A Primer on Reformed Liturgics: Liturgical Diversity Among the Reformers

The Famed Reformation Wall in Geneva

Elements and Circumstances [1]

The Reformed divide liturgical practice into two categories: elements and circumstances. Elements are limited to what Scripture authorizes (either by command or good and necessary inference) along the line of Acts 2:42, while circumstances refer to how we put elements into practice. Circumstances are matters left to our judgment and discretion, but remaining within the general bounds of God’s word.

Elements are a distinct and usually ordinary act of worship (e.g., prayer, Scripture reading, the preaching of word, the administration of sacraments, etc.). Circumstances pertain to practices not unique to religious worship, but common to “human actions and societies” (WCF 1.6). Circumstances refer to matters such as where and when to meet, how many hymns should be sung, how the church furniture should be arranged, etc. Circumstances are not indifferent nor ungoverned, but are regulated by the light of nature, Christian prudence, and the general rules of Scripture (WCF 1.6). For example, we can choose what times to meet on Sunday, but we cannot move our Lord’s Day worship to another day of the week.

As the Reformed liturgical traditions took shape (the elements), there were wide variations in circumstantial practice. The various church orders (the constitutional documents of the churches) often developed along national/local lines. Most liturgies were full services, while others were partial liturgies or set forth guidelines for parts of the service—i.e., John Knox’s Practice of the Lord’s Supper. And there was the collection and publication of prayers to be used in worship (i.e., Thomas Cranmer’s Collects which are found the Book of Common Prayer (BCP).

Free or Fixed Worship

How much freedom was allowed at the local level? Martin Luther stressed local adaptation of the German Mass, yet insisted upon the use of his version of the Lord’s Prayer and admonitions before Communion. John Calvin’s Form of Ecclesiastical Prayers provided a fixed liturgical form for the Genevans (as was his previous Strasbourg liturgy). At his death, Calvin insisted that consistories “change nothing.” That said, Calvin did allow for variation in the opening prayer for midweek services, and Knox (who used The Form of Prayers) allowed for significant variations in the confession of sin, as well as prayer before the sermon, “should the Spirit of God, move the minister’s heart” to pray extemporaneously. Remarkably, Cranmer’s fixed liturgy in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer (BCP) did allow for substantial weekly variation through the use of the liturgical calendar for Scripture lessons and seasonal collects.

Congregational Participation

Ulrich Zwingli proposed antiphonal congregational responses in the Zurich liturgy, but his request was not approved by the city council. Cranmer’s service in the BCP utilized written prayers with congregational participation and/or responses throughout the entire service. Congregational singing was nearly universal by this time (with the Psalms serving as the principle song book of the churches), with the emphasis clearly falling upon the congregational singing of Scripture (including the Decalogue), although the Creed was also sung (i.e., in Geneva). As one writer put it, the emphasis upon congregational singing meant that the “the church was full of the people’s song.”[2]

The Frequency of Communion

Luther, Martin Bucer, and Cranmer all instituted weekly communion–with the caveat that due to the shortage of ministers, the difficulty of travel and other circumstances, rural congregations were to commune monthly. Calvin argued for weekly communion (he famously considered infrequent communion “an invention of the devil”), but the Genevan council overruled him and instituted a quarterly celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Zwingli and Heinrich Bullinger also instituted quarterly communion, while Knox preferred monthly but acquiesced to quarterly communion. Fencing the table (limiting participation of church members and others upon examination and approval by local elders) was widely practiced (even by Cranmer).

Church Furniture, Gestures, and Vestments

Luther’s liturgy (and that of subsequent Lutheran churches) retained the stone table and use of the term “altar.” But Zwingli, Cranmer, and Bucer replaced stone altars with wooden tables with ministers standing (not facing east or in front of the table with his back turned) so as to avoid any “priestly” appearances.

Elevation of the communion cup during the Lord’s Supper was discontinued, although making the sign of the cross was permitted early on for weaker Christians still clinging to certain Roman practices. Congregations typically knelt for prayer, stood for praise (singing), and sat for instruction.

Clerical vestments were varied and a source of contention. Luther approved of traditional clerical attire, although he insisted that “pomp and splendor be absent.” Cranmer likewise approved of clerical attire with the surplice (the white outer garment symbolizing imputed righteousness worn over the academic gown or cassock). Bucer retained clerical vestments for a time but replaced them with the cassock (or clergy coat) and surplice. The Genevans insisted upon removing all sacerdotal appearances associated with Romanism, mandating a black academic gown, white preaching band, and a black hat (or cap). These were not seen as clerical vestments, but the “uniform,” identifying the vocation of the minister both in the worship service and in the performance of his daily duties. Knox followed Calvin’s practice and was critical of Cranmer for retaining the surplice.

Diverse local practices remained. The City of Zurich celebrated Christmas, Cranmer and Bucer allowed extra-biblical hymns, Calvin’s church sang the Creed, the Decalogue, and the Psalms, while the Scots and Puritans rejected church holidays and adopted exclusive Psalmody.

The process of confessionalization (the development of Reformed confessions, catechisms, and books of church order) was long and complicated, but brought with it the increasing standardization of liturgical practices with which we are familiar.

Next Time: Principles from the Past Applied in the Present: Lessons for Us (part-one)

_______________________________________

[1] Adapted from Jonathan Gibson and Mark Earngy, Reformation Worship: Liturgies from the Past for the Present (Greensboro: New Growth Press, 2018), 35 ff.

[2] Maxwell, “Reformed Worship,” 458.