A Directory of Worship for the PCA?

A Directory of Worship for the PCA?

The PCA’s “Directory for Public Worship” (DPW) has been in constitutional limbo since its adoption at the Third General Assembly in 1976. Book of Church Order 56-58 have full constitutional authority (sacraments and membership), while Book of Church Order 47-55 (basic principles, preparation, elements, reading and preaching of Scripture, prayer, church songs, etc.), and 60-63 (weddings, funerals, visitation of sick, etc.) have a lesser status. They are considered, according to the “Preface” to the current DPW, an “approved guide” which “should be taken seriously as the mind of the Church agreeable to the standards,” while lacking “the force of law” and “not ... considered obligatory in all its parts.”

It may help to remind ourselves why we have a “Directory” and not a Prayer Book, and why we have any guidelines at all as embodied in the Directory for Public Worship.

Via media

The Presbyterian majority at the Westminster Assembly joined by the five Scottish commissioners found themselves caught between two extremes. On the one hand, they had chaffed under the “Act of Uniformity” of 1559 which obligated undeviating conformity to the services of the Book of Common Prayer. The result of this requirement was harmful to the health of the church, said the Assembly in its preface to the original DPW in 1644, preventing the exercise of the “gift of prayer,” mandating “unprofitable and burdensome ceremonies,” causing “the great hindrance of the preaching of the word,” and resulting in “an idle and unedifying ministry.”

At the other extreme were some Independents (Congregationalists) and the sects which objected to the imposition of any liturgical standards at all. All such standards were seen as binding the consciences of the ministers and people who ought to be free to go where the Spirit and Scripture lead.

The majority in the end determined by means of a directory (not a prayer book) to strike ground between these two extremes: unyielding liturgical uniformity of the Prayer Book and liturgical chaos of the Independents. They sought greater uniformity with “the reformed Churches abroad” and “uniformity in divine worship” in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Hence, a Directory was approved by the Assembly “for all the parts of public worship.” The aim was that “there may be a consent of all the churches in those things that contain the substance of the service and worship of God,” as the 1644 Preface to the DPW explains. The end result was guidelines for public worship that were not suffocating like the requirements of the Prayer Book, yet explicit enough to guide the churches in the manner and substance of the administration of the basic elements of worship. Extended models of prayer and extended descriptions of preaching, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper provided “help and furniture” for the ministers leading the services. Further help was given regarding the sanctity of the Lord’s day, weddings, funerals, and so on. By this means, the Assembly sought to resolve the tension between form and freedom, between liturgical standards and liturgical anarchy.

Meanwhile, the Anglicans under Charles II returned to Common Prayer and yet another “Act of Uniformity” in 1662, forcing up to 2,000 Puritan pastors out of the pulpits for conscience sake, and inaugurating 26 years of persecution of the English and Scottish dissenters who refused to conform. At the other end of the spectrum, the Independents in 1658 (Savoy Declaration) and the Baptists in 1689 (London Confession) adopted the Confession nearly en toto, yet neither adopted even a modified Directory. We repeat: The Anglicans demanded absolute conformity, the Independents and Sectarians insisted on absolute freedom, while the Presbyterians then and since have sought a middle ground, a DPW, aiming at substantial uniformity yet with a high degree of latitude.

Today

We find ourselves in the PCA today in the midst of liturgical chaos. One never knows what one will encounter when one enters a PCA church. We span the spectrum from Pentecostal/charismatic, to seeker-friendly, to contemporary, to blended, to historic Reformed, to Anglican. The PCA “brand” liturgically means nothing, this despite the existence of a denomination hymnal and psalter and a DPW which at least is meant to reveal “the mind of the church.”

Is our diversity not a strength, as some of our leaders claim?

The Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary I attended from 1979-1981 was diverse to the point of disintegration. Our student body and faculty included progressive Pentecostals and Methodists to the left and hardcore Calvinists to the right. The conflict was constant, the tension palpable. Diversity is not an unmitigated good. For most of my 40-plus years at General Assembly I have witnessed embittered battles over what the PCA should be. Allegedly, we agree doctrinally. All our officers and ministers subscribe to the Westminster standards. Yet, we disagree about the implications of our theology as applied to liturgical and pastoral practice. What shall we do? Let’s discuss these things. Let’s debate them. Let’s come to a consensus about 1) The need for a Directory and give it full constitutional authority; then 2) Let’s determine the status of the details about which we may disagree.

Doesn’t approval of a DPW mean that we are setting up ourselves for conflict and division, as some claim? That depends on what we approve and how we respond. Not all conflict is bad. It may be that some of our churches have adopted unwise practices which in the wisdom of the General Assembly they need quietly to abandon. Submission to the brethren is a virtue which the officers and ministers vow to practice. Some may find that they are so far outside of the bounds of the DPW that they need to seek fellowship in another denomination. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Rather it may make for happier and less agitated congregations and happier and less conflicted denominations overall.

Hopefully, it will not come to this. Hopefully, we will reach a consensus about our liturgical practice. One can hope. As it stands, 90% of the current DPW is taken directly from the older directories: 1644 (Church of Scotland), and the revisions dating to 1884 (PCUSA), and 1894 (PCUS). One-hundred percent of the current DPW is consistent with these older directories. The language under consideration is historic, and it is Presbyterian. The OPC, ARP, EPC, and PCUSA all have directories with full constitutional authority. Congregationalists insist on congregational autonomy. So also do Baptist, Bible, and “independent” Presbyterian churches. One will search in vain for a Presbyterian denomination since 1644 that lacks a normative directory. The PCA is the outlier.

Why should we move forward into these divisive issues? Ironically, we should do so for the sake of the unity and harmony of our connectional denomination.

⁵ May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, ⁶ that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:5-6)

The PCA worshipping “together,” glorifying God “with one voice” is the vision to which we all aspire.

Terry Johnson is the senior minister of the Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, Georgia.