|
| Mercersburg Theology | | Date Created: Nov 15, 2005, 10:01 AM |
I finally received my copy of D. G. Hart's new book John Williamson Nevin: High Church Calvinist (2005). I can't believe what I'm reading. Fifteen to twenty years ago all I heard about Mercersburg theology, especially Nevin, was warnings like "watch out" or "be careful" and always accompanied by a narrowing of the eyes and a little wag of the head. Of course, if that's all you say to a seminarian, it is likely to have the opposite of the intended effect. So naturally I ran off to the library and began to read everything I could get my hands on by Philip Schaff and John W. Nevin. When seminary professors brand books as theological pornography then you can be sure that students will be reading them in the back stacks of the library. Prior to this I had read Schaff's Principle of Protestantism and liked it. But I'm not sure I appreciated it until I was able to put it into the context of the entire Mercersburg history and theology.
Today times are somewhat different. In the mid- and late-1980's there wasn't much interest in liturgy and the sacraments. Everything was seeker sensitive and Sunday services were regularly stripped of all traditional liturgical elements and stuffed with everything that might make a culture sated with entertainment comfortable in church. These days, however, there's been a backlash to this. There's a huge resurgence of liturgical theology and practice. I would hope that my own contribution to this renewal has been fruitful.
But not everyone is happy. Consider this from Lig Duncan's chapter in Give Praise to God (P&R, 2003):"Reformed worship is simple in that it requires no elaborate ritual, no prescribed book of common prayer, but is merely based on the unadorned an unpretentious principles and order found in the Bible, by precept and example, which supply the substance of new-covenant worship. There is of course, a small but intelligent and literate movement advocating formal liturgical renewal in Reformed evangelicalism. Usually emphasizing the contributions of the early church and the early Reformed liturgies of Strasbourg and Geneva and unwittingly adopting a late-nineteenth-century Scoto-Catholic interpretation of their significance, this movement, open to a more Lutheran view of the sacraments (via the Mercersburg theology) and generally scathing in it estimation of the Westminster Directory and Puritan worship, is working to "liturgicalize" Reformed and evangelical corporate worship. [Footnote 18: A representative example of this tendency is found in Jeffrey J Meyers, The Lord's Service (St Louis: Providence Presbyterian Church, 1999).] This group propounds what Old calls "Liturgical Romanticism" - the view that, if we could just get back to Bucer's liturgy all would be put right in the church today! This reform effort seems to have captured the imaginations of many fine young conservative Reformed ordinands and shares a kinship with "the great traditions" movement evident in broader evangelicalism. This is not our call however. Our call is to something both simpler and more profound. We are not harkening the church to fixed forms from the past, however elegant or even consonant with Reformed worship they may be. We are instead, calling the church to the Bible - to its simple principles and patterns" (p.69). I don't mind critics. I just wish they would take care to get our position right before they launch on us. I have no real interest in repristinating Bucer's liturgy. Where does that comment come from? Pop quiz: How much argument from liturgical history do I employ in my book? Answer: almost none. The argumentation is almost entirely based on biblical exegesis.
Question #2: How much traditional Reformed content (prayers, responses, etc.) finds its way into your weekly liturgy, Jeff? Answer: not much at all. See for yourself.
And "liturgical romanticism"? Who me? Liturgical Romanticism is the subject of chapter 17 of my book. The whole chapter repudiates it!
Pop quiz question #3: Where is liturgical romanticism found today in Reformed circles? Answer: This school of thought is represented by Terry Johnson, Joey Pipa, Frank Smith, and the whole Confessional Presbyterianism crowd. Their work in this area consists almost entirely of historical essays on Reformed practices of the past and calls that the church return to the purity of 17th century worship in Scotland. This last is something of a caracature, but not by much.
Terry Johnson published a book called Leading in Worship that reprints Reformed (and only Reformed) liturgies. He explains his purpose as a defense of (a certain kind of traditional) Presbyterian worship. Their biblical exegesis is almost entirely constructed to justify certain Reformed practices, and they never seem to have a good word to say about any tradition other than the Reformed tradition.
Contrast this with my bibliographical essay at the end of my book. Will the real liturgical romanticist please stand up?
And now Mercersburg theology is once again being used as a albatross to hang around the necks of anyone interested in liturgical theology and practice in Presbyterian circles. Traditionalists have been able to pin the tail of Mercersburg on us in the past because not much has been known about Shaff and Nevin's liturgical program and because accusing someone of having Mercersburg sympathies was equivalent to arguing that they were crpto-Lutherans or even Romanists.
Well, Hart's book should help put and end to that. There is such a thing as a High Church Calvinist who's not on the road to Rome or Canterbury. Now tradionalist critics can learn that Nevin did not get his high view of the sacraments from Luther and Lutheranism but from Calvin, Knox, and the earlier Reformed tradition. Oh, and there is that theological source called the Bible. Whatever connection there might be between Mercersburg and the renewal of liturgical theology and practice in Reformed circles today, the ultimate and authoritative source for our theology and practice is what the whole Bible says about how God draws us into his presence and the means he uses to communicate his favor and good gifts. |
|