(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.
