Are Presbyterians liturgical?

[RileyG]

I'm curious, what would you expect from a normal Presbyterian service? I know a pcusa and a united Methodist church share a church with one minister, (in my town). Is that unusual? Thanks!!!

 

[BryanW92]

I'm curious, what would you expect from a normal Presbyterian service? I know a pcusa and a united Methodist church share a church with one minister, (in my town). Is that unusual? Thanks!!!

That would be highly unusual. Actually, it would almost be impossible since the theology of the UMC and PC are polar opposites. Perhaps the UM church has a Certified Lay Minister, a Licensed Local Pastor, or a pastor in a multi-point charge as the pastor of the UM congregation and they just meet in the PCUSA's facility.

(Note: I recently moved from UMC to PCA and there's no way to be both simultaneously unless you are just going through the motions and pretending to one or both).

 

[WisdomTree]

The church my dad used to minister wasn't, but I have been to one that is rather liturgical in a sense that it was very similar to a Roman Rite Mass.

 

[RileyG]

Bryan, I'm not sure how it works, but they do share the building is all I know. Thanks for your responses.

 

[WisdomTree]

They probably share buildings cause one of them can't afford to buy one themselves. When my dad was a minister of a Korean Presbyterian Church in Tauranga, there were two instances where we rented a Baptist Church. Now, Soteriologically, Baptists and Presbyterians aren't neccessarily polar opposites like lets say Methodists and Presbyterians. However, in terms of Sacrementology, they are since Baptists hold to Zwinglian Memorialism whereas Presbyterians hold to Calvinist Spiritual Presence. When I was in Canada, I knew of a Presbyterian Church which used to share a building with the Lutheran Church, the two groups also having opposite Sacrementology.

In short, most low churches (maybe even some high churches) do not regard too much for buildings since a lot of them do not have Sacrementally important things like we Catholics and Orthodoxes have.

 

[hedrick]

I'm curious, what would you expect from a normal Presbyterian service? I know a pcusa and a united Methodist church share a church with one minister, (in my town). Is that unusual? Thanks!!!

It’s a little unusual, but not unheard of. In my home town, PCUSA and Episcopal shared a church, with services alternating weeks. In Canada, the United Church is a union of Methodist and Presbyterian. Ditto Australia.

They are not polar opposites. First, they are both mainline churches, which means that most of their theology comes from Biblical exegesis that is interdenominational. Second, even traditionally the differences are exaggerated. Wesley was a classical Arminian. Arminius was a Reformed theologian, differing only on details of TULIP. To some people this looks like a big deal, but it certainly doesn’t make them polar opposites. And today’s PCUSA doesn’t really teach TULIP anyway. (We modified the Westminster confession in 1903 in a way that made it a lot closer to Arminius, and there have been more changes since.)

As to liturgy, they’re pretty similar. Both have services with a similar structure. Both baptize infants. I don’t know the current Methodist communion liturgy. Ours is based on the Anaphora of Hippolytus, so it’s actually older than the current Catholic liturgy. (Our most recent hymnbook has restored the Words of Institution to their original location near the beginning, though our local church hasn’t followed yet. That location had been the major departure from the original before the recent change.) We don’t have smells and bells, of course, but neither do the Methodists.

 

[BryanW92]

They are not polar opposites. First, they are both mainline churches, which means that most of their theology comes from Biblical exegesis that is interdenominational. Second, even traditionally the differences are exaggerated. Wesley was a classical Arminian. Arminius was a Reformed theologian, differing only on details of TULIP. To some people this looks like a big deal, but it certainly doesn’t make them polar opposites. And today’s PCUSA doesn’t really teach TULIP anyway. (We modified the Westminster confession in 1903 in a way that made it a lot closer to Arminius, and there have been more changes since.)

Thanks for sharing that. It's good stuff to know.

 

[hedrick]

On sacraments:

As far as I know we take a similar view of baptism.

I think we’re pretty similar on communion as well. The Presbyterian tradition believes in “spiritual presence,” which in my view is a type of real presence. There’s enough interdenominational influence these days that I’m not sure we all hold precisely the same view, but I think we all say Christ is really there, but not by change of the elements in a Catholic sense.

I’ve read the most recent Methodist statement on communion. It’s pretty much the same: Christ is really present, but it’s not necessary — and probably not possible — to define exactly how.

I was confirmed in the Methodist church as a teenager (using the Shorter Westminster Catechism, I note). At that time it was said that the Methodist communion theology was Zwinglian. That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore, if it ever was, based on the current official statement.

Somewhat surprisingly, we are not in full communion with the Methodist Church. We are with the ELCA, RCA, UCC, Moravians, and Korean Presbyterians (at least one of them).

 

[WisdomTree]

Somewhat surprisingly, we are not in full communion with the Methodist Church. We are with the ELCA, RCA, UCC, Moravians, and Korean Presbyterians (at least one of them).

Lol on the Korean one. Which one, you know? Apparently the Presbyterian schism in Korea was after a big feud on who came first since the Puritans established their Church here.

 

[hedrick]

While it isn't visible from CF, please remember that what is being taught in mainline seminaries today is generally ecumenical Biblical scholarship and theology. There are differences in emphasis between denominations, but it's really just emphasis.

Furthermore, Catholics are at least partially part of the community, and evangelicals are following with a delay of 50 years or so. (Indeed many evangelicals are already there.)

To avoid this, a denomination has to clamp down controls on its scholars, or they have to use "Bible colleges" rather than actual graduate-level theological schools. That's why conservatives are always complaining that their seminaries are getting liberal. By liberal they mean that they're becoming part of the ecumenical scholarly community.

This doesn't mean that everyone agrees on everything. Just that the variations mostly aren't denominational, and in my view they can coexist within a denomination.

 

[BryanW92]

Most ecumenical seminaries teach man-based religion and ways to make God fit into it.

 

[WisdomTree]

Wow, this is about to escalate quickly. <runs away>

 

[hedrick]

Wow, this is about to escalate quickly. <runs away>

Not really. It's not worth arguing over. Anyone who is reading for whom there's any hope will recognize what's going on without my pointing it out.

 

[RileyG]

Thank You everyone!
(I think it's right to say that both Methodists and Presbyterians belief in the real presence- a spiritual presence anyway, but not the actual presence of the body and blood?)

 

[WisdomTree]

Thank You everyone!
(I think it's right to say that both Methodists and Presbyterians belief in the real presence- a spiritual presence anyway, but not the actual presence of the body and blood?)

Methodists are probably more real presence not too dissimilar to the Anglicans and the Lutherans, sometimes confused with consubstantiation where as Calvinism is spiritual presence not a physical presence.

 

[Radagast]

I'm curious, what would you expect from a normal Presbyterian service? I know a pcusa and a united Methodist church share a church with one minister, (in my town). Is that unusual? Thanks!!!

There is a spectrum in terms of how liturgical Presbyterian churches get. This (from a small theologically conservative Presbyterian denomination) would be an example from the more liturgical end:

"1. The Lord Calls Us: The people are called to worship (Lev. 9:5). Our worship is a
response to God&#8217;s summons. He always takes the initiative. We draw near only
because He first invites us.

2. The Lord Cleanses Us: The sin offering (Lev. 9:15) highlights confession of sin and
absolution. Without an initial confession of sin, we are worshipping God with
unclean hands and lips. But having been washed, we may enter God&#8217;s presence.

3. The Lord Consecrates Us: The ascension offering (Lev. 9:16) corresponds to our
entrance into God&#8217;s heavenly sanctuary (cf. Heb. 10:19ff) and consecration. This
ascent is marked by the sursum corda (&#8220;Lift your hearts up to the Lord&#8221. The
ascension offering consists in a burst of sung praise, since we have received
cleansing and access to God&#8217;s throne room. We enter God&#8217;s courts with
thanksgiving and joy. This offering also includes the reading and preaching of the
Word, as we are consecrated to God&#8217;s service by His truth (Jn. 17:17; Heb. 4:12).

4. The Lord Collects Our Gifts: The tribute offering (Lev. 9:17) follows, represented by
the collection of tithes and offerings. We offer ourselves in the ascension offering; we
offer our works in the tribute offering. Our works are not acceptable to God apart
from the blood sacrifice of Christ, but in Christ, God accepts us and our labors.

5. The Lord Communes with Us: The peace offering was at the center of every feast
and festival in the old covenant and is the climax of the liturgy (Lev. 9:18-21). This
offering is the communion meal we eat in God&#8217;s presence. The Lord&#8217;s Supper, of
course, is our peace offering in the new covenant, as God shares His table with us.

6. The Lord Commissions Us: Finally, we are commissioned. We are sent out with
God&#8217;s benediction (Lev. 9:22&#8209;23). At the tabernacle, Aaron raised his hands and
blessed the people as he dismissed them (Num. 6:22&#8209;27). We are sent out to serve
God in the world, carrying His blessing as we go."

 

[Radagast]

Thank You everyone!
(I think it's right to say that both Methodists and Presbyterians belief in the real presence- a spiritual presence anyway, but not the actual presence of the body and blood?)

The Continental Reformed view is this:

"for the support of the spiritual and heavenly life, which believers have, he hath sent a living bread, which descended from heaven, namely, Jesus Christ, who nourishes and strengthens the spiritual life of believers, when they eat him, that is to say, when they apply and receive him by faith in the spirit. Christ, that he might represent unto us this spiritual and heavenly bread, hath instituted an earthly and visible bread, as a sacrament of his body, and wine as a sacrament of his blood, to testify by them unto us, that, as certainly as we receive and hold this sacrament in our hands, and eat and drink the same with our mouths, by which our life is afterwards nourished, we also do as certainly receive by faith (which is the hand and mouth of our soul) the true body and blood of Christ our only Savior in our souls, for the support of our spiritual life. Now, as it is certain and beyond all doubt, that Jesus Christ hath not enjoined to us the use of his sacraments in vain, so he works in us all that he represents to us by these holy signs, though the manner surpasses our understanding, and cannot be comprehended by us, as the operations of the Holy Ghost are hidden and incomprehensible. In the meantime we err not, when we say, that what is eaten and drunk by us is the proper and natural body, and the proper blood of Christ. But the manner of our partaking of the same, is not by the mouth, but by the spirit through faith."

The Presbyterian view is, in most cases, similar, I think.

 

[hedrick]

The original question was about the PCUSA. We are less committed to specific theories than traditional Presbyterians are. As such, we're closer to the Methodist and Episcopal view than you might expect.

I don't have any objection to Radagast's quotation, though even that may be a bit too specific. Here's what the most recent confessional statement says:

"The Lord's Supper is a celebration of the reconciliation of men with God and with one another, in which they joyfully eat and drink together at the table of their Savior. Jesus Christ gave his church this remembrance of his dying for sinful men so that by participation in it they have communion with him and with all who shall be gathered to him. Partaking in him as they eat the bread and drink the wine in accordance with Christ's appointment, they receive from the risen and living Lord the benefits of his death and resurrection. They rejoice in the foretaste of the kingdom which he will bring to consummation at his promised coming, and go out from the Lord's Table with courage and hope for the service to which he has called them." (Confession of 1967)

This is close to Calvin's position. Calvin didn't actually talk about Christ's presence as much as about our participation in him. That is, what he said was that through the mediation of the Holy Spirit we truly partake of Christ's body and blood. This is only indirectly a statement about Christ's presence in the sacrament.

 

[Radagast]

Calvin didn't actually talk about Christ's presence as much as about our participation in him. That is, what he said was that through the mediation of the Holy Spirit we truly partake of Christ's body and blood.

What I quoted was classic Dutch Calvinism (the Belgic Confession). Calvin himself said (in the Institutes):

"To all these things we have a complete attestation in this sacrament, enabling us certainly to conclude that they are as truly exhibited to us as if Christ were placed in bodily presence before our view, or handled by our hands. For these are words which can never lie nor deceive&#8212;Take, eat, drink. This is my body, which is broken for you: this is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. In bidding us take, he intimates that it is ours: in bidding us eat, he intimates that it becomes one substance with us: in affirming of his body that it was broken, and of his blood that it was shed for us, he shows that both were not so much his own as ours, because he took and laid down both, not for his own advantage, but for our salvation. ... I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth."

 

[RileyG]

Thank You everyone! I appreciate it.

God Bless +