very helpful). That is, while he did not object in principle to the liberty of a given local congregation to frame its own service, he thought it was preferable both in principle and in practice to frame worship that corresponded to the worship of the entire catholic (small tradition. If some Puritans, for example, were hesitant to use the Gloria Patri “c” again) or Calvin was not. I agree with Calvin here also, and believe that, all Apostles’ Creed, things considered, we should employ forms of worship that connect us to the entire history of Christian worship, as opposed to employing forms of worship that are recent or local (cf. my Why the Hymnal, Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Re-Wrote esp. chapter eight in which I object to as a It should be “Contemporaneity Value”). obvious, then, that while I would not restrict a local congregation from devising/inventing its own liturgical forms, I have an especial appreciation for the Anglican Book of because of the Common Prayer, adjective “Common.” A third difference was the posture towards using a liturgy itself. The original objection of the Puritans was not to the use of a written liturgy, but to its imposition; that is, they did not object to a prayer being carefully considered and written beforehand, they objected to what they perceived as an abuse of church-power if all local congregations were required to employ the same liturgy without any local variation (a good discussion of this can be found in the pertinent chapter of Thoughts on Public Samuel Miller’s Because of the tensions in the British isles regarding the state-regulated Prayer). Anglican church, in practice this difference expanded, and in time many Puritans and Presbyterians distanced themselves from using the Anglican liturgy, even when they were free to use it voluntarily, in part or whole. Calvin, on the other hand, whose service was of Prayers According to the Ancient believed that there was entitled “A Form Church,”
very helpful). That is, while he did not object in principle to the liberty of a given local congregation to frame its own service, he thought it was preferable both in principle and in practice to frame worship that corresponded to the worship of the entire catholic (small “c” again) tradition. If some Puritans, for example, were hesitant to use the Gloria Patri or Apostles’ Creed, Calvin was not. I agree with Calvin here also, and believe that, all things considered, we should employ forms of worship that connect us to the entire history of Christian worship, as opposed to employing forms of worship that are recent or local (cf. my Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Re-Wrote the Hymnal, esp. chapter eight in which I object to “Contemporaneity as a Value”). It should be obvious, then, that while I would not restrict a local congregation from devising/inventing its own liturgical forms, I have an especial appreciation for the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, because of the adjective “Common.” A third difference was the posture towards using a liturgy itself. The original objection of the Puritans was not to the use of a written liturgy, but to its imposition; that is, they did not object to a prayer being carefully considered and written beforehand, they objected to what they perceived as an abuse of church-power if all local congregations were required to employ the same liturgy without any local variation (a good discussion of this can be found in the pertinent chapter of Samuel Miller’s Thoughts on Public Prayer). Because of the tensions in the British isles regarding the state-regulated Anglican church, in practice this difference expanded, and in time many Puritans and Presbyterians distanced themselves from using the Anglican liturgy, even when they were free to use it voluntarily, in part or whole. Calvin, on the other hand, whose service was entitled “A Form of Prayers According to the Ancient Church,” believed that there was
why-we-attend-grace-anglica.docx