What do I mean by the “old liturgy”? I mean the traditional Protestant order of worship that stretches back to Luther and Calvin (despite their important differences), runs through Westminster, and used to be what churches did when they didn’t know what else to do. Was it rote at times? Sure. Did some churches use it too rigidly? No doubt. But it was also a better default. I’m talking about an order of service that included a call to worship, multiple Scripture readings, Psalm singing (along with old hymns and new songs), a Scriptural benediction, historic rubrics like the Apostles’ Creed and the Ten Commandments, and many kinds of prayers (e.g., invocation, prayer of adoration, prayer of confession, prayer of intercession, prayer for illumination).

Every church has a liturgy. Traditional congregations have a general order to worship. So do contemporary congregations. So do funky, artistic ones. Church leaders do not have time to reinvent their services every week. Congregations are not capable of learning new forms, new songs, and following a new order every week. Even the most spontaneous and creative church will flounder without some predictability and commonality from week to week. Even the most conscientious pastor or worship leader will eventually settle into a basic template for worship. Every church has a liturgy.

But not every liturgy is as good, or strong, or deep, or biblical, or gospel-centered as every other.

If I’m not mistaken, there is a New Evangelical Liturgy which is increasingly common in our churches. You find it in Baptist churches, Presbyterian churches, Reformed churches, free churches, and non-denominational churches. It’s familiar in rural churches and city churches. It can be found in tiny churches and megachurches. No one has written it down in a service book. No council or denomination is demanding that it be done. No pastor is taught this liturgy in seminary (um, probably not). But it has become the default liturgy nonetheless. It looks like this:

Casual welcome and announcements
Stand up for 4-5 songs
During the set, or at the very end, add a short prayer
Sermon
Closing song
Dismissal

I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say this is the basic liturgy from which most evangelical churches operate. To be sure, there are slight variations. The announcement may go after the praise set. There may be an offering in there somewhere, possibly with a special music number. The service may be tweaked a bit when there is communion or a baptism. But overall, if I were to visit 50 different evangelical churches over the next year, this is what I expect to find most of the time.

The simple question I want to ask is this: Is this New Evangelical Liturgy really an improvement?

Please hear me. I’m not talking about instrumentation or worship style (though form is not irrelevant). And I’m not suggesting God doesn’t take pleasure when his people worship him in Spirit and in truth from all sorts of templates. I’m not saying people won’t be saved or edified in churches that use the New Evangelical Liturgy. I’m certainly not saying they won’t like it. What I am suggesting is that by no biblical or historical consideration can we conclude that the New Evangelical Liturgy is an improvement on the old liturgy.

What do I mean by the “old liturgy”? I mean the traditional Protestant order of worship that stretches back to Luther and Calvin (despite their important differences), runs through Westminster, and used to be what churches did when they didn’t know what else to do. Was it rote at times? Sure. Did some churches use it too rigidly? No doubt. But it was also a better default.

I’m talking about an order of service that included a call to worship, multiple Scripture readings, Psalm singing (along with old hymns and new songs), a Scriptural benediction, historic rubrics like the Apostles’ Creed and the Ten Commandments, and many kinds of prayers (e.g., invocation, prayer of adoration, prayer of confession, prayer of intercession, prayer for illumination). I’m talking about what Mike Horton calls “the drama of Christ-centered worship” or what Bryan Chapell calls “gospel ‘re-representation’”–a carefully constructed, though flexible, liturgy which progresses with a distinct gospel logic: adoration, confession, assurance, thanksgiving, petition, instruction, charge, and blessing. The traditional Protestant liturgy has an Isaiah 6 movement to it where the gospel is not just preached in the sermon or even sung in the songs, but embodied in the entire order of the service.

For whatever appeal the New Evangelical Liturgy may have in American culture, and for whatever abuses or doldrums may be associated with a more traditional liturgy, I don’t believe it can be argued, by objective measures, that the new is superior to the old. Which liturgy has more prayer? What one has more Scripture? Which one does more to accent sin and forgiveness? Which ones anchors us better in the ancient creeds and confessions of the church? Which one is the product of more sustained theological reflection? Which is more shaped by the gospel?

I’m not sure where the New Evangelical Liturgy came from. Maybe its origins are in revivalist camp meetings. Maybe it goes back to the seeker movement. Maybe it’s a reflection of the juvenilization of American Christianity. Maybe pastors have taken the basis pattern of Christian conferences and assumed it was meant to be the order for weekly worship. Wherever it came from, I encourage pastors, worship leaders, and churches to consider whether this New Evangelical Liturgy is the best we can do. It may be familiar. It may be simple. It may even be popular. And it may still not be an improvement.

The best book I know on the historical genesis and theological reasons for Reformed worship is Worship: Reformed According to Scripture by Hughes Oliphant Old. His last chapter is a good summary of what the Reformed liturgical heritage has to offer American Protestants today. His prescriptions and warnings can be neatly outlined.

In considering what the Reformed liturgical heritage has to offer, we must avoid two extremes:

1. “The first is a sort of archaeological reconstruction in the English language of the Genevan Psalter or a meticulous following of the Westminster Directory for Worship” (161). What we need in the church today is reform not reconstruction. Some aspects of the older liturgies are not as helpful today (e.g., an ascetic attitude toward music, exclusive psalmody, long Communion exhortations).
2. “Liturgical romanticism is the other [extreme]” (165). By this, Old means “perpetual revolution in liturgical matters.” The motto “reformed and always reforming” does mean we constantly reconsider our theology and worship. This would defeat the whole purpose of having a tradition and a liturgy. We must have something to hand down, but this tradition can also be reinterpreted and reevaluated.

Reasons for maintaining the Reformed liturgical tradition:

1. “We human beings feel a need to keep in contact with our roots” (167). We need to know we are a part of something bigger and longer-lasting than ourselves.
2. “The tradition contains material of lasting value” (167). The Reformed tradition borrowed from the best of the Church Fathers as well as incorporating the best of the Reformers themselves. The Reformation was as much about worship as anything. The Reformers were great scholars and churchmen. Their insights into worship should not be quickly dismissed.
3. “We should maintain the tradition because it witnesses to the authority of Scripture” (170). The Fathers and the Reformers were steeped in Scripture, argued from Scripture, and filled their worship services with Scripture. The Reformed tradition is valuable only in so far as it bears witness to the Word of God.

Some of the most valuable liturgical traditions, rooted in Scripture, found within the Reformed heritage (172-176):

1. Expository preaching.
2. Verse by verse preaching (lectio continua).
3. Praying and singing of the psalms.
4. A full diet of prayer (e.g., praise, confession, thanksgiving, supplication, intercession).
5. A rediscovery of the Lord’s Supper as a covenantal meal.
6. An appreciation of the Lord’s Supper as eucharist (i.e. celebrating with thanksgiving and doxology).
7. An understanding of the epicletic nature of the Lord’s Supper (i.e., we pray through Christ for the Holy Spirit to unite us, nourish us, and sanctify us at the Table).
8. An understanding of the diaconal nature of the Lord’s Supper (e.g., taking an offering after Communion or emphasizing our call to serve others in the body of Christ).
9. The centrality of covenant theology in the administration of baptism.
10. One baptism for the forgiveness of sins; no secondary rites should be admitted.
11. Baptism is an initiatory sign of what happens to us through the whole of the Christian life.
12. Baptism should not be separated from discipleship (i.e., it should always entail the teaching of “all that I have commanded you” [Matt. 28:20]).
13. The emphasis on the daily service of morning and evening prayer.
14. The importance of family worship in the home.
15. “The greatest single contribution that the Reformed liturgical heritage can make to contemporary American Protestantism is its sense of the majesty and sovereignty of God, its sense of reverence and simple dignity, its conviction that worship must above all serve the praise of God” (176).

The concluding paragraph from Old is worth reading in full:

This program for the renewal of worship in American Protestant churches of today may not be exactly what everyone is looking for. In our evangelistic zeal we are looking for programs that will attract people. We think we have to put honey on the lip of the bitter cup of salvation. It is the story of the wedding of Cana all over again, but with this difference. At the crucial moment when the wine failed, we took matters into our own hands and used those five stone jars to mix up a batch of Kool-Aid instead. It seemed like a good solution in terms of our American culture. Unfortunately, all too soon the guests discovered the fraud. Alas! What are we to do now? How can we possibly minister to those who thirst for the real thing? There is but one thing to do, as Mary, the mother of Jesus, understood, so very well. You remember how the story goes. After presenting the problem to Jesus, Mary turned to the servants and said to them, “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:5). The servants did just that, and the water was turned to wine, wine rich and mellow beyond anything they had ever tasted. (176)

Kevin DeYoung has been the Senior Pastor at University Reformed Church (RCA) in East Lansing, Michigan since 2004. Kevin blogs at the Gospel Coalition; this article is reprinted with his permission.