Right this minute, I'm finding myself missing the good old days of having all the answers spelled out for me. Want to know what sort of church to join? Well, do they follow the WCF and the Regulative Principle? Ah, but there's the rub --- I knew people who argued about and broke fellowship over the correct way to apply the RGW.
But it's not just the Regulative Principle that I'm oddly nostalgic for...
The truth is that, for me, certain forms of legalism will always beckon me, sort of like the leeks of Egypt beckoned the Israelites. Would I give up freedom for leeks? Would I give up freedom for having all the answers spelled out for me, for knowing what to wear every day, for having a small but safe fellowship based on similar "convictions", for being so all-fire sure of myself?
Some days I am just so tired.
And that's the problem, you know. I'm the one who is trying to do all this, trying to work through it, trying to figure it out, trying, trying, trying. I need to look to Him, the One Who has set me free. He didn't set me free to set me adrift. He set me free in order that I might live for Him. Not for principles, not for rules, not for a lifestyle --- but simply to live for Him.
Oh dear, do you think the regulative principle is legalism, too? (fretting)
ReplyDeleteEven when I wrote the post, I was hoping no one would think it was a blanket indictment against the RP.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think that sometimes the application of it can be legalistic, narrow, and culturally insensitive. For example, are we really supposed to use only the musical instruments mentioned in Scripture? Are we not to use any instruments because they are not mentioned in the New Testament? Are microphones really displeasing to God if used during a sermon? Is it better that the hard of hearing NOT be able to hear the Word? Are we to sing only Psalms from Scripture, or are hymns permissible? How do we know that anything written in the past two or three centuries violates the RP? I could go on and on.
The RP is, of course, a manmade principle and construct. While I want a church to conduct itself in a Biblical manner, I no longer examine this through the lens of my understanding of the Regulative Principle.
But I don't think considering the RP makes one a legalist.
Is the RPW legalistic? That depends on which EPW you are referring to. I call the RPG the "Heinz-57" principle, since there are so many varieties of it -- each claiming to be THE biblically true one.
ReplyDeleteIsit the dhurch-of-Christ RPW? Or the OPC one? Or the Covenanters' one? Or maybe none of them is correct. How can we know, since ALL of them are based on scripture twisting and logical inconsistencies.
Evey RPW I have examined so far IS legalistic -- and always will be, because of certain fatal flaws in the reasoning underlying them.
Mike, you lost me with EPW and RPG.
ReplyDeleteBut your point is valid --- how are we to know which is valid? And I'll take your word about them being legalistic; I haven't studied the whole issue enough, so I was commenting mostly on the often legalistic interpretations/applications.
Sorry about that. I was trying to type on the laptop, with not much of a lap! And I didn't have my glasses, either -- so it's really a miracle that I got anything right!
ReplyDeleteWell, it's a principle, and I am content with it being that.
ReplyDelete"That which is not required by God in the public worship is forbidden."
(that's how I'd phrase it)
I think it keeps us largely on the straight and narrow. I know there are some harder questions. I guess that's what elders are for. They are, after all, part of the regulative principle, too!
I have never heard of anyone utilizing the RP to object to lights, microphones, or anything that helps those in need of aid. I think that's a bit of a straw man.
Glad I'm not finding myself sitting uncomfortably in a legalist camp! I think the RP is biblical and keeps us from a lot of errors.
"I think the RP is biblical and keeps us from a lot of errors."
ReplyDeleteWhich one? Everyone thinks her own version of the RP is "biblical" -- which is what I said. But none of them is based on biblical teaching, or even on biblical "principles."
The scriptures put forth as "support" have to be twisted like a pretzel to make them work, and there are many examples in scripture that refute the claim that "whatever is not commanded is forbidden."
There is an RPW in scripture, but it ain't what all the RPW folks say it is.
Rebecca, even in my most extreme days, I thought the RPW was legalistic. BUT, I can so relate to your post. When I get something in the mail that beckons me back to being under the Law, I am sorely tempted to throw it all in. I went to the mall the other day and there was a vendor selling the remaining pieces of our Passover set of dishes. I lingered at that table for a long time, wishing I could go back, but knowing I can't.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if we always be drawn to where we came from, Rebecca? I am going to a church tomorrow that is almost exactly like the one that just kicked us out. I wonder if I am just asking for trouble, but I long for the familiar. Everything is so off-balance lately.
One more thought about having rules to guide us, Rebecca. I longed for the rules and Mike kept telling me to leave them alone. A friend finally told me that the Law is a book (tutor) for babies who don't know how to choose for themselves. When we grow up, we don't need that baby book anymore. Now I know why Mike kept telling me to just grow up!
ReplyDeleteMike asks, "Which one? Everyone thinks her own version of the RP is "biblical" --"
ReplyDeleteI haven't visited terribly many churches, but I'll toss a few things out there-
interpretive dance? I saw that at a Baptist church I visited once. I don't see that commanded for the public worship, although I am aware that David "danced before the LORD," I still don't see any verse where we are told to do so.
substitution of communion elements?
children's church dismissals?
fund raising drives?
"Come, let us reason together, according to the Scriptures."
If God shows in His Word that He is holy, and that He is particular about how He is approached in worship, I think it is reasonable for us to believe that His Word would make His desires clear to us. Otherwise are we not perceiving of Him as arbitrary or capricious?
Jen mentions "choose for themselves" as opposed to subjecting herself to Biblical law. I can't go along with that. I understand her desire to toss out those "commandments of men" that were taught to her as if they were "commandments of God."
But He does have a standard for our behavior, and it is His word. I don't think we can just "look within" and decide for ourselves what is right or wrong. How can we, if we are sinners?
To quote Francis Schaeffer, How shall we then live? According to Biblical law? Or according to our own? Surely God's law has a place in the Christian walk. I understand it is not our Savior, but is it not a standard of behavior?
Marie wrote:
ReplyDeleteMike asks, "Which one? Everyone thinks her own version of the RP is "biblical" --"
I haven't visited terribly many churches, but I'll toss a few things out there-
interpretive dance? I saw that at a Baptist church I visited once. I don't see that commanded for the public worship, although I am aware that David "danced before the LORD," I still don't see any verse where we are told to do so.
substitution of communion elements?
children's church dismissals?
fund raising drives?
I wasn't just using a straw man argument; I've actually heard/read of those who also would add to that list:
amplifiers
microphones
anything but the Psalms
musical instruments(not commanded for New Testament Worship)
choir robes
choirs
announcements
hymnals
overhead projectors
PowerPoint presentations
church bulletins
etc.
Rebecca -- you may find what I found concerning this topic -- that is an endless exercise in futility to attempt to nail down just what is and what is not acceptable under the so-called RPW.
ReplyDeleteWhen I asked Marie which RPW she was referring to, she launched into a discussion of dancing and fund-raising and children's church.
When we start lumping fundraising and children's church in with things covered by the RPW, we have pretty much taken a leap of logic that would take us across the Grand Canyon!
This is one of the problems with the RPW -- it can be molded like a wax nose to make it seem to apply to just about anything and everything that goes on in connection with a church. Basketball leagues? Violation of the RPW. Deacon's meetings? Wrong. Elder retreats? No way.
There are those who claim that the RPW disallows any instruments in worship. Others say that the RPW disallows CERTAIN instruments -- but not all instruments. Then there are those who say that it disallows the singing of any hymns or anthems that are not taken directly from the words of scripture; no matter how closely a hymn adheres to biblical terminology and sound doctrine, it cannot be sung if it contains ANY words not found in scripture.
It seems that there are groups that are obsessed with out-RPW-ing each other! There are even those who claim that the RPS disallows ANYTHING in singing except Psalms. That is, even if what you are singing is nothing but the words of scripture -- if those words come from any scripture OUTSIDE the Psalms -- you are violating the RPW, and God rejects your worship just as he rejected the strange fire from the sons of Eli! I am NOT making this up!
Think about that last one for a moment. By this rule, no Christian should ever have the right to sing the name of our precious savior, or to mention his blood, or the cross, or the resurrection, in our worship singing -- since none of those things is found in the Psalms. We can't sing, "At the Cross." We can't sing "Amazing Grace."
We can't even sing the words Marie quoted: "We love him because he first loved us" -- because those words come, not from the Psalms, but from the apostle John.
I propose that any "principle" that disallows the following has "jumped the theological shark":
And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain—
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
’Tis mystery all: th’Immortal dies:
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;
Let angel minds inquire no more.
He left His Father’s throne above
So free, so infinite His grace—
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race:
’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!
’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!
Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
Still the small inward voice I hear,
That whispers all my sins forgiven;
Still the atoning blood is near,
That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.
No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
And that was written by an ARMINIAN!!!
I reiterate that the people who claim THIS level of RPW use all the same proof-texts and all the same logical arguments to support their position as do all the other folks with all their other versions of the RPW.
Personally -- I don't like "interpretive dance" or "children's church" or "Jesus-is-my-boyfriend" music or a lot of the modern accoutrements we find in many churches. But "what I don't like" is not a basis for "what God has forbidden."
Instead of a blanket "principle" that is not based on scripture, and that does not take context into account -- there must be a better way to discern what is and is not appropriate in worship in those areas not covered by biblical command.
I think there is a better way. And I think it is entirely biblical and logical.
Marie:
ReplyDelete"But He does have a standard for our behavior, and it is His word. I don't think we can just "look within" and decide for ourselves what is right or wrong. How can we, if we are sinners?"
Marie, where is it in Scripture regarding church assembly (which more approximates the synagogue -- something NOT instituted under Mosaic Law), that what the Lord has not commanded He has forbidden?
How do you square that away with Jesus participating in synagogue worship, when that was an extra-biblical invention of necessity, and how do you square this away with the "whatever you do" verses in the NT?
Romans:
"Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."
Colossians:
"Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father."
I see principles laid out, and the freedom given for expression in worship, not this binding restriction that the RPW espouses.
My one experience with the RPW was a young man I dated who was, briefly, into exclusive psalm singing. I have found some proponents of RPW who say only sing psalms, no instruments, and CERTAINLY no dancing.
Which causes a real logical problem when you read the very last psalm in the psalter, and it is commanding (or at the very least, strongly encouraging) you to do things, not just sing about them (note the word "dancing" below):
1 Praise the Lord!
Praise God in His sanctuary;
Praise Him in His mighty expanse.
2 Praise Him for His mighty deeds;
Praise Him according to His excellent greatness.
3 Praise Him with trumpet sound;
Praise Him with harp and lyre.
4 Praise Him with timbrel and dancing;
Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe.
5 Praise Him with loud cymbals;
Praise Him with resounding cymbals.
6 Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.
Praise the Lord!
Thank you, Lynn. That's exactly what I was getting at. That version of the RPW says to sing Psalms only, but not to do the very things the Psalms they are singing tell them to do!
ReplyDeleteThat -- and the fact that the name of Jesus would be forbidden to be sung -- should give anyone pause.
It took me a long time to get through these comments today. I have this habit of stopping to sing every time I see the words of a hymn. It's almost like an addiction for me! Thanks for that glorious Arminian hymn, Mike. I have been to churches that sing only psalms. I love the hymns!
ReplyDeleteLynn, you made an excellent point with that psalm. It's one I often use to explain why I do dance. I don't do "interpretive" dance; I don't even know what that is. But there are appropriate forms of dancing before the Lord and the Bible has plenty to say about it.
But I think the point is mainly that the RPW is the logical fallacy of proof by lack of evidence (I'm sure Mike and Lynn will jump all over me if it's the wrong one!). We cannot argue that God doesn't want us to worship in a particular way just because there isn't any evidence one way or the other, in this case. Can you imagine if we applied this principle to all of life? The Bible doesn't say anything about driving a car, therefore we can't drive one. The Bible doesn't say anything about using an ATM, therefore we shouldn't use them (I know someone who refuses to use them.) This line of reasoning is not only ridiculous in real life, it also leads to extreme legalism and much fighting in church as well.
Marie: "Jen mentions "choose for themselves" as opposed to subjecting herself to Biblical law."
Marie, as the only commenter in this conversation who has not taken Mike's lessons on the Law, I can understand why you might conclude something like that, but that is not what I was saying.
I am the under the Law, but probably a bit different law than what you think you are under. I am under the Law of Christ, and no other. I follow all the commands laid out in the NT by both Jesus and the apostles. That is the Christian's rightful law.
There are LOTS of choices in our freedom in Christ. We must obey God's Word (the parts that apply to us) first. We should use much wisdom and follow sound biblical principles. We should pray and ask for guidance. But most of worship is not regulated in the NT, so we are left with lots of freedom to choose.
If God had wanted every church to be the same, He would have laid out guidelines for us just as He did for the tabernacle. Just look at the difference between the description of the tabernacle, in which God not only measured and counted every piece, but He insisted on choosing the colors and fabrics as well. And then He told them the order of the order of the service.
Why didn't He lay that out for the NT church? Because He knows we are grown up in Christ and are capable of making wise and godly decisions for ourselves.
(I'm sure everyone here is saying, "Finally, she gets it!")
Jen, as I don't know the reasoning behind "What God hasn't commanded He has forbidden," I can't speak too much to the logical problem here.
ReplyDeleteI am making a guess here. I am guessing that people who espouse RPW say there is some kind of one to one correspondance of church meetings to the tabernacle worship, where it was commanded that things be done in such a precise way that Uzza was killed when he tried to steady the ark, and before that, Nadab and Abihu were slaughtered for offering "strange fire" before the Lord.
It is clear that in tabernacle worship, what God did not command, if done, was judged severely.
This is one of the reasons why I mentioned the church meetings being more akin to the concept of the Jewish synagogue. The synagogue was not requlated by the Mosaic law, yet Jesus also participated in it. He also participated, it would appear, at the Feast of Lights, where He declared Himself to be the light of the world. This feast is another celebration outside of the feasts of the Mosaic law.
So even in the Old Testament, the concept of "what God has not commanded He has forbidden" breaks down, when you think of the synagogue, Purim, and Hanukkah. This concept of "what God has not commanded He has forbidden" only appears to apply to the tabernacle/temple worship, and I do agree there is no evidence that church meetings are supposed to follow this kind of a strict pattern, especially when Paul says, "whatever you do, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Simple gifts, in a nutshell, the Regulative Principle is taught us by several encounters with God over the centuries. God declares Himself as holy and dictates to people what they must do to approach Him. From Cain and Abel (one sacrifice acceptable, one not), to the intricate details of temple worship, to the death of Nadab and Abihu (who simply used the wrong type of incense, "strange fire," to the worship), to Uzzah who touched the ark after being forbidden to do so and died (David being angry at God for taking him) -
ReplyDeletewe see that we can't just approach God in "any old way."
He lines out quite clearly how He is to be worshipped, and patiently guides us in His word.
Temple worship is specifically cancelled by God after the atonement of Christ - we are hammered with the instruction that the sacrifice is done! I have never met a soul that wanted to return to OT temple sacrifice stuff! That would be a denial of Jesus' sacrifice, really!
However, preaching, singing praises, baptisms, communion, collecting tithes, prayer, are all presented as normative for public worship.
Thus we would not introduce a monster truck rally, or a comedy act, or a puppet show, into the worship. Whereas, outside of the public worship, we would probably very happily participate in any one of these things.
Well, I doubt I'd go to a monster truck show.
Marie:
ReplyDelete"Simple gifts, in a nutshell, the Regulative Principle is taught us by several encounters with God over the centuries. God declares Himself as holy and dictates to people what they must do to approach Him. From Cain and Abel (one sacrifice acceptable, one not), to the intricate details of temple worship, to the death of Nadab and Abihu (who simply used the wrong type of incense, "strange fire," to the worship), to Uzzah who touched the ark after being forbidden to do so and died (David being angry at God for taking him) -
we see that we can't just approach God in "any old way."
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me." That much is what I understand about approaching a Holy God.
It is by God's grace, through faith, that we approach Him. Your examples above, as I have said, do not have much to do with church services, which are more to be compared with synagogue meetings, not temple service. And as I said, Jesus and Paul went to the synagogues and recognized them as legitimate gathering places, but they were an extra-biblical invention.
Marie:
"Temple worship is specifically cancelled by God after the atonement of Christ - we are hammered with the instruction that the sacrifice is done! I have never met a soul that wanted to return to OT temple sacrifice stuff! That would be a denial of Jesus' sacrifice, really!
However, preaching, singing praises, baptisms, communion, collecting tithes, prayer, are all presented as normative for public worship.
Thus we would not introduce a monster truck rally, or a comedy act, or a puppet show, into the worship."
Marie, you can call me Lynn if you wish, and I respectfully differ with you. Drama/theatre in the public service, as long as it made a biblical point for evangelism or discipleship, is not evil, because it is a means of preaching the good news and or/edifying the saints. Same with puppet shows. It is the message that must be biblical, and the means of getting that message out can be varied -- singing, speaking, theatre with scripted parts, puppet shows for children, chalk art (I once saw George Sweeting do this while preaching and closing with a song to boot) -- it is the message that is the key here.
Preaching can be accomplished by a variety of methods, and some of these methods can greatly reinforce the message. True, they can distract from it, but so can boring speakers who put you to sleep.
Most of what you mention above except tithing (the NT says each man according as he purposes in his heart, so let him give), are presented as normative for public church meetings. But I still think you are making a connection between temple worship and church services that doesn't exist. There were warnings about deviating from that, but the commands in the NT are a lot more general -- preach and teach, give offerings, sing, minister to each other, etc.. Because preaching, singing, etc., is normative, I don't think it excludes drama, etc., as I mention above, because there are many ways of preaching a message. In some parts of the world, missionaries have to act out what they are trying to teach, because it takes a long time to translate a Bible and help a people group become literate, and other teaching methods can be employed to help convey the gospel message, or whatever it is from the Bible they are trying to teach. Sometimes it is acting out crucifixion. I just can't wrap my mind that one means of preaching is all right, but others are not.
I don't know what a Monster Truck Rally is, but the title of it doesn't appeal to me, either!
"Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me." That much is what I understand about approaching a Holy God."
ReplyDeleteI certainly would accept that as yet one more instruction about how we are to approach a Holy God. I would not attempt to come to the Father but through the Son. I don't see any contradiction of the RPW in that verse.
I hear what you are saying about communication - I think you have to communicate the gospel. Normally, that is done by the spoken word. However, I am sure that if someone is unable to receive the spoken word - deaf perhaps - you could do other things.
I'd like to put forward the notion that there should not be any surprise that there is SOME connection between temple worship and contemporary worship. We are, after all, worshipping the same God! Should there by no continuity at all?
As for going to the synagogues to spread the gospel, I didn't perceive of that as opposite of the RPW. They are told to take the gospel first to the lost sheep of Israel, and that's where you'd find the lost sheep of Israel in whatever country you visited - in the synagogue.
"I'd like to put forward the notion that there should not be any surprise that there is SOME connection between temple worship and contemporary worship. We are, after all, worshipping the same God! Should there by no continuity at all?"
ReplyDeleteI think Hebrews 10 speaks to this issue. It is the same God, but different covenants. And as I am not versed in the RPW but was just speaking on the assumption that it makes a close connection to the Mosaic sacrificial system and like it, what God didn't command, he forbids, I think I've said as much as I can say here about the subject.
PS -- Marie, just so you know, there are many things about what are called "seeker friendly" churches that I dislike. Some of what I have seen are just gimmicks to bring in an audience, and I can't stand that kind of thing. Whatever is done in the gathered worship must be done so that the Word is preached and taught above all else, also prayer and the ordinances and fellowship.
ReplyDeleteSimple gifts 3 - you state
ReplyDelete"Whatever is done in the gathered worship must be done so that the Word is preached and taught above all else, also prayer and the ordinances and fellowship."
I wouldn't argue with that, but when we make statements like that, where do we get them from? I am just trying to say, I think we should get our directions for worship from scripture, not from our own heads. Your statement above wouldn't contradict the Bible, as far as I know.