Generally, ceremonial is associated with so-called “high-church” expressions of Christianity. It is certainly a part of the common discourse about the Church of Rome and often appears as a prima facie argument against the Mass. However, I’d like to reconsider this usage of the term.

In a previous post I said, “There is a legitimate Reformed ceremonial.” It has occurred to me that this statement could be surprising to some, perplexing even, and could evoke a less than positive response given the way in which the word “ceremonial” is typically used in Reformed circles.

Generally, ceremonial is associated with so-called “high-church” expressions of Christianity. It is certainly a part of the common discourse about the Church of Rome and often appears as a prima facie argument against the Mass. However, I’d like to reconsider this usage of the term. Ceremonial is inevitable when any act is repeated in the context of public worship from week to week. Certain actions are performed in generally the same way. We are not, after all, of the tradition that understands the Spirit to lead into different behaviors with each new service. The Reformed churches have always held that the manner in which a service is conducted is not an unimportant question. On this point we are united with those “high-church” expressions.

“Decently and in order” assumes a certain regularity of action and, though we don’t necessarily conceive of our worship as having ceremonial, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the approach that associates ceremonial only with others and not with ourselves has meant that we now incorporate ceremonies that contradict our teaching, give a false impression of our understanding of the sacraments, and generally make a farce of Reformed worship. There is a legitimate Reformed ceremonial and I am going to attempt to explain at least some of it- what it is and why it’s important- as well as point out some ceremonies that are not acceptable in a Reformed context.

Before I continue let me provide some definitions for which I am heavily indebted to Vernon Staley’s scholarly work The Ceremonial of the English Church. Staley’s observation, though having to do with Anglican ceremonial and The Book of Common Prayer, is applicable to the Reformed context. He notes, “[T]he term ‘ritual’ signifies the words of a rite, and the term ‘ceremonial’ the actions in which it consists or by which it is accomplished.” The order and ceremonial of worship give tangible form to the ideas proclaimed in the text of the rite.

For our usage the rite is the text of the service- the words spoken, read, preached, prayed. The ceremonial is the manner in which these words are clothed. What is happening when the lessons are read? Does a person walk to a particular location to read each Sunday? Does the congregation sit or stand for the reading? If an appointed reader goes to a lectern to read and the congregation stands, this is the ceremonial accompanying that part of the rite. Similarly, if the offering plates are brought forward and placed on the Table after the offering has been taken, this is the ceremonial associated with the offering.

There are two types of ceremonial: ceremonial of command and ceremonial of necessity. Under the first heading fall those actions which scripture expressly enjoins and under the second everything that must be done to ensure the service is performed in a dignified and orderly manner. The second type is open to variation while the first is not.

For some aspects of God’s service we have only instruction as to the general tenor and content. Preachers should “reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2) and men should only “teach what accords with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). But these instructions thankfully say nothing about the exact manner in which this preaching is to be done. On may preach standing in a pulpit or sitting in a chair (as was the practice in much of the early Church). The Lord, in His wisdom, has intentionally left the posture of the minister to our discretion so that His word may be best presented in every context. The case is similar with singing: we have guidance relating to the nature of song (Col. 3:16- here the teaching echoes the direction regarding preaching) but not the posture of the singers.

Now, before I go any further I should note that the nature of the Church as a body which transcends time and space should place limits on our practice regarding points on which the bible does not provide specific direction. Strictly speaking, we are not free to do as we please without regard for what our fathers have done. In fact, it is consonant with the fifth commandment to have a high regard for the traditions that have been passed to us across the ages (see Westminster Larger Catechism questions and answers 123-133). We should not be quick to set aside practices that have served well to foster the spread of the gospel and edify the Church. Some scholars have suggested this careful attitude is what is alluded to in Acts 2:42 (by the use of the little phrase “the prayers”) and I am inclined to agree. Thus, each local body is taught to respect the practice of the universal Church. This in itself deserves a lengthy discourse but, for the sake of brevity, I will return to the question of ceremonial as regards the sacraments.

It is the Lord’s Supper and Baptism for which we have clear ceremonial instructions in the scriptures. These actions, which the Church performs in accordance with divine institution, should in certain respects be performed identically in every local congregation. Even here the Lord has not been pedantic; not every minute detail of the giving of the bread and wine at the eucharist is set down in scripture, but the actions and their basic order is.

In terms of ceremonial, baptism is the simpler of the two sacraments. The only clear instruction is that it be performed with water in the name of the Trinity. Since I haven’t the space to write a treatise on the various historical understandings of the word “baptize” I’ll here assume that the placement of water on the head or face of the person being baptized is sufficient. The posture of the person being baptized, the place from whence the water comes (font, basin, pool), if there be particular prayers accompanying the baptism, etc. are all left to the discretion of the local congregations.

The Lord’s Supper has much clearer ceremonial instructions and Paul’s account of the institution of the eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11 notes several actions in a certain order:

“… the Lord Jesus… took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it… he took the cup…”

Likewise, the accounts in the gospels show that Jesus 1) took bread 2) blessed it 3) broke it 4) gave it to the disciples 5) took the cup 6) gave it to the disciples.

It has always been a concern of the Church that the giving of the elements be in accord with Christ’s institution. Therefore the handling of the elements by the minister, the praying over them, the breaking of the bread in the sight of the people (fraction), and the distribution of both elements separately are characteristic of sound liturgies from the earliest centuries through to today.

In those times when the Church has strayed from the clear teaching of scripture certain abuses have arisen, namely, the removal of the cup from the people, the taking of the two elements together (as in the East or in the practice of intinction), and the lack of fraction. It behooves us to consider that the manner in which we celebrate the Lord’s Supper directly reflects our view of its scriptural institution. When we add to the commanded ceremonies or remove any of them we are denying the authority of God to order His service as He sees fit.

There is variance among Christian liturgies regarding the details of the ceremonial of the eucharist. The Roman Missal (Tridentine) is far too concerned with the manual acts of the priest, directing him to lift his eyes to heaven, bow his head, make the sign of the cross over the elements, etc. and makes almost no mention of delivering the elements to the people saying simply, “Having received It [the Blood and the particle], if there be any to communicate, let him communicate them, before he purify himself.” However, it would be a mistake to think the Reformed liturgies aloof to ceremonial concerns relating to the eucharist. The Reformers were not reactionary in their approach to liturgy in general and their attitude toward the manual acts is reverent and scripturally informed.

The Book of Common Prayer carefully notes that the minister is to handle both the elements and one rubric states, “And here to break the bread.” Similarly, the Westminster Directory says, “there the minister who is also himself to communicate, is to break the bread, and give it to the communicants.” The noted Swedish scholar Yngve Brilioth observes in Eucharistic Faith and Practice: Evangelical and Catholic, “[T]he Assembly showed a really remarkable soundness of judgment and liturgical taste in the eucharistic rite of the Directory…” and it must be said that the Directory is comprehensive in its inclusion of all the necessary ceremonies of the eucharist. It provides for 1) the taking of the bread 2) its blessing 3) the fraction 4) the giving of it to the people and likewise the 5) taking, and 6) giving of the cup.

It is astonishing that some today, even in Reformed churches, should neglect to break the bread publicly before the people and should think it acceptable to administer the elements together rather than separately as the scriptures clearly enjoin. The ceremonies accompanying the eucharistic rite are not simply things indifferent made up for the amusement of scholars and aesthetes. They are of the essence of the sacrament as given by Our Lord and as such must be observed with great reverence and accompanied by thanksgiving.

Thus far ceremonial of command. Ceremonial of necessity deserves its own discourse so I will leave things as they are for now and return to the subject of ceremonial and the Reformed churches at a later date.

Evan McWilliams is a member of Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Lakeland, Fla., is an architectural historian, and a Ph.D. candidate at the University of York in the UK. This article appeared in his blog, Inscrutable Being, and is used with permission.