Month: November 2006

Because of some recent questions which have come my way, I have been encouraged to revisit the very important question of the standards which the church uses to guide and regulate what it will and will not do in worship. The regulation of worship is codified in the Westminster Standards by a principle which has been popularly termed “The Regulative Principle of Worship.” This is somewhat a misnomer, as everyone has some principle of regulation. Some principles are much freer than others. Nevertheless, I have come to this question asking this fundamental question: is the Regulative Principle as it is traditionally formulated supported by Scripture? How strong is the case biblically?

I know that as a man ordained in the PCA that I should be able to generate my own defense. I can, and have, but have wondered if my own defense is, uh, defensible. So, I have looked to others to make the case for me.

I have looked at articles by two men seeking a sound biblical defense of the principle that the only worship acceptable to God is that which he commands. Both men argue their case with Scripture and both would be expected to bring the strongest argument possible to the table. I have found neither persuasive. [Perhaps you have an article that you find persuasive? Let me hear from you.]

I find that in both similar logical lapses, confusing the way of approach to God in salvation with an approach to God in worship, taking texts which speak clearly to the former and applying them to the latter. Interestingly, I find the argument that a consistent application of this principle would lead to the exclusive use of unaccompanied metrical psalms. The outcome is a worship that is locked in space and time, to one historic and cultural moment: 17th century Puritan Great Britain. Do we really want to articulate that then in that time alone worship was restored to its pristine perfection?

My discomfort, I confess, arises partly from having worshiped in other countries among other cultures. I cannot conceive that a God who so creatively diversifies the cultures of the world would force all those cultures into one [Western] worship mold. To overcome this objection in my mind will take a strong exegetical case. I have yet to find it.

Secondly, I should note here the sense I perceive in those writing in support of the regulative principle. I sense that they are fearful of God giving liberty to his church in any area, but particularly in the area of worship. The idea of liberty for some of us is a difficult notion, for we fear what people would do with such liberty. Paul’s only concern is that we not use our liberty for licentiousness. But this proves that it is POSSIBLE to so use our liberty.

My sense is that the same liberty may apply in worship. God has given us great liberty in the gospel. Perhaps he gives us great liberty in worship. We resist saying that, fearful of what some might do with such liberty. So, we try to corral and restrain this liberty, perhaps contrary to God’s intention.

I do believe that Scripture must regulate worship. But I also believe that God’s regulation of worship may allow for greater freedom than our Reformed heritage might have imagined. God entrusts his people with greater liberty than we can imagine. There is joy in this realization. I fear liberty, too, but God doesn’t.

The church can be trusted with great liberty. When such liberty is embraced, so great will love for God be that the church will, stumbling here and there, no doubt (as we have seen over the past 40 or so years), learn to worship God with sincere reverence and awe. Does God require more?

Just over twenty years ago, I picked up a book that seemed to be full of wisdom and insight which promised great help to me in my Christian walk. That book was called Ordering Your Private World and was written by a prominent Boston pastor named Gordon MacDonald. I loved the book, recommended the book, and then was betrayed by the author of the book. Shortly after reading the book, its author was appointed the new president of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship. Within weeks of that appointment, he was accused of and confessed to being unfaithful to his wife. I was deeply distressed and angry, and would not look at the book for years.

But, MacDonald himself, disappeared for years. Wisely, he was removed from public ministry and exposure. He and his family were walking a long path of recovery and healing and repentance. Repentance in a leader must be, it seems to me, as notorious as his sin. Twenty years later, the work of God’s grace in Pastor MacDonald’s life seems real. I am ready to listen to him again. I think we all must listen.

Below is a link to a reflection that he wrote for Christianity Today on the Ted Haggard scandal. It is spoken with wisdom and insight that can only come from one who has walked this path before. He knows the dangers of fame and power and he knows the dangers faced by the famous and powerful who fall. His words are worth pondering.

But as well, he makes some observations about the evangelical movement as a whole, and the political associations we make. These words say better than I ever could what I often feel.

This is a long article, and I cannot say how long this link will remain active and functional. I encourage your reading this as soon as you have opportunity.

The Haggard Truth

The title sounds almost criminal. Arrogant at least. However, the request has been made to configure this to allow an RSS feed (or ATOM, depending on the format you use). This I’ve done. To do so, I have had to open the site to everyone who wants to see it. However, only those can comment who are ‘members’. If you want to comment, let me know.