# PCA stance on RP



## raderag (May 24, 2004)

Does this make much sense to anybody? I am in agreement with the RP, but the many differening ways of interpreting it are really confusing to me. Here is a PCA statement:

[quote:b30647d4f1]
Worship: The Regulative Principle

A STATEMENT

OF IDENTITY

FOR THE

PRESBYTERIAN

CHURCH

IN AMERICA

December 1998




6. We affirm that since God has made us for Himself, He is better qualified than we are to define how worship, as our highest duty and deepest joy, is to be expressed. It is God alone who defines the content of worship He is to receive from men (Ex. 20:4-6; Deut. 12:30-32; Isa. 29:13; Maq. 15:8-9; Col. 2:23; WCF XXI. 1; WLC 108, 109).

We deny that human beings have liberty to devise elements of worship that God has not prescribed, to obligate others to participate in elements that God has not mandated in his Word, or not to allow others to perform elements He has clearly approved.

7. We affirm that biblical warrant is needed for any element to be included in worship. Elements are parts of worship defined by and prescribed in scripture. Therefore, we affirm that whatever is not commanded is forbidden and that God's will is that He be worshipped only in ways He prescribes.

We deny that it is sufficient merely to assert that worship practices should not contradict the Bible, nor is it accurate to assert that whatever is not forbidden is permitted.

8. We affirm the sufficiency of scripture to define the worship that God desires and prescribes.

We deny that, while God commands the worship He desires, His commands can always be found in proof texts. Worship elements are drawn both explicitly from scripture and implicitly from what may, by good and necessary inference, be deduced from scripture (WCF I.6). We do not have a precise and exhaustive &quot;list&quot; of worship elements in scripture or in our constitutional documents. We must, therefore, exegete and analyze biblical texts and determine the relationship of Old Testament and New Testament passages, in order to discern what scripture says about worship that may not be explicit.

9. We affirm that there are also varying &quot;circumstances&quot; of worship that affect specific ways in which we express the elements of worship. Circumstances are those matters and actions attending the elements of worship which include (but are not limited to) the arrangements, order, proportion, and timing involved in the presentation and conduct of the elements (but which do not affect the normative and essential content of the elements). We also affirm that circumstances are defined by what is common to human actions and societies within a given culture. Such circumstances are ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence.

We deny that circumstances are described in scripture or in our confessional documents with the same normative force as elements but are in fact culturally diverse, though they ought always to be decided with full reverence to God alone, under the guidance of biblical principles, and with humble respect for the unity of the body of Christ.

10. We affirm that there are varying &quot;expressions&quot; of worship, which are a type of circumstance relating to matters, actions, and choices communicating the elements of worship which include (but are not limited to) the form, manner, phrasing, and style in which the elements are presented. Expressions include such things as the order of the elements, the specific words of sermons, the musical style, the forms of prayer, and the use of historical rubrics.

We also affirm that there are practices in worship that are not universally employed in the PCA and that remain somewhat controversial (e.g., use of musical instruments, vocalists, drama and dance, lifting or clapping of hands, regular use of women in liturgical leadership, use of kneelers, and use of various forms of art). We acknowledge that there is disagreement regarding (a) whether each of these practices is an &quot;element&quot; or an &quot;expression/ circumstance,&quot; and (b) whether, if a particular practice is best understood as an &quot;element&quot; of worship, it is approved by God in scripture for the church's worship under the New Covenant.

We affirm that both questions merit open, respectful, reflective discussion and a searching of scripture; that cherished tradition, personal preference, and pragmatic innovation must be subordinated to a desire to offer worship pleasing to God; and that humble respect for the unity of the body calls upon us to seek to increase our unity in matters of biblical principle and to respect one another's conscience in areas where scripture grants liberty.

We deny that the Reformed tradition of worship should never change or that it should change without careful reflection in the church; we further deny that, in the church's reflection on worship practices, human taste or innovation may replace God's revealed will as the criterion by which we determine what is acceptable in worship.

11. We affirm that scripture regulates circumstances and expressions in general, and sometimes in specific ways; but in many cases the specific decisions in these matters must be determined by &quot;the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed&quot; (WFC I.6).

We deny either that we may make decisions regarding the circumstances or expressions of worship without consulting scripture or that we need specific scriptural warrant for every circumstance or expression.

12. We affirm that the freedom that the New Testament gives in arranging the elements and circumstances of worship and in expressing cultural diversity should be balanced with concerns for the unity of the worldwide church (Rom. 14:5-6; Col. 2:1 6; 3:1 2-1 7). This unity extends horizontally across the current generation of Christians throughout the world and also vertically across every age (and therefore back into biblical times). Sensitivity towards unity of form and style will also lessen the difficulty that believers experience when visiting other congregations or in relocating and transferring membership.

We deny that churches are so free in developing their own styles that they should ignore the practice of other churches, losing sight of the unity of the church at worship.

13. We affirm that the regulative principle sets us free from the &quot;traditions of men&quot; (Isa. 29:13; BCO 47-6).

We deny that the regulative principle should be used to promote an uncritical acceptance of tradition in worship, whether that tradition be Presbyterian or from some other branch of the church.

In worship we seek to honor God, and we cannot know what pleases Him in worship apart from His Word. Therefore our worship is limited to those &quot;elements&quot; that God's Word prescribes. We may not invent or devise new elements of worship beyond what God has revealed (Isa. 29:13). However, that does not mean that we must find a scripture verse to tell us when we should meet, or whether to use pews or chairs, whether to use a piano or guitar, hymnals or overhead projectors. The detailed ways in which we carry out the biblical commands of worship are often varied by the dictates of &quot;circumstances.&quot; Sometimes scripture speaks concerning these variations, but in many cases we have no specific scriptural guidance and have to make decisions by our own God-given wisdom, in light of the broader principles of the Word.

Different churches may use varying &quot;expressions&quot; of the elements of worship, because of differences in situations, times, locations, cultures, historical backgrounds, or evangelistic opportunities. Some congregations believe that a regular, formal liturgy enables them better to concentrate on the worship of God. Others find a less formal, frequently varied style is more edifying in their local setting. We do have liberty in such matters. But that liberty should be exercised according to scriptural values. Even regarding our circumstantial decisions, we must ask what best glorifies God and what is most conducive to the edification of believers and to the witness of unbelievers (I Cor. 14:1-25).

Unfortunately, the regulative principle is sometimes illadvisedly used to force believers to worship according to older traditions, even traditions which for many are no longer understandable. This is ironic, for the regulative principle, both in scripture itself (Matt. 15:8-9) and during the Reformation, was used against religious traditionalism, to oppose it with the claims of scripture. Tradition is not to be despised, certainly. There are many values in it. We gratefully acknowledge what may be the Reformed tradition's greatest value: that our ultimate standard is scripture and scripture alone. Regulation of worship by scripture alone puts all other tradition in its proper place: as a valuable resource, but not as a rule for faith.

[/quote:b30647d4f1]


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 24, 2004)

I am assuming this is a quote from the constitution. My wife and family have not been actively involved in a P.C.A. church for several years now but we have seen and been involved with three different churches in which the R.P. was interpreted three different ways. I personally don't have a problem with that as long as there is scriptural warrant for what is going on and it is being done decently and in order and Christ is being exalted. I think we have liberty to interpret it differently from community to community. I think we have to remember the Body of Christ is made up of sinful people who try to interpret scripture the best we can.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 24, 2004)

This is from a document entitled &quot;Vision 2000&quot; the precursor to the PPLN movement in the PCA.

It was basically an attempt to redefine the PCA constitution through non-constitutional means. This has absolutely no authority in the PCA.

It is merely the pontification of some &quot;important&quot; pastors of mega-churches and a few famous names in the PCA.


----------



## raderag (May 24, 2004)

[quote:eaf72c29ea][i:eaf72c29ea]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:eaf72c29ea]
This is from a document entitled &quot;Vision 2000&quot; the precursor to the PPLN movement in the PCA.

It was basically an attempt to redefine the PCA constitution through non-constitutional means. This has absolutely no authority in the PCA.

It is merely the pontification of some &quot;important&quot; pastors of mega-churches and a few famous names in the PCA. [/quote:eaf72c29ea]

That's good to hear.

Are there ever any cases of the PCA disciplining a church for violating the RP?

[Edited on 5-24-2004 by raderag]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 24, 2004)

[quote:01e3e50deb][i:01e3e50deb]Originally posted by raderag[/i:01e3e50deb]
[quote:01e3e50deb][i:01e3e50deb]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:01e3e50deb]
This is from a document entitled &quot;Vision 2000&quot; the precursor to the PPLN movement in the PCA.

It was basically an attempt to redefine the PCA constitution through non-constitutional means. This has absolutely no authority in the PCA.

It is merely the pontification of some &quot;important&quot; pastors of mega-churches and a few famous names in the PCA. [/quote:01e3e50deb]

That's good to hear.

Are there ever any cases of the PCA disciplining a church for violating the RP?

[Edited on 5-24-2004 by raderag] [/quote:01e3e50deb]

Not that I am aware of. The closest thing that I have heard of was when the GA (in 1999 I think) took an exception of substance to a Presbytery's minutes (S. Florida I think) where the Scripture for a Presbytery worship service was read by a woman. The GA sent it back to Presbytery to explain their actions in light of 1 Tim 2:12. But nothing of real substance ever came of it.

After all, &quot;a woman can do anything an unordained man can do&quot; right?


----------



## raderag (May 24, 2004)

[quote:2fbbc6323c][i:2fbbc6323c]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:2fbbc6323c]

After all, &quot;a woman can do anything an unordained man can do&quot; right?  [/quote:2fbbc6323c]

And even better. 

Fred, I know you have a high view of the RP, so what do you think the PCA should do, if anything about those that violate it? 

Do you think drama is a clear violation? Is there anywhere that I can read clear guidelines. It seems as we could interpret the WCF in many different ways.


----------



## FrozenChosen (May 24, 2004)

Fred, I'm interested too. I'm curious as to the specifics of your view (kinds of songs, instruments you'd allow, etc.).


----------



## fredtgreco (May 24, 2004)

Here is a starting point - an answer I gave on a Presbytery Licensure exam:

[quote:22c44a63f2]The Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) is best summarized by the phrase: "proper worship is whatever God has commanded, whatever is not commanded is forbidden." The RPW is a proper extension of the Biblical principle of "Sola Scriptura," in which the Scriptures alone are sufficient to point sinful mankind to what worship God desires. This is set over against an Anglican or Lutheran view of worship which posits that proper worship is whatever is commanded or not expressly forbidden. A helpful analogy will suffice to point out the distinction: Two men are building a house, Mr. Puritan and Mr. Anglican. Mr. Anglican is careful to build the house in avoiding all prohibited materials and prohibited designs, for example if sand and hay are forbidden, he may build of brick, wood or stone. Mr. Puritan, however, will only use that he has been commanded to use, in the pattern that he has been commanded to use, for example if sand and hay are forbidden and brick is commanded, he may not build of stone or wood. The Biblical expression of the RPW is found primarily in the 2nd Commandment, in two respects: (1) like each other Commandment, all lesser sins are forbidden by the expression of the greater (e.g. do not murder also means do not maim or harm) and (2) like all other Commandments, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded. Additionally, if the 2nd Commandment did not refer to the manner of worship (as opposed to the Person of Who should be worshipped), there would be no need to separate the 1st and 2nd Commandments (which is in fact the position of the Romists).
Given those facts, as we look to Scripture, we see the following proper elements of worship: preaching of the Word, reading of the Word, prayer, singing praise, presenting tithes and offerings, the administration of the sacraments and vows. All other elements are forbidden. It is my fervent desire to be Biblical in my worship, and therefore to offer up acceptable worship to God, and therefore I do adhere to the RPW.

Drama is not an element of worship prescribed in the Scripture. As such it is blasphemous before God, and I would neither participate in it nor countenance it. It is certainly not a circumstance of worship, but is instead an attempt to usurp the place of proper Biblical elements.[/quote:22c44a63f2]

As far as types of songs, I do not think that any [i:22c44a63f2]type[/i:22c44a63f2] of song is prohibited by the RPW per se, although there certainly are songs that I consider unsuitable because of their content (In the Garden and Spirit Song come immediately to mind)

The same thing for instruments. I don't believe that the RPW requires us to sing acappella, because I believe that instruments are a circumstance, not an element of worship. But that means that they should enhance, not interfere with congregational singing.

I would walk out of a service that had drama or liturgical dance.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 24, 2004)

[quote:27eca33890]
Fred, I know you have a high view of the RP, so what do you think the PCA should do, if anything about those that violate it? 
[/quote:27eca33890]

I'm not Fred :bs2: but I have thought about this a bit as well.

An interesting recent example of this conflict is the matter of the movie [i:27eca33890]The Passion of the Christ[/i:27eca33890]. Now, I don't want to argue the issue here, but there are examples of PCA congregations actively promoting this movie. One congregation in our presbytery had a HUGE promotional sign in front of the church building.

In our presbytery we regard it as an &quot;exception&quot; if a TE has a view of the 2nd Commandment different than what is stated in Q 109 of the Westminster Larger Catechism (see below). That is, if a TE states they would permit using images of Christ for, say, didactic purposes, that would be presented tot he presbytery as an exception. 

Generally, a TE is not permitted to teach or promote their exceptions in their official capacity as a TE. We do not allow, for example, TEs who believe in paedocommunion to teach or practice paedocommunion in their congregations.

But somehow these alternative views of images of Christ fall into another category. Apparently TEs [b:27eca33890]are[/b:27eca33890] permitted to actively teach and promote their &quot;exceptions&quot; in this area, at least in some presbyteries.

In general I think much of the RPW is handled in a similar way. The way this is done is by categorizing a whole host of practices as &quot;circumstances of worship&quot;. Things like church calendars for regulating worship days, candles and other adornments to the worship facility, etc. In fact, one article on the PCANews.com site by Dan McCartney put it this way, "Circumstantial aspects of worship include (among many others) standing or kneeling or sitting, raising hands, musical preludes, processionals, boys' choirs, hymn books and prayer books, incense, candles, ministerial robes, pulpits and lecterns, stained glass, carved wood latticework, hand-crafted communion tables, plastic communion cups, collection plates, overhead projectors, printed bulletins, ceiling fans, carpeting, and pews. ...&quot;.

Note the hodge-podge of items in this list. I would argue that some of these items, like choirs and incense and candles, are really not circumstances of worship. But this is one way that the core issues are made fuzzy, by recasting the terminology and categories.


[quote:27eca33890]
Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; [b:27eca33890]the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever[/b:27eca33890]; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed. 
[/quote:27eca33890]

[Edited on 5-24-2004 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Paragraphs 3-5 of Chapter 21 list the proper elements of worship:


[quote:643cc0459c]
3. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is by God required of all men: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, by the help of his Spirit, according to his will, with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance; and, if vocal, in a known tongue. 
4. Prayer is to be made for things lawful; and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter: but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death. 
5. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner. 
[/quote:643cc0459c]

In the view of the Reformers, there were no proper elements beyond these. This does provide some difficulty for modern reformeds, as it requires exclusive psalmody, which few adhere to (I do not, although there are a few microdenominations that do). People get around it the same way that the dancers and dramatizers get around it (as demonstrated in the above aritcle) - simply affirm the RP in its abstract and differ in concrete practice or application. Rejecting Reformation precedent does open the issue of biblical interpretation up. This is a sad place to be but it is where we are. 

See also, the Westminster Directory of Public Worship for more detailed information.

Scott


----------



## fredtgreco (May 24, 2004)

[quote:90ca36fd9d][i:90ca36fd9d]Originally posted by Scott[/i:90ca36fd9d]
Paragraphs 3-5 of Chapter 21 list the proper elements of worship:


[quote:90ca36fd9d]
3. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is by God required of all men: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, by the help of his Spirit, according to his will, with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance; and, if vocal, in a known tongue. 
4. Prayer is to be made for things lawful; and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter: but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death. 
5. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner. 
[/quote:90ca36fd9d]

In the view of the Reformers, there were no proper elements beyond these. This does provide some difficulty for modern reformeds, as it requires exclusive psalmody, which few adhere to (I do not, although there are a few microdenominations that do). People get around it the same way that the dancers and dramatizers get around it (as demonstrated in the above aritcle) - simply affirm the RP in its abstract and differ in concrete practice or application. Rejecting Reformation precedent does open the issue of biblical interpretation up. This is a sad place to be but it is where we are. 
[/quote:90ca36fd9d]

Scott,

I don't get around the exclusive psalmody issue by [color=blue:90ca36fd9d]&quot;affirm the RP in its abstract and differ in concrete practice or application&quot;[/color:90ca36fd9d] although I agree completely with you that is argument used by those who would do away with the RPW - see Frame's book Worship in Spirit and in Truth for a particularly egregious and bad treatment of this issue (I've never seen one abstract verse (really one word in a verse)used to countenance so many deviations from a doctrine).

I see the singing of hymns as commanded in Scripture (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Hymns are an element. They are commanded, and therefore to be used. Accordingly, I have registered an exception with both Presbyteries by which I am licensed and my Session as to WCF 21.5. I would also not be opposed to an amendment to the Confession on this point in the PCA, especially since the vast majority of the PCA actually &quot;confesses&quot; the exception here.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

[quote:fc78ca5230]
Accordingly, I have registered an exception with both Presbyteries by which I am licensed and my Session as to WCF 21.5. 
[/quote:fc78ca5230]

Fred: That is good and you do avoid the problem. I have not heard of anyone doing that before. I cannot think of anyone in my presbytery who has done that (and there are no exclusive pslamody churches in the presbytery as far as I am aware - I only became an elder in January).

I suppose another approach would be to consider the practice of the PCA at the time it adopted of the Confession. Its understanding of the confession may be the relevant inquiry. Exclusive psalmody was not the practice of the PCA at the time of adoption.

Scott


----------



## fredtgreco (May 24, 2004)

[quote:4aff075630][i:4aff075630]Originally posted by Scott[/i:4aff075630]
[quote:4aff075630]
Accordingly, I have registered an exception with both Presbyteries by which I am licensed and my Session as to WCF 21.5. 
[/quote:4aff075630]

Fred: That is good and you do avoid the problem. I have not heard of anyone doing that before. I cannot think of anyone in my presbytery who has done that (and there are no exclusive pslamody churches in the presbytery as far as I am aware - I only became an elder in January).

I suppose another approach would be to consider the practice of the PCA at the time it adopted of the Confession. Its understanding of the confession may be the relevant inquiry. Exclusive psalmody was not the practice of the PCA at the time of adoption.

Scott [/quote:4aff075630]

Yes you may be right.

The irony is that many Presbyteries do not even consider it an exception and won't take it!

Either it is because of the adopting intent (a good thing) or a way to avoid the implications of their own practices (a bad thing)


----------



## Scott (May 25, 2004)

I think another reason for the lack of exceptions is that many presbyters do not realize that the Confession interpreted in the Reformation context implies exclusive psalmody. Most are not steeped in Reformation writings. 

Scott


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2004)

[quote:5a5a84625f][i:5a5a84625f]Originally posted by Scott[/i:5a5a84625f]
I think another reason for the lack of exceptions is that many presbyters do not realize that the Confession interpreted in the Reformation context implies exclusive psalmody. Most are not steeped in Reformation writings. 

Scott [/quote:5a5a84625f]

Agreed. Most are not even aware of exclusive psalmody and would be shocked if they knew Calvin's and Knox's preferences.

Not surprising I guess, since the official denominational policy is to have at least one psalm sung in each worship service (passed by GA in the early 1990s I think) , and only a fraction of PCA churches have EVER sung a psalm.


----------



## Preach (May 25, 2004)

What is the opinion of the board regarding solos and choirs. It seems that the Biblical intent is focused on corporate worship. Would not a soloist (which I have witnessed during the collection of the tithes and offerings) violate the RPW? In addition, what about choirs. Don't the majority of Presbyterian churches have choirs? Or do they? Thanks.


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 25, 2004)

I know we have dealt with this before but it has recently been brought to my attention again, what about clapping, shouting, dancing, and raising ones hand as expressions of worship. The psalms and other portions of scripture seem to indicate that these are valid expressions of joyous worship to The Lord. These passages seem to have a certain spontinaity to them, yet orderliness.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 25, 2004)

*RPW deals specifically with the Public Worship of God*

What [i:8ba23d23ce]kind[/i:8ba23d23ce] of clapping? What [i:8ba23d23ce]kind[/i:8ba23d23ce] of raising hands? What [i:8ba23d23ce]kind[/i:8ba23d23ce] of shouting? What [i:8ba23d23ce]kind[/i:8ba23d23ce] of dancing? 

If you could get everyone (remember our culture now) in church to comfortably clap [i:8ba23d23ce]in rhythm[/i:8ba23d23ce] as musical accompaniment, I can see it fitting in. But applause? No way. Clapping just because someone individually thinks its a good idea (or even biblical) apart from the decision of the elders as to what constitutes decorum in worship? Won't fly.

Raising of hands, similarly, get everyone to do it and the scene might work. This is an army, right? The gathered people of God. In public worship we are acting in concert, the public display of the inexorable advance of the Kingdom of God against Satan. So we all assume the same posture as we are able (don't want to absolutely exclude the handicapped--they will be joining in fully in heaven). 

The &quot;shout&quot; or &quot;joyful sound&quot; (as it is rendered in Ps. 100:1) was a kind of &quot;vocal trumpet blast.&quot; Not like a raucous crowd at a ball game, but a unison word or words. Imagine a whole arena of believers shouting (not singing) AMEN! at the end of a hymn, or prayer. It would sound like a clap of thunder. It would not be individualistic or &quot;spontaneous.&quot; 

Do we dance like Israelites? What is the dancing? Define it. Where do we find dance in the [i:8ba23d23ce]worship service[/i:8ba23d23ce] (not just somewhere in the O.T.)? Nowhere. Ps. 150? We often sing during public worship about things we wouldn't do in public worship. David danced before the Lord? Wasn't public worship service. But I'll give 30 seconds of consideration to the notion of the leadership (ministers and elders) leading us all in worship by dancing (my own idea of dancing) down front. 
------
Yikes. Moving on... Simply put, until the 20th century dance has never been considered a legitimate part of the public worship of God in the church. True worship is cross-cultural. I know. I've seen Christian worship in some distinctly foreign settings. And it's still largely recognizable. Some cultures can't or won't appreciate dance, however it is defined. How does the &quot;audience&quot; of gathered worshippers participate in &quot;dance&quot; done by &quot;professionals?&quot; Most of us don't even appreciate secular balet.

Anyway, that's basically how I deal with those four issues.


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 25, 2004)

Bruce,
I would pretty much agree with that, and that has been for the most part my response. If it is scripturally mandated, done decently and in order, and most of all exalts Christ, then go for it.


----------



## FrozenChosen (May 27, 2004)

[quote:a273853b0b][i:a273853b0b]Originally posted by Preach[/i:a273853b0b]
What is the opinion of the board regarding solos and choirs. It seems that the Biblical intent is focused on corporate worship. Would not a soloist (which I have witnessed during the collection of the tithes and offerings) violate the RPW? In addition, what about choirs. Don't the majority of Presbyterian churches have choirs? Or do they? Thanks. [/quote:a273853b0b]

Both the PCA churches I list do not have choirs. McIlwain occaisionally has one during a particular season (can't remember which).

I don't particularly like the idea of soloists during the offeratory, but I do not mind perhaps a duet or trio or a small group singing a hymn or whatnot. I think singing alone is kind of like calling attention to yourself.

I do not see how choirs would violate the RPW. Choirs can serve an important function in leading worship as providing guidance for singing different parts. Obviously we all don't have the same vocal ranges, and we don't want to strain, have our voices crack, and distract our brothers!

I hate when I see GUITAR players do solos or something like that in worship services. I do not see these in the churches I attend, but I've visited a couple (Baptist, no, not reformed). It's so ME ME ME LOOK AT ME kinds of things like that which get FrozenChosen heated up!

Although I do not mind like a musical interlude where there is time for reflection on the words of the hymn. I do not see anything wrong with that (but correct me if you do).


----------



## Ianterrell (May 27, 2004)

Bruce,

A no. of years ago I went to a church were one day the &quot;worship&quot; culminated and the entire congregation including the pastor's wife broke out in the electric slide. I kid you not. Corporate worship? Or sensual entertainment passed off as praise?


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 27, 2004)

[quote:4a91f7314e][i:4a91f7314e]Originally posted by Preach[/i:4a91f7314e]
What is the opinion of the board regarding solos and choirs. It seems that the Biblical intent is focused on corporate worship. Would not a soloist (which I have witnessed during the collection of the tithes and offerings) violate the RPW? In addition, what about choirs. Don't the majority of Presbyterian churches have choirs? Or do they? Thanks. [/quote:4a91f7314e]

We've had people attend our church for a time and then run like rabbits when they found out not only did we not have a choir that we had no interest in forming a choir.

In principle I have no problem with a choir under the following conditions:
[list:4a91f7314e]
[*:4a91f7314e]The choir is to ASSIST the minister in leading the congregation in corporate worship. They are not worship leaders, that's the minister's role.
[*:4a91f7314e]The choir should be positioned to assist the congregation, i.e., they should be behind the congregation or to the side, not in front of it.
[*:4a91f7314e]The choir is never to sing solo from the congregation. 
[*:4a91f7314e]Robes or other adornments are verboten. They serve no practical purpose.
[/list:u:4a91f7314e]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 27, 2004)

*Laugh? Cry? ----- (confusion) ----- blackout ...*

[quote:ce746ce180][i:ce746ce180]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:ce746ce180]
A no. of years ago I went to a church were one day the &quot;worship&quot; culminated and the entire congregation including the pastor's wife broke out in the electric slide. I kid you not. Corporate worship? Or sensual entertainment passed off as praise?

 [/quote:ce746ce180](insert fit of palsy here) 

uhhhh, Sorry, lost it there for a moment. That vision was almost as bad as the elders in tutus. Or mumus. Or whatever. &quot;Hey, Lets have everyone do a piruette on cue! No, how about squat thrusts!&quot; Give a new &quot;spiritual meaning&quot; to the term, &quot;Sweating to the Oldies.&quot; Can you imagine a missionary introducing &quot;elctric slide worship&quot; into a foreign culture? I'm not even sure this kind of confusion even rates a &quot;sensual entertainment&quot; judgment. &quot;Silliness&quot; is the language that comes to my mind. 

Let's face it. &quot;Dance&quot; however you define or describe it is foreign to corporate worship. It cannot be found [i:ce746ce180]at all[/i:ce746ce180] in the NT (apart from Herod's bleary banquet) and the OT celebrations (not worship service) I already dispensed with. A verse (or two) is a flimsy reed to lean on when you're building a doctrine anyway. Worship governed by the Word will bear a markedly similar nature from culture to culture, from era to era.


----------



## Ianterrell (May 27, 2004)

Yes, unfortunately I can. I have worse stories to tell you!!!

This same &quot;electric-slide&quot; church one time had puppets singing along with the praise team...you know to get the kids involved. :flaming:

Yet another thrilling adventure in American Christianity, some friends of have gone on short term &quot;missions&quot; where they spend three weeks &quot;relationship-building&quot; and then on the last day they have a big musical presentation of the gospel...

:flaming::flaming:


----------

