# The Regulative Principle of Worship and the Gospel



## dcomin (Aug 18, 2008)

http://cominsense.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/the-regulative-principle-of-worship-and-the-gospel/

New post on my blog that seeks to develop an idea that I've been thinking about for a long time now - that the reason God so closely regulates worship, ala the RPW, is that He has created worship to be a display of the Gospel to His people. Distort appointed worship = Distort the Gospel.

OT worship was a vibrant external picture of Christ's work yet to come. Therefore, to add to or subtract from it was to deface the Gospel hidden in the ceremonies.

NT worship is a vibrant spiritual picture of Christ's _finished_ work. No more external pictures needed. Simple word-centered worship displays the completion of all by Christ. Adding externals obscures this truth and creates the impression that man contributes to restored communion with God.

Comments, critiques, and suggestions are welcome.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 18, 2008)

Thank you for sharing that, Doug! To add another quote from Calvin on _The Necessity of Reforming the Church_,



> If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz., a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain. After these come the Sacraments and the Government of the Church, which, as they were instituted for the preservation of these branches of doctrine, ought not to be employed for any other purpose; and, indeed, the only means of ascertaining whether they are administered purely and in due form, or otherwise, is to bring them to this test. If any one is desirous of a clearer and more familiar illustration, I would say, that rule in the Church, the pastoral office, and all other matters of order, resemble the body, whereas the doctrine which regulates the due worship of God, and points out the ground on which the consciences of men must rest their hope of salvation, is the soul which animates the body, renders it lively and active, and, in short, makes it not to be a dead and useless carcase.


----------



## R Harris (Aug 18, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Thank you for sharing that, Doug! To add another quote from Calvin on _The Necessity of Reforming the Church_,
> 
> 
> 
> > If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz., a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain. After these come the Sacraments and the Government of the Church, which, as they were instituted for the preservation of these branches of doctrine, ought not to be employed for any other purpose; and, indeed, the only means of ascertaining whether they are administered purely and in due form, or otherwise, is to bring them to this test. If any one is desirous of a clearer and more familiar illustration, I would say, that rule in the Church, the pastoral office, and all other matters of order, resemble the body, whereas the doctrine which regulates the due worship of God, and points out the ground on which the consciences of men must rest their hope of salvation, is the soul which animates the body, renders it lively and active, and, in short, makes it not to be a dead and useless carcase.



I always marvel at this quote from Calvin - basically equating proper worship with salvation itself. Wow!!!

If Calvin is right, it is extreme cause for terror and discouragement with regard to the Church as a whole right now.


----------



## dcomin (Aug 19, 2008)

R Harris said:


> I always marvel at this quote from Calvin - basically equating proper worship with salvation itself. Wow!!!
> 
> If Calvin is right, it is extreme cause for terror and discouragement with regard to the Church as a whole right now.



It's a powerful quote. I don't think Calvin is necessarily *equating *proper worship with salvation though, Randy. He says that the knowledge of the mode in which God is duly to be worshipped *and *the knowledge of the source from which salvation is to be obtained are the *two chief things* by which Christianity maintains its truth. If the church errs in either of these areas, she is in grave danger. 

It's striking that Calvin lists the proper mode of worship in the position of first priority, because it highlights the fact that God has designed His appointed worship as the means by which we understand the source from which salvation is to be obtained. If worship is man-centered, people will look to their own works as the means to please God. The worship that God has appointed is Word-centered (i.e., Christ-centered) and will direct the worshipper to look to His provision alone for salvation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 19, 2008)

I like the overall tenor of the article and agree.

I don't think many Christians necessarily understand that their worship activities may actually undermine their stated doctrine. There is an underlying assumption that whatever excitement flows from the heart is, necessarily, going to enhance and promote a man's devotion to God.

Unfortunately, this issue is often framed in such a way to focus on the _what_ instead of the _why_. In other words, the conclusion has been reached by mature men with sound exegesis but some of the adopters of the conclusions do not apply the principle in a mature manner when explaining worship to the immature. There was a T-shirt the other day that somebody posted a picture of that stated: I worship God better than you do.

I was at Chris Coldwell's house yesterday and we were discussing Exclusive Psalmody and I commented that the problem in most Churches is much more basic than the songs they sing. The lack of a reverent approach to worship is a symptom of a larger problem of trusting our hearts too much and, sometimes, very little Pastoral oversight/concern/teaching.

When dealing with somebody who has not yet understood the need for the RPW, the last step in the process is to direct them in the manner of worship. The first step is to begin with the Gospel and an affinity for the Word of God and to distrust their own heart. Many of us have lost a sense of discipleship where we see our need to train our consciences to desire the good thing so too many believe that if they have applied the appropriate premises that the inevitable conclusion will be a desire for the things of God or even to understand why God desires a certain activity.

The last 3 years at a Baptist Church were very challenging but, without really ever having the opportunity to teach on the RPW, I had the worship leader tell me about a year ago that he looked back on the things he used to do/believe while leading worship and he was ashamed of it. Why? Not because I had condemned him but because he had been awakened to the nature of the Gospel and the nature of worship began to become clearer (that it could not be manipulated) and he also understood that God was holy and he was not apart from Christ.

I think, then, if we're willing to strive together with the weak and the strong in the congregation then we will be able to exhibit that worship according to the RPW is not "legalistic" but sweet. The requirement to explain why we do what we do can never be assumed away because everything we do ought to be grounded in the Gospel and that can never be assumed away. Hence, when people question why we're not allowing a certain thing, I think quoting luminaries ought to be utilized to demonstrate that what we're about is the Gospel here. In other words, we need to be explicit that the Gospel drives us and the quotes we employ toward that end need to emphasize that lest the hearer be confused that this is just another exercise in preference.

Finally, the only thing I might add with respect to the nature of the Gospel itself is how divisive worship centered in the will of men becomes. That is to say that a twisted irony develops because men start out with an overwise idea that they know how they can appeal to those in the congregation and excite certain attitudes by the type/variety of songs sung or other elements introduced. That problem is segregation of the Church over preference. Many Churches leave their members in a state of immaturity with respect to the Gospel and how it would direct our worship and, consequently, many Church goers have a carnal dependency on a certain form of worship: "old time" hymns, Black gospel, praise choruses, etc.... You then either have Churches segregated over these styles or even Churches that provide boutique services that promise a type of worship.

I was answering the Church e-mail for some time while we were waiting for a Pastor and I received at least 3 requests from a few Okinawans about how much they liked Black Gospel and did we have a choir. My response was always the same: I didn't explain how we worshiped God through song but that the Gospel was preached in this Church because their problem was one of orientation. Unfortunately, once they found the Church that had the style they preferred, I very much doubt the Church they found would have taken the time to explain that their arbiter for deciding where to worship was all gooned up. 

The sad fact of the matter is that we don't have the type of unity that the Scriptures speak of because too many of us are carnally attached to the kinds of songs we sing and not the Gospel first. Because Churches don't consider how niche they are (or even promote it) they leave Churchmen in profound immaturity that it's OK that we segregate for worship on the basis of how we prefer to worship. That, I think, is a profound Gospel problem at its very core.

Sorry to jump off on a long thought process over the post. As I stated, I liked your post but I was simply trying to develop some thoughts that have been running through my mind for some time as well.


----------



## R Harris (Aug 19, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I like the overall tenor of the article and agree.
> 
> I don't think many Christians necessarily understand that their worship activities may actually undermine their stated doctrine. There is an underlying assumption that whatever excitement flows from the heart is, necessarily, going to enhance and promote a man's devotion to God.
> 
> ...



Excellent post, well stated.


----------



## dcomin (Aug 19, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Sorry to jump off on a long thought process over the post. As I stated, I liked your post but I was simply trying to develop some thoughts that have been running through my mind for some time as well.



No apology necessary Rich. I appreciate your enlarging on the idea. I agree with your points and I think they direct us in the way we should be praying for the church and for ourselves. 

BTW, it was I who posted the T-shirt you referred to... it was intended as a light-hearted way to _lampoon _having a haughty attitude toward worship. Hope you didn't think it was serious.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 19, 2008)

dcomin said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to jump off on a long thought process over the post. As I stated, I liked your post but I was simply trying to develop some thoughts that have been running through my mind for some time as well.
> ...



No, I knew you were joking but sometimes parody is a biting way of exposing some tendencies we all have.


----------

