# Can someone give me a clear definition of element vs circums



## raderag (Jun 9, 2004)

I am trying to understand why musical instruments are a circumstance and drama is an element. I am clearly against drama, but I am not sure if I am consistent. What about solos, etc? Why are they circumstances? 

I would love to read historical arguments (especially at the time of Westminster) on this.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 9, 2004)

The problem RPW adherents have with drama is that is it NOT an element of worship. Elements of worship are distinguishable, constituent parts of the public worship of God. They are [i:16988ae3ee]prescribed[/i:16988ae3ee] in the Word. Unless there is a biblically grounded reason to omit them, they should always be a part of our worship (I'm thinking of the use of the sacraments, esp. baptism). The confession lists out pretty near all the elements that the Bible specifies. 

The place of musical instruments continues to be a point of debate/argument among RPW adherents. Some point to their use in the OT Temple and say that is sufficient justification for their continued use. Others argue that since they were OT, and therefore ceremonial, they have no place in the Word-oriented, simpler spiritual worship of the NT. The &quot;middle road&quot; between these two sees musical instruments as a circumstsnce of worship. Circumstances of worship are incidental and occasional parts of worship that facilitate the use of the worship elements. Examples of circumstances are 1) a building, 2) electricity, 3) hymnbooks, etc. None of these things are absolutely necessary to the public worship of God, and may vary or be dispensed with at different places and times. Musical instruments in this view are the servants of the singing of praise. 

So, the issue for RPW adherents remains the same, [i:16988ae3ee]viz.[/i:16988ae3ee] does whatever we do in worship have a biblical warrant, either as an element (which belongs to worship and ought to/must be included) or as a circumstance (which we are not to be attached to in the same way). As for choirs and solos, many of us (not all) reject the use of special music as contrary to the congregational solidarity of participation that is integral to Christian worship. Others think of them as another acceptable way of singing praise.

Positively, I am thoroughly convinced that drama, so far from being either element or circumstance, does two negative things to worship (and ought to be rejected as frankly [i:16988ae3ee]un-biblical[/i:16988ae3ee]). 1) it distracts from the divine &quot;drama&quot; of the prescribed worship, and detracts from the prescribed &quot;visual word&quot; of the sacraments; and 2) it brings in visuals that render our worship formally idolatrous.

As for the historical debates/arguments at the Assembly or elsewhere a published work on this subject could direct you better than I. You could check out the Assembly's Minutes, or histories of the Asembly. Brian Schwertley writes against musical instruments in his documented book [i:16988ae3ee]Musical Instruments in the Public Worship of God[/i:16988ae3ee] 1999, Reformed Witness, publisher. More generally, Joe Morecraft has a recent book out on worship, as do others. Avoid Frame's book on worship :wr50: . GPTS has a conference publication (and tapes) from a couple years ago on worship, very good. And Jeremiah Burroughs [i:16988ae3ee]Gospel Worship[/i:16988ae3ee], 1648, 1990 Soli Deo Gloria reprint, is peerless for expressing the Puritan view.

Hope this is helpful.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:745a6c60bc][i:745a6c60bc]Originally posted by Contra_Mundum[/i:745a6c60bc]
The problem RPW adherents have with drama is that is it NOT an element of worship. Elements of worship are distinguishable, constituent parts of the public worship of God. They are [i:745a6c60bc]prescribed[/i:745a6c60bc] in the Word. Unless there is a biblically grounded reason to omit them, they should always be a part of our worship (I'm thinking of the use of the sacraments, esp. baptism). The confession lists out pretty near all the elements that the Bible specifies. 
[/quote:745a6c60bc]

Actually, Brett, the problem that RPW advocates have with drama is that it IS an element of worship, just not a proper, prescribed lawful element. (viz. WCF 21.1, 3, 5)


----------



## py3ak (Jun 9, 2004)

Brett,

If I recall my Bannerman correctly, a circumstance in worship is that which is common to societies of any kind. As, for instance, the time that a church meets. This is a circumstance, because it is common to all societies. AA, businesses, and the ASPCA all have to select a time to meet just as much as a church does.

Bruce,

Good post. Is it possible to argue the validity of instruments in worship from the basic meaning of the word &quot;psalm&quot;? 

The only place that I see for special music would be in one of those relatively rare instances where a person is apt to teach and also able to sing alone without torture to men's ears. Given such a circumstance, if this person were teaching and chose to do so in part by singing a psalm or doctrinal hymn I would not object.

The place of the OT in providing warrant for NT worship has been bothering me a little bit lately. As I see it, something must not merely be warranted in Scripture, but warranted for worship. If we tighten the line to say not merely that we must find that someone practiced something, or that it follows by due and necessary consequence, or that we are commanded to do it, but that any of those three elements must specifically be in a context of worship, it seems very difficult to take the OT as warrant.

What do others think about this?

[Edited on 6-22-2004 by py3ak]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jun 21, 2004)

Now, the fun part is justifying BIBLICALLY the distinction between element and circumstance and how we can infallibly determine just what is an element and what is a circumstance.


----------



## gfincher (Jun 23, 2004)

*Regulative Principle?*

As an elder in the PCA, I am firmly in the RP camp. But, I take exception to the apparent disregard for John Frame's comments on worship. What is curious to me is that whenever anyone mentions the RP regarding worship, the immediate response is concerning what music is allowed, and how that music can be accompianed(sp) if at all. The other elements of worship are usually not battled over so vehemently. Anyway... I just read one of John Frame's papers on the regulative principle at:

http://www.reformed.org/misc/frame_regulative_principle.html

And, I must say that though he intentionally doesn't answer finally and completely what is &quot;in&quot; and what is &quot;out&quot;, he does manage to provide food for thought.

I'm learning the difference between element and circumstance exegetically and experientially in a body that worships as biblically as we know how. I also recently visited Mars Hill Church in Seattle that is what some has called an &quot;emerging church&quot; though it is Reformed in doctrine and mission. That this church worshiped was obvious; the sermon was expository and carefully exegeted, they share communion each Sunday, and they have a strong family ministry. Though my little town of Decatur, AL probably wouldn't be enamored of the &quot;modes&quot; or &quot;circumstances&quot; of Mars Hills methods, I believe that they were practicing worship biblically.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 23, 2004)

[quote:350ad2caea][i:350ad2caea]Originally posted by gfincher[/i:350ad2caea]
As an elder in the PCA, I am firmly in the RP camp. But, I take exception to the apparent disregard for John Frame's comments on worship. What is curious to me is that whenever anyone mentions the RP regarding worship, the immediate response is concerning what music is allowed, and how that music can be accompianed(sp) if at all. The other elements of worship are usually not battled over so vehemently. Anyway... I just read one of John Frame's papers on the regulative principle at:

http://www.reformed.org/misc/frame_regulative_principle.html

And, I must say that though he intentionally doesn't answer finally and completely what is &quot;in&quot; and what is &quot;out&quot;, he does manage to provide food for thought.

I'm learning the difference between element and circumstance exegetically and experientially in a body that worships as biblically as we know how. I also recently visited Mars Hill Church in Seattle that is what some has called an &quot;emerging church&quot; though it is Reformed in doctrine and mission. That this church worshiped was obvious; the sermon was expository and carefully exegeted, they share communion each Sunday, and they have a strong family ministry. Though my little town of Decatur, AL probably wouldn't be enamored of the &quot;modes&quot; or &quot;circumstances&quot; of Mars Hills methods, I believe that they were practicing worship biblically. [/quote:350ad2caea]

Glenn,

You are correct that the style or type of music in a worship service is not a matter for the Regulative Principle. It may be a matter of taste and of propriety, but not the RPW.

The main thrust of Frame's views on worship are to redefine the RPW so that it is meaningless. First he takes &quot;worship&quot; and makes it all of life. Then he states the obvious (yawn) that the Scriptures cannot prescribe every aspect of life. And then viola, he makes the RPW of no effect.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 23, 2004)

We do want to be prudent in worship as well. Everyone will agree on that.

Christian prudence is an important element to the circumstance of worship. Heavy metal, for instance, is not something that I think would be beneficial for everyone in worship. Speed metal even less. Not because heavy metal or speed metal is innately evil, but because it does not allow the congregation to sing together in a manner in which they edify one another, which is part of worship.

It was also be wrong to have all of us stand on our heads while we sing. It would be too hard, though standing on our heads is not sinful, just not a good idea for corporate worship.

We also want to make a distinction between &quot;corporate&quot; worship and individual worship. Something I think Frame messes up (Fred alluded to this).

What we want to be sure we do is follow what has been prescribed, and use prudence in every other area, not introducing anything in worship that is not prescribed.

For example, Craig said it is our task to determine what is circumstance and what is element. Practically, off the cuff, I think this is easily answered by this: look at a Reformed worship service in 1540 and a Lutheran worship service at the same time. What elements do we have in either, and what are different? Luther said whatever is not forbidden is allowed, and Calvin said whatever is not commanded is not allowed. Difference there are radical.

The same could be said for the Puritan services in England or colonial America.

We have a tendency to look at how WE would define this today at the expense of how the church defined it for years a long time before us.


----------

