What We're Reading
- God and Race in American Politics: A Short History
by Mark A. Noll - It Happened in Italy: Untold Stories of How the People of Italy Defied the Horrors of the Holocaust
by Elizabeth Bettina - Tradition: Concept and Claim
by Josef Pieper
Our Blogroll
« Bye-Bye, Blue Laws? | Main | First Comes Panic, Then Comes Revival? »
Evangelicalism's Hidden Liturgical and Confessional Past
The emotional energy of Cane Ridge and other early frontier revivals arose from a strong emphasis on the Eucharist.
Many evangelicals - especially younger ones - are today re-engaging tradition. Other evangelicals worry about this re-engagement. They feel that to move toward a more liturgical form of worship or a more fixed, detailed style of theological "confession" is to give up the freer, more emotional worship style or more grass-roots, straightforward doctrinal and theological style won for us by such evangelical forefathers as the 18th century's John Wesley or the 19th century's Charles Finney.
I want to suggest that one way forward to healthier engagement with tradition for modern-day evangelicals is through a look at our own recent past. For American revivalism itself grew on unexpected foundations of liturgy and doctrinal confession.
As for liturgical and indeed sacramental worship: few evangelicals know that the drawing power and emotional energy of such early frontier revivals as the one at Cane Ridge, Kentucky in 1800 - which set the stage for a century of explosive evangelical growth - arose from a strong emphasis on the Eucharist. It's true! Those deeply emotional and highly demonstrative camp-meeting revivals were in fact multi-day "Eucharistic seasons," in the tradition of old-world Scotch-Irish Presbyterianism (See Leigh Eric Schmidt, Holy Fairs: Scotland and the Making of American Revivalism, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989]). A similar Eucharistic focus characterized the revivalistic "melting times" of exuberant worship and deep christocentric mysticism in the early American Methodist quarterly camp meetings (Lester Ruth, A Little Heaven Below [Nashville, Tenn.: Kingswood Books, 2000]).
This seriousness about the Lord's Supper in fact goes back before the early 19th-century revivalists to the people who may reasonably be called the "co-founders" of evangelicalism: John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards. Both of these men, Wesley in Georgia and Edwards in Northampton, Mass., got themselves into hot water with congregations they were ministering to - for the same reason: they "fenced the table" to keep out those not prepared (sacramentally or ethically) to participate in the Lord's Supper.
As for confessional theology, many early evangelicals worked out of solid Calvinist confessional conviction. For example, New Lights who sprung from America's eighteenth-century season of Awakening "worked to make people more theologically self-conscious, often by rewriting church covenants to include strict doctrinal standards."
Short-lived as many of these sorts of traditional roots were, they did shape evangelicalism in its American cradle. Even the brash New Measures revivalist, Charles Finney, recognized that he built on the foundations of "the evangelical Presbyterian heritage of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries," with its Eucharistic piety and confessional emphasis (Schmidt, Holy Fairs, 207). Again, this may prove one "way forward" to healthier engagement with tradition for modern-day evangelicals: examine points at which our recent forebears have found something valuable in liturgy, doctrine, or church order (Nathan Hatch, Democratization of American Christianity [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1991], 180).
By looking at our own history with our eyes really, truly open, evangelicals will find that a commitment to tradition, robust theological confession, or liturgical worship is not inconsistent with the free-church commitment to every believer's direct, unmediated access to God in worship and prayer. If you don't believe this, I encourage you to check out CT managing editor Mark Galli's recent case for evangelical re-engagement with liturgy: Beyond Smells & Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy (Paraclete Press, 2008).
One more note: this suggestion is nothing new. Check out the chapter by evangelical historian Richard Lovelace in the book The Orthodox Evangelicals, Robert Webber and Donald G. Bloesch, eds. (Thomas Nelson, 1978), and you'll see something very much like this. Lovelace speaks of "the evangelical spirit," and traces it back not only through the early history of evangelicalism, but back through the Reformation, to the medieval church, and into the first centuries of the early church. This is the kind of vision of continuity--long the "native perspective" of the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox--that evangelicals need to recover today.
recent posts
Archives
March 2010February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 |
Comments
You seem to be saying that a renewed emphasis on the Eucharist entails a concomitant return to liturgism. While the bread and cup certainly are a deep and meaningful tradition that belongs to many liturgical and non-liturgical forms of worship, I don't think The Lord's Table itself is inextricably linked to the kind of liturgy you are assuming and advocating--though some "liturgies" are certainly built on and around it.
Jesus only asked to be remembered whenever bread is broken and drink enjoyed. How we structure that in our own lives and communities will vary. It does not need to be "liturgical" or "traditional" beyond the fact that the act of remembering is a tradition in itself.
The New Testament reveals that early church had a very different approach to the bread and cup than do most liturgical and non-liturgical churches today. Originally Christians celebrated the New Covenant at table with community meals and feasts. Paul actually had to tell some of them to practice restaint by eating at home before coming to these gatherings so that genuinely needy people could eat (1 Co 11:20-22,33).
A return to this kind of "work of the people" and "public service" (definitions of "liturgy"), where people's basic needs for literal bread and sustenance are placed before our own, would certainly mark a return to the priorities of Paul, James, and the original apostolic church. This would be a true revival of biblical religion with or without litgurgism. But a revival of liturgism and tradition alone is not necessarily--and runs the risk of not being--true religion (James 1:26-27).
As for "fencing the table," how different are the fences of liturgists from the fence of those like Apostle Paul! He would keep out or restrain those who can eat at home but welcome the needy, while liturgists want only those they count as "worthy" to partake in "mysteries"!
As much as I love Eucharistic traditions myself, I have to admit that the real revival I long for has less to do with liturgy and much to do with bread.
Posted By: Dave Leigh | March 5, 2009 2:16 PM
I have noted the frequency of revival in connection with communion in history. The Moravian revival started with a communion service that became a hundred-year-long 24-hour prayer meeting. There were the Scottish communion revivals in the 18th century. The Cane Ridge revival had a historic connection with these. And there were more Scottish communion revivals in the 1820s. These are ony a few examples.
William De Arteaga wrote a book called The Forgotten Power of the Lord's Supper In Revival.
Posted By: Laurence Schell | March 7, 2009 3:35 PM
I was raised in a closed communion litergical setting. Now, as an active church leader in an indiginious Japanese church, I find that their closed communion practices lock out everyone who is not of their own congregation.This hardly seems biblical.
mbj
Sendai, Japan
Posted By: Mark Jabusch | March 8, 2009 5:50 PM
I read an interview of a former Episcopalian bishop felt one of the drawbacks to being a Protestant was the feeling of having to reinvent Protestantism over and over.
Even this sudden re-interest in having a "eucharist" along evangelical lines without the necessary Apostolic Succession, this "Cane Ridge" romanticist urgings for an "evangelical eucharist" is bound to fail and fail miserably.
Stop kidding yourselves and all this needless reinventing the wheel for so many years. If you're stuck with a square wheel, you're still getting nowhwere no matter how hard you try otherwise to convince yourelves.
If you want the Blessings and Fullness of the Truth which only Catholicism can offer, then become Catholics.
Oh, that former bishop is now a "Father," but much happier knowing the Eucharist he consecrates is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in Person. No mere symbolism. And you can't find a more personal relationship than what the Catholic Church has to offer.
Posted By: Steven Barrett | March 8, 2009 8:32 PM
Christians have been "liturgical" about the Lord's supper since Pentecost. Being good Jews, they were used to the Sabbath meal and Passover meal in particular, a liturgical gathering of the "family." It was never just about "what it means to me." It was about what it means to US, as the Body of Christ. I hope that Evangelicals continue to regain their roots, especially the ones that go back to the beginning.
Posted By: Stefanie Yazge | March 9, 2009 8:10 AM
interesting points raised here. we are looking the same thing from simply different perspectives. the form and substance of the eucharist are meant to be complementary - they are not meant to be opposing.
the form represents the way we do and the substance represents the reason why we do it.
the reason why we do will determine the significance of the eucharist in our faith. the way we go about doing it is a reflection on the significance of the importance we place eucharist in our faith for instance.
i hope this would give us enough room for thot to weigh the pros and cons discussed above.
blessings!
Posted By: henry | March 10, 2009 10:58 PM
I am interested and saddened by comments like: bread and cup certainly are a deep and meaningful tradition - Meaningful tradition? It is all about the communion table, the body and blood! How have we gotten so far away from what truly should be our focus? Not just of the "meal" itself, but the purpose of it? The meaning of it? Some churches only have it a few times a year, many don't take it to those who are no longer able to attend services - are they no longer part of the "body"? How sad we have gotten to this point. As a protestant, I have to say that I admire the Catholic church for it's continued committment to the eucharist - it is the focal point.
Posted By: Teresa | March 16, 2009 8:45 AM
To say that the frontier camp meetings put a strong emphasis on the Eucharist is to take two potential mis-steps at the outset. First, it is extremely unlikely that these camp meetings would have used this terminology which had and has associations they would have cared to avoid. "The Sacrament", or "The Lord's Supper", yes; "Eucharist", no. That it is a biblically-rooted phrase would not, for them, have overcome its then-ritualistic overtones.
Second, the reason why there was a strong sacramental emphasis was what we would call circumstantial. The supply of pastors was very scarce on the then-western frontiers. This, plus the fact that even many existing congregations _with_ pastors limited the observance of the Lord's Supper to twice yearly, yielded the result that the summer camp meeting (at which pastors were in abundance)became one of the possible two annual administrations of this sacrament available to many westerners. This was no eucharistic retreat!
Having said this, it is also important to stress that
the old Scottish practice of close examination of persons wishing to participate in this open-air administration of the Lord's Supper was largely maintained. And this, combined with the fact that sermons preceding the Lord's Supper were strongly evangelistic and preparatory, meant that though the Supper itself was restricted to evident believers, the grand occasion at which many more were present, was made a time of evangelistic harvest.
The idea of using the Lord's Supper in connection with an attempt at evangelism is interesting indeed. But few evangelical churches guard admission to the Lord's Supper today the way it was guarded then. The other factor that has changed is the preciousness of time. Prior to 1840 (which is when Princetonian James W. Alexander noted the waning of this practice he had known from his boyhood)people were willing to invest four or five days in an outdoor summer festival the crux of which would be the outdoor administration of the Supper. By 1840, Alexander noted, the pace of life had quickened to such an extent that this leisurely extended weekend of services (beginning Thursday and ending Monday)was no longer feasible. But surely, there are principles from that practice still capable of being applied.
Interestingly, there are still small Presbyterian denominations in the highlands of Scotland which keep the idea of an extended summer communion season alive. But the last time I asked, I learned that evangelistic preaching to the wider crowds (a common part of this, in the long-ago)now no longer takes place because of the disinterest of the unevangelized.
Posted By: Ken Stewart | March 18, 2009 8:27 PM
Ken,
Thanks so much for your helpful comment. I'm honored that you've taken the time to interact on this. Your paper on the long history of Protestant interaction with the church fathers, given at the 2007 Wheaton Theology Conference, was a real eye-opener for me.
Since I am far from an expert on the revivalistic communion festivals, I don't feel I can answer your comment. So I'll just say: thanks again--I enjoy learning from you.
Posted By: Chris Armstrong | March 18, 2009 8:49 PM
Chris
Just discovered your blog and am enjoying it thoroughly. Just recently I've developed a blog of my own. It is designed primarily for history teachers at the secondary and post-secondary level who are Christians. The address of the blog is www.jesusandclio.blogspot.com. So far, I seem to have been doing most of the talking. I would welcome your wisdom along with that of your readers as we engage in issues concerning educators and historians who want to glorify God in our classrooms by solid scholarship and depth of commitment to Christ.
Chris Bryans
Community Christian School
Brevard Community College
Melbourne, FL
Posted By: Christopher L. Bryans | March 22, 2009 3:22 PM
Jesus warned against making undue traditions in faith. His death actually unburdened us all from rigorous traditions. I partake of the bread and wine annually as he asked those invited into The Covenant to do. We will no longer be observing this annual event when he fulfills the covenant. It is fulfilled when the last one invited is finally sealed. Until then we need to remember more why he died than holding debates on observing the Last Supper.
Posted By: Blue eyes54 | March 31, 2009 11:51 AM
Typically, members of the evangelical left affirm the primary tenets of evangelical theology, such as the doctrines of Incarnation, atonement, and resurrection, and also see the Bible as a primary authority for the church. A major theological difference, however, which in turn leads to many of the social/political differences, is the issue of how strictly to interpret the Bible, as well as what particular values and principles predominantly constitute the "biblical worldview" believed to be binding upon all followers
Posted By: chiyogami | August 11, 2010 2:36 AM