The Lord’s Prayer: A Puritan’s Doorway to Traditional Liturgy (Part 1)

“Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.”

On Earth as it is in Heaven. What exactly does that mean? Of course it has an eschatological dimension. We look forward to the day when all of the earth will be subdued to Christ and His rule of law will be complete and absolute. This same dimension finds expression in the Eucharist, because our communion declares the Lord’s death, looking forward to the day when He will return in glory. At the Lord’s table we look forward to the blessed marriage supper of the Lamb.

However, like the Eucharist, these words are relevant to the Church for the here and now. If we are to continually pray “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” should we not seek to see God’s will done in the present? As the Church disciples nations, as it teaches families and individuals how to relate to one another as Christians ought, it is becoming God’s instrument for the fulfillment of this prayer in the world, one step at a time.

“On Earth as it is in Heaven.”

If this is an end toward which we have a part in working, that phrase sort of demands that we ask a question, doesn’t it? If we seek to see God’s will done here as it is in heaven, then what are we looking for?  In other words, just how is it done in heaven? Instead of writing the petition off as some vague wishful hope for a future reality, perhaps we should look at the passages of Scripture that give us lucid pictures of how things are done Heaven and . . . well, do that on Earth!

When we petition God to give us our daily bread (probable direct reference to the Eucharist aside), we do not expect God to simply drop bread out of the sky. We must work for that bread, trusting God to ultimately provide. In the same way, when we petition that God’s will might be done here as it is in Heaven, this does not mean that we ought to sit passively by just waiting for it to happen. Especially when we are given such clear visions of how it is to be done.

I suggest that the clearest view we have of the heavenly workings is in the Book of Revelation. It reveals things to us about Heaven that are only hinted at or shown in glimpses throughout the rest of the Bible, though there are many other passages that we can and should draw from to form a clear picture of what is done in heaven and how it relates to Christians in the New Covenant. And the context of Revelation is the Lord’s Day. John receives the vision as he is “in spirit.”

From that point on, the great theme throughout the book—what we see first and foremost happening in Heaven—is worship. Surely this has direct application for how our worship on Earth ought to look. When we read of the hosts of heaven—the angels, the saints, the martyrs, the elders—praising God, glorifying Christ, eating a feast, etc., we need to take note of those things. Just as importantly, we ought to take note of how they do those things. If the worship of Heaven looks like that . . . how does that inform our worship on Earth, if we pray as Christ taught us to pray: “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”?

I was planning to do this all in one post, but I think it would best be spread over several, point by point. So let this serve as my introduction. Through the next several posts in this series (or however many it takes) I want to show that if we remain faithful to our Reformed heritage of Sola Scriptura, we will find that the Biblical text not only doesn’t forbid traditional liturgies of the Church, but also properly leads us into a rich form of liturgical worship, which has been grasped and developed by the Church throughout the last 2,000 years.

And lest we get stuck in man’s tradition, we must understand that as the Spirit guides the Church to maturity, our worship should move from glory to greater glory, and our liturgy must be progressively purified, refined like gold, and brought closer and closer to that which we will be doing for eternity in the presence of Christ. This maturation has been taking place throughout the last 2,000 years, and we should expect to see it continue. God’s Spirit is not done with the Church.

Why “Eucharist”?

I can understand why some may be a bit wary of using the word Eucharist to refer to what has been called the “Lord’s Table,” the “Communion,” or the “Lord’s Supper.” After all, isn’t Eucharist a Roman Catholic term? Don’t we want to distance ourselves from doctrines like transubstantiation, the veneration of the host, and a great many other abuses of the Roman Church in history?

Well, yes, we should distance ourselves from those things. But we should not throw out what is really a Biblical name for the memorial meal that Christ gave to the Church. “Eucharist” simply means “Thanksgiving” in Greek. It is used to refer to the Lord’s Supper because at the last supper before his passion, Jesus took bread and broke it, “εὐχαριστήσας” — “having given thanks.”

In this way, Eucharist became the Church’s word to refer to the Supper, and more specifically to the Prayer of Thanksgiving itself. It is a good word, and more importantly a Biblical word. As we should strive not only for Sola Scriptura, but also Tota Scriptura, and since it is a good and Biblical tradition of the Church under the guidance of the Spirit in history, I think Reformed Christians can be peaceful about referring to Jesus’ memorial meal as the Eucharist.

There are two good reasons for calling the meal Eucharist: By calling it thus, we claim and acknowledge our historic roots in the ancient Church, and we show ourselves to be in solidarity with the saints of the last 2,000 years. And, we get to reclaim the Biblical meaning of the word, giving us an inroad to address historical abuses and misconceptions while assuring other orthodox Christians that we are, indeed, talking about the same thing.

Dos Equis Radio Commercials

I love these:

(view this first if you’ve never heard the commercials before)

When it is raining, it is because he is sad.

Even his parrot’s advice is insightful.

If there were an interesting gland, his would be larger than most men’s entire lower intestines.

His shirts never wrinkle.

He is left-handed. And right-handed.

Even if he forgets to put postage on his mail, it gets there.

He once knew a call was a wrong number, even though the person on the other end wouldn’t admit it.

You can see his charisma from space.

His beard alone has experienced more than a lesser man’s entire body.

His blood smells like cologne.

On every continent in the world, there is a sandwich named after him.

He doesn’t believe in using oven mitts, nor potholders.

His cereal never gets soggy. It sits there, staying crispy, just for him.

His pillow talk is years ahead of it’s time.

Respected archaeologists fight over his discarded apple cores.

He is The Most Interesting Man In The World.

“Does God Exist” Bahnsen vs Stein Debate at University of California, Irvine

Okay, everyone, don’t miss this! For a limited time, Covenant Media Foundation is giving away recordings of the classic debate between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein, held at the University of California (Irvine) in 1985. Here’s the link:

https://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=23

Everyone, on either side of the debate should either order the CDs or download the mp3 files, free of charge (shipping is even free). If you have ANY interest at all in the issues, you won’t want to miss hearing this one.

Dr. Bahnsen was a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, a pastor in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and had a Philosophy Ph.D. with a concentration in Epistemology from the University of Southern California.

Dr. Stein was the Senior Editor of Free Inquiry Magazine, Director of the Center for Inquiry Libraries, Consultant on the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal, Editor of the American Rationalist Magazine, God Pro and Con: A Bibliography of Atheism, and the Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism.

Both were uniquely qualified to argue their positions.

There was a slight glitch with CMF’s ordering system, which would not allow transactions of $0.00, so you now have to pay $0.01 ($0.02 if you download both parts of the mp3 version). Believe me, it’s worth every penny.

Order yourself a copy and pass the link along to all your friends!

Points of Contention

Last Sunday we had a Rev. Charles Svoboda preach at our church. He was from the IFCA, he was 87 years old, he was dispensational. He made repeated reference to the “blessed hope” and “glorious appearing” of Christ in a way that clearly referred to the Rapture, and he adamantly maintained that the world is getting worse—a sure sign of the imminent return of Jesus Christ.

Pastor Svoboda came to Christ at Cicero Bible Church in 1941, the same church where my parents’ college pastor Dr. Saxe was converted, and under the ministry of the same man. Providentially, Pastor Saxe’s son Jonathan was visiting us and our church with his family that very Sunday, and were able to meet him. We discovered that not only did Dr. Svoboda know Pastor Saxe, he had spoken to him only a few days before!

Now, I am actually going somewhere with this. Anyone who has read my articles on eschatology knows I don’t agree with the dispensational interpretation of Scripture. But as soon as this man began to speak, it was clear that he was immersed in the Bible. He had memorized these passages of salvation that he was presenting to us, the congregation, and he believed them with all his heart. As soon as he began to speak, even before I knew who he was or where he came from, I was completely at ease with him.

Because even though I may not agree with him or Pastor Saxe or any number of these people in their eschatology, I cannot help but acknowledge and respect whole lives lived for Christ, the love they have for the people of God, and the pure sincerity with which they serve the Lord. Although I continue to examine various passages and attempt to bring deeper and perhaps different meanings to light in the Scripture, I do not despise these people with whom I disagree. How can I? No Christian should despise them for the sake of their theology. They represent collectively many hundreds of years of service to God. We all can learn a lot from that.