an order of holy communion - keith watkins historianan order of holy communion 2 service in each...

1

ENCOUNTER 24/3 (Summer 1963) Republished in keithwatkinshistorian.wordpress.com (Fall 2011)

Keith Watkins

An Order of Holy Communion For Use Every Sunday

Note: This paper consists of an introductory essay, a liturgy for celebrating the Lord’s Supper, and a Symposium on these materials by an ecumenical panel of scholars in the field of worship. This work was done just as major reforms in worship were being developed by historic Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches. The Ap-pendix (p. 29) describes the situation with respect to liturgical studies in the early 1960s when this paper was published. Reprinted with permission of the editors of Encounter.

A MOST WHOLESOME DEVELOPMENT in the contemporary church is the de-sire to recover holy communion as the regular worship of parish churches. Illus-trative of this new mood is the recent statement by one major American denomi-nation. It is fitting, their directory of worship now says, that the sacrament of the Lord's supper “be observed as frequently as each Lord’s Day, and it ought to be observed frequently and regularly enough that it is seen as a proper part of, and not an addition to, the worship of God by his people.”1 If this growing interest in eucharistic worship continues, Protestant churches may recover a part of their heritage which has already been too long lost.

Despite the prominence of this new mood, however, the discomforting fact is that holy communion continues to be the exception rather than the rule in the regular Sunday worship of Protestant congregations. One is not surprised to find the free churches reluctant to introduce sacramental worship to a generation which has had neither experience in it nor a theological foundation to support it. What is more difficult to understand is the reluctance of churches of the Anglican tradition to restore holy communion to its rightful place as the major Sunday

1 The Constitution of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of Amer-

ica, 1961, 1962, p. 108.

An Order of Holy Communion

2

service in each parish church.2 There are several explanations for this slowness in translating liturgical theory into parish practice. The modern church has lost the sense of the sacramental—the conviction that God uses common, material ele-ments as instruments for his self-disclosure. The moralism which has dominated our pulpits and the activism of the self-made American have left little room for the gospel which the Lord’s supper manifests—that God was in Christ reconcil-ing the world to himself. The tender sensitivities of contemporary congregations are offended by the scandal of the cross, with the result that words like “the body and blood of our Lord” have a strange sound upon our ears. Modern descen-dants of the Reformation have forgotten that the early Reformers insisted upon the service of word and sacrament as the authentic worship of the church.

Yet even if these conditions could be overcome, there still would be resis-tance to the adopting of holy communion as the regular worship on Sunday mornings. Why? Because existing communion services, while they may be true to the great traditions of the past and acceptable for occasional celebration, are impractical for use every Sunday. The problem is threefold: (1) Traditional com-munion liturgies tend to be too long. The pressures of modern life being what they are, few people are willing to submit themselves regularly to a service which takes much more than an hour’s time. Consequently free church ministers frequently shorten the service on communion Sundays by reducing the sermon to a meditation of five or ten minutes’ duration. This practice, while doing no great harm on the infrequent occasions when communion is now celebrated, could not be tolerated on a regular weekly basis. Yet, as traditional services now stand, there seems to be little alternative. (2) The ritual of communion liturgies is often repetitious, a fact which partially accounts for their undue length. In one liturgy, for example, the words of institution appear three times in full form and twice more in an abbreviated form. Such repetition might not have an adverse effect upon occasional celebration; if it were attempted every Sunday, the result would be stultifying. (3) Services tend to be heavier than congregations are pre-pared to receive. The typical communion liturgies of Protestant churches borrow extensively (and often indiscriminately) from the Anglican service. In contrast to their regular Sunday worship, these services are overburdened with an unfamil-iar idiom, formal prayers, extraneous material of somber sound, and unfamiliar ceremonial. Again, the accumulation of these various materials may be fully ap-propriate for infrequent celebration—especially on solemn festival occasions—

2 While most Episcopalian churches [in 1963] celebrate this sacrament every Sunday,

the service in many cases is early in the day—without sermon, without hymnody, at-tended only by a fraction of the congregation. In these churches, the major service con-tinues to be Morning Prayer, with sermon, rather than Holy Communion.

3

but it rules out the possibility that these services could be used in the regular congregational worship of most free churches.

The following order of holy communion is submitted with the hope that it may contribute to the resolution of the present impasse. It has been shaped by three criteria in addition to the practicality which has already been discussed.

1. There must be continuity with the liturgical tradition of the whole church. Cen-tral in this tradition is the conviction that Christian worship is the church’s cor-porate response to God’s action in Jesus Christ—an action which took place within history and yet transcends time, affecting human life even now. It is one way of fulfilling the Psalmist’s call:

O give thanks to the Lord, call on his name, make known his deeds among the peoples!

Sing to him, sing praises to him, tell of all his wonderful works (Ps. 105:1-2).

This response takes the form of a dramatic recital of God’s actions which unites the worshipers with a great stream of history-making people, among whom he continues to act. Very early in its life the church developed an order or “shape” for this corporate action. Embracing both the Jewish heritage and the distinc-tively new character of Christianity, this order combined the recital of God’s mighty deeds with an act of thanksgiving. It welded scripture, sermon, prayer, and the breaking of bread into a service which continues to be the skeleton of all of the historic liturgies of Christendom.

2. Due regard must be given to the free church tradition as it has been represented in Protestant denominations. Although we belong to the one church, we also share in its divided state and are bound by sentiment, history, and conviction to our own portion of Christendom. The Protestant tradition has continually witnessed to the word of God as being transcendent over all human words, actions, and forms. It has insisted that God is Lord over his church and its worship and that we must always be open to fresh incursions of his Spirit. Thus while ritual and ceremonial must be used, ritualism and ceremonialism must be avoided lest they become barriers to this divine infilling. Throughout the four hundred years of its life, Protestantism has been aware not only of the eternal dimension but of the temporal as well. Its great leaders have sought to live as men in the modern world and have tried to help the people of the church to be responsible bearers of the commission “to have dominion.” Luther, Schleiermacher, Rauschenbusch, and Tillich have, each in his own time, represented this effort to embrace the


4

world in the name of Christ. The Protestant tradition in worship, as well as in theology and ethics, demands this contemporaneity.

3. The growing ecumenical consensus of Christendom must be kept in mind. The catholic nature of the hymnal has long been recognized. What is now becoming evident is the growing ecumenical character of the entire act of worship. Careful examination of representative modern liturgies shows, as Massey H. Shepherd has demonstrated, that the larger unities of liturgical order already outweigh the differences.3 Judging by recent publications in the field of Christian worship, these larger unities include: that the normative Christian worship is the service of word and sacrament; that the gross individualism of an earlier decade must be chastened by the recovery of the corporate sense of being the body of Christ; that worship in the church building is directly related to the church’s work in the world.

Lest there be misunderstanding, it must be asserted that this ecumenical consensus does not mean a movement toward uniformity. There will always be wholesome variations within the church—theological, structural, practical, and liturgical. The time cannot yet be visualized when there will not be both formal and extemporaneous liturgical practices, for there will always be people who choose to worship in these various ways. Yet, undergirding these variations in procedure will be common purposes, and giving body to the various ways of ex-pressing common purposes will be very similar liturgical structures. The time must come when despite superficial differences of taste and custom, worship in both an Episcopalian cathedral and a Baptist meeting house will be recognizably the same act!

These several criteria are met in a suggestion made recently by one noted churchman.4 He proposed that persons involved in liturgical reconstruction keep in mind a basic rite similar to the one used near the close of the second century. It includes: (a) collect; (b) prophecy, epistle, or both; (c) gospel; (d) sermon; (e) of-fertory; (f) intercessions (here or before the offertory); (g) eucharistic prayer (Sur-sum corda, to Our Father) ; (h) communion; (g) thanksgiving and dismissal. It may be noted that in his First Apology the second century writer, Justin Martyr, describes a service which is almost identical to the outline above. By combining word and sacrament, this basic service falls within the major liturgical tradition of the church. The sequence of action—moving from scripture to sermon to sac-rament—is the same as will be found in all major liturgies, catholic and protes-tant, ancient and modern. By removing the devotional elements which have so

3 Massey H. Shepherd Jr., The Reform of Liturgical Worship (New York: Oxford Uni-

versity Press, 1961), p. 113. 4 E. R. Hardy, “Editorial,” Anglican Theological Review, Vol. XLIII (October, 1961), 33l.

5

encumbered later liturgies, this rite does everything which is important in the communion service but manages to remain simple and brief enough for practical use each Sunday. Yet, it provides a skeletal structure which can support what-ever devotional enrichment might seem desirable in the individual parish church. While the liturgy which follows adheres closely to this basic rite, there are modifications which ought to be discussed briefly.

1. Hymnody. It is our conviction that regular corporate worship ought to have three or four congregational hymns, in addition to any anthems which might be sung. There are several places, as the rubrics indicate, where they may appear.

2. The preparation. Whereas the ancient collect for purity5 is of such beauty and strength that it could be used every Sunday, most free churchmen would chafe under such a procedure. Thus, our rubrics allow for the greater variety which traditional Protestant usage has maintained.6 Provision is made for an im-portant devotional element—the prayer of confession.7 It is fitting that the wor-ship of God have this penitential prayer. No prayer of absolution is included for the rest of the service accomplishes this function. 3. A statement of faith. If one is said, and we believe that it should be, the most natural place is immediately after the Gospel or the sermon. We are sug-gesting the use of the Apostles’ Creed because of its antiquity, simplicity, and hymn-like character. It clearly is the doxological-kerygmatic expression of praise which liturgical practice requires the creed to be.

5 Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom

no secrets are hid; Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy Name: through Christ our Lord. Amen. 6 While Protestant usage permits variety, this permission assumes that those who plan and lead the worship of God will do so responsibly. It is especially important that they exercise great care in the preparation of all prayers for use in corporate worship. Still valuable in this regard are Henry Sloane Coffin's instructions on the composition of pub-lic prayers in his “Public Worship of God” (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1946), pp. 70-86. Among the most useful service books are the following (unless otherwise indicated they are published by Oxford University Press, New York): The Book of Common Order of the Church of Scotland; The Book of Common Prayer (Protestant Episcopal Church); A Book of Public Worship (compiled for the use of Congregationalists); Book of Worship for Free Churches; The Book of Common Worship (The Board of Christian Education of the Presbyte-rian Church in the U. S. A.); Christian Worship: A Service Book (St. Louis: Christian Board of Publication). 7 The text of this prayer, as it appears below, has been taken from Prayer Book Studies IV: The Eucharistic Liturgy (New York: Church Pension Fund, 1953), p. 330.


6

4. The prayers of intercession. We have placed this important element (often called the pastoral prayer) before the offertory so that the importance of the eu-charistic prayer will be fully evident. The relation of offertory to the eucharistic prayer was established late in the first century with the emergence of the four-fold shape for the eucharist: offertory (the taking of bread and wine); eucharistic prayer (the blessing of bread and wine); fraction (the breaking of bread); and communion (the giving and receiving of bread and wine). The offertory is fun-damentally an action in which the “altar is furnished with sacrificial gifts, and the table is ‘laid’ for the fellowship meal.”8 By keeping the spoken portions of the offertory brief, this relation to the eucharistic prayer remains clear. In addition to making ready the bread and wine, the worshipers during the offertory also offer gifts of this earth which represent their labor and life. Thus they manifest the two-fold sacrifice which the people of God are called upon to make—the indi-vidual sacrifice of himself which each believer makes as his “spiritual worship” and the corporate sacrifice which the church makes of itself as the “body of Christ.” Whenever possible the bread and wine should be brought to the table during the offertory along with the gifts of money. When this action is not possi-ble, let the bread and wine be placed on the table before the service begins and covered with a white cloth or other suitable cover. Then during the offertory the covering should be removed and the gifts of money be received.

5. The eucharistic prayer. Because this prayer expresses the meaning of the en-tire service of word and sacrament, it is very important that careful attention be given to the three elements which comprise it: The thanksgiving with its praise of the Maker of heaven and earth; the memorial of the incarnate Christ, who by his passion has effected our salvation; and the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the worshipers and their offering. With respect to the structure and phrasing of this prayer, there are two major traditions in the church. Representing the one are Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican churches with their invariable prayer which is said at every celebration of holy communion. Representing the other tradition are the free churches which permit the celebrant to choose his own words. Since both procedures have a long history and able defenders, it is un-likely that either one will quickly disappear from the life of the church. The ru-brics provide sufficient latitude that either practice may be followed, according to the particular tradition of the church in which this rite is used. The prayer which is given as an illustration is an attempt to express the central elements of the eucharistic prayer in such a way that even the most free of the free church

8 J. G. Davies, G. F. Cope, and D. A. Tytler, An Experimental Liturgy (Richmond: John Knox Press, p. 41.

7

Christians might be able to see themselves praying it.9 When compared with the classical eucharistic prayers, it obviously shows the effect of drastic pruning. When compared with what one hears in a great number of the free churches, however, it represents a high standard of excellence. For a similar reason the preface and sanctus are given in a form which is simpler than that found in tradi-tional eucharistic liturgies.10

The name for this rite was suggested by a phrase in An Experimental Liturgy11 and is used here because it seems to us to express in a modern idiom the force of the word “eucharist.” We wish to suggest that serious consideration be given to that form of the Peace which is described in An Order for the Lord's Supper of the Church of South India:12

When the Peace is given, the giver places his right palm against the right palm of the receiver, and each closes his left hand over the other's right hand. The Peace is given before the offertory (see Matthew 5:23, 24) as a sign of Fellowship. . . The presbyter gives the Peace to those ministering with him, and these in turn give it to the congregation. It may be passed through the congregation either along the rows, or from those in front to those be-hind. It is suggested that each person as he gives the Peace may say in a low voice, “The peace of God,” or “The peace of God he with you.”

Provision has been made during the final hymn of the service for the extend-

ing of an invitation to Christian discipleship. Some may wish to include such an element in the response which follows the sermon by including a hymn of conse-cration at that point in the service. One final word of acknowledgement is in or-der at this time. In addition to the communion liturgies already mentioned, we have given careful attention to the new Methodist service which appears in Pro-posed Revisions for the Book of Worship for Church and Home. Its influence is espe-cially apparent in several rubrics.13

9 This prayer is adapted from one which appears in A Book of Public Worship, p. 5l. 10 The source is Davies, Cope, and Tytler, op. cit., p. 42. 11 Ibid., p. 3l. 12 Oxford University Press, 1954, p. vii.

13 For trial use 1960-64 as authorized by the 1960 General Conference of the Methodist Church (Nashville: The Methodist Publishing House, 1960).


8

An Order for the Celebration of

The Great Thanksgiving

All Christian people who are eligible to receive communion in their own church families are invited to partake of this sacrament.

THE PREPARATION

THE PRELUDE

HYMN OF PRAISE

CALL TO PRAYER

The minister says the call to prayer in words of Scripture, such as,

Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord?

And who shall stand in his holy place?

He who has clean hands and a pure heart,

who does not lift up his soul to what is false,

and does not swear deceitfully.

THE CONFESSION OF SIN

The minister and people together.

Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of

all men; we acknowledge and confess our manifold sins, which we have com-

mitted by thought, word, and deed, against thy divine Majesty. We do ear-

nestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings. Have mercy upon

us, most merciful Father; for thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, forgive us

all that is past; and grant that we may hereafter serve and please thee in new-

ness of life, to the honor and glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen.

9

THE HERALDING OF THE WORD

Here may be sung a hymn or anthem.

THE LESSON FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE

A lesson from the Old Testament or the Epistle for the day; the reader says,

Hear the (_______) Epistle (of _______ ) (to ______); or,

Hear the Lesson from the Book of ________.

THE GRADUAL

A hymn or anthem may be sung; or the people may say,

Thanks be to thee, O God.

THE GOSPEL

The people stand; the minister reads the Gospel, first saying,

Hear the Holy Gospel according to _______.

The people say,

Glory be to thee, O Lord.

After the Gospel the People say,

Praise be to thee, O Christ.

THE AFFIRMATION OF FAITH

Here, or following the sermon, may be said the Apostle/' Creed or another Christian affirmation of faith, the people standing.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus

Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of

the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and bur-

ied; He descended into Hell; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended

into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from

thence he shall come to Judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy

Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of

sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

THE HYMN

THE SERMON


10

Announcements may be made here, followed by biddings for special prayers.

The minister or other lay leader offers,

THE PRAYERS OF INTERCESSION

All say together,

THE GRACE

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of

the Holy Spirit, be with us all evermore.

Amen.

THE THANKSGIVING FOR THE WORD

THE OFFERTORY

A COMMUNION HYMN May here be sung.

THE PEACE May be given here.

THE OFFERING AND PRESENTATION

The minister reads suitable sentences from holy Scripture; the offering shall be received from the people. When the offering is presented, the people stand and say or sing appro-priate words of dedication such as, THE DOXOLOGY

THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYER

SURSUM CORDA

The minister says,

Lift up your hearts.

We lift them up unto the Lord.

Holy art thou, eternal Father; holy in thy redeeming Son; holy in thy life-giving

Spirit. Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of

heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious Name; evermore praising thee, and

saying,

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts,

heaven and earth are full of thy glory.

Glory be to thee, O Lord most high. Amen.

11

THE GREAT THANKSGIVING

The minister offers the eucharistic prayer in words such as,

Holy Lord, Father Almighty, Everlasting God, we lift up our hearts and praise

thee for all thy mercies. We bless thee that through Jesus Christ our Lord thou,

the Creator of heaven and earth, didst make us in thine own image; and that,

when we had fallen away from thee through sin, thou of thine infinite mercy and

love didst send thy Son to be our Savior. We thank thee that we have redemption

through his blood, the forgiveness of our sins; that by him we have access to the

throne of thy majesty on high, and are made thy children by adoption and grace;

and that we are called this day to eat and to drink at his table. For these, and all

thy mercies, we laud and magnify thy holy name; and with thy whole church in

heaven and on earth, we praise and adore thee.

O God our Father, grant unto us, we humbly beseech thee, thy glorious

presence, and the powerful working of thy Spirit in us; and so sanctify these

elements of bread and wine, and bless thine own ordinance, that we may receive

by faith the body and blood of Jesus Christ, crucified for us, and so feed upon

him, that he may be one with us, and we with him.

Most gracious God, accept our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and re-

ceive the offering and consecration which we now make of ourselves, our souls

and bodies, unto thee; through Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom, in the

unity of the Holy Spirit, all honor and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty,

world without end. Amen.

The minister and people say

THE LORD'S PRAYER

Our Father, who art in heaven; hallowed be thy name;

thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses,

as we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.


12

For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.

AMEN.

THE FRACTION

The minister says,

According to the holy institution and command of our Savior Jesus Christ, we do

this: who on the night when he was betrayed took bread (the minister takes the

bread), and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave it to the disciples

(the minister breaks the bread and delivers it to those serving) and said, ?Take,

eat; this is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

In the same way he also took the cup, saying (the minister takes the cup),

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in

remembrance of me.”

Silence is kept for a time.

THE COMMUNION

The minister says to the people,

The joyful and holy feast of the people of God.

THE DISTRIBUTION AND RECEIVING OF BREAD AND WINE

When all have received, a prayer of thanksgiving may be offered.

THE HYMN OF THE GREAT COMMISSION

During this hymn, which celebrates the resurrection and lordship of Christ, an invitation

to Christian discipleship may be extended.

THE BENEDICTION

THE POSTLUDE

13

A Symposium On An Order of Holy Communion

for Use Every Sunday

NOTE: Prior to publication “An Order of Holy Communion for Use Every Sun-day” was sent to a representative group of ministers and liturgiologists from several major traditions for comment. In light of suggestions received, the order was revised for publication.

A Methodist Critique By Paul Waitman Hoon Henry Sloane Coffin professor of pastoral theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York PROFESSOR WATKINS certainly ought to be rewarded with a star in his free-church crown for setting before us his proposed Order of Holy Communion. He speaks to a need increasingly felt in Protestantism today, especially among those concerned for the reform of public worship. The skill with which he has con-structed his order and the clarity and competence with which he elucidates it place us all in his debt. Let me say forthwith that as a Methodist, as a teacher of liturgy and as a human being to whom worship is very near the heart of the Christian life, I respond to this order and I like it.

Both Professor Watkins’ analysis of our present aversion to sacramental worship (although the larger theological, cultural and psychological factors bear-ing on the problem may be more important than the immediate liturgical and mechanical factors) and the criteria he employs for devising a reconstructed or-der, especially the basic morphology of scripture, sermon and sacrament, seem to me to be sound. I concur with the over-all theological and liturgical rationale un-derlying the proposed order, though with one or two qualifications to be regis-tered shortly. There is nothing here from which a reasonably well-informed Methodist would dissent. The Wesleyan tradition at its best, although it has not always been at its best, has combined both evangelical and catholic elements in liturgy. Both sermon and sacrament matter to us tremendously, not to mention hymnody! We Methodists are also not short on enthusiasm for enriching our worship, although our enthusiasm is not always matched by liturgical integrity


14

and taste. Perhaps the element of law in relation to Gospel is not as prominent as we would like. But all in all, I believe that this service combines the essential common denominator elements of theology and liturgy on which we could unite.

Inevitably, of course, one places question marks and plus and minus signs beside specific suggestions. The “fencing of the table” with the rubric that all eli-gible to receive the sacrament in their own denominational and congregational families seems sensible and proper. It solves a difficult problem at one stroke. The location of confession early in the service is well conceived, but could not an explicit absolution of some kind be optionally indicated? The sequence of les-sons, the inclusion of the creed (why not call it simply “creed” rather than by the more ponderous term “affirmation of faith?”), the inclusion of the sermon, provi-sion for the intercessions, the structure of the main eucharistic prayer (though I miss sufficient emphasis upon the presence of the resurrected, living Christ who meets us in communion), and the restoration of the fraction to its proper promi-nence and identity—all these seem to me to be sound.

My main question concerns the risks involved in what I call the categoriza-tion of the service, and here a number of problems arise, of which I am sure Pro-fessor Watkins is well aware. They may indeed be insoluble but it is well to regis-ter them. First of all, Professor Watkins is probably right in seizing on “eucha-rist” as the key concept in communion on which we can all unite, and in elabo-rating it as the central motif as for example in the over-all title of the order, in the title of the third section ‘Thanksgiving For the Word” and in the title of the cen-tral prayer. Certainly, Communion essentially an act of thanksgiving. But is it not ontological as well, i.e., having to do with the very “partaking of the divine na-ture” of God himself in his Son in reaction to which we offer “thanksgiving?” (Recent research makes clear that the most primitive tradition conceives com-munion as meeting the risen Christ and as being clothed with the note of joy (cf. the studies of Oscar Cullmann.) In other words, it could be rather cogently ar-gued that “communion” is the primary category, “thanksgiving” a secondary, derived category, and that accordingly the traditional title, “Holy Communion,” is more primary, penetrating, and accurate.

Further, the categorization of certain sections of the order troubles me, e.g. “Preparation,” “Heralding of the Word,” “Thanksgiving for the Word,” “Frac-tion,” “Communion,” and more specifically the designation of the last hymn as “Hymn of the Great Commission.” I realize that the tradition behind the use of these terms is well-established. But I worry about communicating the notion that the word is "heralded” only in the lessons and sermon, and by implication that it is not “heralded” in the act of communion itself. Is not “Word” here the underly-ing primary category of which oral proclamation, and the consecration, fraction

15

and distribution are only differing manifestations? Is too sharp a cleavage sug-gested by separating, with differing labels, “heralding” and “thanksgiving?”

Something of the same uneasiness attaches to conceiving the main prayer as “the Great Thanksgiving.” I wonder if this term, justified as it is by tradition, is able by itself to do justice to the fullness and variety this prayer ought to em-body. And, must the last hymn be labelled so rigidly? What about those of us who may want to sing here a hymn of communion such as “Jesu, Thou Joy of Loving Hearts,” or a hymn of the church triumphant such as “For All the Saints,” or a hymn of fellowship such as “Blest Be the Tie that Binds? The dialectical rhythm of worship and mission is certainly basic, and it is significant that the Roman rite concludes with lte Missa Est. But how often does it happen that the Holy Spirit blessedly throws us, and his working transcends, even abrogates, our theological plotting! Always we have to remember the aspects of simultaneity and surprise that inform authentic worship whereby the worshipers end up hearing and responding to the word in ways and at times the most expert of us can not foresee. The “monstrance of the gospel” in its power and mystery tran-scends our human categories, and while we are not to be relieved from structur-ing worship as sensitively as we can in order to provide for the encounter be-tween the word and men’s souls, a certain restraint, yes, even tentativeness in schematizing the nature of that encounter would seem to be wise.

But three cheers for Professor Watkins’ proposal! A Presbyterian Critique By Geddes MacGregor Dean of The Graduate School of Religion in the University of Southern California. I HAVE BEEN ASKED to comment from a Presbyterian standpoint. There is no doubt that the Eucharist is central to Christian worship. The protest of the six-teenth-century Reformers was against the neglect of the word, which is an essen-tial part of the sacrament. “Let the Word come to the Element and make the Sac-rament,” says St. Augustine. Where the element is used without the word we can have only ritual magic; but where the word is used without the element we fail to exhibit the mystery that is the Christian sacrament (mysterion).

The order proposed by Professor Watkins is in principle, in my opinion, skillfully composed in terms of its purpose, reflecting liturgical learning and good taste. It is intended to take into account the pressure of modern life and the consequent need for brevity. Herein lies, of course, a danger. Historically, the


16

solemn liturgy is lengthy. In Eastern Orthodox churches at the present time it takes at least two hours, which is brief compared with the celebration in Scotland in the eighteenth century, for example, when the attendant devotions went on from Thursday to Monday; but then the Eucharist was not parochial in the mod-ern sense, and obviously could not have been, on such a scale, the weekly cele-bration that Calvin so earnestly desired. In Roman practice high mass is regarded as the norm, and when properly celebrated it is accounted, though less lengthy than the Orthodox celebrations, too long for general use. So in the typical large Roman parish, where there are, say, half a dozen celebrations every Sunday, only one of these at the most will be a high mass; the others will be that truncated ver-sion called low mass. The speed with which this can be said by an “efficient” priest is startling. Priests are trained to accept the notion that to say low mass reverently takes half an hour; nevertheless, in certain circles a priest is much ad-mired if he can hare through mass in twenty minutes. (“Any priest who takes longer than that should be shot,” an Irish priest once remarked to me, only half in jest.) Since it was against such antics that the Reformers protested, we who en-joy the Reformed heritage should be cautious of any attenuation of the liturgy that would injure the full splendor of Christian worship.

Professor Watkins is of course on sure ground when he insists that there must be continuity with the liturgical tradition of the whole church. I am not en-tirely sure that he always takes fully into account the implications of his salutary principle. There is nothing particularly “modern” about the desire for abbreviat-ing services. It was a fashionable corruption in the late Middle Ages. I have at-tended packed services which, having nothing much to do with Christianity at all, being devoted largely to the enterprise of deluding the participants into a sense of comfort and self adulation under the label “Protestant,” have been often quite as long as a solemn eucharistic celebration need be, and all the regular par-ticipants have seemed to be delighted. The minister periodically looks at the as-sembled multitudes with studied affection—a look long enough for the most reverent enunciation of a collect—and inquires of them in sugary tremolo whether they would like to engage in prayer. Then, by the time he has paused, rolled his eyes to a heaven 60° leeward, and hummed and hawed his way through improvisations upon “extempore” prayer he has been practicing all his life for the delectation of the mink-clad illiterates whose pledges he is ever ac-tively seeking to enlarge, a real congregation could have solemnly sung the Ni-cene Creed and heard the Great Thanksgiving to their Creator, not to mention the epiklesis. I have written a good deal about such vulgarities in The Coming Ref-ormation by way of putting into popular form some of the implications of my ac-count of the nature of the Church in the Reformed Tradition in Corpus Christi.

17

I am inclined to think Professor Watkins’ account of Anglican practice slightly misleading. There are many Presbyterian churches in which nothing much resembles Christian worship except by accident; but generally speaking one does not pray in them; one prays for them. As a Presbyterian I should like to call attention to the fact that in modern Anglicanism the practice of making the eucharist the center of Sunday worship is very general. He is right, however, to note the difficulty that is experienced everywhere in trying to make the eucharist central. He is wrong, I think, to make this appear an entirely modem difficulty. Time never was when very large numbers of people attending Christian service all understood the centrality of the eucharist. The need for Christian education has always been prevalent, and to none more than those who are called by the beautiful name “Disciples of Christ” must this be obvious, for what is disciple-ship if not learning? Where more should one expect the church to be what the church always must be, the teaching church?

Fortunate, indeed, are the members of that church to have so judicious a leader for their liturgical exercises as Professor Watkins of Christian Theological Seminary appears to be. I pray that his counsel may be heeded and his guidance taken among the Disciples of Christ.

A British Congregational Critique By Robert S. Paul Professor of church history Hartford Seminary Foundation

MY REACTION on reading “An Order of the Holy Communion for use every Sunday” is first to express congratulation to Professor Keith Watkins. It is a piece of work which has been extremely well conceived and extremely well compiled. I was particularly appreciative of the clear statement of principles which Keith Watkins enunciates in his introduction and which are reflected in the form of the liturgy itself: (1) the insistence that there should be continuity with the liturgical tradition of the whole church; (2) his regard for the Free Church tradition (al-though the use of the term “Free Church tradition” always reminds me of British Socialist members who could be convinced Socialists for the most conservative of all reasons, namely, that their fathers had been Socialists before them!); (3) the recognition of growing ecumenical consensus in liturgical matters. In 1938 Karl Barth in his Gifford Lectures made a strong plea for the unity of word and sacrament, but at that time it did not produce many sympathetic ech-oes in the hearts of Anglo-Saxon Freechurchmen. However, a good deal has


18

happened since then. In Britain the rediscovery of Peter Taylor Forsyth, the in-creasing depth of the ecumenical discussion, and not least the spiritual needs re-vealed by World War II all had an effect which has been reflected in the worship patterns of the parishes. With public worship taking place both morning and evening in the church, the Lord's supper is celebrated twice each month in many churches and is the normal climax of worship at the main church festivals. The liturgical “revolution” is illustrated in such groups as the Eucharistic Fellowship in Methodism, the Church Order Group in Congregationalism, the young Bap-tists who produced Christian Baptism, and by many extremely able scholars in the field (e.g., J. E. Rattenbury, Nathaniel Micklem, Erik Routley, Horton Davies, Neville Clark, and W. D. Maxwell). The movement has been very closely related to the reawakened interest in biblical theology and in the distinctively Protestant and Free Church insights into the doctrine of the church. For this reason it could be instructive to sympathizers on this side of the Atlantic; it is not merely imita-tive of Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism. It also emphasizes one great difference between the European and American scene of which we would do well to take note and to which I shall refer at the end of these remarks. This brings me specifically to Professor Watkins’ excellent preamble. If I have any criticism it is simply that he could have made even more explicit the fact that liturgical forms must be subject to good theology: they cannot be left to the ecumenical and fraternal tendencies of this age, however desirable these may be. Let me say with regard to the form of the liturgy suggested by Professor Watkins that my criticisms are to be set against my very real appreciation for the form both in structure and in detail, but I raise the following questions and ob-servations. (1) Has sufficient opportunity been given for active congregational response? Free Church services are so apt to degenerate into solo performances by the minister on a spiritual ice rink. (2) Could not the possibility of absolution after the Confession be included? (3) Could we not emphasize the liturgical use of hymns (perhaps the greatest contribution of the Free Churches to Christian worship) and rescue them from being simply the bread which hold the sandwich together? An example of this can be seen in the Gradual before the Gospel. If a hymn is employed, it should be based either upon the reading of scripture or in-voke the Holy Spirit's guidance upon our understanding. (4) I was immensely pleased that Professor Watkins asserted our Free Church right to use the creeds, which certainly should be the regular form in which the Faith is affirmed. But the possibility of occasionally using hymns or the Te Deum to affirm our faith should not be ignored. (6) In my view we should not omit the Pauline institution

19

of the last supper before the eucharistic prayer. This is the charter for what we do, and even if it is quoted later in part, it should appear at this point in full. (7) I see no reason for shortening the eucharistic prayer to the extent it has been shortened. I would like to see a form of the prayer based entirely upon Scripture included as an alternative for occasional use. (Incidentally, when the compiler spoke in his preface of the three parts of the eucharistic prayer, I was a little wor-ried as to what had happened to the oblation; but my fears were soon set at rest when I read the service.)

But is such a service as Professor Watkins has compiled a practical possibil-ity in American Protestantism? An important difference between American and European Protestantism makes me raise the question. It involves not only the amount of time spent in church but also what is done with the time once one is there. In Europe and Britain frequent eucharistic worship is possible because there are other occasions on the Sunday or in the week when the Church's teach-ing and discipline may be exercised. In America the minister knows that he can expect to have his members for religious exercises, ethical and biblical instruc-tion, for approximately eighty minutes per week, and woe betide him if his ser-mon in that period lasts for more than twenty minutes! Furthermore, whereas in Europe the main events of the churches’ year are the events of the Church Year, in America our Sundays are crowded with irrelevant celebrations. We return from our summer vacations to be greeted with Labor Day Sunday, Christian Education Sunday, World Wide Communion Sunday (celebrated only in the area of the U.S.A. and her missions), Reformation Sunday, Stewardship Sunday, Thanksgiving Sunday, and several national occasions. Obviously some of these are important, but when one adds a Sunday for the Book of Remembrance, for dedicating various church officers and practically everybody else who devotes half an hour of service to the church, the list becomes extremely formidable. One approaches advent and Christmas not with the thrill of approaching a climax in the church’s year, but with the jaded feeling that it is all part of the same promo-tional stunt. Let’s face it, the introduction of such a service as Professor Watkins has sug-gested would lead to sacerdotalism unless it were accompanied by a radical revi-sion of our concept of the church and reorganization of our church life. I really question whether American Protestant Churches are ready for that kind of revo-lution, practically, emotionally, or spiritually.


20

An Anglican Critique By Massey H. Shepherd, Jr. Professor of liturgics Church Divinity School of the Pacific. THE PROPOSED ORDER for holy communion outlined by Professor Watkins deserves serious attention among Protestants of a “free church” tradition who are concerned with the renewal of worship. A widespread experiment with it over a sufficient period of time should clarify one of the more stubborn problems of ecumenical discussion: namely, how a traditional pattern and structure of Christian worship may be kept flexible and adaptable to the ever-changing de-mands and challenges of Christian witness. The test of every liturgical form and act is twofold: its expression of a whole and authentic gospel and its relevance to the world where that gospel is proclaimed. In addition, a liturgy should exhibit, in order to be an effective instrument of corporate worship, the virtues of clarity and movement in its symbolic and dramatic sequence. The merits of Professor Watkins' proposal in these respects are obvious. As an Anglican, I could not possibly dissent from the thesis that the holy communion is the normative service of Christians on Sundays and the great fes-tivals of the Christian Year. And I would heartily agree with the reasons offered by Professor Watkins for the difficulties of Protestant churches in restoring this norm. The vast effort of ecumenical endeavor must surely have its goal in the unity of all Christians in the one eucharistic table of the Lord, which is the con-tinuation and perfection, in all the times and places of our earthly sojourn, of that unity which was initially given us in baptism. If we profess “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” and know the reality of this transcendent unity in Christ, then we cannot, without sin, remain separated by the denial of one eucharist wherein we share in Christ our hope and participation in “the powers of the world to come.” One of the chief reasons for our loss of unity in the holy communion is our incapacity to respond to the objective gift and action of God in Christ through the symbolic and dramatic stimulus of the liturgy. The spiritual environment of our age is rationalistic and analytic, and this condition has affected our theological thinking. The supernatural and transcendent, however, are only communicated through symbol and myth—word and sacrament. Yet our theologians by and large concern themselves with “demythologizing,” and our leaders of worship despise art and ceremony as “superstitious” and intellectualize the word into words and the sacramental actions into psychological and subjective responses. God becomes the Object, not the Subject of worship, and so-called “worship-services” are analyzed in terms of what we do rather than of what God is doing.

21

The parlous condition of sacramental worship (and with it of sacramental preaching) in so many modern Christian churches is directly due to our loss of awareness that God acts—something objectively happens—grace is given—which defies precise definition and overrides all efforts to manipulate the Gift. Liturgy is not a rally for good causes, but a standing under judgment for that which the world cannot give.

Any specific, detailed comment upon the proposed rite must consequently be made in the light of the primary action of God in worship as it is communi-cated in and through the words and ceremonies of the worshipping congrega-tion. I am aware that in making these comments I am myself subject to “Angli-can” prejudices, which may very well need a more searching judgment and criti-cism.

The Preparation. I will assume that Professor Watkins does not intend to leave the minister entirely without guidance in the choice of hymns, calls to prayer, and lessons. I am not thinking of fixed and inalterable introits, graduals, and lec-tionaries, but of schedules suggestive of appropriate materials that will provide a well-rounded corpus of psalmody and scripture that present (in the course of a year or two years) the “wholeness” of the gospel, and that stress the objectivity of God’s being and action rather than the subjective moods of the worshippers. Most ministers and congregations, if left to their own inspiration, have very “short” Bibles and hymnbooks, or prefer all too frequently moralistic to theologi-cal texts. Similarly, I would suggest that the intercessions not be left so free as to subject matter. Without any necessity of freezing the texts, there should be cer-tain basic outlines of what Christian intercession should always contain—such as prayers for the world and its needs, the church and its mission, the poor and af-flicted. The most particular and immediate concerns of local parish and commu-nity have to be set in the wider context of God's recreative and redeeming action throughout the world.

The Preparation is essentially a kerygma, to which the intercession is a first response, leading into the fuller and more binding commitment of the sacramen-tal action. For this reason, an invitation to Christian discipleship should come after the sermon, and not at the end of the service. While I do not deny that the sacramental action is itself a setting forth of the saving word, I do not think it should be used for an evangelistic end. The communion is a climax of commit-ment, not a means to win over those still uncommitted.

The Offertory. The primary offering of the eucharist is the bread and wine; the offering of money is important but secondary. Hence I do not favor the preparation of the bread and wine before the service begins and a mere uncover-ing of it at the Offertory. The people should be involved in the offering of bread


22

and wine, for it is their life, their substance. This bringing of the gifts to the holy table can be done, I believe, without the Pelagian implication that in so doing we are asking God to accept what we make and do. The same difficulty may well surround the presentation of the gifts of money, if one is not careful about the “words of dedication” with which they are offered. We are not dedicating any-thing to God; we are bringing back to him our stewardship of what is already his—“thine own of thine own.” The offertory is an occasion of judgment, and until that judgment is faced and acknowledged, it is useless to proceed to thanksgiving and communion.

The Thanksgiving. Professor Watkins has done a remarkable piece of work in his suggested form, for this prayer is itself a eucharistic setting forth of the whole kerygma of redemption. But I miss in it the eschatological element—the looking forward to the realization and consummation of the kingdom. I have long felt that the invocation of the Spirit in this ancient form of thanksgiving is not merely a supplication for God’s sanctification and transformation of the elements or a blessing upon our action and obedience to an “ordinance.” The coming of the Spirit is the manifest sign of our participation in the earnest of the world to come. His presence is the assurance of the eschaton, as it is also the continual renewal of Pentecost. The eucharist is the commemoration of a once-for-all act made pre-sent here and now to effect a real foretaste of that which is coming. The future dimension of the eucharist is essential—yet it is a dimension that is sadly lacking in nearly all of the western liturgies, whether Catholic or Protestant.

The Fraction. As an Anglican (and a traditionalist), I would probably prefer to have the words of institution fitted within the context of the prayer of thanks-giving.

The Communion. The lack of any provision for devotions during communion is a more practical problem. Certainly silence here can be very effective. On the other hand, there is often a terrible loss at this point, when there are many com-munions, and much time is taken in their administration. People must be helped in making this period spiritually profitable. But in any case, a benediction in ad-dition to a thanksgiving after communion is superfluous. Can we add any bene-diction to the act of communion itself? If there is to be any “benediction” form, let it be a simple dismissal to Christian service.

One last word—and here I may seem to contradict what I said about the eucharist as a sacrament of unity. But I am disturbed by the preliminary rubric, which seems to me to foster an indiscriminate inter-communion. There can be no objection to inter-communion among churches that have seriously and responsi-bly entered into covenant for reunion. But I do not believe that individual con-gregations or persons should make such decisions. Privileges involve responsi-

23

bilities. There is grave danger in communicating at one another's tables and then continuing to go our several ways as though our schisms make no difference and our disunity is not really important. Perhaps my Anglican prejudices blind me here, but I cannot see that the indiscriminate inter-communion which so many Protestants practice, at least in inter-confessional relations, has contributed to a serious grappling with disunity, or has deepened in them a profound longing for that oneness in faith and witness which we know to be God's will. A United Church of Christ Critique By Clyde J. Steckel Chaplain Defiance College, Defiance, Ohio. AS A MEMBER of the United Church of Christ, I am encouraged to see the kinds of liturgical proposals advanced by Professor Watkins in this paper. The United Church of Christ has inherited liturgical practices from Inde-pendent, Anglican (via Puritanism), Lutheran and Reformed traditions, and so we have considerable diversity. However we have generally celebrated the Lord's supper only quarterly (although in some churches monthly), and we have usually employed liturgies which Professor Watkins has rightly characterized as “long, repetitious, and ‘heavier’ than congregations are prepared to receive.” (I must object, however, to Professor Watkins' assertion that these services “borrow extensively [and often indiscriminately] from the Anglican service.” It is only that the Angelican felicity of English style is to be preferred over poorer English renditions of French or German orders, which, like the Anglicans’ order, go back to the Roman mass. It is this common and ancient ancestry in the Roman mass which makes the Anglican order worth using in English speaking churches, and to respect and use ancient and worthy forms is not simply “borrowing.”) Today there are some in the United Church who urge, both on biblical and Reformed grounds, the restoration of Sunday worship in which word and sacrament are joined, and we therefore especially welcome an historically sound proposal like Professor Watkins’ which takes realistic account of non-theological factors as well. I should like to cite for special commendation Professor Watkins’ method in the use of scriptural and traditional sources to construct a truly catholic and truly contemporary liturgy. So many who make proposals for the reform and mod-ernization of the liturgy try to be broadly inclusive and try to be “contemporary” by eschewing all ancient symbols or forms. The resulting liturgy is usually so


24

broad and inoffensive that it ceases to be demonstrably Christian, and therefore no longer truly contemporary. Professor Watkins has avoided such pitfalls and has admirably demonstrated the correct way to proceed. I should also like to commend particularly Professor Watkins’ emphasis upon the confession of sin and the assurance of forgiveness at the opening of the service. The modern children of Calvin, pietism, and revivalism have settled too comfortably into their supposed sanctification, and need formal as well as deeply personal confession that when Christians gather before God they are still re-deemed sinners. I have known of several congregations where a corporate con-fession of sin has been introduced into the worship service, and the righteous souls have rebelled angrily at this imputation of lingering sin and guilt. The points in Professor Watkins’ proposals about which I have questions or objections are so minor in comparison with major points of agreement that I hesi-tate to discuss them extensively, but I want at least to raise them. There are points of order, not content, which I find perplexing. Why is the confession of faith placed after the gospel lesson or the sermon, rather than in the order for communion? And similarly, why are the prayers of intercession placed after the sermon instead of in the order for communion? And what precisely is meant by “an invitation to Christian discipleship” during the last hymn? Is this invitation simply a reminder of the faithful obedi-ence required of those who have just communed, or is it an invitation to join the church? Each of these questions is an expression of the principal criticism I would make of Professor Watkins’ proposals, which is that since in the ancient church there was a clear distinction made between the service of the word (psalms, scripture, preaching), to which catechumens and inquirers were welcomed, and the service of the sacrament, from which all such were excluded, it would be well to acknowledge and preserve this distinction in Christian worship today. I do not mean to say that we should immediately set about separating the baptized from the unbaptized in all our churches whenever we celebrate the sacrament, but I do mean that the progression from the more general, discursive opening part of the service to the more particular and symbolic celebration of the mystery of God's action in the sacrament ought to be preserved in the ordering of the parts of the service. That is, it can be supposed that hearing the scriptures read and a sermon preached are sufficiently verbal in character to be appropriated by both believer and unbeliever, appropriated, to be sure, in different ways. But it cannot be equally assumed that such a confessionally mixed gathering will respond to the read and preached word by confessing its faith or by praying for others. These

25

acts are responses of the believing community, and therefore belong in that part of the service reserved for the believing community. For the same reason, if it is necessary to have an “invitation to Christian dis-cipleship” in the sense of an invitation to join the church, then it should come at the end of the first part of the service rather than at the conclusion of the sacra-ment. The means of evangelism are the read and preached word, not the sacra-ment. The unity of word and sacrament for which the Reformers stood, and the pietistic-sectarian understanding of worship as the activity of the gathered com-munity, may both appear to be placed in jeopardy by my view on the two dis-tinctive parts of the worship service. But I do not believe that the risk is that great. For those within the community of faith the unity of word and sacrament is already a fact. And for those outside the community of faith such a division takes into account their own modest steps on the way toward faith, and does not presume to include them fully in all the acts of the faithful.

One additional suggestion occurs to me with respect to the offertory. Profes-sor Watkins has commendably restored the offering to its ancient place as an ini-tial part of communion. I would prefer that the bread and wine be taken to the table at that time, along with the other offerings of the people. It would seem to me to be a desirable additional step toward restoring the original and sacramen-tal view of the offertory.

I want to say again, however, that these criticisms and suggestions are quite minor in comparison with the eminently sound proposals of Professor Watkins’ paper. I only hope that his paper will be widely read and studied by many churchmen, and that it will be a stimulus to further ecumenical liturgical re-newal.

A Disciples of Christ Critique By G. Edwin Osborn Professor of public worship and preaching Graduate Seminary, Phillips University. PROFESSOR WATKINS deserves unstinted commendation for his vigorous in-sistence that Protestantism think seriously about its too-infrequent celebration of the Lord's supper, his admonitions to Disciples to look afresh at the weekly ob-servance of the communion, and his sincere effort to find for free-liturgical Pro-testants a form with recognizable common, though not identical, elements, and this form structured in a service not so lengthy as to minimize the importance of


26

either sermon or sacrament. Since I am both pleased and challenged by his out-line, the few critical comments following in no wise diminish my admiration for his study nor my hope for its continuance. I rejoice in the interest stirring Disciples’ students of worship. Both theologi-cal concern and liturgical awareness, especially among recent graduates from the seminaries, stimulate such interest. I encourage their efforts to make us aware of a neglected but richly rewarding area, greatly meaningful to our Christian cul-ture. I hope they can do this patiently, solidly, and by that kind of responsible information and instruction that leads to intelligent adoption, so as to guarantee a lasting result to their crusade. Otherwise in their eagerness for reform they may go at such speed as not to be able to be followed by the less agile nor find them-selves in a position to conserve in new forms principles precious to us and essen-tial to our witness. My few observations deal not with particular items nor their structuring but rather with two or three innovations and their implications for Disciples of Christ. (1) Older scholars among the Disciples are likely to resist an inclusion of a unison confession of sins on the same grounds that Professor Watkins omits the absolution, namely that this element is elsewhere expressed in the service. They would say that pastoral prayer, sermon, and the communion confess sins, or bid such confession, as well as promise God's forgiveness and offer opportunity for its acceptance. Though not essential theologically because otherwise provided for, I think the unison prayer of confession and some assurance of pardon are psychologically needed and spiritually important. The temper of the times and our involvements make them desirable early in the service to relieve anxiety and to open hearts to receive God's further grace. Whether the assurance of pardon occurs as a scriptural declaration, or in a hymn of acceptance of forgiveness, or in a gloria or doxology of gratitude, anyone of these would answer as an adequate expression. (2) Similarly, I have the opinion that a unison affirmation of faith is neither theologically necessary nor psychologically significant as a single item in the service. The over-all concept of public worship holds that the entire service pro-vides a series of proclamations of the word and of responses of faith to those proclamations. Every movement from God declares the gospel: the scripture readings, the sermon, the communion. Every movement of the worshiper re-sponds in faith (“affirmation”) to the gospel. In pastoral or intercessory prayer we respond to the gospel which the scriptures announce (cf. 2 Cor. 1 :20b, our “Amen”). By faith's trust and commitment we respond to the gospel which the sermon declares (cf. Rom. 10:8-17). By our “participation” (or identification) in

27

the redemptive, renewing life of the body, the community or church, we respond to the gospel proclaimed in the sacrament (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 11:26). Whenever we follow the custom of the ages and observe times and seasons the Christian Year witnesses further to the gospel which redeems all time, and we respond with faith’s witness through responsible vocation. (3) I would regret it if we Disciples should abandon, for a fairly constant “Eucharistic Prayer,” our free but responsible way of observing the communion within a frame-work of scripture readings which relevantly link the redemptive work of Jesus Christ to contemporary life, its issues and problems (cf. 1 Cor. chapters 3-16 and Rom. chapters 12-16). These framing scriptures do not replace the regular use of the scriptural words of institution (Matt. 26:27-28, or I Cor. 11:23-26); they do form a fitting introduction and conclusion to the observance that confronts man with God, his Savior, and identifies man with God’s redemp-tion whatever be his varied human involvements. Moreover, I think there is still a significant place for the “lay ministry” of elders and deacons to offer brief prayers of thanksgiving for “the loaf and the cup,” and to bear the Christian wit-ness of serving, as the delegated representatives of the congregation in the serv-ice of the body. ( 4) I doubt that the “peace” ritual, so meaningful to the Oriental as a symbol of brotherliness and akin to some of his native customs, as the Church of South India practices it, could ever mean much other than a sentimental or silly gesture to the sanitary-conscious Occidental, so fastidious that he must have his individ-ual communion cup and wafer, and who cringes to observe his communing neighbor “pawing over” the particles of bread as he wonders how many things the neighbor’s hands have touched since last he washed them. Recall that the an-cient and once-meaningful “kiss of peace” never became practicable in the West. If brotherliness and a forgiving heart require for their witness some symbolic act, it should be an act as meaningful and congenial to the practical, scientific, un-mystical contemporary worshiper of the west, as the other custom is to a differ-ent psychologically-tempered man half-way round the world. Our link with the observance of the communion through all the ages may not necessarily best be made by incorporating ancient words into a prayer or repeating them in a ritual, but by seeking to be touched by that spiritual healing God offers in his redemp-tive action symbolized in the communion and which has been the mark of its re-ality to Christians of every century and persuasion.


28

A Disciples of Christ Critique By William Jackson Jarman Minister University Place Christian Church, Champaign, Illinois FOR DISCIPLES OF CHRIST the most significant aspect of this excellent paper by Keith Watkins is in the change of viewpoint which it represents. In the earliest days of the movement the interest in worship was purely from a restorationist point of view. Debate was over the form and order of worship as to be found in the New Testament, and since so many things are not mentioned in the New Tes-tament this led to the assumption that either these were matters of indifference, or else that they could not be permitted. The unfortunate and debilitating argu-ments over the use of the organ in worship, for example, came from this point of view. In more recent years the worship of the churches of the Disciples has been invaded with “psychology of worship,” and the prime interests seemingly were on producing moods, emotions and experiences. The worship setting, the hymns used, the vesting of choir and minister, were all calculated on the basis of the ef-fect upon the congregation. Today we see a new attitude among the younger men, such as Keith Wat-kins. Once again, the attitude is based upon a prime interest in the unity of the church. But this time the attempt is made to find an ecumenical consensus rather than to restore a New Testament worship. This paper makes a good beginning toward achieving in practical form a service that would reflect this consensus, allowing both the necessary freedom but also indicating an appreciation of the traditional elements in the church's life which ought to be preserved. It is these traditional elements which alone can give the cohesion, the dis-cernible similarity in services of worship within various churches. The unity of the church is perhaps best realized in its worship, and for this unity to be recog-nized there must be this common core, this semblance of elements which are dis-cernible in all places and everywhere. Freedom will provide the variety, and the immediate and local reference to the particular situation of a congregation. Only the traditional elements can provide this discernible unity. For all who are concerned about the unity of the church, therefore, there must be a concern for the development of such a practice of word and sacrament as Professor Watkins has set forth. The unity of the church cannot come about by denominational isolation or indifference. Disciples of Christ are under a special responsibility, if they hold to their original purpose of uniting Christendom, to engage in both scholarly exploration and conversation about the liturgy, but also

29

to give witness to what they have found through the practice of the weekly cele-bration of the Lord's supper. No other Protestant church has had the experience we have had in this. Is it not fair to say that such unity as we have within our communion is primarily brought about and exemplified in this practice? There are some who will question the practicality of this proposed order and who may declare that it will be impossible to persuade our churches to follow this or some similar order. This I think is untrue. It may not come immediately, but given twenty-five years, with the ministers coming from our seminaries taught in the art of liturgy, and various congregations pioneering in the effort to bring a worship within a local church which reflects this ecumenical consensus, it may happen. We will all be the richer for it if it does. The kind of thought and leadership which Mr. Watkins is giving is the kind which will make it possible. Appendix

In 1963, when these materials were first published, the movement to reform wor-ship in historic Protestant and Catholic Churches was still in an early stage. Im-portant preparatory literature had been published and several churches had be-gun a process of developing new worship books and hymnals. Scholars, writers, and editors were finding ways to collaborate, with the result that they were learning from one another in new ways. Still to come, however, were some of the opportunities for sustained personal contact, such as the Commission on Wor-ship of the Consultation on Church Union, the North American Academy of Worship, and the Consultation on Common Texts. Discussion was just emerging with respect to revisions in English usage, especially in matters related to gen-der-biased language and the retention of Elizabethan styles in the language of prayer. Only later in the decade of the 1960s did new eucharistic liturgies begin the process of incorporating these new patterns of English usage. Ronald E. Osborn was dean at Christian Theological Seminary and the editor of its journal Encounter. Although I had come to the faculty only the previous year and was still a neophyte in liturgical studies, he suggested that I draft a set of principles and a eucharistic liturgy that would illustrate them. After he had reviewed my work, he suggested that we send it to a panel of scholars for com-ment and publication. Although later work would show significant advances, this liturgy and the accompanying material provide a basis for understanding the mindset of representative scholars at a time when liturgical renewal was en-tering into highly creative period.

an order of holy communion - keith watkins historianan order of holy communion 2 service in each...

Documents