Covenant Renewal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
What do people here think of the Covenant Renewal? I heard it in a conversation yesturday and I was like..."What does that mean?"
 
I have heard very little about it. I think Jeff Meyers wrote a book about this form of worship service.
 
Yes, Jeff Meyers has a book called The Lord's Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship. It's very thought-provoking...

His basic idea is that we need a broader, Biblical context in which to understand our congregational gathering on Sunday mornings and argues that said gathering should be viewed as a covenant renewal ceremony. I find his arguments persuasive, and his presentation very helpful in balancing God's actions and our responses, emphasizing the Trinity, and drawing together continuities in OT and NT worship. I don't think he winds up with a radically different liturgy from traditional Reformed ones, but he does put it on a stronger Biblical basis than other works, which I find tend to simply reiterate Reformed language. Some will no doubt dislike his sacrificial language (but he does, I think, make an excellent case for using it), and the third part of the book contains various essays on other aspects of worship which might be controversial--the church calendar, ministerial collars, paedocommunion...but they are all graciously presented and thought provoking, even if one does not fully agree.

A similar book is Mike Horton's A Better Way, which uses the language of drama, but gets at much the same purpose (and I think that Horton does refer to the Sunday service as covenant renewal). Meyers refers favorably to Horton's book in a footnote at one point. I'm leading a Sunday school class through Meyers' book; I chose it over Horton's because it addresses some things at a more fundamental level, like the importance of the Trinity (and because I disagree with Horton's view of the Mosaic covenant).

Hope this helps.
 
Dr. Frank Smith has a section on Meyers and this 2003 book in the second and final part of the sixty year survey of regulative principle literature which will appear, DV, in the 2007 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian.* He notes in the working draft: "As the title implies, the book represents a continuation of the James Jordan school of thought with respect to worship. However, this volume argues the case more substantively and with greater academic care than other attempts."



*Part one appears in the current 2006 issue: “The Regulative Principle of Worship: Sixty Years in Reformed Literature. Part One (1946–1999),” by Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D. with Chris Coldwell. The Confessional Presbyterian, volume 2 (2006) 89-164. This is a very substantial ariticle, and whether you agree with the outlook of the authors (strict RPW adherents), is a valuable survey of the literature that has gotten us to where we are as to a resurgence in appreciation for Presbyterianism’s historic rule of worship.
 
Our church pracitices Covenant Renewal Worship, and much of the liturgy is taken from Calvin's liturgy.

Here is what our website says:

About our order of worship:

The essence of true worship is covenant renewal.

Dialogical: Throughout the service, God speaks to us and we respond. Worship is
a conversation.

Call to worship: God calls His people out of the world to gather in His presence.
He graciously takes hold of us and brings us near to Himself. He is the God who
seeks and saves.

Confession and Forgiveness: As a people who continue to sin in this life we
become fully aware, especially in the presence of God, of our great guilt and
therefore we confess ourselves sinners and look to Christ alone for the ground of
our salvation. In worship we do this both privately and corporately. Those truly
repentant in faith receive the forgiveness of God.

Consecration: God speaks to us through His Word read, sung and preached. We,
His people, respond by giving ourselves and our gifts in Christ as offerings. We
attend to the preaching of God's Word as if Christ Himself were speaking to us
in everything the pastor speaks that is consistent with the Scriptures. It is in the
preaching that we hear the Gospel. The good news of God's sovereign Grace in
Christ.

Communion: God invites us to commune with Him and our brethren at His
Table, and we respond by remembering His covenant and enjoying His faithful
provisions at the sacramental meal. It is in the Lord's Supper that we see the
Gospel.

Commission and Benediction: God blesses us and charges us to extend His
kingdom into the future and into the world. We are dismissed from God's special
presence, renewed and equipped for this task.

Here is a sample bulletin for an example of our liturgy.
 
What do people here think of the Covenant Renewal? I heard it in a conversation yesturday and I was like..."What does that mean?"

I don't think that everyone means the same thing by it.

In the Federal Vision context it goes with the monocovenantalism. There is only one covenant. Adam broke it, then it was renewed. Sin breaks the covenant and then it has to be renewed. Both through Biblical history and today the covenant is broken and renewed over an over.

The problem with this is that, since indwelling sins is expressing itself with great frequency, the covenant gets broken faster than it can be renewed. So we get a doctrine something like the Roman Catholic venal vs. moral sin, which for the FV is high handed vs. inadvertent sin. The high handed sin is the real covenant breaker.

Then you get the idea that there has to be a weekly covenant renewal, with a priest mediating for the people and then sacraments. The don't offer up a sacrifice of the mass every Sunday like the Roman Catholics, but the priestly renewal of the covenant perhaps is analogous.

Other people (and I think this is most people who do it) don't pile all this bagage on it, but how much there is of a particular, but different theology that underlies the other covenant renewals, I don't know. I think, though, that there should be a very clear understanding why they do it.

But, for sure, there needs to be a lot more thinking and discussion about this concept.
 
With Mendehall, Kitchen, and many since, Meredith Kline has written about the idea of "covenant renewal." As has been said it is an idea that can be used in a variety of ways. It depends on what one's covenant theology is.

The difference between Myers and Horton being that Myers uses the covenant renewal metaphor in a FV context and Horton uses it in the context of a more traditional 3 covenant scheme (incfluenced by Kline and others) where covenant renewal is understood as a matter of gratitude for grace given and righteousness imputed rather than as part of our cooperation with grace in order to retain baptismal benefits.

I'm not imputing (no pun intended) the whole FV scheme to his book. Myers himself, so far as I know, hasn't been as explicit about his commitment to the FV, except that it should be tolerated (witness: PPT). He has, however, on his staff one of the most ardent proponents of the FV in North America, Mark Horne which presumably says something about his own commitments.

I know that Danny Hyde has read Myers' book with profit but one would want to make use of his insights taking care to place them in an orthodox context.

rsc
 
I don't know what the substance of the movement is so I don't reject it in toto but the superficial amount of stuff I've seen on the internet seems like Anglican/ romish ceremonialism, such as repeating a responsorial prayer and ritualisticly ingesting the host every week.
 
Covenant Renewal is a fact in biblical history. It is sacerdotal in ecclesiastical worship. I forget who pointed this out to me, but the reformed "liturgy" is concerned with gospel proclamation from the call to worship to the benediction.

Pastor Winzer, I'm not sure I follow. When you have the opportunity, could you please flesh out your thoughts on this a bit more for us slow to comprehend folks?

I suppose my main question regarding Covenant Renewal worship is where in the N.T. do we find any hint that the Covenant of Grace is in need of weekly renewal?
 
Thank you Pastor Winzer.

Your explanation makes sense to me and corresponds to many of the concerns I have after reading some of the material. It has been my understanding that historic Reformed worship has been characterized by the preaching of the word being the preeminent element in our services and this is reflected in the architecture of our churches. If that’s true, then it seems to me that shifting to a service where the Lord's Table becomes the primary element of worship seems to me to be loaded with all sorts of troubling theological implications (like the ones you mention.)
 
Last edited:
Pastor Winzer, I'm not sure I follow. When you have the opportunity, could you please flesh out your thoughts on this a bit more for us slow to comprehend folks?

I suppose my main question regarding Covenant Renewal worship is where in the N.T. do we find any hint that the Covenant of Grace is in need of weekly renewal?

A clear, concise explanation lies in "God of Promise" by Mike Horton.

Understanding what "covenant" means in Scripture is the place to start. Instead of couching it as "covenant renewal worship" think of it more like what is God's design for worship and covenant relationship in Scripture?

Here is an excerpt of a classic Reformed Liturgy/Communion prep:

Beloved in the Lord: Our blessed Savior Jesus Christ, when he was about to finish the work of our redemption by making himself a sacrifice for our sins upon the cross, solemnly instituted the Holy Sacrament of his own body and blood; that it might, together with the Word and by the power of the Holy Spirit, become a means through which Christ could feed his sheep during their earthly sojourn. He was crucified only once, but the effects of that atoning death are ever-new and through this Holy Sacrament we receive that which is promised in the Word, if we receive it with true faith.

That same night in which we was betrayed, he took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "Take eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me." After the same manner also he took the cup, saying, "this cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

It has not been without reason, therefore, that the celebration of the Lord's Supper has ever been regarded by the church as the inmost sanctuary of the whole Christian worship. We have to do here, not with outward signs only, nor with mere symbols. For in this sacred meal, the purpose is not to merely remember but to receive the effects of Christ's sacrifice for us. The cup of blessing which we bless, says Paul, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16)? Therefore, says the Apostle, we must examine ourselves so that we do not eat and drink judgment. If you are in open rebellion against God and have not exercised saving faith and repentance, we ask you to refrain from exposing yourself to divine wrath. But for all who trust in Jesus Christ and own him as prophet, priest and king, this table is spread for you. Do not think that your sins which you have confessed and your failings that so disturb your conscience must keep you from this feast. For it is given to us because our faith is weak and our growth in godliness is often frustrated by our disobedience. Eat and drink, to your eternal comfort. ......

More here:

http://www.christreformed.org/resources/liturgy2.shtml?main

Robin ;)
 
Last edited:
I don't know what the substance of the movement is so I don't reject it in toto but the superficial amount of stuff I've seen on the internet seems like Anglican/ romish ceremonialism, such as repeating a responsorial prayer and ritualisticly ingesting the host every week.

The movement (FV) is similar to Romanism in its emphasis on priests and ritual, but it is different in its theory of how this ritual produces its results.
 
Last edited:
Miscellany

I've read Myers' book, and I don't recall anything in it about "part of our cooperation with grace in order to retain baptismal benefits," so I'm not sure why Dr. Clark is using that particular Roman terminology.

I don't see how repeating a responsive prayer is necessarily Romish or Anglican, as Mr. Gray claims, nor am I clear on why he uses the heavily laden language of "ritualistically ingesting the host" rather than some more neutral terminology that does not prejudice the case against covenant renewal as Romanism.

Mr. Winzer, I don't see how the descriptions of covenant renewal worship lead to sacerdotalism or ceremonialism. Referring the entire liturgy to proclamation eliminates any actual response or participation by the congregation, besides the more passive one of listening, and a passive congregation is more medieval Roman than Reformed. Covenant renewal seems to be a balanced way of including God's actions and our responses in the service.

Covenant renewal does not make the LS the "primary" element of worship. Meyers' does say that it is the climactic one, but in context this is because God, having forgiven our sins and spoken to us in the gospel, now invites us to accept the work of Christ and to eat with Him in restored fellowship because of that work.

Many contributors to this thread seem to be making a false dichotomy between the Word and the sacraments, as though an emphasis on the latter excludes attention to the former. I'd recommend they review the tradition again.
 
Just thinking out loud here. We can't deny that covenant renewal occured in the Old Testament. We see it in Joshua, Solomon, Josiah, and Ezra/Nehemiah for sure. But they were renewing the old covenant because they were unfaithful and unable to keep the covenant. Christ then comes fulfilling the covenant obligations for us. The covenant has been kept and completely fulfilled completely for us. If covenant renewal was necessary because of the failure of Israel, for covenant renewal to continue that would seem to imply to me that Christ as our prophet,preist, and king has somehow failed. Where does the New Testament ever describe our worship as covenant renewal? I thought we were under a better covenant now? :2cents:
 
I am by far no expert on the subject, but I understand the CR (at least as we preform it) as renewing the CoG. The minister acts as God's representative adminstering God's word to the congregation, the promises of the gospel, and the people respond with praise and thanksgiving for the forgiveness we receive week by week. We confess our sins and promise to walk in his statues as he has given them. I think it has to do more with "What are we doing WHEN we worship?" rather than how to actually worship.

Maybe I am oversimplifing the subject, but that is how I see it. As a principle, I don't necessarily see a problem, but the application can be tricky for me. Still learning.
 
Mr. Winzer,

I'm not sure I understand your emphasis on covenant renewal being part of the historia as opposed to the ordo. Is worship part of the ordo salutis? I'm not sure I see how that would be the case.

It doesn't seem to me that Christ renewed the covenant, but rather that he established it by his truly efficacious sacrifice. If he were simply renewing a covenant, it wouldn't really be new and accompanied with an entirely new administration, would it? The argument of Hebrews seems to indicate that what Christ established by his sacrifice was a truly new covenant administration. Thus, simply renewing the covenant would not interfere with the one-time sacrifice of Christ.

I think I am right in inferring that you hold covenant renewal to be closely connected with sacrifice? Meyers points out that the sacrificial language is not only referring to Christ's work on our behalf, but also to our response, including contrition (cf. Ps. 51:16-17), giving up ourselves in gratitude (Rom. 12:1), and praising him (Heb. 13:15). So, we are still called to offer sacrifices, but the way we do so is different. Thus, why cannot New Cov't renewal be different, i.e., unbloody, precisely because of the finished atonement? And we now no longer need a series of mediators (as Mr. Severson points out), but rather we have one and the same mediator, because he has been raised and entered the heavenly tabernacle.
 
Hebrew 9 juxtaposes Christ's sacrifice with the sprinkling of the people by Moses in Ex. 24, which was the establishment of the old cov't, seeming to indicate that the greater sacrifice and cleansing established the new and better cov't, just as the lesser sacrifice and cleansing established the old and outmoded one. The new cov't and the the old cov't here are also clearly administrative cov'ts, not substantive ones (i.e., CoG and CoW respectively), since what is in view is the gracious aspects of the Mosaic law (cf. WCF 7.5).

Also, covenant renewal does not always require sacrifice: there is no explicit mention of sacrifice, for example, in Josh. 24, and in Ezra 3, there is no sin offering mentioned, only the ascension (or burnt) offerings, which point chiefly to fellowship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top