Editorial
When I first became an Orthodox Presbyterian back in 1955 one thing immediately impressed me. It was the fact that no matter which OPC preacher I heard, it was always the same message. There was, of course, a striking variety of abilities and styles, but that didn’t matter. What mattered was that I always heard faithful preaching. To put it another way, I always heard Reformed doctrine, the doctrine so beautifully and faithfully summarized in our Confession and Catechisms. And I believe this is still one of the outstanding things—a great blessing of God—that characterizes our denomination. But the Confession and Catechisms were not the only treasure bequeathed to us by the Westminster Assembly. Of great importance also are the Form of Government and the Directory for Worship.
We are therefore thankful to be able to include in this issue a fine study of the latter by Drs. R. Dean Anderson, Jr. It serves as a striking reminder of the fact that our Reforming Fathers were not only concerned for the unity of the church in doctrine, but also in its form of worship. As we look at the church today—especially the American church—or even that part of the church that calls itself Reformed, one thing is quite apparent. In the form of worship—or style (as some prefer to call it)—there is utter chaos. It is, in fact, no exaggeration at all to say that there has been a veritable explosion of innovation.
Let me give you two examples, both of which took place in churches claiming to be Reformed. (1) The people arrive for morning worship to find a large pile of dirt in the “sanctuary.” Planted in the middle is a homemade cross. There is no sermon. The people are invited to simply look at what is before them and meditate. And the report is that many felt inspired and uplifted. (2) The morning worship is given over, in large part, to a young Indian who chants to the sound of a drum. His own description of what he was chanting was this: “I sing from my heart and connect my mind to the Creator...I pray to the Creator, to the grandmothers and grandfathers, my ancestors, and Mother Earth.” And the result? Well, one said “It was a spiritual awakening of sorts—liberating too; I could see that there are an infinite number of ways to praise God.” In contrast to this our Reforming Fathers held that there is only one way to worship God—the way that He has commanded. And if that be true then there ought to be a far greater uniformity than there is in our way of worship. It is our hope that this study will contribute to an increased awareness of what the problem really is in our present chaos, and what should be done about it. There is much to learn from the wonderful guide provided by the Westminster Assembly.
Question Box
I recently received the following question: “Meetings of the presbytery and general assembly are ordinarily open to visitors. Should session meetings be open also?” The writer goes on to ask if the Book of Discipline IV, A, 1, b—giving the governing body power to close other meetings by simple majority—applies “only to the trial of judicial cases?” And, finally, “Does discussion by the session about a church member, or visitor, or potential intern warrant closing the meeting to that person and others?”
It is my opinion that the Book of Discipline IV, A, 1, b, is only concerned with judicial process. But even so it would seem to imply more. If a Session, Presbytery or General Assembly should not, ordinarily, go behind closed doors when acting in a judicial capacity, then may it not—under ordinary circumstances—also conduct its other business openly? Van Dellen and Monsma, in The Church Order Commentary,[1] insist that it “is to the best interest of the Churches that Consistory [Session] meetings are private.” And several reasons might be given. It would be very difficult to hold Session meetings in smaller rooms if many others were in attendance. There may be reports on family visitation which, in my opinion, ought to be heard by the elders only. It is also understood that authorities such as Van Dellen and Monsma agree that every member has the right to come to the Session to be heard, to ask questions, or even to lodge a formal complaint.
It is therefore my opinion that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has wisely refrained from legislation in this matter. A Session could decide to allow any members who wish to do so to sit in on Session meetings. This might be a very salutary thing, for example, for a young man who begins to desire the pastoral office. And the doors must remain open to all members of the church when a trial is in process. But, at the same time, a Session has every right—when it is not meeting in judicial capacity—to use its own collective and sanctified wisdom in determining whether or not to meet in private. And there will certainly be many times when the Session should not have visitors present.
[1] The Church Order Commentary, Zondervan, 1941.