The Liturgical Forms⤒🔗

The Reformed Church Book (2006) ¹ contains seventeen liturgical forms, eight of which date back to the period of 1566-1619. The others originated in the twentieth century. These forms are used at the administration of baptism and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, at the solemnization of marriages, with ordinations, and at excommunication from and readmission into the church.

Why do we actually use these? Does the use of (prescribed) forms still fit with our times? Would such documents not encourage a degree of formalism? These are questions that are often asked nowadays, and which are increasingly being answered in very different ways.

The fact that there are different opinions on this matter has ensured — as evidenced by the explanation given by deputies for the church order — that in the recent church order the provision concerning the (obligatory) use of virtually all forms has been dropped. The expectation is that agreements about the use of forms will be established in a “general regulation”.

As we reflect about the use of these forms, it would be rather beneficial to have a clear view on why these were originally composed. That is the topic and purpose of this article.

A Didactical Function←⤒🔗

Characteristic of the forms is that almost all of these contain a didactical portion; the only exceptions are the form for the public profession of faith and the forms for the exercise of discipline, which lack an instructive part. All forms do have a ritual section, describing what is to be said and done at the concrete action (such as baptism and the administration of the Lord’s Supper).

In the 16^th/17^th century, the forms were valued for their pedagogical usefulness. These forms came about at the time when Reformed practices had to be built from the ground up. The Reformed church had to establish itself in the Netherlands as the central, privileged “public church”. The forms came into being in close relationship with church orders and thus were closely connected with the organization of the churches and the making of regulations in numerous areas of church life (the offices, the set-up of church services [“the liturgy”], means of education, supervision and discipline). In addition, the forms were inextricably linked to the desire to formulate and disseminate the Reformed doctrine.

It should be remembered that catechetical instruction was in its infancy at the time. Moreover, most churchgoers belonging to those who “loved the reformed religion” were not professing members, did not celebrate the Supper, and did not receive any ecclesiastical care. The church service was the only opportunity to educate the people in the Reformed doctrine. This was done—amongst other means—through the forms. When the catechetical instruction began to take hold in the 17^th century, the reading of doctrinal forms became one of the ways by which the church provided instruction. Later on, Bible study societies became more common.

A Pedagogical Function←⤒🔗

It is well known that the forms were produced for the education of those who had these forms read out to them (the people attending the worship services). What is not as well known is that the forms also came into being because the knowledge and proficiencies of the ministers in the 16^th and early 17^th century sometimes left much to be desired, not even mentioning the villages that often were deprived of a minister. As a result of the distressing shortage of ministers, so-called “Dutch clerks” were used out of necessity, lay leaders (school teachers, artisans, etc.) without any university education. They were called this because they did not master any other language (including the original languages of the Bible) than Low German/Dutch.

So it is not only because of lack of knowledge among the churchgoers that forms were developed and made compulsory. Another reason was that it was far from self-evident that ministers were sufficiently equipped to teach about marriage, the sacraments, the place and function of office-bearers, etc.

Now one can make the argument to abolish the forms because ministers today are all well trained. Also, because of today’s religious education as given at home, in church, and in elementary schools, church members have much more knowledge of the faith than they did around 1600. But this does not at the same time imply that the pedagogical benefits of the forms have therefore ceased as well. For if one wants to keep knowledge up to standard, repetition is indispensable. However, the effect can be considerably undermined when the content is no longer communicated because the forms are regarded as irrelevant and outdated: one only continues to hear familiar sounds, however the content no longer penetrates. To what extent is this the case in today’s practice?

I believe that the members of the church experience and evaluate the reading of the forms in many different ways. Also, the members will experience the reading differently at one time from another time. Presumably they will consider that the reading of forms that are used less frequently (ordination of office-bearers, marriage form), less objectionable than the reading of forms for, e.g., baptism and the Lord’s Supper: after all, they are often read. But when it comes to the pedagogical function of the forms, I do believe there is also an even more general question, namely to what extent the reading out loud of a doctrinal statement is still seen as an effective way of imparting knowledge in our time and culture. Perhaps educational specialists can shed some light on this.

A Dogmatic & Apologetic Function←⤒🔗

At the time of the Reformation the forms also had a dogmatic function: they aimed to express the Reformed faith. In close connection with this, they also had a highly apologetic function: they defended the Reformed doctrine against those of, for example, Roman Catholics and Anabaptists. The classic form for the Lord’s Supper gives a clear example of this: the exhortation in the form (“to be nourished with the true heavenly bread...”) presents a strong opposition to the Roman Catholic sacramental doctrine.

Even today the forms contain an apologetic function. For example, in the two latest baptismal forms released by the General Synod of Amersfoort (2005), what can be said from Scripture about infant baptism is expressly put into words. This subject was only indirectly addressed in the classic form. The current confrontation with groups and church members who reject infant baptism led to the conclusion that it would be useful to give extra attention to this aspect in the newer baptismal forms.

That the forms have a doctrinal aspect, though of course not equal to that of the confessional writings, is evident in the fact that in sermons and in decisions of church assemblies arguments are regularly derived from the forms. History also has clear examples of the opposite. In the past there have been repeated arguments against the baptismal form, for example, because the content of the first baptismal question was not acceptable. The words “sanctified in Christ” from this question are of course problematic when you have a national church where everything that is offered for baptism (e.g., pets) is baptized.

The question whether one should be reading the forms unchanged was sometimes connected with the desire to be able to modify a certain passage for reasons of its content. There is no reason to assume that the current opposition to forms is based only on an aversion to formalism, and that “obviously” no matters of content are involved. In this regard, the history teaches us a different lesson!

An Ecumenical Function←⤒🔗

In the 16^th century the forms presented one of the possibilities to express and confirm the unity in doctrine and liturgical life between the Reformed churches; they were part of the Reformed identity. Forms, as well as other liturgical matters such as the repertoire for singing and the form prayers, underscored the connection with the Reformed churches both in a geographic and historic framework.

The forms still carry such ecumenical dimensions today. It is meaningful that the church of AD 2013 continues to express her connection with the church from previous centuries and with the churches here-and-now by using the same liturgical forms (including the forms). Of course this does not mean that the church is obliged to express her ecumenical reach by using the forms always and everywhere. It reflects a content-rich potential—no more and no less.

Of course the ecumenical function is more limited today, especially when it concerns the newer forms. After all, the recently released forms for baptism and Holy Supper are only used in the Reformed Church in the Netherlands (liberated). Moreover, within the protestant churches in the Netherlands various re-translations of the classical forms are being used. It would have been valuable if the Reformed churches in the Netherlands would at least use the same versions of the forms that they have in common.

In Conclusion←⤒🔗

When reflecting on the use of liturgical forms, I believe that the main question will have to be whether and to what extent the originally didactic, dogmatic, apologetic and ecumenical functions are still sufficiently achieved. On the one hand it would be overly simplistic to abandon the forms merely because of “the danger of formalism”. On the other hand it is also rather one-dimensional to desire to maintain the forms and their obligatory use only because this happens to be part of the Reformed liturgical tradition. We need to answer the question whether the initial reasons why the Reformed churches in the 16^th/17^th century developed these forms and prescribed their obligatory use, are still as important and actual.