The Reformed churches are committed to the principle that God is to be worshiped, not as his people may fancy to do so, but only as he has commanded and instructed us in his Word. As a result of this conviction Reformed Christians discuss worship in the categories of the good (what God has commanded) and the bad (everything else). Of course, the Reformed churches have always recognized that there are matters related to the worship of God that God has left to the discretion of the church. Such matters are called the adiaphora. Therefore, Reformed discussions of worship have three categories into which everything must fit: the good, the bad and the indifferent. The exact perimeters of the indifferent, however, are not a matter of indifference but are as hotly disputed as what constitutes the good and the bad. Let us give some examples. God commands us to hear his word (sermon). This is the good. God forbids us to worship him through the veneration of man-made images. This is the bad. God commands us to sing to him, but he has left the style of music to our discretion. Musical style, therefore, is a matter of indifference. Yeah, right! Actually, musical style is matter of heated controversy. So is the poetry that is to be sung. Leaving aside the good-bad issue of exclusive psalmody, there is a continuing controversy about the sort of hymns and songs to be sung in Reformed worship. As a church community we Reformed have a hard time discussing such things without beating up on each other. In part this is because of the inadequacy of the categories in which we conceptualize the issue.
Our limitation of the categories to the good, the bad and the indifferent only complicates the problem rather than clarifying the issues. This is because much that is indifferent is not really indifferent to most of us. Maybe it is indifferent to God but certainly it is not such to us. Of course, there are indifferent matters that really are indifferent. Do we begin the service a eleven or at ten-thirty in the morning? However in matters of music, poetry, prose and order of events, these adiaphora are too important to our experience of worship to be treated merely as indifferent. What we need to recognize is four categories. These are the truly indifferent, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Apologies to all you western movie fans! Now by ugly we do not mean narrowly the matter of aesthetics, but broadly the question of appropriateness. We cannot escape history and culture. Therefore we cannot ignore the issues of what is appropriate and inappropriate for a given community in terms of its history and culture. For example, chanting the psalms (a wonderful idea in the abstract) is so tied to the culture of Romanism in the minds of most Reformed Christians that the attempt to introduce it into our churches on a large scale would lead to controversy, transfers and church splits. A few of our churches have introduced chanting but they are the exception. And their experience with the reactions of visitors from other Reformed congregations testifies to the potency of culture and history. This may change over time, but in our day such is the effect of culture and history on the indifferent question of musical style. Therefore, in discussions of worship we need to address issues of culture and history.
There is more, however, to the ugly category that the effects of culture and style. There are matters that are more appropriate, less appropriate and inappropriate because of the very meaning of what is done. Here we are concerned with questions of order and form. It is not wrong to begin a service with minister saying "Good morning!" But is it not more appropriate to use a biblical greeting such as "Grace and peace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ!" "Good morning!" is not inappropriate. But it is less appropriate to the nature of the assembly being greeted and the nature of the office of the one who is extending the greeting. The worship assemble is profoundly different from a school classroom or social club. We have gathered on the Lord’s day not to hear merely that it is a good morning, but that it is a morning of grace and peace! So why not say it? Furthermore, the person greeting us is specially and distinctive entrusted with blessing the people of God. So why not do so?
It is not uncommon for it to be said that God has commanded certain elements to be included in his worship, but the order of the elements is a matter of indifference. This is a very naive view of the nature of the liturgical assembly. Meaning is communicated, at least in part, by the order in which the events occur. The order can either enhance or detract from the meaning of the elements themselves. Because the assembly has a beginning and an end, it necessarily has a movement of idea and emotional experience. There is a "dramatic" aspect to the worship assembly that is inescapable. Imagine a gathering that begins with a benediction and dismissal, followed by an offering and then a hymn of entrance such as "We come, O Christ, to you." Obviously, the benediction and dismissal by their very nature belong to the conclusion of the service. Likewise a hymn that calls the assembly to worship belongs at the beginning. This is so obvious that it is unlikely that anyone would give it a second thought. But if there is an appropriate order to these aspects of worship, perhaps the same is true for the such major elements as the scripture lessons, the sermon, the intercessions and the Lord’s Supper. Our problem in recognizing the significance of order is in part the result of our terminology. The language of "elements" suggests to us self-contained events merely strung together in some order. It is better to think of the sermon, the lessons, the prayers as aspects of a whole. They have their fulness of meaning and effect only as they are part of a unified whole. Putting the aspects of the service into the "wrong" order does not wholly destroy them or make them theologically offensive, but it does weaken their individual meaning, and even more so, the meaning of the entire service. So it seems to us that the consideration of order belongs also to the category of the appropriate.
Our goal in conducting the worship assembly should in the first place be a matter of doing the good since the assembly is to serve the Lord. But we must serve him as whole persons and so we cannot ignore what is appropriate historically and culturally speaking. We cannot ignore what is appropriate in terms of the inner meaning of the meeting we are conducting. And we cannot ignore questions of beauty (aesthetics). Our humanity will not allow us to ignore such things. But then, our humanity is the image and likeness of God. So it would seem that God too cares about these issues. We do not mean that he has legislated on them. But does he not delight when we offer him the best we can in terms of beauty and appropriateness? God in the old covenant concerned himself with such matters as the directions for the tabernacle and its implements illustrate.
In the first place our worship needs to be good (what God requires) and not bad (what God forbids). It ought not to be our invention but his instruction (regulative principle). But then in the second place we should strive to make it as appropriate and beautiful as we can. Who has not listened to a public prayer that was poorly stated and struggled to embrace the prayer rather than find fault with the form of the words? To give to God our best necessitates consideration of what is beautiful, appropriate, fitting and apropos. This must be subordinate to matters of the good and bad. What is bad is bad no matter how beautiful. The artist skill in an icon of Jesus in no way mitigates the divine displeasure that he will not be honored by kissing, bowing to or incensing man-made images. However, much that is controversial in our churches concerns (at least in part) questions of appropriateness, whether of history and culture, or of form and order, or of beauty. We need to include the category of the ugly (appropriateness) in our framework for discussing the worship assembly and its contents and conduct.
Dr. Jack Kinneer