The Regulative Principle VS. Normative Principle Vortex of Pain
While I admire the intentions of the Regulative Principle as stated in the previous post, I think the regulative principle expects too much regarding worship services from the Bible from the git go (git is a word in Spartanburg, South Carolina) and then has to do all sorts of ducks and feints and back-flips to keep the comprehensive pretensions of RP propped up. The “use of musical instruments controversy” strikes me as an apt window into the inevitable cu-de-sacs endemic to RP. Again, the RP’s are right to listen hard to the Bible and try to do what it says. But I doubt it is saying as much as they imagine or think they need to have it say if biblical ministry is to take place.
Emerging? In his book Confessions of a Reformission Rev. Mark Driscoll at least could say “no commanded order of church service is to be found anywhere in Scripture, nor is any detailed example of a worship service from the first-century church,” which my colleague in New testament and expert in first century Greek papyri and inscriptions would concur with. The consequence of critiquing RP might be to open an unbiblical Pandora’s Box where preaching has to fight for its life but this need not be the result. Driscoll, in the same book, recounts his own strenuous effort to hear whatever guidance the Bible had to offer regarding church governance, which he thinks he found in some sort of elder rule.
Is it not clear that we should let the Bible regulate whatever it means to regulate but not more? Check out the scriptural support for Chapter 21 (the RP section) of the Westminster Confession. Virtually none of the passages read in context bear directly on the questions they supposedly answer. I suspect that at least two tendencies are at work here: 1. What Karl Barth calls an alien norm, an external question brought to the text which then the text is bound to deliver on and 2. the treatment of the Bible as a puzzle that the Puritan divines have largely put together for us. We have much to thank the Puritans for and the Westminster Confession is a gift to the church, but in this matter exegesis should trump and correct our theology.
***
Technorati Tags:
Emerging? In his book Confessions of a Reformission Rev. Mark Driscoll at least could say “no commanded order of church service is to be found anywhere in Scripture, nor is any detailed example of a worship service from the first-century church,” which my colleague in New testament and expert in first century Greek papyri and inscriptions would concur with. The consequence of critiquing RP might be to open an unbiblical Pandora’s Box where preaching has to fight for its life but this need not be the result. Driscoll, in the same book, recounts his own strenuous effort to hear whatever guidance the Bible had to offer regarding church governance, which he thinks he found in some sort of elder rule.
Is it not clear that we should let the Bible regulate whatever it means to regulate but not more? Check out the scriptural support for Chapter 21 (the RP section) of the Westminster Confession. Virtually none of the passages read in context bear directly on the questions they supposedly answer. I suspect that at least two tendencies are at work here: 1. What Karl Barth calls an alien norm, an external question brought to the text which then the text is bound to deliver on and 2. the treatment of the Bible as a puzzle that the Puritan divines have largely put together for us. We have much to thank the Puritans for and the Westminster Confession is a gift to the church, but in this matter exegesis should trump and correct our theology.
***
Technorati Tags:
regulative principle, elders, church, mark driscoll, westminster confession, normative principle, puritans, theology, religion, christianity
posted by Mark DeVine at 10:37 AM
11 Comments:
Great thoughts, thanks for posting them.
I wonder, maybe jumping the gun a bit, what implications this has for specifics of modern worship gatherings, for instance the preaching act. I'm no expert (so this is a bit of a queston) but many have said the modern form of preaching isn't truly seen until after the first several generations after the Apostles (300s is what I've typically seen).
If this is the case does it mean there should be more flexibility in the forms of preaching exhibited in our gatherings? I know MacArthur argues very vehemently that if one holds to inerrancy they only valid form of preaching is exposition but if it is more fluid in the scriptures (meaning not specifically drawn out as to what the form ought to look like) then can we say one must preach expositionally as he suggests? (not picking a fight with MacArthur, he is just the one I have read the most on the subject.)
Or to ask it differently, is it appropriate to prescribe as one would with the regulative principle that the gathering time must be comprised of expository preaching?
(NB: this isn't to say that one shouldn't conclude that expository preaching is the best form only asking if one should biblically argue that it should be the only form acceptable.)
Just a question.
This is helpful.
Apparently you didn't collaborate with my Worship Leadership professor (it would probably have been more like a theological cage fighting match). I've been trying to decide how comfortable I am training the RP on questions of "worship"...this post helps identify what's been bothering me, i.e., looking for scriptural guidelines that aren't actually present.
Where the RP is concerned, I guess this is what you call an Achilles heel.
Dr. D.
Why not have bikini jello wrestlers come to attract a crowd? Does the Scripture address that? I cannot find one passage forbidding it. How about a boxing match? The pastor versus the chairman of the deacons. No passage against that either. The Regulative Principle, imperfect as it is, serves the church against the same kind of event that Nadab and Abihu experienced. Or maybe we should have some of those events and people would not feel so “free” in worshipping the God of the universe in a way that pleases them. Say what you will about the Westminster divines and their lack of knowledge about First century apigrapha but you cannot argue with what JI Packer said about them. They are spiritual redwoods in comparison with the theological scrub oaks of ours.
What concerns me the most about these posts questioning the RP is the fact that when we remove the restraints of Scripture that leads to the slippery slope of syncretism. Let’s just mix paganism with Christianity. That will attract a crowd. Or let’s allow people to have icons to venerate. Let’s elevate the host. This makes us have a better religious experience doesn’t it? Well to some people I am sure it would. What about interpretive dance and dramas? Where does it end? The problem is there is no end and it spirals out of control to the point that my emotions must be titillated in order for me to have a “real” experience with God.
It seems to me the reasoning for this discussion over the RP is far different from the discussions that led to its adoption by the Westminster Divines and those who followed them. They wanted to know what God desires in the worship of Him and it seems to me that modern Christians just simply want to know what God will let them get away with.
And as for the Apigrapha Expert and the author of the book you mentioned, I find Acts 2:42 quite compelling. Is it a complete order of worship? Probably not, but boy it’s a great start. Here is where Sola Scriptura comes into play. 1. Scripture is THE Word of God. 2. The Word of God is binding upon all mankind. 3. The Word of God is applicable to all times and
cultures. 4. The Word of God is clear on all essential doctrines. Now, if you accept all these premises then you must accept that God's Word must direct our personal behavior and the direction and behavior of the church including worship. And furthermore to say that God has not addressed New Testament worship begs for trouble.
Joe
I think I probably sat through many of the same classes, with the same professor, that you mention, Ariel. I'm pretty sure Dr. Devine can understand where we're coming from.
I enjoy your thoughts about the topic, Dr. Devine. I've had many a disagreement over the RP with friends who have sat under teaching that espouses it.
If the statements that you make at the bottom of the post, particularly in regards to the Westminster confession and the Puritan influence on worship, to what degree can we have flexibility in worship? Can we go so far as to say as long as it is not prohibited in worship, it is satisfactory to God?
I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
One more thing I meant to mention in response to Joe and then on to Micah.
I have acknowledged the danger of the Pandora’s Box that freedom from RP may and sometimes has resulted in. But what about that other Pandora’s Box—the one that opens when we start with some presupposition or question or bias (whether recognized or not) and proceed to ransack the Bible on the hunt for any possible support we might find. Some evangelicals have rightly exposed such distortive ransacking when, for example, they see insights from the business world jammed down Nehemiah’s throat; but I think a similar kind of distortive hijacking of scripture for some alien agenda happens with some of the older Puritan and more current neo-Puritan exposition. If you catch someone preaching for an entire year on one chapter in the Bible—WATCH OUT! You might be getting a bigger dose of the preacher’s idiosyncratic hobby horses than divine revelation.
Now Micah: Where the Bible offers little or no guidance on unavoidable matters of church practice, I think that leaves us with what the Puritans helpfully called “sanctified reason.” We may not be able to claim direct or specific biblical sanction or warrant regarding every matter we face, but we are rarely left without help completely. And so we do our best, with humility, and keep ourselves open for increased insight and we take responsibility for the decisions ourselves and offer them to God for His judgment. Remember that the same Apostle Paul who got his back up in Galatians over the preaching of any “other gospel” also instructed the herbivores and carnivores in Romans to live and let live. The ongoing burden of discernment in actual cases of which issues belong in which hopper is inescapable.
Dr. Devine,
Just out of curiosity, which part of Article 21 of the WCF do you disagree with?
Joe
Joe
Go to this link (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/). I do not believe that the scripture cited under links 2 and 38 are sufficient to justify the statements in the confession they purport to defend.
Joe, thanks for your comment.
I do think that you give voice to the sentiments of many who value the restraining power of the Regulative Principle. My problem remains that I do not view going beyond Scripture as OK. I do believe that leaders in the church must make many decisions without explicit warrant within scripture and in these cases we are left to state our reasons (often these reasons do touch on biblical teaching and of course it is good when they can) and proceed with humility, ready to learn, not thinking ourselves bound to defend our actions as scriptural in the way say proscribing adultery could be, but also not claiming scriptural warrant where it is lacking.
It is certainly true that where God has left us without specific instruction on matters essential to our lives together in worship and within believing communities, dangers of many kinds threaten, including the ones you mention. But identification of the protection the regulative principle might provide can never insert RP into the Bible and dangers arise from the opposite direction as well, do they not? How saddened God must be if we place strictures on His church that He did not, and did not for their good.
Packer and the Puritan Giants: I have already waxed effusive in my gratitude for the Puritans and I meant it. But now we are back to that neo-puritan penchant for catholicizing evangelicalism that loves the false security promised within the Pantheon of approved teachers—Peter Piper Picked . . . you know what I mean. We should remember that Luther’s willingness to defy the approved teachers and insist upon historical grammatical exegesis of key passages rescued us from the grip of the “approved interpreters” and indeed, rescued the gospel itself. As fellow Protestants we are more true to the legacies of Calvin and Packer when we test what they say by Scripture than when we neglect to do so. Packer loves the Puritans but I do not think he put his brains in his pocket when he read them and I think he thought he honored them when he didn’t.
Acts 2:42: Even if this verse actually meant to describe worship services, that would still fail to require that it be read as a blueprint for all time. But, alas! I do not believe that the author even intends to describe worship services at all. Instead, Luke is giving us a glimpse into the ways in which new converts were assimilated into the new believing community. My hunch is that the use of such verses to defend RP is a case of that hankering after more details, more rules if you will, than God meant to give. It certainly represents, in my estimation, a neglect of contextual exegesis that seeks to discern the Biblical author’s purpose and then allows that purpose to guide and limit what may be rightly gleaned from the verses in question. Now if my exegesis is wrong, my point may be as well. But citing Packer is not enough for me and would not be for Packer!
At the probable risk of opening another can of worms, I've got to chime in again, given a couple points that are present:
1) Driscoll's elder rule position: "whatever guidance the Bible had to offer regarding church governance"
2) Inserting structures into church life that are not present biblically: "an alien norm, an external question brought to the text which then the text is bound to deliver on"
What's your take, Dr. DeVine, on the church government question? As a newbie in the SBC, I've never seen any biblical justification for congregational rule. Plurality in elder/deacon leadership is what I see throughout the NT (like Driscoll). Any thoughts? I'm aware, of course, that we have to work as best we can within our church contexts...
While I am not sure I can go as far a Mark Driscoll, who, having searched the Bible, said he "found more warrant for a church led by unicorns than by majority vote," I do think that that a plurality of elders has a better claim to biblical warrant than other models.
Amen. By the way, i think the same thing can be said for the doctrine of limited-atonement. (Alien questions lead to extra-biblical doctrines).
Post a Comment
<< Home