tables. The immigrant churches all began with this practice, but eventually changed to the American method--the distribution of the elements in the pews. The main (only?) reason seems to have been one of logistics: As congregations became larger, the number of servings increased and so did the length of the service. Logistics apparently won out over symbolism, and little controversy is recorded about this change.

The Major Battle

One of the most interesting episodes in the course of CRC worship took place between 1916 and 1930. The episode dealt with some major issues and demonstrated a conservatism that was more interested in maintaining the status quo than in theological argument or historic Calvinism. Let me first sketch a brief time line of the episode:

1916--In response to an overture to encourage greater uniformity of worship practices, synod appointed a Committee to Promote Unity in Our Worship Services.

1918--The committee presented a report which dealt largely with Reformed liturgical principles and suggested that the churches were generally remiss in living out those principles. Synod dutifully appointed a larger committee to develop proposals to improve congregational worship practices. (H. J. Kuiper and Y. P. De Jong are probably the best-remembered names on the committee.)

1920--The committee delivered a thorough report, including a number of major changes in the customary worship practices. Some suggestions were minor (congregations should stand while singing, since it prevents drowsiness ... and provides better chest expansion); others were major changes, especially the introduction of the service of reconciliation. (The acknowledgment that the new order of worship will meet with some opposition of course turned out to be a major understatement.) The report was recommended to the churches for study and reaction.

1922--The reaction of the churches was prompt--and nearly all negative. Suspicion of novel worship elements, fear of ritual, and resistance to change all come to expression in the various overtures. However, the committee was asked to continue its work.

1926--The committee asked whether a synod's decision about worship had binding authority on all congregations. Synod did not give a clear yes or no but did suggest that a uniform but flexible order of worship should be adhered to by all churches.

1928--The committee presented a twenty-six-page report, which contained much of the earlier material, modified somewhat in response to previous objections. The principal explanatory section again concerned the absolution. Synod spent many sessions discussing the report. The two most contentious issues were the introduction of the absolution and the use of church choirs (not favored by the committee). The main thrust of the report was adopted, and synod impressed upon consistories that all the churches shall conform to whatever decisions touching this matter have been taken, unless they shall be proved to be contrary to God's Word."

1930--The earlier winds of protest had by now become a storm. Classes, consistories, and individuals registered disapproval and objections. Some called for partial changes of the 1928 decision, others for wholesale rescindment. Synod did not exactly rescind all of 1928, but in its substitute order of worship, its rejection of the absolution, and its emphasis on local prerogative, it in effect nullified the work of the committee and the decision of 1928.

1932--The committee sent a brief report to synod, expressing its disappointment in harsh language, as seen in the following expressions: ... reactionary procedure of the Synod of 1930; this catastrophe; the wreck that remained; reminded us only too painfully of the steamroller in general use at political gatherings; appeal to prejudice undid the good work of the Synod of 1928. By the adoption of this report, Synod has at least tacitly declared that our work savored of Romanism and formalism; worse than that, our work has been condemned as being in conflict with our Reformed principles of liturgy. This we desire to deny, emphatically and indignantly.

            As the outline of the synodical events makes clear, the worship issues touched sensitive nerves in the CRC psyche. Some issues were cleanly liturgical or theological, but others involved church polity and history, and, no doubt, resistance to change and deep-seated conservatism also played a strong role. By 1930 the opposition and unrest in the churches had reached such a point that the opponents could claim that further support of the liturgical changes would cause only more strife.

             Let me briefly summarize the two main areas of disagreement. Probably the most contentious question in the controversy was the proposed introduction of the absolution. The committee found solid historical precedent in the liturgies of Calvin and other Reformers. The prayer of confession was to be followed by the declaration of the pastor (taken from Calvin's liturgy): Unto all who thus repent and seek in Jesus Christ their salvation, I proclaim, on the ground of God's promise, that all their sins are forgiven them for the sake of the merits of Jesus Christ.

            However, no matter how frequently the committee cited Calvin (and they did so very frequently), the critics were not persuaded (or, more often, they simply ignored Calvin's voice). Two counter arguments were used most frequently. First, a service of confession was not needed, since the complete service, including prayers and preaching was really sufficient testimony that God's people confessed their sins and were forgiven. Second, the notion of absolution was basically a Roman Catholic concept and therefore to be shunned in Reformed worship.

            The other major objection was against synodical control. Interestingly, the main motivation for beginning this study in the first place had been alarm about increasing congregational diversity in worship practices (a sign of both Congregationalism and Americanization). A study of the principles of Reformed worship was expected to bring greater uniformity in worship. The committee took this mandate seriously: Their study had revealed (at least to them) what constituted Reformed worship, and now they expected the churches to adopt uniform worship practices. The decisions adopted by synod were assumed to be binding on all congregations.

            That synod had the right to prescribe uniform worship principles was agreed upon by all. Said the editor of The Banner, "... measures should be taken to have all of our congregations fall in line" (May 13, 1920, p. 296). However, the issue became much more clouded when synod specified certain practices for all congregations. Here there were vigorous (and vigorously expressed) disagreements--on issues ranging from the pastor shaking hands with worshipers after the service, to the use of the common cup, to the pronouncement of the absolution. We cannot enter into a discussion here about Reformed church polity and the relative authority of synods versus that of congregations. But that issue became one of the major stumbling blocks in the reaction to the proposed liturgy. Let me quote from just one protest to the Synod of 1930:

The principles which are foundational to all pure worship are expressed in God's Word. We rejoice that Synod seeks to instruct our people about these principles.... However, Synod took a whole other step to establish a certain order of worship, and to make this binding on the churches.... It is in complete violation of the spirit of Calvin to thrust the same form of worship on all the churches.

            (Agenda 1930, Part II, pp. 39-41)

            The bitter postlude written by the Liturgical Committee in 1932 looks upon the long struggle as an unmitigated disaster. One can understand that reaction, since suspicion and traditionalism seemed to prevail, no significant changes took place, and meaningful discussions on liturgy did not reoccur until the 1960s. But that evaluation is too limited. In some ways the work of the committee was vindicated. The committee's insistence that worship is dialogue (although still an incomplete conception of worship) helped to give better recognition to the voice of the congregation. The 1968 report on church liturgy used the principle of dialogue as its main definition of worship. The 1968 report also returned the absolution, now called assurance of pardon, and the overall shape of the Model Service is not unlike that of the one proposed in 1920.