Presbyterian Ministers

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Do they wear stoles?

Do presbyterian have a liturgy?

 

[MSSheBear]

I should be able to answer this but I’m not sure I can. Most Presbyterian ministers wear something you’d wear to a business office when conducting a service. Sometimes they will were a stole or a Geneva gown which looks like a dark choir robe.

I learned in an inquirer’s class that Presbyterians do have liturgy because there is some order to the service. The class still had their doubts. Presbyterian services vary a lot so I would say there is some order to the service but no liturgy.

I’ve been a Presbyterian for about 15 years and you can tell I have not paid that much attention to details.

 

[gmcbroom]

MSShebear,
No worries my friend. I think the best thing for you is going to your church historian and have them look for a book describing the Presbetarian worship service and it’s tenets. That way you can get grounded in your faith and grow with it.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[Contarini]

Do they wear stoles?

I suspect that some do, these days. The traditional garb of a Presbyterian minister is essentially an academic gown. This stems from the origins of the mainstream Protestant Reformation as a movement of learned theologians who claimed authority as teachers of the Church. In fact, the early Presbyterians separated from us Anglicans in part because of their objection to our use of cassock and surplice (not even a stole or a chasuble at that time). However, Presbyterians have changed over time–“mainline” churches of all traditions have been influenced by the “liturgical movement,” and there are also some very conservative Presbyterians who are trying to revive aspects of pre-Reformation tradition, speaking of “medieval Protestantism.” (I don’t know what kinds of vestments, if any, those folks wear.)

Do presbyterian have a liturgy?

Depends on which Presbyterians and on what you mean by “liturgy,” but generally the answer would be yes. Originally, Presbyterians were somewhat suspicious of overly prescribed liturgy. The classic Presbyterian “liturgy” is the Directory for Public Worship, published in 1645. Note that much of the time the Directory simply gives instructions as to the sort of thing the minister is to say. (Also note that there’s little place for congregational prayer.) In a few places, including the Eucharistic prayer, the Directory gives specific words, though even then the minister is free to say the same thing in somewhat different words. There are other Presbyterian liturgies that have more prescribed wording, but this is probably the most typical Presbyterian approach historically. In the 19th century, American Presbyterian worship became even freer in many places, along the lines of other American evangelical churches. However, as I said, the 20th-century liturgical movement has influenced a lot of mainline Presbyterians, not to speak of the small conservative bodies that are trying to create a reformed version of medieval liturgy.

A word about this liturgical movement–it was an ecumenical movement in which Catholic and Protestant (and to some extent Orthodox) scholars went back to the early Church and looked for the basic elements of liturgy. Dom Gregory Dix’s The Shape of the Liturgy was particularly influential, though some of his claims would be challenged today. (Dix was an Anglican, and Anglicans, as the “bridge church,” played a major role in the liturgical movement, as of course did Catholics.) The liturgical movement was the major influence leading to Vatican II’s declaration on the liturgy and to the changes in the liturgy that followed. Many traditional Catholics complain that these changes made the Catholic liturgy “Protestant,” without apparently recognizing that similar changes at the same time were making mainline Protestant worship more “Catholic.” (I’m not sure that this fact would appease traditionalist Catholics, but it’s still worth noting!)

Edwin

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The reason I ask is because of this picture of an interfaith service held here in Tucson following the shootings that occurred.

http://www.newvisiononline.org/february11/feb11imgs/healing-meeting-084.png

from left, Rev. Sue Westfall, a Presbyterian minister, Rev. Jan Olan Flaaten of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas and Bishop Kirk Smith of the Episcopal Diocese of Tucson.

I seem to be having an issue with the choice of dress that is being worn. The alb and stole are normal for the two bishops, the other two should be wearing what they were when they minister in their Churches, instead it appears that they are wearing albs and stoles with the stoles being supplied by the Diocese of Tucson, this “interfaith” service as the Diocesen newspaper calls it was held at one of the Diocese’s parishes.

Really this should be called an ecumenical service as they are all the same faith, Christian.

For those who do not understand, the alb is proper to all baptized christians as it is our baptismal garment, the stole reserved for the priesthood.

Maybe I am becoming more “traditional” in my out look.

 

[Publisher]

I have attended a few Presbyterian worship services…it reminded me of the Methodist service…or the United Church of Christ service…there were formal prayers…liturgical responses…gospel readings and singing. At the end of the service the Creed was recited along with the Lord’s Prayer…there was no eucharist or communion at the few services I’ve attended.

The minister did have a stole and gown he wore…the Methodist minister wore a stole and gown as well.

 

[jwright82]

Traditional Reformed worship is liturigical in that we practice the regulative principle. Basically it gives us an ordered biblical liturgy by only allowing what scripture commands in worship. Obivously there is some debate but one thing is for sure we, orthodox presbyterians, do not allow women as elders, deacons, or ministers.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Traditional Reformed worship is liturigical in that we practice the regulative principle. Basically it gives us an ordered biblical liturgy by only allowing what scripture commands in worship. Obivously there is some debate but one thing is for sure we, orthodox presbyterians, do not allow women as elders, deacons, or ministers.

So you do not consider the Presbyterian Church USA to be orthodox presbyterians?

What group is considered orthodox presbyterians and do they wear stoles?

 

[jmcrae]

Do they wear stoles?

They often wear black professorial gowns. The number of stripes on the sleeve signifies their level of education - three stripes signifies a Doctoral degree in theology; two stripes signifies a Master’s degree in theology.

Do presbyterian have a liturgy?

Traditionally and historically, they follow the order of Matins in the Divine Office, with the reading of several scripture passages, interspersed with the singing of various Psalms suitable for the liturgical season, and with suitable hymns at the beginning and end of the service, as well as following the sermon. The sermon follows the main Scripture reading, which is often taken from the Old Testament. The Lord’s Prayer concludes the prayers of the faithful.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

They often wear black professorial gowns. The number of stripes on the sleeve signifies their level of education - three stripes signifies a Doctoral degree in theology; two stripes signifies a Master’s degree in theology.

Also the length of the sleeves in involved with this. This is academic dress, we wear it at our Graduations.

 

[Contarini]

So you do not consider the Presbyterian Church USA to be orthodox presbyterians?

What group is considered orthodox presbyterians and do they wear stoles?

There is actually a denomination called the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. They left the northern Presbyterian denomination in the 1920s or 30s. (The northern and southern Presbyterians later united, and another conservative group, the PCA, split away from the southerners–the PCA is now the largest conservative Presbyterian group, I believe.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

There is actually a denomination called the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. They left the northern Presbyterian denomination in the 1920s or 30s. (The northern and southern Presbyterians later united, and another conservative group, the PCA, split away from the southerners–the PCA is now the largest conservative Presbyterian group, I believe.)

And the Liturgy stayed the same? That must have changed also then, no?

 

[ChadS]

I know among Methodists a robe and stoll is the normal dress for ministers while officiating at a service, although this dress isn’t strictly required. I knew a minister that wore the robe and stoll maybe twice a year, and the minister at my parent’s church now wears it every Sunday. So perhaps among the Presbyterians a robe and stoll would be normal dress.

ChadS

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I know among Methodists a robe and stoll is the normal dress for ministers while officiating at a service, although this dress isn’t strictly required. I knew a minister that wore the robe and stoll maybe twice a year, and the minister at my parent’s church now wears it every Sunday. So perhaps among the Presbyterians a robe and stoll would be normal dress.

ChadS

Thanks for the attempt to help but Methodists are Wesleyan (part of the Holiness movement) and Presbyterians are Calvinists (part of the Reformed movement).

I would assume anything about them being alike.

 

[ChadS]

Thanks for the attempt to help but Methodists are Wesleyan (part of the Holiness movement) and Presbyterians are Calvinists (part of the Reformed movement).

I would assume anything about them being alike.

Thank you, I do understand that part, but I was thinking of Presbyterians and Methodists are generally considered part of the mainline denominations in Protestantism, to differentiate them from the independants and fundamentalist denominations. But, perhaps I’m mistaken on that too. I also think that Methodists seeking to enter the ministry of the UMC can do at least part of their seminary training at Presbyterian seminaries.

ChadS

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I haven’t been in a Presbyterian Church since 1992, and unless I have to attend a wedding, funeral or whatever, i won’t be going back there either.

So anything I might say is outdated. However when I was in the Presbyterian Church (Queensland, Australia), the pastor always wore his clerical garb - black or grey shirt and trousers and “dog collar”, whether he was in church or not. Occasionally I’d see him without the collar. That was his version of going casual.

I’m not sure what the others wore. I think some of the older ministers dressed likewise, but amongst younger ministers there may be a trend to more casual wear.

I remember someone asking him why he always wore the traditional outfit. His response was that “So people know what I stand for”.

I suspect the stole, alb or whatever in the picture at the ecumenical service above was on loan for the occasion. And I don’t think it’s particularly important what they wore. At least it gave some dignity and solemnity to the occasion.

 

[Contarini]

And the Liturgy stayed the same? That must have changed also then, no?

Presbyterians have not been uniform in liturgy for a long time, so that wasn’t an issue.

The OPC is pretty traditional (in a Presbyterian sense) liturgically, from what I’ve heard. In other words, they would have elements such as the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, and they would have a lot of long, pastoral prayers, some of which might be partly or wholly fixed. They wouldn’t, I think, be influenced by the liturgical movement.

The PCA also seems less influenced by the liturgical movement than the mainliners. I’ve been to three PCA churches that I can think of–one in Elizabethton, Tennessee where I grew up, and two in Durham, NC where I went to grad school. The two churches in Durham were at opposite ends of the PCA spectrum–one was basically free-church evangelical in worship, though they did have the Apostles’ Creed and Lord’s Prayer if I remember rightly; the other one (a little store-front church that few people knew about) sang only psalms, the women covered their heads, and the pastor clearly taught the Real Presence in a Calvinist sense (i.e., believers are truly receiving the Body and Blood of Christ).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for the attempt to help but Methodists are Wesleyan (part of the Holiness movement) and Presbyterians are Calvinists (part of the Reformed movement).

I would assume anything about them being alike.

As Chad said, mainliners have converged increasingly over the past century or so, and the liturgical movement has accelerated this. Even theologically, Methodists and Presbyterians were already beginning to come together by the mid-19th century, and again, that’s only accelerated in the past century. Many 19th-century Presbyterians modified Calvinism to the point that it was hardly recognizable (in fact one could argue that they were more “Arminian” in some ways than traditional Methodists), and Methodists increasingly followed suit as part of their movement toward respectability (adopting the “common-sense” arguments of the “New School” Presbyterians and Congregationalists rather than the “prevenient grace” theology of Wesley himself). Someone like Albert Barnes (an eminent “New School” exegete of the early 19th century) spoke for much of American Protestantism. With the growth of liberal theology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, these convergences became more marked.

Conservative Methodists and conservative Presbyterians continue to care about the Wesleyan/Calvinist controversies (my friend Jerry Walls, for instance, is on what amounts to a crusade against Calvinism). The more liberal elements of both traditions have long ceased to care, because they are both functionally Arminian in a way that would make Wesley shudder.

(Briefly: Wesley believed that people are helpless to come to God by natural powers, but that God graciously moves everyone through “prevenient grace.” The New School Presbyterians, on the other hand, taught that everyone had a natural ability to come to God, though some of them still spoke of a “moral inability,” and I have trouble figuring out whether they were really breaking with traditional Calvinism or not!)

Edwin

 

[ChadS]

As Chad said, mainliners have converged increasingly over the past century or so, and the liturgical movement has accelerated this. Even theologically, Methodists and Presbyterians were already beginning to come together by the mid-19th century, and again, that’s only accelerated in the past century. Many 19th-century Presbyterians modified Calvinism to the point that it was hardly recognizable (in fact one could argue that they were more “Arminian” in some ways than traditional Methodists), and Methodists increasingly followed suit as part of their movement toward respectability (adopting the “common-sense” arguments of the “New School” Presbyterians and Congregationalists rather than the “prevenient grace” theology of Wesley himself). Someone like Albert Barnes (an eminent “New School” exegete of the early 19th century) spoke for much of American Protestantism. With the growth of liberal theology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, these convergences became more marked.

Conservative Methodists and conservative Presbyterians continue to care about the Wesleyan/Calvinist controversies (my friend Jerry Walls, for instance, is on what amounts to a crusade against Calvinism). The more liberal elements of both traditions have long ceased to care, because they are both functionally Arminian in a way that would make Wesley shudder.

(Briefly: Wesley believed that people are helpless to come to God by natural powers, but that God graciously moves everyone through “prevenient grace.” The New School Presbyterians, on the other hand, taught that everyone had a natural ability to come to God, though some of them still spoke of a “moral inability,” and I have trouble figuring out whether they were really breaking with traditional Calvinism or not!)

Edwin

Edwin, thanks for a great summary you provided here.

I also wanted to mention that one of the constituent churches of the UMC in America was the Evangelical United Bretheren. Where this becomes important is that when the EUBs merged in other countries, such as the United Church of Christ in Canada and a similar merger in the Phillipines some groups of Presbyterians joined right along in the merger, and all of these mergers also included local Methodist organizations too.

I think these mergers that occurred mostly in the mid-20th century are the fruit of a melding of theology among many different Protestant groups that had been happening since the early 19th century.

ChadS

 

[jwright82]

So you do not consider the Presbyterian Church USA to be orthodox presbyterians?

What group is considered orthodox presbyterians and do they wear stoles?

Any Reformed denomination that is a member of this councel, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Presbyterian_and_Reformed_Council, is a denomination that I would trust to be orthodox hands down. Here is their official website
naparc.org/.

There is another Reformed denomination out there that I consider to have abandoned their Reformed heretage, all Reformed churches in the NAPRC would agree with me, although they are conservative evangelical christians. Here is their website crechurches.org/. They basically allow what has been called Federal Vision movement as a legitemate Reformed position, Here is a website all about that federal-vision.com/. FV is basically a twisted version of Covenant Theology, that moved much closer to Rome on many key issues so any Catholic may enjoy studying it. They are considered unconfessional by all NAPRC and are being forced out so to speak, I agree with this move.

The PCUSA that you mentioned is a dead liberal denomination and not the least bit Reformed. I beleive that Catholics, CREC, and Eastern Orthodox believers are christians so I feel a need to reach out in caring yet critical engagement with them. But with liberal churchs I agree with the founder of the OPC, here is their website (I was a member of this NAPRC church for sometime, they are very orthodox) opc.org/, J. Gresham Machen that liberal christianity is not christianity at all, it is a different religion alltogether.

I am currently and for the forseeable future a member of the largest NAPRC denomination the PCA, here is their website pcanet.org/. I am currently being mentored to teach in my church, I am nervous and excited about that. Another NAPRC denomination that I have had contacts with important theologians in their churchs, but never attended, is the URCNA, here is their website service-life.com/urcna/. As far as anyother NAPRC denominations I have no personal experience with them but I would vouch for their Reformed orthodoxy. I hope that help.