Last month The North American Anglican, an online journal, published an article by Peter D. Robinson, titled, Our German Cousins: Liturgy in the Evangelical and Reformed Church. If you’ve never heard of the Evangelical and Reformed Church, that’s because it no longer exists. Its life as a denomination was exceedingly brief, lasting from 1934 to 1957—just short of 25 years. That’s not a very long time considering that some denominations have existed for centuries. The Anglican communion itself may be a 19th-century invention, but the Church of England has been around for nearly 500 years, with some arguing that it’s much older, going back to Augustine of Canterbury, the 6th-century Apostle to the English.
So what was this Evangelical and Reformed Church? It was created by the merger of two predecessor bodies, the (German) Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) and the (German) Evangelical Synod of North America. The German Reformed were the descendants of Reformed Christians who had immigrated from German-speaking Europe, especially Switzerland and the Palatinate, the latter of which was once ruled by Elector Frederick III “the Pious” (1515-1576), who commissioned the Heidelberg Catechism in 1563. The German Reformed began in 1725 and were initially under the care of Classis Amsterdam of the Dutch Reformed Church until 1793. During the late 19th century, efforts to unite with the (Dutch) Reformed Church in America were unsuccessful.
In the middle of that century, a movement was launched within the RCUS at its seminary in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, by John Williamson Nevin (1803-1886), who was later joined from Berlin by the renowned Swiss-born church historian Philip Schaff (1819-1893). Some scholars have compared the Mercersburg Movement to the Oxford Movement within the Church of England in that it represented an effort to recover the catholic roots of the Reformed Church against the popular revivalism of the Second Great Awakening, which was affecting—negatively in Nevin’s estimation—many Protestant denominations, especially as their members moved west along the advancing frontier. The Mercersburg Movement led to liturgical renewal in the RCUS, although it remained controversial, even into the 20th century, with many members believing that it imported a pronounced Hegelian emphasis on historical progress, blunting its confessional integrity and making it too willing to unite with other denominations lacking its own Reformed identity. This, of course, is exactly what happened.
The German Evangelical Synod was brought to the United States largely by immigrants from the Prussian territories following the end of the Napoleonic Wars. In 1817 King Friedrich Wilhelm III (1770-1840) of Prussia engineered a union of the Lutheran and Reformed churches in his realms, and the result was a nonconfessional amalgamation that incorporated elements of both traditions while mandating neither. Immigrants from these lands established the German Evangelical Synod of North America, which dropped German from its name in 1927. The denomination’s most famous members were undoubtedly Reinhold (1892-1971) and Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962), both academic theologians who strongly influenced the mid-century mainline Protestant consensus in the US, and, in Reinhold’s case, even American foreign policy.
In 1934 the two denominations united, creating the Evangelical and Reformed Church, while the Eureka Classis in the Dakotas remained outside and retained the RCUS label. Thirteen years later, as recounted in Robinson’s article linked above, the combined denomination published The Book of Worship. In many respects, this collection is similar to the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), containing orders for “Morning Worship, an Alternative Order of Worship, an Evening Service, The Preparatory Service, The Order of Holy Communion, and the Alternative Order of Holy Communion.” This material reflects both its Lutheran and Reformed heritage. Like the BCP it even prescribes a lectionary following the church calendar with epistle and gospel readings for each Sunday. Notably absent is a complete Psalter, although there is a list of “Proper Psalms for Seasons and Days.” Perusing this collection makes us appreciate the effort that went into it, with its evident concern to maintain continuity with the larger catholic liturgical tradition of the western church. One imagines that the brothers Niebuhr enjoyed meaningful worship Sunday after Sunday. Perhaps it would take a more in depth exploration of The Book of Worship to see whether there is a hint of what was to come, but from my own admittedly cursory examination, it looks pretty solid.
So what happened after this collection was adopted? The E&R Church lasted only another decade, and then it merged with the Congregational and Christian Churches to form the United Church of Christ (UCC), easily the most liberal Protestant denomination in the US. Bringing together the remnants of the German Reformed, German Evangelicals, descendants of the New England Puritans, and heirs of the 19th-century Restorationist movement, the UCC has steadily declined in both membership and influence. A solid liturgical document appears to have done little to prevent the combined denomination from losing its confessional integrity.
As a political scientist, I cannot resist making a comparison with nations and their constitutions. Reading a country’s constitutional document may or may not tell us how its political system works in the real world. The 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation reads very well indeed, claiming as it does to set up a democratic political system similar in many respects to that of Fifth-Republic France, with a president, a bicameral parliament, a government led by a prime minister, and a court system, along with a federal division of powers. However, a reasonably well-drafted document has not prevented a return to authoritarianism under Vladimir Putin. Why not? Largely because the architects of a constitution cannot induce in the people themselves a love and respect for the rule of law where it is absent. After centuries of failed attempts to adopt a comprehensive legal code under the tsars, followed by 70 years of arbitrary governance by the Communist Party, the rule of law has a shallow basis in the Russian political culture, despite the existence of dissidents seeking to nurture it. But no written statute can legislate respect for the rule of law.
Americans lionize their nation’s 18th-century founders, whom many believe to have created a remarkably balanced and virtually fail-safe constitution. But even the architects of the Constitution recognized that it could not work if the people would not respect it. As John Adams famously put it,
Providentially, Americans had had a century and a half of experience with representative government in their colonial assemblies, and they could readily adapt these traditions to a wider scale. In other words, despite the motto on the dollar bill, the founders were by no means creating a novus ordo seclorum, or a “new order of the ages.” They were establishing political institutions modelled on existing ones at the state level. That the American political system has been so successful for nearly two and a half centuries is testimony to an underlying respect for the rule of law inherited from English and colonial usage. If Americans lose their allegiance to the rule of law—if they begin to question, not just the wisdom of particular political leaders, but the institutions themselves—if they subordinate their respect for the Constitution to their partisan allegiances or to their loyalty to a demagogic leader promising what they want to hear, then a system once admired for its durability, will inevitably falter.
Returning to the life of the gathered church community, a denomination may boast a solid set of confessional standards and a liturgy embodying the historic faith and placing on the lips of worshippers the Psalms, hymns, and prayers of their forebears. Yet where works righteousness has replaced the unmerited grace of God—where faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ has given way to the regnant ideological visions of the day—the creeds, confessions, and liturgies become dead letters, testimonies to an earlier faithful generation whose descendants have, as it were, moved on to other things.
None of this should be taken as an argument for casting aside the creeds, confessions, and liturgies of our forebears in the faith. Quite the contrary. If ordinary Christians are giving lip service to a faith that no longer lives in their hearts, the retention of such standards may not keep them in the fold. Nevertheless, they are a necessary precondition for renewed catechetical efforts to impress upon children and youth the need to set their hopes, not in what the world has to offer, but in Jesus Christ himself. In so far as our confessional and liturgical documents testify to this hope, we should open ourselves to being taught by them and commit ourselves to living accordingly.
