Regulative: In church services, only that which is commanded in scripture, or that which is a good and necessary implication of a Biblical text, is allowed in organizing a service, and nothing more. (i.e. communion per 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, prayer per 1 Tim 2:8 as one example)
Normative: In church services, what God commands is to be be done, but as long as something is not forbidden by scripture it can, by the discernment of the leadership, be practiced in gathered church services.
Many debates have been made on this issue, with the question being which should we follow? My personal answer to the question of whether I agree with the Regulative or Normative principle is: Yes.
Not A or B.
Yes.
Why? Because I think they are the two halves of one answer and are much closer together than the extremists on either side will often recognize or admit. At least if defined properly. One defines the means and the other the methods. The Bible holds both commands and principles to follow in regards to how a service, and life in general, is to be conducted. Are we to sing in celebration? Yes. (Ps. 96:1) Are we to pray? Yes. (Eph. 6:18) Is there to be preaching of the word? Yes. (2 Tim. 4:1-2) There are many things that, in principle and by command, we are to incorporate into the service. Likewise, there are things which are forbidden in worship to God, such as copying specific religious rituals from other religions (Deuteronomy 12:30-31). In this way, we hold to the Regulative Principle of worship.
However, while we do get many principles and commands from scripture, many of the commands are not very specific as to their practice, and the principles do not give specific methods. Those who adhere to a strict Regulative Principle say that if the Bible doesn't explicitly say what to do, we shouldn't do it. But this presents a few problems. For example, we do not have a fully detailed, practical example of a New Testament temple meeting by which to measure our own meetings by. And while we are told to sing, what do we sing? What instruments do we use? Exactly how long should the preaching be? What time should services start? How many people make a most effective community setting? In the example of singing, we are told to sing to God psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col. 3:16) while told elsewhere to sing to the Lord a "new song". (Ps 96:1) So how do we decide which, how long, and with what? If we hold to a strict form of the principle, we're stuck. Also, consider the following: the Bible does not mention anywhere chairs, organs, greeters, suits, ties, or children's care/nurseries. So, by that definition, any church that contains any of the above things is unbiblical.
So how do we get these cultural adaptations to scriptural principles?
The Normative Principle. The faithful applying of a biblical command or principle culturally adapted to the situation at hand. If we realize we have the freedom to apply the scriptures faithfully within different cultures so long as scripture does not forbid it, we have the new space available to move around as would best suit the forward movement of the Gospel. We have the opportunity to contextualize within culture to reach as many as possible, as Paul did upon Mars Hill, while still remain faithful to the scriptures. Like with the other principle, some take it too far and begin filling their services with meaningless forms of entertainment (is there a way to justify a mime in a service?), or confusing the priorities as to which should hold more ground in a service (i.e. the church that shortens its sermons to make room for a drama).
In saying all of this, I believe there are things we can remember in order to remain faithful and relevant at the same time.
1. Worship is God-focused, not people-focused.
Our worship is not about what gives us the most pleasure or what we would necessarily enjoy or be entertained by. It is our response to the realization of the gospel, of our forgiveness of sins by Christ dying on the cross, and the expression of the joy that is brought with the realization and fruitition of this amazing truth. Therefore, our decisions must always be dictated by the question, "what will glorify God the most," then diving into Scripture and prayer to find what God has said will do so most effectively. This realization is, I believe, what will mainly help avoid a misunderstanding of cultural contextualization, and will keep us from sacrificing faithfulness for being "hip", which is the common over-reaction of the Normative Principle. Like Deuteronomy 12:8 says, worship is not "everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes."
2. Worship is a life-consuming responsibility and activity.
What we do in a service is simply a continuation of what has occurred during the rest of the week. To quote a well-known pastor, worship is a lifestyle. Therefore, we cannot live by one set of rules during the week and another set on Sunday. The problem with strict Regulative Principle adherents is that they betray their own philosophy by misunderstanding the principle of worship itself. What we do on Sunday should not differ from our lives the other 6 days of the week, and during the rest of the week these people, at least I'd hope, brush their teeth, drive a car, use a computer, wear socks and pants, and use deodorant, none of which is even mentioned in scripture. We cannot be hypocrites, living one way during the week and another on Sunday. All of life is worship, regardless of what day it is on. Therefore, we should treat all worship with the same reverence and guidelines, no matter whether we are with the church singing on Sundays or home alone taking a shower.
3. Just because a freedom is abused does not mean we should abandon it, but rather redeem it and use it as God intended.
In a world filled with sinful human beings, everything, whether it is neutral or good on its own, will be abused in some form. All the freedoms we are given in Christ, be it worship style, alcohol, sex, or money, will be abused in some sense by someone. Often times, these abuses are made popular and many fall in line, believing they are just "exercising their freedom in Christ" even when their actions are explicitly forbidden by scripture. But that does not mean we should villify and/or abandon them. For hyper-liberals, scriptural principles are abused and abandoned, including biblical male eldership, church discipline, sound theology, and even the authority of Scripture itself. For hyper-Conservatives, the cultural contextualization of the gospel is often abused and abandoned, including such things as the use of alcohol, music style and taste, clothing, the entertainment industry, and even dialect.* Just because something, including a freedom, is abused does not mean we abandon it, but rather we seek to do the work of the Gospel in redeeming the whole world, and take that which has been defiled and redeem it and use it as God originally intended.
*While one might say that the former is more serious than the latter, may I suggest that if God deemed the New Testament to be written in Koine Greek, the language of the common man, and to include verses from Roman mythology, it should be safe to say that God values the contextualization of His gospel. Also, both lead to equally perverse forms of religion: License, where we value culture over conviction and do whatever we want, allowing ourselves to be our own gods, and Legalism, where we begin making rules and standards not found anywhere in the Bible, and begin enforcing them, relying on things other than the cross to redeem us, and the fruit of the Spirit to identify us.
4. Our ultimate allegiance and identity must never be to a specific denomination, worship style, teacher, or church building, but to Christ first and foremost.
One of the biggest problems between theologies and denominations is the common mistake of human beings to idolize their church, their pastor, their style, or that denomination, and make it so that they alone have the ultimate connection to Christ and everyone else is either wrong, or altogether demonic, even if they agree on the foundational truths of scripture. While it is okay to identify with a specific theological group, pastor, style, or denomination, we must be defined above all as Christian, as a "mini-Christ", and have the humility to not make secondary issues primary issues in regards to theology. Far too often we have the tendency to define ourselves as "Calvinists" or "Arminians" or "Baptists" or "Catholics", and when we define ourselves primarily by that, we make it easier to demonize other Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christians. There is always room for debate and discussion, but on the secondary issues there are no good reasons to divide and demonize. Even Paul, when asked about those preaching Christ out of selfish ambition and rivalry, said that "whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice." (Philippians 1:18)
So, do I believe the Regulative Principle is good? In the sense where it requires scripture to be our conscience when defining our worship, including our large gatherings. And I believe the Normative Principle is also good, allowing us the freedom to contextualize in order to reach as many peoples as possible. In fact, it would be safe to say that when properly understood, these positions are much more parallel than either side might think. Whaddya think Mark? :P
13 comments:
Those who adhere to a strict Regulative Principle say that if the Bible doesn't explicitly say what to do, we shouldn't do it.
That's correct. I think it would be best to go ahead and quote the principle itself here. I'll use the LBCF version since that's the confession to which I subscribe, from the section on religious worship:
"The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures."
As well as its corollary from "On Christian Liberty":
"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also."
These two are then bound together by a third passage from "On Holy Scripture", which further fleshes out the concept:
"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."
So, to pull all of this together then, we see that in our general daily life we have a limited liberty. We are to be subject to lesser authorities (lesser than God and His Word) but when they command us to believe or do something contrary to God's word we have the right, even the duty, to refuse.
But in the area of *worship*, and general ordering of the church, our liberty is even greater still. Not only do we have the right to refuse to submit to anything contrary to His Word, but we also have the right, and again even the duty to refuse to submit to anything not contained in it. As Calvin said on this point, "if the subject [of Christian liberty] be not understood, neither Christ, nor the truth of the Gospel, nor the inward peace of the soul, is properly known."
So, then we come to your objections. Singing: we are told what to sing. Singing is just another mode of teaching. We sing the same things we are commanded to teach. Instruments are clearly a part of God's worship in the Old Testament, and I have seen no convincing exegesis to suggest they are abrogated in the new covenant. Which instruments is largely immaterial, because the use of instruments in general was permitted, with none being banned that I can think of offhand. This *is* an area of some dispute within the camp though, I admit. I don't think the bible has a concept of an "effective community setting". However, to have a church, it is pretty clear what constitutes that.
For the rest, we go back to the passage on the Holy Scriptures, which tells us that some basic issues (how long the service is, how many songs we sing, how long the service is) are things ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word. For some of the rest (whether or not we have chairs, or wear suits) that's not really an aspect of worship, but where any of them might touch on such it would fall under that same principle.
All of this is largely based on the clear teaching of Scripture that there is an "acceptable" form of worship, and an unacceptable form. And clearly, God is the one who gets to define that. It is solely his prerogative to define the manner and means by which sinful men may approach Him in worship. However, the key point that I find most interesting is that these passages center around christian liberty.
This doctrine of the regulative principle is not there to be restrictive but to be liberating. The goal here is Christian unity. The one thing we should be absolutely able to unite around is God's Word. And therefore, if the *only* things that happen in our worship are those things which are commanded by him in his word, then we are free to worship him, never bearing the burden of conscience.
When we sit in a service, and the leadership has decided to have a clown come and do a juggling act to the latest CCM tripe to come down the pipe as an offertory, what are we to do? We are, in a sense, bound to be present for worship in the gathered church to which we have been called. And so, in scheduling this performance the leadership of the church has bound the consciences of the congregation in this matter. This is a HUGE violation of Christian liberty, and the conscience of those believers are wounded by that action. Especially if they have a conviction that it is wrong, and counter to what God has said in His word about how he is to be worshipped.
When you read the story of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10), you see that God's not too fond of the idea of our taking liberties in His worship either. I tried to find the standard by which these men were judged, where God had prohibited them from bringing "strange fire". As far as I can tell, there is nowhere that this was prohibited. So these two men were judged because they failed to do what was commanded, and ONLY what he was commanded.
Even from a pragmatic perspective though, the formulation of "everything not expressly condemned is permitted" doesn't work, both in Scripture and in our own experience. Look at 2 Kings 16. Ahaz shows us exactly what happens when we allow extra biblical practices. He didn't throw out God's altar, he just...moved it. Just pushed it off to the corner. Is this not what we see in churches today? It's not that we necessarily do away with preaching, it just gets buried under the "testimonies", mimes, interpretive dance, and human videos.
Is this not just another version of the self-made religion Paul rejects in Col 2:23? Is it not the world dictating to the church what they want to see and hear? I mean, some churches even do SURVEYS of their community to find out what they want, making the worship of the one true God into a matter of human preference! Ugh, Utter blasphemy, as I'm sure you would agree. But how do we prevent it? We prevent it through the means God has provided in His word, as summarized in the regulative principle. Simple, biblical worship, that is focused on our God and King, and Him only.
You may or may not have seen the long discourse I had in response. I've removed it because I think there's a better way, at least for me, to go through this without being merely pragmatic, in the thought that maybe some unnecessary discussion can be avoided by better understanding the other position.
So instead I ask this:
What, then, would you suggest as a truely biblical service according to the strict Regulative Principle?
There is a difference between commands and principles. However, I'm not sure what you're getting at in that paragraph. If it's a reference to my comments on "what we are to sing" I'm not so much aiming at that as I am that singing isn't a "thing" on its own. It is just another /way/ of teaching.
I think I can accept your meaning when you say there is a change in circumstances. It is true that the shadow of things has passed away now that the real thing has come. I do quibble with some of your comparisons though. (i.e. The temple is actually Christ, not the church. We no longer have a remnant, but rather the church universal.) But those are minor points.
Israel *was* to be set apart by other nations, but that was a parallel to the NT church which is now to be set apart from the world. Not (at least only) by externalities like practice and custom but by being conformed to the image of Christ. I agree we're not *merely* a physical entity, but that doesn't mean we aren't one. Further, Israel, true Israel, was not merely a physical entity either. They are a part of the church Universal as much as we are.
I have to take slight issue with your exegesis of Col 2. You are correct that the troublemakers there were judaisers. And the problem was exactly that they were trying to apply shadows to the reality, they were trying to bind the consciences of the gentiles not only with those shadows but with the ceremonial and dietary laws.
But to argue that this somehow then is Paul arguing that they should have the freedom to worship however they wish is something you have to read into the text. Paul only makes a negative statement here that they should reject the imaginations of men as a basis for worship.
(On the juggling act, I have actually seen where a church had their pastor dress up in a clown suit to preach, so while we might understand it, it's not so far fetched of a possibility as we might wish.)
I obviously disagree with your assessment regarding the use of "skits". I would say that a skip is probably the least offensive and problematic of what constitutes a modern worship service, and the one most *capable* of communicating propositional truth in a clear way if done right. Unfortunately, I think I can count the number of times I've seen it used in such a way on my fingers. All too often their expression is unclear and leaves way too much room for confusion. As has been well said, if it's a mist in the pulpit it's a fog in the pew, and that's as true for a skit as it is for a sermon.
I also have to ask, is that your experience? Is it your experience that the modern church is making judicious use of the imaginations of men in their worship services, and that outside of this they are being faithful to God's commands regarding how he is to be worshipped? In spirit and in truth? In preaching? In the reading of the word? In the taking of the elements? Or, alternately, as I suggest, is it drowning in useless trash, pushing these things out to the side as if of secondary or tertiary importance?
You say that it's hypocritical to have a differing view of what is acceptable for gathered worship, and what we may do in private life. Yet, I don't think I've said that there is a difference between public and private worship, and most strict RPW people wouldn't either. Frankly, I reject the argument of "all of life is worship". Not to say that we *don't* worship in private or as a family -- but those same rules govern worship there as well. It's no more ok to engage in unbiblical worship in your home than it is to do it in your church. Again, it is not for us to define how God may be worshipped - that is something God reveals to us and we do. That is not to say that we do not *glorify* God. But God being glorified is not the same as his being worshipped. It is also not to say that Christianity is a dualistic upper/lower story religious leap, or that it has some sort of secular/sacred divide. Christianity speaks to all of life, but that doesn't mean that all of life is worship.
We have freedom to *do* anything not expressly prohibited, and to enjoy it with thanksgiving, but we cannot invest them with our own religious significance and call it worship. That's just popery on a smaller scale. I'm not sure why you would equivocate between the freedom to drink coffee or not, and the freedom to worship God through collective nose blowing, if it seems good to me that God would enjoy that.
As for my being "north-american" :-P I think you misunderstand the point. It is exactly the commonalities of truth in our worship that unite us. The elements *not* the methods. As I said in my original comment, the point is not that we all use the same time signatures, the same hymn book, or the same language or use the same instruments. The point is that we all worship him according to how He has commanded that He be worshipped. We all sing, we all read the Scriptures, we all preach, we all take the Lord's supper, we all baptize, and we all do it on the Lord's day. And when we do it, we do it knowing that we do it together with all Christians in all places and in all times - and hopefully we do it thinking that, looking forward to the day when we worship together physically in God's presence forever. (Which, I would point out, is one of the primary reasons for this gathering - it is supposed to be a foretaste of heaven for us.)
Doh! Too late. I already replied to your earlier post, and I need to turn in now. (Haven't been getting much sleep lately.) I'll try to come back and answer that question a little later, and address any comments you may feel like making on my response.
So this is where my comment deleting came in; I don't think we disagree very much if at all, and that our views are being diluted by pragmatic defenses. We may even be saying the same things but with different emphasis'.
Here's my basic position on gathered worship: We sing songs, the word is preached,we serve communion, we pray, we baptize new Christians, and we practice Biblically-based expressions of the spiritual gifts. Those things must not be overlooked, ignored, or pushed back by anything else because that is how the Bible says God takes glory from our worship. Now, everything else (skits, videos, etc) MAY be used, in my opinion sparingly and wisely, so long as they both compliment the spirit of worship and do not cut away from anything God has instructed us to do. Like you said, having freedom also includes the freedom to refuse when necessary and wise. I also think far too much has been done in the name of Christian liberty, like a kid getting reckless with a car simply because he has his license.
Well, I think both of our ideals would probably look pretty similar, but I think there is a definite difference between our two positions, and that difference is here:
Now, everything else (skits, videos, etc) MAY be used, in my opinion sparingly and wisely, so long as they both compliment the spirit of worship and do not cut away from anything God has instructed us to do.
I would say they may *not* be used, because I dispute the idea that we as men have any right to assume we know how to rightly worship God outside of his revelation. I would dispute the idea that they even are worship. :-)
I should note that I never thought we were all that far apart in what we believe constitutes right worship, we're just coming at it from slightly different perspectives. For me, that's what makes a good productive discussion. It's not like one of us is engaging in dreadful heresy and needs to be called to repentance. :-)
Well my position on that comes from the idea that our artistic abilities are gifts from God to be used in His worship. I think those kinds of things CAN be used in positive ways, but nearly always are not. For example, one sermon I heard was on Joy in Death, and to use an example, he showed a video of a woman in the church (a wife of one of the elders) who was dying from cancer and to give an example of what it meant to be a faithful Christian facing death. It really was a powerful addition to the sermon itself to see a woman who had been handed a fairly short death sentence talking about her struggles and fears and how God was holding her through those times. And the sermon, minus the video, was still over 45 minutes long, so it didn't take away from it or shove it out of the way, but rather gave a face to what the preacher was explaining, which can be a powerful thing to those who have never seen a Christian handle their own death by God's grace.
And as to my background (I know I still owe you my back story) I've actually seen both. I've been to churches where the pastor made sermons around mainstream movies (which is a rant in and of itself...) and I've been to churches where I was looked upon in disdain because I showed up in jeans with a ring in my lip. Churches where the skit was longer than the sermon and churches where anything artistic (including music) was borderline demonized.
I simply believe that if God is an artist, and the Bible seems to indicate so with its poetry and vivid imagery and uses of language, and if the artistic talents we have are gifts from God to steward, then art, when Biblically based, is worship and there's nothing wrong with trying to find ways to express that. Now, I'm sure you don't disagree and you merely believe that there are more appropriate places than gathered worship, which I can understand, and find reasonable. I'm also a bit of jack-of-all-trades with one hand in the theological and one hand in the artistic (I've done everything from music, writing, drawing, painting, and almost anything artistic you can shake a stick at) and seeing art as intrinsically tied with worship as I do I'm determined to reconcile the two as best as I can.
See, I understand what you're saying regarding the video, but when it comes to gathered worship I would say it is outside of what is permissible. This plays somewhat into one of my key issues with the Christian church. We fought the battle for the inerrancy of the word, but while we were all looking that way, we apparently lost the battle for the *suficiency* of the Word.
We can't trust God's way of doing things. It can't just be singing and preaching. We as a church seem to think that we know better than God A) how he is to be worshipped and B) how people can be reached with the Gospel. I'm not saying there aren't places for contextualization in missions, but I shy from the term because of the rampant abuse that has been done under that idea. Why do we *need* a video of a woman who is dying? Is not the Gospel enough? Is the Spirit not able to breathe new life without the aid of new media?
I mean, I know you wouldn't take that position, and I'm sure neither would the Elder in question. But I do think it's the logical implication of our insistance that we be able to go our own way. Yet - that's exactly the kind of thinking what led to the whole seeker sensitive movement that we all abhor so much. There were good things there too. Getting rid of silly traditions and insistance on outdated expectations that had no basis in Scripture. Yet they couldn't stop there, because their theology couldn't stop them.
I do absolutely believe that art can *glorify* God. I myself am very much a jack-of-all-trades sort of fellow. I haven't done music for some time, though at one point it was a key part of my life. Today my artistic side is either vented in code or in things I build. I definitely approach it with the desire to glorify Him with my work. Yet I would not call it *worship* and as such imbue it with some special religious significance.
Except if the temple, where the Israelites worshipped and the Spirit of God dwelled, is no longer a building but rather our own bodies, would it not make sense that everything done in this body is worship of something?
Post a Comment