Timeline

• 1842: The publication of "The Anxious Bench" by Rev. J.W. Nevin, D.D., sparked a reaction that led to a renewed interest in the historical character and distinctive features of the German Reformed Church, contrary to a growing Revivalistic movement in the US.

• 1847-1849: Initiation of Liturgical Reform: The German Reformed Church began official steps toward liturgical reform. The Synod of Lancaster (1847) referred the subject of liturgy revision to its Classes, and the Synod of Norristown (1849) appointed a special committee, including Nevin, Schaff, and Bomberger, to prepare a new Liturgy, ideally modeled after the Old Palatinate Liturgy of 1563.

• 1850-1851: Early Delays and Leadership Change: The committee, initially chaired by Nevin, faced delays, reporting in 1850 that it was "not expedient as yet to go forward with the work". Nevin resigned the chairmanship in 1851, and Philip Schaff was appointed in his place.

• 1852: Broadened Scope and Baltimore Report: Under Schaff, the committee broadened its research to include "liturgical literature of ancient and modern times," including pre-Reformation works, indicating a departure from the original instructions. Their report to the Synod of Baltimore (1852) proposed a Liturgy based on the "Primitive Church" (including 3rd and 4th centuries) while also referencing 16th-century Reformed Liturgies. The Synod adopted this report and allowed for a specimen Liturgy to be printed.

• 1857: Publication of the Provisional Liturgy: The committee completed its initial work, publishing "A Liturgy, or, Order of Christian Worship". The Synod of Allentown (1857) permitted its optional use for trial, but did not formally endorse or adopt it as an authoritative standard.

• 1860-1861: Calls for Revision and Committee Disunity: After a few years, the Provisional Liturgy proved "unmanageable" for many due to its length and complexity, leading to widespread calls for revision. The Synod of Easton (1861), after receiving feedback from various Classes, instructed the committee to undertake a final revision, incorporating suggestions like diminishing responsive features and modifying doctrinal expressions.

• 1862: "The Liturgical Question" and Indefinite Postponement: Irreconcilable differences regarding revision principles emerged within the committee. The majority, led by Nevin, published "The Liturgical Question," which condemned free prayer and advocated for highly responsive ritualism. The Synod of Chambersburg (1862) ultimately decided to indefinitely postpone the revision, citing weariness of debate and potential commercial difficulties with the Provisional Liturgy's publishers.

• 1863-1864: Renewed Mandate: The Triennial General Synod (1863) recommended the Eastern Synod resume revision, leading the Synod of Lancaster (1864) to re-appoint the original committee for the task.

• 1866: Publication of the Revised Liturgy (Order of Worship): The committee completed their revised work, presenting it to the Synod of York (1866) as "An Order of Worship for the Reformed Church". J.H.A. Bomberger, the sole dissenting member of the committee, formally stated his opposition, arguing the work was "revolutionary" and departed from the true German Reformed tradition.

• 1866-1867: Synodical Non-Endorsement and Escalating Opposition: The Synod of York (1866) did not formally approve the Revised Liturgy, instead referring it to the General Synod and allowing only optional use. At the General Synod in Dayton, the liturgical discussion highlighted deep theological differences. Bomberger continued his vehement opposition to the Revised Liturgy, arguing it threatened the Church's identity, leading him to establish a new theological journal and college.

Evaluation

Key Issues

Bomberger and the Ursinus party did not oppose the concept of liturgical revision, they disagreed with the particular changes brought by Nevin. These include:

• Removal of extemporaneous prayer

• Overuse of congregational responses

• Shift from a "sermon-centered" to an "altar-centered" form of worship

To oversimplify: Schaff and Nevin wanted an early church, catholic liturgy. Bomberger wanted an update of the Palatinate liturgy.

Straw and Steel-manning

It is sometimes helpful to imagine the most extreme and most mild form of each side in a debate.

• To overstate Nevin's angle, the reformation was mistaken and its liturgical forms should be undone. This direction leads to Rome.

• To overstate Bomberger's angle, reformation worship is perfect. Everything before and after should be amended back to that standard. This direction leads to restorationism.

• To understate Nevin's angle, we may incorporate a few facets of worship in the early church on an optional basis.

• To understate Bomberger's angle, reformed (esp. Palatinate) worship distinctives should be generally retained when refining the liturgy.

Drawing Conclusions

A survey of the Nevin-Bomberger tract war seems to imply that Bomberger was right. Nevin and his team seem to have gone outside their mandate to update the Palatinate liturgy, and he does not really deny it. Nevin instead appeals to the nature of liturgy and the character of the church catholic. To put words in his mouth, "Yes, we changed it. No, you didn't ask for this - but the change is good." In hindsight, and from an admittedly superficial level, it would have been better to revise the Palatinate liturgy as requested, then also engage in an academic liturgical exercise without the political complications of the national church.

If Bomberger overstated anything, I think it is in an over-narrow definition of "reformed." The term "altar" instead of table, the language of "sacrifice" in the service of the Lord's Supper, and hearty use of congregational responses are not absent from the reformation era. Nevin did not help his case by appealing to the early church instead of the reformation, but in my outsider opinion, Bomberger may have been advised to appeal to his own venerable tradition instead of what counts as "reformed."

Remembering the Stakes

It is easy to imagine why the issue was so heated, and why the sides were so inclined. Philip Schaff remains the single most important patristic scholar in American history. Historians are naturally more interested in the subject of their research than the wider public, so Schaff and Nevin would be inclined to incorporate the findings of their historical research. Such a change would indeed upset the historic character of the German Reformed liturgy with its genesis in the Palatinate Church Order of 1563. As they say, lex orandi lex credendi. If the prayers and worship of the church are shifted, the beliefs and identity are too. We should expect this identity to be all the more cherished for a minority ethno-religious group such as the German Reformed in America.

What should then be done? When a local church burns down, a new church is built that usually looks nothing like the old one. When Notre Dame was burned down, all of France promised to riot if it wasn't rebuilt exactly as it was. I think a 300 year old liturgy is more like Notre Dame than it is like a local church.