John Calvin’s Theology of Worship: Intentions, Achievements, Limitations, and Contemporary Implications

Abstract

This study challenges familiar readings of John Calvin’s theology of worship by reframing it through the lens of contemporary liturgical theology. Rather than offering a purely historical account, it probes Calvin’s intentions, achievements, and limitations, with particular attention to the formative interplay between lex orandi and lex credendi. Drawing on Calvin’s writings, liturgical texts, and patristic sources, the analysis highlights his Christological and pneumatological grounding, his integration of Word and Sacrament, his pastoral flexibility in applying the regulative principle, and his creative retrieval of ancient liturgical practices to encourage active congregational participation. At the same time, the article identifies tensions within Calvin’s approach, including the risk that doctrinal oversight may constrain liturgical vitality and contribute to an overly intellectualized understanding of worship. By juxtaposing Calvin’s historical context with contemporary ecclesial realities, the study offers both a critical reassessment and a constructive proposal: to reclaim God-centered, Scripture-shaped worship while cultivating the adaptive balance that Calvin himself sought to model. In this way, the article rearticulates the significance of Calvin’s legacy for the theological integrity and missional vitality of worship in the twenty-first century.

1. Introduction

The sixteenth-century Reformation was, above all, a reform of worship; ecclesial reform began with liturgical reform. As the well-known adage lex orandi, lex credendi suggests, worship is not merely a matter of form or practice, but a formative reality that shapes doctrine and profoundly influences the spiritual formation of believers.1 For this reason, theological reflections on worship and the sacraments became central themes beneath the surface of the theological disputes among leading Reformers such as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and John Calvin. The outcomes of these debates were recorded in their theological treatises, articles, and letters, leaving a significant impact on the churches and believers of their time (Gibson and Earngey 2018, pp. 35–46).

Even five centuries later, the theological and practical legacies of the sixteenth-century Reformation continue to influence Reformed and Presbyterian churches, especially in the realm of worship theology and liturgical practice. Yet it remains challenging to move beyond the doctrinal boundaries and biblical interpretations laid out by the Reformers. In many Reformed and Presbyterian contexts, theological reflection often proceeds with a strong sense of continuity with the Reformers’ legacy. As a result, new interpretations or critical reassessments of the Reformers’ theology of worship have sometimes been relatively limited, especially when compared with developments in contemporary liturgical theology. This tendency is also evident in studies of worship theology. Those nurtured within Presbyterian or Reformed traditions often assume they already possess a firm grasp of the Reformers’ theology of worship. Consequently, further scholarly inquiry in this area is often dismissed as redundant or unfruitful. To be sure, numerous historical and systematic theologians have produced substantial works and articles on the worship theology of various Reformers.

What, then, might we discover if we reassess the Reformers’ theology and practice of worship not primarily through historical or dogmatic lenses, but through the liturgical-theological framework that has developed—particularly in North America—since the 1960s? How might our evaluation change if we take seriously the formative power and the logical priority of liturgical practice?

This article seeks to examine the intentions, accomplishments, and limitations of the theology of worship in the work of one of the most prominent Reformers, John Calvin—a figure we often assume we already know well. Calvin, as a second-generation Reformer, was deeply familiar with the worship theology and sacramental views of both Luther and Zwingli. During his exile in Strasbourg, he engaged closely with Martin Bucer, from whom he further developed his liturgical theology. These experiences profoundly shaped his own contributions to the liturgical theology and practice of the Reformed tradition (Thompson 1961, p. 166). Calvin’s impact on the theology and practice of worship in Presbyterian and Reformed churches has been immense (Lanning 2008, pp. 231–32). A focused study of Calvin thus provides a valuable window into the broader dynamics of Reformed worship theology as shaped by multiple figures of the Reformation era.

Through a close engagement with Calvin’s writings on worship, this study investigates what he intended through his reform of worship and liturgy, what he actually accomplished, and where his limitations lie. In doing so, it seeks to draw constructive implications for the worship of the Korean Presbyterian Church today, five centuries after the Reformation, especially as it continues to pursue Reformed theology and practice.

2. Background to Calvin’s Theology of Worship

In order to grasp the formation and central ideas of John Calvin’s theology of worship, three key aspects must be considered: the historical context of the sixteenth century, Calvin’s hermeneutical perspective, and his theological disposition toward worship seeking understanding.

2.1. The Sixteenth-Century Context and the Influence of Martin Bucer

The context of the sixteenth-century Reformation can rightly be described as a battlefield, marked by relentless polemics in which theological disagreement was perceived as a matter of truth itself. A multitude of theologians relentlessly asserted their interpretations of Scripture and theological convictions, believing these to be matters of truth itself. Consequently, the atmosphere of the time was marked by polemic and conflict. Central to these numerous debates were issues concerning worship and the sacraments. At times, compromises were achieved, but often, like parallel lines that never meet, opposing parties maintained irreconcilable stances and condemned one another.

Within this contentious landscape, Calvin stood out for his deliberate liturgical moderation, pursuing a via media—a middle way that neither underestimated nor overestimated the external elements of worship (Selderhuis 2007, p. 205). This balanced disposition was evident in his efforts to bridge theological differences with the Zwinglians during the drafting of the Consensus Tigurinus. It also surfaced in his polemics with both the Anabaptists and the Roman Catholic Church. Calvin consistently demonstrated a tendency to avoid extremes, instead seeking theological balance and coherence.

This is particularly evident in his understanding of the sacraments. Unlike some of his contemporaries, Calvin did not view the external signs of the sacraments as problematic in themselves. In the Institutes of the Christian Religion, he wrote:

“The term ‘sacrament’, in the view we have hitherto taken of it, includes, generally, all the signs which God ever commanded men to use, that he might make them sure and confident of the truth of his promises…If he had impressed memorials of this description on the sun, the stars, the earth, and stones, they would all have been to us as sacraments. For why is the shapeless and the coined silver not of the same value, seeing they are the same metal? Just because the former has nothing but its own nature, whereas the latter, impressed with the public stamp, becomes money, and receives a new value. And shall the Lord not be able to stamp his creatures with his word, that things which were formerly bare elements may become sacraments?

(Institutes, 4.14.18)

According to Calvin, anything God chooses to use can become sacramental. As Donald Baillie has noted, Calvin is not referring here to sacraments in the strict and technical sense (Baillie 1957, p. 45). Nevertheless, it is striking that Calvin’s reflections may be seen as anticipating what would later be articulated as a “sacramental universe” by the Orthodox liturgical theologian Alexander Schmemann (Schmemann 2002, pp. 11–22). Calvin suggests that while material things are not inherently imbued with mystical power, they may acquire sacramental significance through divine appointment and public reception. In this way, Calvin offers a third path between the extremes of Zwinglian memorialism and Roman Catholic sacramental realism. In debates over the efficacy of the sacraments, for example, he proposed a balanced view that recognized both the objective self-giving of God’s grace and the subjective response of the recipient (Moore-Keish 2008, p. 35).

Such theological posture reveals Calvin’s deep connection with Martin Bucer’s liturgical theology. When comparing their writings, significant similarities emerge regarding their theology of worship, their views on the sacraments, ordo, and elements of worship. Liturgical scholar William Maxwell observed that Calvin deviated little from Bucer and that he structured his Genevan liturgy largely on the 1537 Strasbourg liturgy (Maxwell 1982, p. 112). Many of the core liturgical prayers used in Geneva—including prayers of confession, illumination, intercession, and Eucharistic thanksgiving—were directly adapted from Strasbourg (Maxwell 1982, p. 115).2 This borrowing can be traced back to Calvin’s exile from Geneva, during which he ministered to the French-speaking congregation in Strasbourg while Bucer served the German-speaking congregation. Their close relationship had a profound impact on Calvin’s formation in liturgical theology and practice.3 On his deathbed, Calvin explicitly acknowledged this influence: “As for the Sunday prayers, I used the Strasbourg form and borrowed the greatest part from it” (Calvin, Farewell Address to the Ministers, CO 9:894).4

2.2. The Influence of Calvin’s Hermeneutical Perspective on His Theology of Worship

John Calvin’s exegetical principle of brevitas et facilitas—brevity and clarity—became a hallmark of his hermeneutical method and had a significant influence on his theology of worship. In discussing Calvin’s commentaries, Richard Gamble, drawing on scholars such as Parker and Battles, notes that “Calvin kept his style of teaching simple” and that “his commentaries were written so that even dull students might understand” (Gamble 1985, p. 3). This hermeneutical commitment decisively informed his liturgical theology. Bard Thompson went so far as to identify simplicity as the hallmark of Calvin’s liturgical policy (Thompson 1961, p. 194). Calvin sought to remove external rites that might draw attention away from the centrality of the Word in worship (Institutes, 4.17.43). For Calvin, this simplicity was tied to the fidelity and spiritual potency of the gospel (Calvin 2005f, pp. 76–78).5 Calvin argued that excessive ceremonies oppress the church and deprive it of the presence of Christ (Calvin 2005d, 1:162). In this context, Calvin emphasized that prayer and praise should arise from sincere devotion, engaging the mind and heart of the worshiper (Institutes, 3.20.31–32). This theological conviction led Calvin to simplify the physical worship space, the liturgical calendar, and the excessive ceremonial elements of Roman Catholic worship.

For example, he reconfigured ornate worship spaces and furnishings so that they would serve the clear proclamation and reception of the Word. Altars were replaced by pulpits; visual emphasis gave way to an auditory orientation, with careful attention paid to seating and acoustic design. The church calendar, overflowing with feast days and commemorations, was also revised. While maintaining a Sunday-centered worship rhythm, Calvin streamlined the liturgical year to include only a few major festivals—such as Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost. He also simplified clerical vestments and ceremonial actions (Johnson 2010, pp. 145–46). Clearly, Calvin’s hermeneutical principles deeply influenced both his theology and practice of worship.

2.3. Worship That Seeks Understanding

One of the major factors behind Calvin’s theology of worship was his critique of certain liturgical practices within the medieval Church. Worship was typically conducted in Latin rather than the vernacular—a practice that remained standard in the Roman Catholic Church until the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Worship was also driven by a hierarchical model centered on the priest, thereby limiting the laity’s active engagement. As a result, laypeople were denied the joy of understanding and growing through worship, and they had few opportunities for meaningful participation. Within this context, Calvin sought to promote a form of worship that enabled the congregation to understand and participate more consciously in the liturgy.

On the eve of the Reformation, regular preaching was not always a central element in many local parish contexts. Sermons were occasionally heard in the afternoon prone service—a Word-centered gathering—but these were typically based on lectio selecta (selected readings), with limited access to the Old Testament. Congregational singing was virtually nonexistent, having been taken over by professionally trained monastic choirs. Prayer was rare, and lay participation was minimal. The Mass was largely unintelligible to the people, and the Eucharistic cup was withheld from the laity (Johnson 2010, pp. 123–24).

Faced with this situation, Calvin reflected deeply on how the congregation could actively participate in worship, understand its elements, and grow into mature Christians. To this end, he presented a reformed order of worship and restored congregational singing—an act that returned the practice of praise from professional choirs to the people (Institutes, 3.20.31). Still, reforming the hearts and habits of people who had been shaped by centuries of Roman liturgical tradition proved difficult. Records from the Geneva Consistory reveal how difficult it was to address people’s continuing attachment to Roman Catholic devotional practices, including prayers to Mary, the use of rosaries, and the recitation of Latin prayers. In some cases, individuals were reported for traveling to nearby towns to attend Roman Catholic Masses before returning to Geneva—cases for which they were summoned by church authorities (Kingdon 2004, pp. 209–20). These records illustrate the challenges involved in introducing Reformation patterns of worship to a population that had long been shaped by earlier liturgical traditions (Karant-Nunn 1997). To transform both the understanding and practice of worship among the members of the Genevan church, Calvin not only emphasized participation in worship and catechesis but also relied heavily on the cooperation of the Geneva Consistory to implement his reforms with vigor.

A vivid account survives from a Roman Catholic observer describing worship in the Genevan church, shedding light on the worship environment and atmosphere of the time:

“It is just like being inside a school. There are benches everywhere, and a pulpit in the middle for the preacher. Before it are low benches for women and small children; and around them are higher ones to seat the men, with no difference of status. The stained glass windows are just about all knocked out, and the plaster dust is up to their ankles… As soon as the preacher appears, they all get on their knees except for him, who stands while he prays, his head uncovered and his hands joined, and he makes up a prayer from his imagination, which he ends with the Lord’s Prayer and without the Ave Maria, all in French, and the people reply softly: so be it”.

(Benedict 2004, p. 492)

Reflecting on such worship environments, liturgical historian James White characterized Calvin’s liturgy as “prolix and verbose.” In particular, White observed that “much of the instruction is addressed to the Almighty in the form of prayer intended to be edifying to the congregation.” He noted Calvin’s strong pedagogical impulse, suggesting that “each service contains a condensed course in theology and ethics.” White argued that this intellectualized approach became a lasting feature of Reformed worship (White 1989, p. 65). A review of the surviving liturgies and ritual texts from Calvin’s Geneva indicates that such criticisms cannot be entirely dismissed. Nevertheless, Calvin’s historical and pastoral context helps explain these liturgical choices. When one examines the intentions and principles behind Calvin’s theology of worship, it becomes clear why he structured worship the way he did.

3. The Intentions and Principles of Calvin’s Theology of Worship

Calvin’s views on worship must be understood not only through his Institutes of the Christian Religion but also through his commentaries, letters, treatises, and liturgical writings, including his worship directory (Witvliet 2003, p. 129). While his perspectives are scattered across various writings, they are unified by several central themes, which can be summarized as follows.

First and foremost, Calvin consistently emphasized that worship begins not with human action but with divine initiative. In worship, there are two movements: as James Torrance notes, “a God-humanward movement” and “a human-Godward movement” (Torrance 1996, p. 32). Liturgical theologians have emphasized that the act of God precedes, both theologically and logically, any human confession or response (Segler 1996, p. 47; Nissiotis 1963, p. 201). In other words, worship begins not with human effort but with God’s self-revelation and self-giving.

This theological pattern also applies to Calvin’s sacramental theology. In debates about the sacraments, two contrasting positions emerge: one that gives primacy to God’s act of self-giving, and another that emphasizes human confession and vows. The latter is exemplified by Zwingli, who viewed the sacraments as akin to a soldier’s oath of allegiance, emphasizing human declaration and commitment (Zwingli 1953, p. 131). In contrast, Calvin insisted that worship must begin with the act of God, who reveals and gives Himself to us.

According to Calvin, fallen humanity is incapable of offering right worship on its own (Institutes, 1.4.1). Right worship must therefore begin with God’s self-revelation, which is ultimately realized in the giving of Jesus Christ (Institutes, 2.12.1). Here, Calvin’s theology of worship exhibits a clear Christological emphasis: because Christ is the very image and substance of God, we come to understand and worship God rightly only in and through Christ (Institutes, 3.20.17). Moreover, this is made possible through the power of the Holy Spirit, who unites us to Christ and enables us to partake in His benefits (Institutes, 1.13.14). Calvin thus presents worship as the result of the triune God’s prior initiative.

Calvin emphasized that God Himself initiates and leads worship, and he focused on the means of grace that God has provided. In this sense, the elements of worship may be understood as grounded in God’s prior initiative and gift. In his Foreword to the Psalter, he writes: “Now there are in sum three things which our Lord has commanded us to observe in our spiritual assemblies, namely, the preaching of his Word, the public and solemn prayers, and the administration of his sacraments (cf. Acts 2:42)” (Calvin 2016, p. 144).

Accordingly, preaching, prayer, and the sacraments are not merely human expressions, but are grounded in God’s prior act of self-giving. God’s act of self-giving precedes and enables our response of thanksgiving. When discussing sung prayer—namely, praise—Calvin explicitly affirms this conviction: “No one is able to sing things worthy of God unless he has received them from him.” (Calvin 2016, p. 146).

3.1. Reforming Worship Through the “Regulative Principle”

One of the most prominent principles in Calvin’s theology of worship is that worship must be grounded in Scripture. Calvin acknowledged that human beings possess the seed of religion in their hearts, but he denied that this naturally leads to the right worship of God (Institutes, 1.4.1). Because remnants of superstition persist in the human heart—which he described as a veritable factory of idols (Institutes, 1.11.8)—Calvin was deeply skeptical of human nature and feared that sin could corrupt true worship. To preserve the purity of God’s Word, Calvin sought to minimize human additions in worship (Billings 2007, p. 45).

In his treatise The Necessity of Reforming the Church, he wrote:

“I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion that cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, “Obedience is better than sacrifice.” …Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere “will worship” is vanity.”

(Calvin 1954, pp. 128–29)

This passage clearly reveals Calvin’s commitment to worship that is faithful to the Word of God. This commitment later came to be known as the regulative principle of worship. Calvin’s theological descendants, particularly the Puritans, emphasized this principle strongly, arguing that only those elements explicitly commanded or instituted by God could be included in worship. However, scholars such as Charles Gore have noted that Calvin’s position can be understood more broadly. As Gore puts it: “For Calvin, then, the requirement could be described quite simply as whatever is consistent with the Scripture. That is not the same as the Puritan whatever is commanded by Scripture.” (Gore 2002, p. 89). This differs from the stricter Puritan position, which permitted only what Scripture explicitly commands. Thus, Calvin did not advocate a form of rigid Biblicism, but rather emphasized that worship should conform to the principles and spirit of Scripture.

Calvin’s flexibility is also evident in his comments on churches with different liturgical practices. He maintained a clear principle of forbearance regarding rites that did not affect the substance of faith, urging that excessive rigidity or stubbornness over ritual matters should not disrupt the unity of the Church (Calvin 1876, vol. 15, cols. 78–80, XV:78–80). This demonstrates Calvin’s capacity to recognize the legitimacy of diverse liturgical expressions, so long as they upheld the essentials of biblical doctrine and Christian confession.

3.2. Rediscovering Worship’s Core Through Patristic Wisdom

Calvin did not construct a reformed liturgy ex nihilo, but worked deliberately within inherited theological and liturgical traditions. In addition to Martin Bucer, he was influenced by earlier Reformers such as Luther, Zwingli, and Farel. A shared feature among these figures was their supreme regard for Scripture, together with a sustained theological attentiveness to how Scripture had been interpreted across the history of the Church. They turned to the tradition of the early Church—deemed the most trustworthy witnesses to biblical authority—and studied its origins in search of theological guidance (Hyde 2009, p. 189).

Hughes Oliphant Old, one of the most prominent Calvin scholars of the twentieth century, pursued his doctoral studies at the University of Neuchâtel in Switzerland under the guidance of leading Reformed liturgical scholars such as Jean-Jacques von Allmen and historian Willy Rordorf. There, he produced his seminal work, The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship, which, as the title suggests, meticulously explores the influence of the early Church Fathers on the liturgical thought of the Reformers (Old 1975). By placing Reformation texts in sustained conversation with patristic sources, Old demonstrated that the Reformers’ liturgical judgments—often framed as purely “biblical”—were also shaped by concrete historical precedents within early Christian worship.

Calvin and other Reformers are often understood to have adopted the pattern of lectio continua—continuous reading from Scripture—which was a feature of synagogue worship and early Christian practice (Johnson 2010, p. 125). They found support for their liturgical reforms in the writings of Origen (c. 185–c. 254), Augustine (354–430), Chrysostom (347–407), and Jerome (c. 343–420). Precedents for extemporaneous prayer were found in Justin Martyr’s First Apology and Hippolytus’s Apostolic Tradition. Calvin’s practice of public confession of sin can be traced to the Didache, and while he followed Farel directly in adopting the Sursum Corda, some argue that this practice ultimately stems from the Apostolic Tradition (Hyde 2009, p. 211). Furthermore, he drew justification for the use of psalm singing from patristic sources such as Tertullian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, Basil, Ambrose, and Chrysostom (Witvliet 2007, pp. 3–10). His views on catechesis before baptism drew from Ambrose, and his sacramental theology often cited Augustine (Johnson 2010, p. 126).6 In support of the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper, Calvin cited multiple early Church documents in the Institutes (4.17.44–46). He also compared the Reformers’ efforts to restore the pure preaching of the Word to the labors of Chrysostom, Basil, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine (Calvin and Sadoleto 1976, pp. 62–63).

The Reformers turned to patristic commentaries not merely to enrich their own interpretation of Scripture, but because they regarded the Church Fathers as credible witnesses to the truth (Old 1975, p. 233). In 1542, Calvin titled his liturgical manual The Form of Church Prayers and Hymns with the Manner of Administering the Sacraments and Consecrating Marriage According to the Custom of the Ancient Church. This title alone reveals the formative role patristic tradition played in shaping his theology of worship. In the preface to the 1536 edition of the Institutes, Calvin also responded to accusations that the Reformers had disregarded the Fathers: “But we do not despise the fathers; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval. Yet we are so versed in their writings as to remember always that all things are ours” (Calvin 1995, p. 6).

By studying the exegesis and writings of the Church Fathers, Calvin sought to recover features of worship that had been lost during the Middle Ages—namely, simplicity, clarity, and the resulting purity. In this way, he aimed to structure worship in a manner that harmonized doctrine and liturgy in accordance with the ancient Church.

3.3. Affirming the Latent Liturgical Value of Connecting Inner and Outer Worship

Calvin is often assumed to have held a fundamentally negative view of liturgy and “ceremony.”7 However, Calvin’s liturgical reform was not a call for the abolition of liturgy itself, but rather a corrective to the abuses of liturgical excess in public worship (Witvliet 2003, p. 127). His goal was not to abolish ritual but to renew it (Old 1975, p. 24).

Calvin’s theology of worship may be characterized by his consistent insistence upon worship that is both “faithful” and “spiritual,” arising from the heart. (Calvin 2005a, p. 233). Yet this does not mean he was disinterested in liturgical form or concerned only with the “ministry of the Word” (Kingdon 1999, p. 276). On the contrary, Calvin sought to balance Word and Sacrament, and he viewed the external means of liturgy as instruments of spiritual formation (Calvin 1954, p. 191). He believed worship necessarily required form and that outward expression was not superfluous. Calvin once stated: “The inward worship of the heart is not sufficient, unless external profession before men be added. Religion has truly its appropriate seat in the heart: but from this root, public confession afterwards arises, as its fruit.” (Calvin 2005b, p. 354).

He insisted that inner sincerity must be expressed and embodied through outward confession. A similar sentiment appears in his commentary on Psalm 95:6:

“We are also to observe, that mention is made not only of inward gratitude, but the necessity of an outward profession of godliness. The three words which are used imply that, to discharge their duty properly, the Lord’s people must present themselves a sacrifice to him publicly, with kneeling, and other marks of devotion.”

(Calvin 2005c, p. 35)

Calvin’s theology of prayer also reflects his broader view of liturgy. He observes that bodily postures—such as kneeling or uncovering the head—have traditionally been understood as outward expressions of reverence toward God (Institutes 3.20.33). While Calvin did not reject such external expressions per se, he was adamant that they possessed no intrinsic efficacy. As he explains, “God did indeed give a visible sanctuary as a true sign of His presence, but not in order to bind the senses and thoughts of His people to these earthly elements. Rather, He intended that such outward symbols serve as ladders by which the faithful might ascend to heaven” (Calvin 2005c, p. 122).

For Calvin, outward elements were accommodations to human weakness (Calvin 1926, vol. 5, p. 261). He believed that God enables believers to perceive spiritual realities through physical forms (Calvin, p. 118). In worship, believers offer praise and thanksgiving to God as expressions of reverence. These practices serve as auxiliary aids that direct the heart toward God. Through such liturgical actions, both body and spirit are formed (Calvin 1954, p. 127). Yet Calvin also warned against excessive liturgical display and undue reliance on external forms, emphasizing that outward display without inward sincerity leads to hypocrisy.

Calvin’s liturgical theology was concretely implemented in his 1540 French liturgy at Strasbourg and his 1542 Geneva liturgy. These included prayers of confession, declarations of pardon, and the inclusion of the Decalogue. In the 1540 Strasbourg liturgy, the Ten Commandments were sung metrically, and each stanza concluded with the Kyrie eleison. The liturgy also featured prayers for the Spirit’s presence, a call to worship, the Aaronic blessing, and a rich Eucharistic order that included the words of institution, the breaking of the bread, distribution of the elements, Eucharistic prayers, and the singing of the Apostles’ Creed during the preparation of the bread and cup. Notably, the Creed served as a bridge—both a faithful response to the Word and a declaration of readiness for the sacrament (Gibson and Earngey 2018, p. 304).

In Calvin’s liturgical practice, one perceives not only his theology of worship but also a profound awareness of the formative power of liturgy—so much so that he may rightly be considered, in modern terms, a liturgical theologian.

4. Calvin’s Achievements and Limitations in Worship Theology

Through his reform of worship, John Calvin profoundly influenced not only the ecclesial context of his time but also the theology and practice of worship in the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions to this day. From the perspective of contemporary liturgical theology, it is significant to explore both what Calvin accomplished and what he failed to achieve.

Rather than merely recounting the historical contributions of a leading sixteenth-century Reformer within the Protestant tradition, it is far more fruitful to reassess Calvin’s theology of worship from a broad scholarly lens—one that draws upon the diverse trajectories of liturgical traditions, encompassing both theology and practice. Such an approach not only offers a more objective perspective but also addresses the urgent need for advancing Presbyterian worship today.

4.1. Calvin’s Contributions

First, Calvin successfully critiqued and corrected many of the corrupt liturgical practices of the Roman Catholic Mass through his reform efforts (Cammenga 2010, pp. 8–14). He presented clear and theologically rigorous criteria for true worship, grounded not only in Scripture but also in sound doctrinal reasoning. His reform was a direct product of the Reformed Church’s biblical insight and theological renewal. For Calvin, theological reform necessarily entailed the reconfiguration of worship (Johnson 2010, p. 136). From the standpoint of liturgical theology, Calvin’s approach could be described as evaluating the law of prayer (lex orandi) through the lens of the law of belief (lex credendi) and then reshaping liturgical practices accordingly.

Second, Calvin sought the harmonious integration of Word and Sacrament, emphasizing both as essential means of spiritual formation and growth. It is often assumed that Calvin aimed to replace the sacramental worship of the medieval church with a Word-centered model (Maxwell 1982, p. 112). While it is undisputed that Calvin restored the centrality of the Word, he also regarded the visible Word—namely, the Sacrament—as indispensable to the believer’s formation. For Calvin, the Sacraments were ceremonies through which “God is pleased to train his people, first, to excite, cherish, and strengthen faith within; and, secondly, to testify our religion to men.” (Institutes, 4.14.19). Although he did not succeed, Calvin persistently advocated for weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Why did he do so? Renowned Calvin scholar Lee P. Wandel explains Calvin’s intent as follows:

“One was not made completely one with Christ in a single communion; one was made completely one’ over time, through the interdependent activities of the Holy Spirit: preaching and the Supper.” (Wandel 2006, pp. 171–72) This analysis reveals that the dynamic of repetition—Word and Sacrament working together—was central to Calvin’s vision of worship and faith formation, producing a synergistic transformation of understanding and being.

Third, Calvin endeavored to foster the active and conscious participation of the congregation in worship. He transformed practices such as congregational singing—formerly reserved for clergy or choirs—into expressions accessible to all. Worship was conducted in the vernacular; instead of repeating Latin prayers memorized in childhood, believers were guided to pray in French (Kingdon 2004, p. 212). Hearing sermons in one’s native tongue, singing the Psalms aloud with full bodily engagement rather than passive listening, and meaningfully reciting the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles’ Creed—all enabled the faithful to participate in worship with heightened attentiveness and intentionality.

Significantly, one of the core principles of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, is the “conscious, active, and full participation” of the faithful (Flanery 1975, pp. 16–17). Calvin’s liturgical vision shows striking similarities to later liturgical developments in other Christian traditions, including the emphasis on the conscious and active participation of the faithful articulated at the Second Vatican Council.

Fourth, Calvin’s liturgy demonstrates a distinctive emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit. Drawing from Guillaume Farel’s liturgy, he adopted the phrase Sursum Corda (“Lift up your hearts”), which appears at the beginning of worship (Gibson and Earngey 2018, pp. 196–211). With this exhortation, the worship leader directed the congregation to lift their hearts to God, framing worship as an act offered to the Father through the merit of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Calvin’s liturgical texts frequently contain epiclesis—invocations of the Spirit’s grace—signaling that worship begins with a call for the Spirit’s enabling presence.

Both prayer and preaching in Calvin’s liturgy begin with petitions for the Spirit’s guidance, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are likewise infused with invocations of the Spirit’s active work. Why did Calvin place such emphasis on the epiclesis within the structure of worship? Clearly, he believed that worship must be permeated by the Spirit’s presence. Since worship originates not in human initiative but in God’s calling and activity, it is only through the Spirit’s work that worship becomes truly effectual (Old 2003, p. 421).

Fifth, Calvin made significant contributions to the recovery of congregational psalmody.8 Even before the publication of the Genevan Psalter, he worked steadily toward this goal. The French Evangelical Psalm Book of 1539 contained thirteen metrical Psalms by Clément Marot, to which Calvin added five more—Psalms 25, 36, 46, 91, and 138—in metrical form. He also appended the Kyrie eleison as a refrain to the Ten Commandments, along with the Song of Simeon and the Apostles’ Creed, thus broadening the scope of liturgical song. These selections reflect Calvin’s liturgical sensibility. For example, the Song of Simeon and Psalms 113 and 138 may have been associated with Communion and post-Communion thanksgiving, while Psalm 25 and the Ten Commandments likely followed prayers of confession (Old 1975, p. 89). Calvin’s choices reveal careful attention to the placement of songs within the liturgical order. In the preface to the Genevan Psalter, Calvin articulated his theology of hymnody, insisting that sacred song must be holy, pure, and edifying to the faithful. Influenced by Augustine, he emphasized that music should be weighty and solemn, never frivolous or irreverent (Maag 2015, pp. 145–46). This reflects his theological emphasis on reverence in worship (Johnson 2010, p. 144).

Sixth, Calvin’s liturgical use of the Ten Commandments following the prayer of confession and the assurance of pardon exemplifies his liturgical sensibility and creativity. The way in which the Decalogue is employed within the worship service suggests that Calvin was influenced by Martin Bucer (Van de Poll 1954, p. 35). In Bucer’s practice, the Ten Commandments were associated with the sequence of confession; however, Calvin—reflecting his theological understanding of the tertius usus legis—placed the Decalogue immediately after the declaration of pardon. For him, the Law was not a burdensome demand to be fulfilled for salvation, but a joyful norm of life for those already redeemed. A notable difference between Calvin and other Reformers lies in his practice of singing the Ten Commandments during worship (Maag 2015, p. 69). From the congregation’s perspective, the experience of weekly engagement with the Decalogue—whether through repetitive catechetical reading or through singing—would have been quite distinct. Admittedly, the sequence of confession, declaration of pardon, and singing of the Ten Commandments may have rendered the early part of the service lengthy and overly penitential in tone. Nevertheless, such a structure likely inspired the faithful to live according to God’s Law with the joy of the redeemed.

Finally, Calvin’s reform of worship revealed remarkable liturgical flexibility and pastoral wisdom in navigating conflicts and disputes. For instance, although Calvin strongly advocated for a robust declaration of pardon—modeled on Bucer’s Strasbourg Psalter (1539) and John Oecolampadius’s Form and Manner (1525) (Thompson 1961, pp. 171, 213)—the Geneva city council forbade ministers from proclaiming absolution directly. Rather than insisting on his preference, Calvin yielded to their decision. Nevertheless, the Strasbourg edition of his Form of Prayer (1545) retained the declaration of pardon, reflecting his enduring conviction (Thompson 1961, pp. 191, 198). Calvin clearly envisioned a formative structure in which the confession of sin, assurance of pardon, and the singing of the Ten Commandments together shaped the faith of the worshiping community. Yet he avoided unnecessary conflict and demonstrated pastoral prudence. Likewise, although Calvin regarded weekly Communion as central to worship and faith formation, he accepted the council’s decision to limit its celebration to four times a year. Even then, he encouraged the various congregations in Geneva to stagger their observance dates, offering a creative solution that minimized contention. Calvin’s inclusive attitude and liturgical adaptability offer enduring lessons for theologians and pastors seeking to reform worship today with both theological integrity and communal sensitivity.

4.2. Calvin’s Limitations

Despite the remarkable achievements of John Calvin detailed above, several limitations emerge when his theology and practice of worship are examined through the lens of liturgical theology.

First, from the perspective of the dynamic relationship between lex orandi (the law of prayer) and lex credendi (the law of belief)—a foundational principle in liturgical studies—Calvin’s liturgical theology reveals a potential tension. In certain respects, doctrinal formulations (lex credendi) risk exerting undue constraint upon the concrete practice of worship (lex orandi). Early twentieth-century discussions among theologians such as Alexander Schmemann, Aidan Kavanagh, and Geoffrey Wainwright offered valuable insights into the interplay between doctrine, worship practice, and the disciplines of systematic theology and liturgical studies. Since doctrine arises from the lived experience of worship, worship should be granted a certain primacy; at the same time, worship must also be examined and refined through sound doctrine (Wainwright 1980, pp. 257–58). This mutually organic and balanced relationship forms the basis for theologically faithful and vital worship. However, when doctrinal correctness exercises excessive control over liturgical practice, worship can become rigid and fossilized.

While sound doctrine serves a positive role in safeguarding the theology and practice of worship, when participants are overly absorbed by cognitive formulations alone, worship risks losing vitality and dynamism. Such a fixation may lead to stagnant traditionalism that prematurely defines the boundaries of its own growth and creativity.

Of course, Calvin’s historical context and pastoral challenges must be considered. Many congregants under his care remained deeply influenced by Roman Catholic theology and ritual practice. Within this pastoral environment, Calvin was compelled to dismantle ingrained habits of thought and behavior actively. Compared to some of his successors in the Reformed tradition during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—who often exhibited rigid and austere attitudes toward worship and the sacraments—Calvin himself was relatively flexible, pastorally adaptable, and open to dialogue. Though the term did not exist in his time, he may rightly be described as a liturgical theologian in the modern sense.

Another limitation worth noting lies in the Reformers’ emphasis on reason, instruction, and correct knowledge—a response to the ecclesial situation of the sixteenth-century Reformed churches. As a result, even during the act of worship, leaders often engaged in extensive verbal explanations to instruct the faithful. This tendency led outside observers to perceive Reformed liturgies as unduly verbose or overly intellectualized. At times, these theological teachings were conveyed in the very form of prayers addressed to God (White 1989, p. 65).

This pedagogical impulse is clearly evident in the first Genevan order of worship, published in 1542 under the title Form of Church Prayers with Manner of Administering the Sacraments and Consecrating Marriage according to the Custom of the Ancient Church. This liturgy includes an expanded version of the Lord’s Prayer accompanied by commentary, and the section on the Lord’s Supper explains what the sacrament is, what its purpose is, and what its essential meaning entails. Calvin adds exhortations for worthy participation. Even after the prayer of invocation, the minister would proceed to explain how Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper, warn against unworthy reception, emphasize the necessity of faith in Christ’s promises, and remind the congregation that Christ makes them partakers of His body and blood (Calvin 1961, pp. 197–98).

These theological explanations undoubtedly helped worshipers better understand the structure and elements of the liturgy and, through such understanding, grow in spiritual maturity. Yet, from a liturgical-theological standpoint, the lengthy verbalizations by the leader could disrupt the natural flow of worship and lead participants to adopt a more passive posture.

Many Reformed worship services have been criticized for fostering a passive atmosphere in which the congregation engages in listening and sitting rather than active participation. Such shortcomings may help explain why, despite the theological soundness and solemn gravitas of Reformed worship, it has at times struggled to achieve broader accessibility, public appeal, and the full missional impact inherent in truly vital worship.

5. Implications for the Contemporary Church

If John Calvin were to observe contemporary Christian worship today, his theological insights would likely raise critical questions about its orientation and practices. The theological wisdom and practical insight he imparted through his theology and practice of worship continue to bear profound implications—even five centuries later. These implications may be explored on two levels.

First, Calvin’s theology of worship challenges the modern church—steeped in consumer-centered mindsets—to recover a God-centered and Scripture-rooted approach to worship. The contemporary worship movement, which gained global momentum beginning in the 1960s through the praise and worship movement and the megachurch phenomenon in the American West, emerged from an earnest desire to experience God more intimately and urgently (Ruth et al. 2016, pp. 3–11). It proved highly effective in reaching the unchurched and contributed significantly to church growth, eventually shaping worship practices worldwide (Ruth and Lim 2021, pp. 311–13). From a liturgical-theological standpoint, this movement reinvigorated the flow of liturgical elements and encouraged more active and engaged participation among worshipers, reducing the prevalence of boredom and passivity (Ruth 2020, pp. 3–12). However, in the effort to maintain such flow, many essential elements of worship were either diminished or omitted, offering little toward the long-term spiritual maturation of believers. More fundamentally, its structural predisposition to cater to the preferences of participants has contributed to the formation of a consumer-oriented religious culture. (Moon 2016, pp. 51–52).

In the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, many believers were compelled to worship online to avoid infection. In doing so, they encountered a variety of digital worship offerings from churches and ministries around the world, which encouraged patterns of selection shaped by personal taste in sermons and musical styles. Much like what James K. A. Smith has analyzed as the liturgical practices of the mall, churches today increasingly function as providers of religious content to consumers who roam in search of tailored experiences (Smith 2009, p. 23). Amid such trends, worship planners and worshipers alike seem to have forgotten why we worship and where our worship ought to be directed. In this context, Calvin’s emphasis on God-centered and Scripture-based worship calls us back to the core of worship itself. We must continually examine and reform our worship—not based on shifting preferences, but in light of Scripture and the broader theological vision of Christian worship. It is a call to theological and liturgical integrity.

Second, Calvin’s theology of worship challenges the heirs of the Reformed tradition—those prone to theological rigidity—to pursue a more flexible and balanced theological perspective. As discussed earlier, Calvin’s successors often applied worship principles with more conservative and stringent rigor than Calvin himself. For instance, while Calvin upheld biblical worship grounded in Scripture, he also explored the practices of the early Church. He introduced the use of the Kyrie eleison in response to the Ten Commandments and included the Nunc Dimittis prior to the benediction—liturgical features not explicitly mandated in Scripture. Many of his successors adopted a narrower view that only elements explicitly mandated by Scripture could be used in worship (Gibson and Earngey 2018, p. 306).

Calvin’s theology of the Lord’s Supper also reflects a balanced perspective rather than an extreme stance. His understanding of the efficacy of the Eucharist masterfully holds in tension the objective and subjective dimensions of the Sacrament. Navigating between the Roman Catholic view of ex opere operato and rationalistic subjectivism, Calvin insisted that God’s grace does not depend on the state of the recipient, while also affirming the necessity of faithful confession (Institutes 4.17.33).

Calvin’s view of spiritual presence presents a creative synthesis that transcends the deficiencies of both Zwinglian symbolism and Lutheran realism. While opposing transubstantiation, Calvin affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Supper. Yet he resisted any reduction of this presence to a purely spiritual participation, stating, “I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood.” (Institutes 4.17.7).

In the nineteenth century, this position became the subject of intense debate between Charles Hodge and John Nevin of the Mercersburg School. Hodge accused Calvin of mystical inconsistency, claiming, “While Calvin denied the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist… yet he affirmed that they were dynamically present… He held, therefore, that there was something not only supernatural, but truly miraculous, in this divined ordinance.” (Hodge 2008, p. 628). Hodge emphasized human reason and sided with Zwinglian memorialism (Hodge 2008, pp. 637–38). Nevin, on the other hand, insisted that Calvin’s Eucharistic theology, which focused on the mysterious presence of God, should not be reduced to mere memorialism. He argued the Sacrament “is a real communion with the Word made flesh; not simply with the divinity of Christ, but with humanity also; since both are inseparably joined together in his persons.” (Nevin 1966, p. 58). This debate reveals the diversity of Eucharistic interpretations within the Reformed tradition. It also highlights Calvin’s role as a theological mediator, whose position made sustained theological conversation possible even amid fierce opposition.

Calvin’s theological posture thus offers an important corrective to contemporary Reformed communities inclined toward extreme exclusivism. Statements such as “Anything outside of this is not Reformed worship” or “This alone is true Reformed worship, and the boundary must never be crossed” can hinder the growth and transmission of the Reformed liturgical heritage. Such rigid positions often result in exhausting internal debates, transforming worshipers from joyful participants into critical evaluators.9

As Martha Moore-Keish, a prominent liturgical theologian in the Presbyterian Church (USA), has noted, “We need not adopt all of Calvin’s liturgical reforms; they were, after all, particular to that time and place, and merely to imitate his practice is hardly faithful to a tradition that proclaims semper reformanda” (Moore-Keish 2017a, 2017b). Faithfulness to the Reformed tradition, therefore, requires more than the mere replication of past practices. Rather, we must reflect deeply on how the Reformed tradition can be faithfully developed and renewed for the twenty-first century.