D. G. Hart, Recovering Mother Kirk: The Case for Liturgy in the Reformed Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003).  Paper.  263 pp.  $24.99.

This book is a collection of essays that Hart wrote over the last several years on subjects related to the doctrine of the church and especially worship.  These essays appeared in various publications ranging from Modern Reformation to scholarly journals.  This means that the book on the whole has something for everyone, the layman to the learned scholar.  Hart has organized the essays into five parts: the Church’s commission; contemporary worship; office and ordinances; Presbyterian parochialism; and worship and revival.

As the title indicates, Hart makes a case for the recovery of liturgy in the Reformed tradition.  What does he mean by liturgy?  Hart writes that liturigicalism is “an understanding of Calvinism that is firmly rooted in the ministry of the church in her gathering for worship.”  The main claim of the book “is that any effort to understand Reformed doctrine, worldview, or piety in isolation from the corporate church and public worship is inherently flawed” (p. 12).  The starting point to recovery is to recognize that the Church is our mother.  It is our mother who feeds, nourishes, and helps us to grow.  Quoting Calvin, Hart writes that we must “learn even from the simple title ‘mother’ how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her.  For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels” (p. 13).  How is it that the Church, our mother, nourishes us?  Hart rightly argues that the Church nourishes the people of God through the means of grace, primarily Word and sacrament.  Unfortunately, many Reformed churches these days look not to its heritage but to the greater evangelical world to acquire new methods of doing church.  It is for this reason that Hart makes the claim that might undoubtedly raise a few eyebrows, namely that Presbyterians are not evangelical.

Hart argues that historic Presbyterianism is quite different from what flies under the banner of evangelicalism.  Because evangelicalism is an often ill-defined broad movement within American Christendom, the results are often detrimental when Presbyterians look to the evangelical world for direction in ‘doing church.’  Hart captures the difference between Presbyterians and evangelicals when he writes: “To spot an evangelical, one only need to look for someone who carries a Bible (often in some sort of canvas or vinyl cover), leaves tracts, wears some expression of devotion such as a WWJD bracelet or T-shirt, witnesses to neighbors and strangers, refrains from cursing, and avoids such delights as tobacco and alcohol (though this is changing).  In contrast, Presbyterians (along with other churchly forms of Protestants) possess a lengthy creedal statement of Christianity, and this understanding of the faith is nurtured through a distinctive form of public worship, relies on the ministry of clergy through a system of church government, and expects Presbyterian families to engage in family worship and catechesis that buttress the ministry of the church.  To be sure, this contrast may border on caricature, but it does point out the problems of asking whether Presbyterians are evangelical” (p. 243).  When we compare the diluted form of Christianity with the rich depth of confessional Presbyterianism, there is a stark difference.  Moreover, we can imagine that if we look to a diluted form of Christianity for guidance, we will not receive a biblically robust response like we would from confessional Presbyterianism.  One of the ways that Hart highlights this difference is his examination of contemporary worship practices often found in evangelical churches—soft rock music, a greater emphasis upon singing, a de-emphasis upon the preaching of the Word, and virtually a total absence of the sacraments, especially the Lord’s Supper.  Historic Presbyterianism is the direct antithesis of this, yet well-intentioned Reformed people look to evangelicalism for guidance rather than to their heritage.  This is evidence of one of Hart’s main points, namely doctrine determines the type of worship a church will have.  Consistent Reformed doctrine can only produce a robust liturgy—a heavy emphasis upon the preaching of the Word, the sacraments, singing biblically informed hymns and especially the psalms.  Hart notes the irony connected to the rejection of traditional worship in that six days a week evangelicals trumpet traditional values and the heritage of the West, such as those found in William Bennet’s Book of Virtues, but on Sunday they are the most novel.

Hart’s book may be grouped together with other books on the methods of ‘doing church.’  This book, however, is set apart from the rest of the field in that it offers no new method.  While others look for innovative and creative ways to ‘do church,’ Hart trumpets the simplicity of the directives of Scripture.  Space does not allow me to cover the other important aspects of this collection essays, such as the importance of church office or the spirituality of the church.  Nevertheless, I highly recommend this volume for anyone interested in understanding the doctrine of the church and especially what type of worship Reformed theology must produce.  As I read this book, I not only found myself agreeing with most of what the author penned but I could not help but think that this book embodies what the elders of Geneva have sought to do with the Church and its worship.  Perhaps if more people read Hart’s book the Reformed Church will stop looking to the shallow waters of evangelicalism and turn to the strong and deep currents of historic Presbyterianism.