The Regulative Principle of Worship and the Englishman's every pleasure...

(David) Can the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) as traditionally articulated within the Reformed world ever serve as a coherent guide to worship? I suspect not. At the very least, it will never succeed in bringing unity to the Reformed world's views on worship so long as we permit our application of the RPW to be governed as much by subjective taste as by the Word of God.

Several months ago a candidate came to the floor of my presbytery with views on the use of drama in worship many found troubling. In the subsequent flurry of questions he was asked (among a great many other things): would he allow projected images during worship, including images of Jesus, would he permit dance in worship and would he "bring in rock and roll"?

The sheer number and variety of questions revealed the true status of the RPW in the Reformed world today--even in the midst of a fairly united presbytery no two men appeared to apply the principle the same way. Some consider drums contrary to Scripture; others, dance; still others, video; finally there are those who object to images of Christ.

Ironically, images of Christ in worship aren't even a matter of the regulative principle. They're a Ten Comandments issue, pure and simple. But since the Second Commandment is ground zero of any theological defense of the regulative principle, images of Christ are also the sine qua non of the regulative principle. The presbyter who cavils at drums but not images of Christ doesn't know idolatry from a hole in the ground--more than likely because he has made his own pleasures and tastes the test of faithful worship. The saying, "An Englishman's every pleasure is a matter of principle," reflects the status of the regulative principle in today's Reformed world. Our every aesthetic taste has been elevated to a matter of principle.

So when the question was raised in presbytery about dance in worship, I spoke up saying that I didn't think that we could categorically exclude what David did before the ark on its journey to Jerusalem from our list of things acceptable in public worship. (And believe me, I don't much like organized dance in worship. David's dance was an ecstatic expression of joy before the Lord, not a troupe of bandana-twirling women mincingly mimicking the Rockettes.)

Of course, as you might expect, a fellow presbyter approached me following the discussion to suggest that I misunderstood the nature of the ark's trip to Jerusalem. In one sense it was a necessary objection. Was David's dancing before the ark public worship? I think so, just as I believe the crowd's response to Christ on His Palm Sunday journey into Jerusalem constituted public worship.

But the question itself reveals how few of us really try to apply the regulative principle consistently or objectively--at least beyond the broadest and most basic of principles.

Think about this: the very trip to Jerusalem which led to David dancing before the Lord was the trip Uzzah died on. The story of Uzzah's death is one of the primary texts used by regulativists in support of the overall principle. But when it comes to David dancing before the Lord later on that same journey, the trip suddenly becomes something other than the act of public worship it was in the death of Uzzah....

Public worship with Uzzah, private rejoicing with David: the same trip, the same ark, the same destination. This is just one example of the the kind of incredible contortions we end up going through in defending the regulative principle.

Do I believe in the regulative principle? Of course I do. It's right there in Scripture in the form of the Second Commandment: you shall make no graven images; you shall not bow down to them or worship them. Let's begin at ground zero and get it right. Then we can move on to finer points of the Law.

Comments

[Tom Albrecht]

"The story of Uzzah's death is one of the primary texts used by strict regulativists in support of the overall principle."

I've not heard that one before. I have read references to Nadab and Abihu in support of RPW. Do you have a reference?

[Tim Bayly]

These are typical of citations of Uzzah in defense of the RPW:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Christmas/Christmas.htm

http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/xmas.htm

http://carrolltonchurch.org/new.html

http://members.aol.com/RSICHURCH/reg1.html

http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99809.qna/category/pt/page/questions/site/iiim

Even Girardeau himself:

http://www.covenanter.org/Girardeau/Instrumental/chapter1.htm

[Robert Perry]

Not exactly a "reference," but I'm rejoicing to say that as my family reads through the Old Testament, my 9 year old daughter is quick to figure out when non-Levites and non-Cohens infringe on the rights of the Levites and the priesthood. Pretty common, and yes, I'd agree that it conforms at least to the spirit of the RPW.

[David Bayly]

So is this what you want?

This, from Girardeau, for example:

THE GENERAL ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE.

Attention, at the outset, is invoked to the considerations which serve to establish the following controlling principle: A divine warrant is necessary for every element of doctrine, government and worship in the church; that is, whatsoever in these spheres is not commanded in the Scriptures, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence from their statements, is forbidden.

1. This principle is deducible by logical inference from the great truth—confessed by Protestants—that the Scriptures are an infallible rule of faith and practice, and therefore supreme, perfect and sufficient for all the needs of the Church. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." This truth operates positively to the inclusion of everything in the doctrine, government and worship of the church which is commanded, explicitly or implicitly, in the Scriptures, and negatively to the exclusion of everything which is not so commanded.

2. This principle of the necessity of a divine warrant for everything in the faith and practice of the church is proved by didactic statements of Scripture.

Num. 15:39, 40: "Remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: that ye may remember and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God." Ex. 25:40: "And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was showed thee in the mount." Heb. 8:5: "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount." Deut. 4:2: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deut. 12:32: "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Prov. 30:5, 6: "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Isa. 8:20: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Dan. 2:44: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people." Matt. 15:6: "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." Matt. 28:19, 20: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Col. 2:20-23: "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (touch not; taste not; handle not; which are all to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh." 2 Tim. 3:16, 17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Rev. 22:18, 19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and out of the things which are written in this book."

These solemn statements and awful warnings teach us the lesson, that to introduce any devices and inventions of our own into the doctrine, government or worship of the church, is to add to the words of God, and to fail in maintaining the principles and truths, or in complying with the institutions and ordinances, delivered to us in the Scriptures, is to take away from the words of God. The Romanists, for example, who hold the doctrine of transubstantiation, and observe the sacrifice of the mass, add to God’s words; and the Quakers, who maintain the co-ordinate authority of immediate revelations of new, original truth with the inspired Oracles, and neglect the observance of the sacraments, both add to and take away from them. And, in like manner, those who import instrumental music into the ordained worship of the New Testament Church transcend the warrant of Scripture, and add to the words which Christ our Lord has commanded.

3. There are concrete instances recorded in the Scriptures which graphically illustrate the same great principle.

(1.) Gen. 4.: Cain and his offering. The brothers, Cain and Abel, had been in childhood beyond all doubt instructed by their parents in the knowledge of the first promise of redemption to be accomplished by atonement. They had, we have every reason to believe, often seen their father offering animal sacrifices in the worship of God. To this mode of worship they had been accustomed. Cain, the type of rationalists and fabricators of rites and ceremonies in the house of the Lord, consulted his own wisdom and taste, and ventured to offer in God’s worship the fruit of the ground—an un-bloody sacrifice; while Abel, conforming to the appointments and prescribed usages in which he had been trained, expressed his faith and obedience by offering a lamb. Abel’s worship was accepted and Cain’s rejected. "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and his offering he had not respect." Thus, in the immediate family of Adam, we behold a signal and typical instance of self-assertion and disregard of divine prescriptions in the matter of worship. This was swiftly followed by God’s disapprobation, and then came the development of sin in the atrocious crime of fratricide, and the banishment of the murderer from the communion of his family and the presence of his God.

(2.) Lev. 10:1-3.: Nadab and Abihu. "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.[1] And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace." These young men, as the sons of Israel’s high priest, were legitimately employed in discharging the appointed functions of the sacerdotal office. But they presumed to add to God’s commandments. Exercising their own will in regard to the mode of his worship, they did that which he did not command them, and they were instantly killed for their wicked temerity.

(3.) Num. 16.: Korah, Dathan and Abiram. God had consecrated those descendants of Levi who sprang from Aaron to the priesthood, while the remaining descendants of Levi were set apart to other offices pertaining to the service of the tabernacle. Korah was a Levite, but not a son of Aaron. Dathan and Abiram were not even Levites, but appear to have descended from Reuben. When, therefore, these men, asserting the claim that the whole congregation were entitled to rank with Moses and Aaron, ventured to assume to themselves functions which God had restricted to a certain class, they were overtaken by the swift indignation of Jehovah, and perished in an awful manner. "The ground clave asunder that was under them; and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained unto them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation."

(4.) Num. 20.: Moses smiting the rock at Kadesh. When, on a previous occasion, the Israelites were suffering from thirst, God commanded Moses to smite the rock at Horeb. This he did, and water gushed forth abundantly. The apostle Paul tells us that that rock typified Christ. The typical teaching furnished by Moses, then, was that from the one death of Christ under the smiting of the law the grace of the Holy Ghost should proceed to satisfy the thirst of the soul. Christ was to be smitten unto death only once. Now again, at Kadesh, the Israelites suffer for want of water. God commands Moses to speak unto the rock. To this explicit command he rashly ventured to add. He spoke to the people, instead of the rock, and he smote the rock and smote it twice. He used his own judgment, asserted his own will, and taught the people falsely. For this sin he and Aaron, who concurred with him in its commission, were excluded from entrance into the promised land. "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye to the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink. And Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as he commanded him. And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them."

We have here an inexpressibly affecting instance of the sin and folly of adding human inventions to the ordinances of God’s appointment, of the dreadful results that may follow from what men may conceive slight departures from obedience to the commands of God. Not to speak of Aaron, the accomplished orator, the venerable saint, the first anointed high priest of his people, this incomparable man, Moses, in whom were blended all natural gifts and supernatural graces, the deliverer, the legislator, the historian, the poet, the judge and the commander of Israel, after having brought them out of Egypt, conducted them through the parted waters of the Red Sea, mediated between them and God amidst the terrors of Sinai, led them through the horrors of the waste and howling desert,—this glorious man, now in sight of the Jordan, which like a thread separated them from the long-sought, long-coveted goal of their hearts, is doomed, for one addition to God’s command, which no doubt seemed to him but a slight deviation from his instructions, to die short of the promised land.

(5.) I Sam. 13.: Saul offering a burnt-offering at Gilgal. The king had no command to officiate as priest. Saul added to God’s command and performed a function for which he had no authority. The circumstances seemed to him to justify the act. But he gained the divine disapprobation and lost his kingdom for the blunder. "As for Saul, he was yet in Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling. And he tarried seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed: but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him. And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt-offering to me, and peace-offerings. And he offered the burnt-offering. And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt-offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him that he might salute him. And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash; therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt-offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee."

(6.) I Chron. 13:7, 8; 15:11-15: Uzza and the ark, and David’s subsequent obedience. The Levites, or, more particularly, the Kohathites, were expressly commanded to bear the ark. The manner of bearing it was also commanded. Rings were appended, through which staves were run. These poles, covered with gold, were to be supported on the shoulders of the bearers. They were forbidden to touch the ark upon pain of death. "After that, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear it: but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die." Such was God’s command. In transporting it from the house of Abinadab, David infringed the divine command by directing the ark to be borne on a cart drawn by oxen. Then when the animals stumbled, Uzza, with the intention of saving the ark from falling, touched it with his hand. He was instantly killed for his pious disobedience. "And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart. And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets. And when they came unto the threshing-floor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God." The offence was the more inexcusable, because the staves were never detached from the ark, and it is not at all likely that the Philistines, who had been subjected to so severe a treatment while they had it in their possession, had ventured to steal them. And it deserves consideration that those heathen had not been killed for handling the ark, while for doing the same thing God’s people, who should have known better, were taught an awful lesson.

The magnificent demonstration suffered a disastrous arrest, and the king of Israel, sobered by the warning he had received, returned home to do what he ought to have done before—to study the law of God. Having accomplished this neglected office, he makes a second attempt to remove the sacred symbol of God’s covenant to Jerusalem, but in a different fashion from the former. Let us hear the record. "And David called for Zadok and Abiathar the priests, and for the Levites, for Uriel, Asaiah, and Joel, Shemaiah, and Eliel and Amminadab, and said unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it. For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order. So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel. And the children of the Levites bare the ark upon their shoulders with the staves thereon, as Moses commanded according to the word of the Lord." It merits notice that when the ark was to be removed and instated in its place in the temple which was about to be dedicated, Solomon caused the "due order" to be observed. "And all the elders of Israel came; and the Levites took up the ark. And they brought up the ark, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, these did the priests and the Levites bring up. . . . And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto his place."[2] The history of this matter enforces the impressive lesson that we are not at liberty to use our own judgment and to act without a divine warrant in regard to things of God’s appointment.

[Jeremy Felden]

I did a bit of studying on the Davidic dancing issue. Admittedly, I had an axe to grind. The musician leading chapel at the school I teach at was having dozens of kids come up on the stage to do a ridiculous dance that was quite a performance. He used David's dance to justify it.

As far as I can tell, there are 2 commands to dance in Scripture. One is found in Ps. 149, the other in Ps. 150. I could be way, way off in this, but the language of Ps. 149 sounds like the celebration that the Israelites would perform when a king was installed. My understanding of David's dance was that he was acknowledging that God, the King of Israel, was the King over all Kings by participating in this royal procession. The Triumphal Entry is certainly a good parallel.

I finally decided that I would dance as long as I could also execute vengeance on the nations with a two edged sword :-)

[RBerman]

Those churches which most strongly propound a strict RPW also seem least likely to follow the many Scriptures which describe how worship was actually conducted in Bible times. Lots of prostration, loud percussion, etc. It takes quite a selective reading of Scripture to attend a typical Presbyterian worship service and say "We do it exactly like the Bible says it should be done, without adding or removing anything."

Schlissel's "All I Needed to Know About Worship..." articles make the point that the condemnations of what RPW advocates call "false worship" in the OT were actually condemnations of "false sacrifices" of one sort or another, which makes sense inasmuch as the sacrifices were the OT foreshadowing of the gospel of Christ. Messing with the sacrifices meant messing with the gospel, and God then as now doesn't tolerate any deviation in that regard.

[Dave]

Sorry this is a bit late...

Two simple (and unoriginal) points from me:

1. There is no universal agreement amongst subscribers to the RPW as to exactly what it means in practice. For example, some would say it mandates exclusive psalmody, others don't.

2. The main use of the RPW is to justify and perpetuate the established style of worship found in a church or group of churches. As such, it is part of a control system that stifles dissent and enforces conformity to the status quo.

Could I possibly suggest that we'd be better off if the RPW was consigned to the scrapheap of history. It seems to be little more than a misuse of Scripture to suit man's ends.

[Dave]

I also wanted to comment on Jeremy Felden's post on dance, as this is one of my particular interests.

Dancing in worship is mentioned more times in the Bible than being born-again is. I believe it is a biblical principle and that there is a place for both planned and spontaneous dance - it is a fallacy to suggest that all examples of Biblical dance were unstructured. Also, dance can be a presentation (or performance, just as a sermon or reading is a performance) to the congregation as well as an offering to God.

In a public setting, the key thing, to me, seems to be that it should be "fitting and orderly" (I Cor 14:40) such that it edifies the congregation. What this means in practice will vary according to the culture and customs of the situation.

The dancing at Jeremy's school chapel may well have been inappropriate, but please let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. I know many children (and adults) who meet with God through dance in worship.

Oh, and please be careful about the terminology you use. Whilst it doesn't have a dictionary definition, the term "davidic dance" is primarily used in the Messianic Jewish movement. It refers to their particular form of congregational worship dance that uses the style of Israeli folk dance to enable lots of people to dance together in worship in an ordered way, without needing dance training.

[Dave]

Another thought on the RPW. David said:

"At the very least, it will never succeed in bringing unity to the Reformed world's views on worship so long as we permit our application of the RPW to be governed as much by subjective taste as by the Word of God."

The truth is that interpreting the Bible is not an exact science and will always involve a degree of subjectivity. Two people can hold contradictory views on a particular subject, both claiming biblical support. How can we say who is right? In many cases, we simply can't.

I think a more honest approach is needed. Rather than claiming divine authority for our views (which is what we do when we say "the Bible says x"), we need to humbly admit that "we believe that the Bible says x, but others interpret it as meaning y or z".

We then need to consider carefully how we handle doctrinal differences within our churches. If, as I would propose, we accept that there is legitimate scope for differing views, then topics like the use of drums, drama, and dance in worship should be considered secondary issues where our personal preferences cannot really be distinguished from the Word of God.

We then need to have an honest discussion about what it is that makes us distinctive as a church, presbytery, or denomination. If we conclude that particular views on secondary matters (such as drums, dancing, or drama) are actually of prime importance to us, then we should say so, but not have the arrogance to claim absolute biblical support for our positions.

But I fear this would be too radical a step for many churches...