I’ve been Baptist all my life and have observed that the preaching of the Word is the focus of our public worship services, as in most other Protestant churches. The pulpit takes center stage. In sacramental assemblies, like Catholicism and much of Anglicanism, the focus of public worship is the Eucharist. The altar takes center stage. Though this difference may sometimes be taken for granted by Protestants today, the prophetic position on worship wasn’t a given in the 17th Century, the age of the Puritans. The Puritans were the evangelical wing of the Church of England. They came into being because of a desire to rid the Church of the unscriptural vestiges of Catholicism, to complete the English Reformation.
Through their voluminous writings the Puritans developed a doctrine of preaching the Word of God. They also developed a doctrine of hearing the Word of God. Together these aspects of a church service form the Puritan conception of public worship. In his book The Genius of Puritanism Peter Lewis states that
the tension between the Anglican and Puritan modes and ideals of worship arose largely from the difference between the Anglican conception of public worship as fundamentally a priestly act, and the Puritan idea of it as fundamentally a prophetic one. To the Puritan mind the priestly element in worship rested on the two great truths of Christ’s perpetual High Priesthood and the consequent priesthood of all believers. Thus, any mediation of grace through the minister was not through any supposed priestly act of his, but through the Word of Christ spoken by him in the Spirit of Christ to the people of Christ. In public worship, therefore, the Puritan conceived of the prophetic element as the grand climactic and dominating factor.
Peter Lewis, The Genius of Puritanism (Carey Publications Limited, 1979), p. 53.
I found it interesting that the Puritans had to hammer out this conception of worship that I frequently take for granted, as though this position had always been the norm in churches. It had to be fought for. Today it seems that some professing evangelicals are flirting with sacramentalism and focusing less on the preached Word. Could it be partly because some preachers have seemingly lost the conception of the momentous event that is taking place when a man of God stands before a congregation and opens the Word of God?
Just like it was in the Puritans’ day, our society will be most impacted by ministers and listeners who view the sermon as “the climax of public worship…the principal mediating instrument of the power of God unto salvation and sanctification” (Lewis, p. 53).
______________________
Recommended reading:
Peter Lewis, The Genius of Puritanism (paperback, 144 pages - reprinted by Soli Deo Gloria)
Using abundant quotes from the Puritans, Lewis provides a valuable introduction, emphasizing “the preaching and pastoral activities of those remarkable men of the 17th Century” (from the Foreword by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, p. 5). Available from Reformation Heritage Books ($11.00) and Amazon ($11.00).
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Zondervan, hardback, 325 pages)
This is not a book on homiletics; it is essentially a theology of preaching and should be required reading for every ministerial student. Very helpful.
This point is being heatedly debated these days. It seems as though what has been "fought for" still needs to be "fought for". I thoroughly agree with you and Lewis. The preached word is "the climax of public worship". The hard part is not minimizing or disdaining the other parts of the worship, not idolizing (or adoring) the minister more than the One in whose place he stands, and listening for the voice from heaven in spite of the weaknesses (I'm thinking primarily of communication skills, etc.) of the preacher.
ReplyDeleteI just read the following quote that addresses a related issue:
"I am not suggesting using video on Sun AM is necessarily sinful; but I am suggesting that it must normally (or always?) be imprudent." (Mark Dever at Church Matters the 9Marks blog, HT: Tim Challies) This is a good article and worthy of careful consideration for those of us who lead in worship.
There is however the danger that in focusing upon the Word you down play the importance of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. I think the balance is not an either/or but rather both. Although I would still say that the Eucharist is the focus, but maybe that is the Anglican in me ;)
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty within Protestantism and the Reformed tradition who see no wedge between the Lord's Supper and Preaching. The two compliment each other, and both should be part of every worship service. Without the Lord's Supper, the preaching of the word looses some of its "application," and without a *proper* preaching of the Word, the Lord's Supper looses some of its grounding.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments! Many legitimate points have been raised. It’s definitely possible to downplay or even neglect the Lord’s Supper. I’ve known many Baptists who do this. The church I attend observes the Lord’s Table the first Lord’s Day evening of each month. Some of our people have expressed the desire to observe it every week. Other churches I’ve attended observe it far less frequently. Jesus said, “As often as you drink it…” (1 Cor. 11:25). So He apparently expects some frequency of observance. When we observe Communion, we gear our whole service toward it. I’ve been in services where it seemed to be merely tacked on at the end with no connection to the rest of the service and little significance given.
ReplyDeleteI think Peter Lewis’ point (and the Puritans’ point) is that we not look for saving/sanctifying grace bestowed immediately through the elements, but through the preaching and receiving of the Word of God. Sanctifying grace comes to believers as we scripturally observe Communion, examining ourselves, confessing our sins to the Lord, remembering His death for our sins, and showing (lit. proclaiming) His death until He comes. This type of observance really does have its grounding in the Word of God preached. The Puritans seemed to be fighting against mere formality, not the practice itself.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteGood article by Dever. I agree with him. We should strive for a “word-centered” ministry. The “visual” aids can provide, and give extra force to, teaching, but they are always dependant on words.
Also, as a Baptist I’m familiar with the concern of some preachers that observing the Lord’s Supper “too often” might cause people to eventually think of it as mere ritual. But it shouldn’t be so. Our Lord instituted it for specific purposes. It behooves ministers to be intimately acquainted and passionately sympathetic with those purposes…just like they should be fully aware of what’s really happening when they open the Bible in front of a congregation. A "business-as-usual" attitude in this area will eventually cause the preacher to stagnate and the whole service to degenerate into mere ritual.
Tim,
ReplyDeleteTimothy George said last night at the annual Center for Theological Reflection and Mentorship meeting in Toronto that it is unfair to say celebrating the Lord's Supper every week makes less of it. He, half in jest but full in earnest said, we always say it is not good to do the Lord's Supper every week but we see no problem with taking a collection every week? We only let the Lord's Supper become insignificant if we let it. It does not have to be so if it is every week. I have been at churches that celebrate it every week and it is never "tacked on" or insignificant... and this is from a dyed in the wool Baptist!
Thanks for this though!
Allen Mickle
Allen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing the comment from Timothy George. I got a good laugh from something serious, which probably means I'll remember it from now on. Makes sense, though. I mean if we're protecting the significance of the Lord's Supper by not observing it more often, maybe it would be profitable to apply that reasoning to other parts of the service, like the offering. They say that absence makes the heart grow fonder...
They also say that familiarity breeds contempt. I think it does so only with contemptible things.