# Who Gets To Decide how the Church should Worship?



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 11, 2007)

Have any of y'all seen this blog entry from Andrew Webb?

Who Gets to Decide How the Church Should Worship?


----------



## etexas (Aug 11, 2007)

I find it a rather odd article.....there ARE some good points, but in all of that there was not a true answer. There was a lot of Scripture dusted around, some was relevent some left me saying "What?" To be honest (and fair) I will not "review' it now, I will have to read it again.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 11, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> I find it a rather odd article.....there ARE some good points, but in all of that there was not a true answer. There was a lot of Scripture dusted around, some was relevent some left me saying "What?" To be honest (and fair) I will not "review' it now, I will have to read it again.




He is being purposely simplistic in this first in a series of articles about the RPW.



> I want to start out being as deliberately simple as possible, and no doubt this simplicity may be irritating or tiresome to those of you who are Pastors, Elders, or layman who are well versed in the subject of Reformed Worship, but I want to try to a craft an explanation that is intelligible even to those who have just started attending an OSP church and have no background whatsoever in the Reformed faith. I do this *because far too often our discussions of vitally important subjects like worship start out well above the heads of the people we most need to convince - the people in the pews*. It will do us no good whatsoever if our finely crafted biblical, theological, and historical argument for the Regulative Principle is utterly unintelligible to a visitor to our church. For instance, when Reformed people talk about the basis for Christian worship we all generally agree that it should be the bible and then start our argument with the question “what does the bible teach about worship?” The problem is that when we are dealing with visitors to our church, we actually need to start one step back and explain why it is the bible, and just the bible, that should be our standard for worship. And if we can establish that point, generally we will have won most of the battle over whether we can add our own traditions and preferences to our worship.



Emphasis mine.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 12, 2007)

I dunno... I sort of liked the article! To me, it broke down what the reformed belief is better than I've seen written anywhere else. I must be one of those ignorant folks in the pews!


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 12, 2007)

houseparent said:


> I dunno... I sort of liked the article! To me, it broke down what the reformed belief is better than I've seen written anywhere else. I must be one of those ignorant folks in the pews!



Me too, brother. 

I look forward the rest of the articles. Andy can put it on a level that even I can understand.


----------



## etexas (Aug 12, 2007)

Wythe County Calvinist said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > I find it a rather odd article.....there ARE some good points, but in all of that there was not a true answer. There was a lot of Scripture dusted around, some was relevent some left me saying "What?" To be honest (and fair) I will not "review' it now, I will have to read it again.
> ...



You just put your finger on why he lost me! As an Anglican (like the Eastern and Roman Churches) I hold to Normative Principles of Worship. I have GREAT respect for what little I know and understand abut RPW, it is still a bit foreign to me. I am glad to know know why I was "swallowed" by the article so rapidly! I will now reread it in that light! Thank you.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 12, 2007)

I thought the article was great.



> So I sacrifice all my pride and my vain preferences, and I joyfully observe the elements that he commanded: Prayer, The reading of the Scriptures, the sound preaching of the Word, the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, the administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, and I do all of these things with Love in my heart towards Him, knowing that He Saved Me, and has designed all of these things to be a benefit to me and my fragile faith.



There is the RPW in a nutshell. I am waiting to find out how doing those things in a contemporary style or a traditional style would be either right or wrong, though. For instance, is it OK to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with drums and an electric guitar?

This is the essence of the worship wars, not hymns vs choruses. Most people think the choruses are fluff anyway. If you sing a 17th century hymn with a modern praise band, most congregations would be happy. How does the RPW handle style as opposed to content?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 12, 2007)

I summarized a simple way to understand the RPW in a post on the PB a little while back and turned it into an entry at solideogloria.com

http://www.solideogloria.com/article/2007/07/10/08.24.57

I fully agree that the RPW is not nearly accessible to the layman as it ought to be. I've noted before that many principles of the RPW rely too much on simply repeating the Reformers and/or Puritan thinkers verbatim. While I like those guys, it makes it difficult for the "end user" to fully absorb their arguments. Some of their arguments are also lifted out of historical context and the reader doesn't feel the weight of the arguments.

We ought to be able to articulate the RPW with the same ease that we articulate the doctrines of Grace. Is it not fascinating how rich and imaginative we are when we're explaining depravity to others or that limited atonement doesn't mean that Christ's sacrifice wasn't sufficient to save all but efficient to save some? In fact, on these points, we rarely see someone answering these questions by simply pointing somebody to a Puritan because they feel comfortable articulating the reasons themselves.

Yet, when it comes to the RPW, it is very telling that many are unable to explain the concept in a way that is easily taken on board by the simple. I honestly think it's because many do not understand it who are, nevertheless, staunch proponents of it. If one understands something then it should be arguable in an accessible manner.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Aug 12, 2007)

houseparent said:


> I dunno... I sort of liked the article! To me, it broke down what the reformed belief is better than I've seen written anywhere else. I must be one of those ignorant folks in the pews!


----------



## etexas (Aug 12, 2007)

Rich! Did you call me simple! For shame. Sigh.........I will light a candle for you.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Aug 12, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> As an Anglican [...] I have GREAT respect for what little I know and understand abut RPW, it is still a bit foreign to me.



Yes, for those of us who were once unaware of the RPW, the first time they hear of a "regulative principle" it sounds like diet regime to help us inside ... y'know bran helps with the regulative principle.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 12, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> Rich! Did you call me simple! For shame. Sigh.........I will light a candle for you.



Funny. Now,

OFF wi' ee's 'ead!


----------



## etexas (Aug 12, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > Rich! Did you call me simple! For shame. Sigh.........I will light a candle for you.
> ...


OK Bruce...no more of my votive candles in the PB! I like me ead right where she is!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 12, 2007)

Though we joke (and Bruce that WAS funny and you know how much I like and respect you) I think this "simple" vs. the "enlightened" issue is a serious problem in the reformed church today. I think evangelical churches scoop up so many people because there isn't a preconceived notion of the "smart" one and the "dumb" ones in the congregation. 

I don't know how else to describe this, but we even see it here sometimes. It's GREAT that many are educated, but is there anything (or should there be anything) done to make this "feeling" less severe? If so, what?


----------



## etexas (Aug 12, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Though we joke (and Bruce that WAS funny and you know how much I like and respect you) I think this "simple" vs. the "enlightened" issue is a serious problem in the reformed church today. I think evangelical churches scoop up so many people because there isn't a preconceived notion of the "smart" one and the "dumb" ones in the congregation.
> 
> I don't know how else to describe this, but we even see it here sometimes. It's GREAT that many are educated, but is there anything (or should there be anything) done to make this "feeling" less severe? If so, what?


My feelings were hurt quite badly! ONLY a cupcake could make me feel better!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 12, 2007)

lol. ok stop making me look dumb for posting what I did  Seriously though, to NEW people in reformed churches I've known many who felt like they weren't "smart" enough. I think that issue ties in with this topic nicely. Maybe we need to have more "simple" messages from time to time. But calling them "simple" doesn't help the issue.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 12, 2007)

Adam,
As you saw, my joke was a response to the "light a candle" joke before it.

I don't think that there's anything in the "candle" issue that had anything to do with "simple" vs. "smart". What's happening there is another, different "mode" of worshipping. In the Reformed world, the way we worship is "word" based. *The leadership has a duty to speak the Word to everyone, high and low, educated or uneducated.* When we DO things, it is because the Word has informed us.

The "candle-worship" is also multi-level. Any "novice" can light a candle, and achieve a feeling of devotion. And a "superior" can light a candle--and the acts look alike, but the one who's been "practicing" for a while may have all sorts of imported "meaning" into that act. He says to the novice, "Keep at it; enlightenment will come." Don't experience-based churches have levels? Don't they, for example, have their ones who have "gotten the gift of tongues" and those that haven't? Those who have "the victorious Christian life" and those who haven't?

We would identify those sorts of worship as Gnostic varieties. "Experience" and "initiation" are needed to "advance" in this kind of religion. I would argue that Gnostic religion is far more geared toward those who desire "enlightenment" and "smarts" than is a true Word-based faith. They simply have a very broad-based, initiation stage, out of which hardly anyone is every encouraged.

Our whole religion is bound up between the covers of an "open book." Sure, there are "deep" truths that stabilize our faith, and many wonderful intricacies. But there is no "level" or "breakthrough" that gets a novice into a new place, with new truth. Frankly, I think that the real "turn-off" is that there isn't anything glamorous, nor is there a "short-cut" to true Christian spirituality. People want to put in the minimum effort, and expect a large return.

The Gnostic religion is like a video game, where after beating a "level" you get into the next one, and have to "figure out" or devise sometimes totally new methods of getting through. And then its on to the next, while the basic joystick (candle?) stays the same. But our faith has none of those barriers or compartmentalization. Our religion is like a pool of water, it has a shallow end and a deep end. It has people with water-wings on. It has people who are splashing around standing up, and some who are diving into the deep end, or playing water-polo. But its the same pool. To get out of the shallow end or shuck the water-wings, all you need is willingness to be taught.

"Oh, but So-and-so is a quicker learner than me, that makes your religion ELITIST." Even if it weren't a lie, all these religious systems espouse progress of some kind.

In the Reformed faith, you don't need "mastery" of level-1 secrets and the password to get into the "real" game. You don't need to be a "priest" so that your candle will mean more.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 12, 2007)

Bruce- I know NOTHING of this "candle" issue (lol)



> Frankly, I think that the real "turn-off" is that there isn't anything glamorous, nor is there a "short-cut" to true Christian spirituality. People want to put in the minimum effort, and expect a large return.



That makes sense!

I think some of my Evangelical friends might think this way, but not realize that they do. I think they might believe that the Holy Spirit will "illuminate" truth for them as a "gift" and that they know what they know because God speaks it to them directly (not audible of course) and that the book/school educated people rely on secular knowledge too much.

I struggle trying to reach people like this, even though I was once one of them. For example, I never believed in predestination because the God I "knew" wouldn't ever do that. I "knew" that wasn't His character! Not because I could tell you a verse in scripture (until I went home and looked for a while at least) but because the Spirit revealed God to me and I "knew" who He was and who He wasn't.

Right now I see that as being terribly proud and seeking a short cut as you've said here. But, evangelicals really don't see it that way. They see themselves as relying on God more than those overly educated people who think they know it all because they memorized the bible.

What approach would you take with a friend or loved one who thought this way?


----------



## etexas (Aug 12, 2007)

Bruce, for what it is worth we (Anglicans) do not worship candles, some of us might light one and say "You King Jesus are the light of the world, you have entered and prevailed, darkness shall be conquered forever in your Blessed Kingdom. Amen." Candles are bits of wax with wicks...I know that...it is a symbol that stirs the heart to devotion. That is all. I have never worshipped a candle in my life.


----------



## etexas (Aug 12, 2007)

joshua said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > ...it is a symbol that stirs the heart to devotion.
> ...


Light! Of course! Our Lord the incarnate Word came with his Holy Gospel to overcome darkness, did our Christ not use this as a symbolic laungage of himself and his mission?


----------



## etexas (Aug 12, 2007)

joshua said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...


Of course not! Nothing can fully represent our Lord! Never did I say it. Light is a creation, and is also a type of purifying. There are gifts of God that are "mere" creations that point to a higher thing, Josh.....would you leave your Bible on the floor of a public restroom? Of course not! Is that because Josh does not "know" his Bible is paper and ink, again it points to a higher thing. The fact that you do regard this paper and ink does not at all make you guilty of idolatry!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 12, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Though we joke (and Bruce that WAS funny and you know how much I like and respect you) I think this "simple" vs. the "enlightened" issue is a serious problem in the reformed church today. I think evangelical churches scoop up so many people because there isn't a preconceived notion of the "smart" one and the "dumb" ones in the congregation.
> 
> I don't know how else to describe this, but we even see it here sometimes. It's GREAT that many are educated, but is there anything (or should there be anything) done to make this "feeling" less severe? If so, what?


I'm not sure if you read in my use of the word "simple" an indictment of people who are unenlightened.

I used it in a couple of ways I suppose. I used it to mean that we should teach doctrine in a way that is accessible by people who are otherwise "simple" people and don't spend a lot of time studying or might not have the highest degree of education. Go to http://www.baptistchurch.jp/teaching.html and check out my latest on Romans 9. None of the men in the class are academic types.

The second way I was using it was the way I like to synthesize information. I'm thankful to God that I do have some capacity for critical thinking but I am also very impatient, at times, with obscure vocabularies. It takes a while to cut through things to understand them. I used to be extremely impressed with the learned in certain philosophical and theological disciplines until I realized that a good portion of the work is simply learning the vocabulary. It's only because I've trudged through some of this stuff and been repeatedly exposed to it that I can understand it myself. I don't think it should be that hard for all these concepts. The layman shouldn't have to spend 5 years gaining the theological vocabulary just so he can begin to learn some of these things (like the RPW).

This morning, I was listening to James White critiquing Francis Beckwith and his interview on Stand to Reason. Beckwith was evading direct questions about his return to Rome by using lingo that the layman would consider a profound response. I saw right through it. It's the same ploy of politicians. I personally loathe people that impress with their vocabulary but they're a shell with no deep appreciation of the concepts. I'm always the guy around tables in the Marine Corps that challenges the standard "dog and pony" tech display because the sales people are wowing with words that I see right through but are providing no substance.

Regarding the Reformed faith, Adam, I fully agree that we tend to create an atmosphere in our Churches that "The dumb need not apply." I'm obviously not advocating the contrary that our faith should be dumb, which is what many Reformed Churches are railing against. Yet the aroma of so many Churches is not a hunger to build up all levels of maturity but to sit around and only consider the fully mature.

You know me, I love to debate fine points here because there are places where fine points need to be debated. But when I teach young people or adults at Church, I don't ponder head coverings or exclusive Psalmody before I've even laid a basic foundation with people. Too many are constantly trying to erect the entire edifice of the Reformed faith on top of people who's hearts still lack a basic Gospel foundation.

Last week's White Horse Inn had me reflecting a bit on the reason why Finneyism spread like fire and transplanted Calvinism so quickly in this country. I think part of the answer was due, in no small measure, to a dispassionate intellectualism that had begun to charecterize Calvinist churches. It's not the whole reason but a contributing factor.

I honestly am in a position constantly where I want to pull my hair out on this. I see the fruit in men's lives who listen to a message on Romans 9 and consider (after understanding the Chapters that precede it) are intended to establish them in the faith. They ponder it deeply for the first time and then rejoice in the great salvation of God and are impelled by an intesified thankfulness to God. So I wonder: Why do Reformed Churches that teach this have so little motivation? Shouldn't they be so motivated if this is part and parcel of the regular diet?

But, I fear, part of the reason is that some of the Churches are not teaching these ideas in accessible ways and that explains a lack of zeal and, consequently, why particular Churches are perceived less for their love of the Gospel and more for their "headiness".


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 13, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> But, I fear, part of the reason is that some of the Churches are not teaching these ideas in accessible ways and that explains a lack of zeal and, consequently, why particular Churches are perceived less for their love of the Gospel and more for their "headiness".



Jesus taught hard doctrine without using words that end in -ology and -ism. (By this I mean that the people listening to Him did not have to carry around two dictionaries, a thesaurus, and have access to Google to figure out what He was teaching.) And Paul fed the saints "milk' until they were ready for "meat", albeit with the expectation that they would indeed one day need a steady diet of the "meat". Why can't we? 

It is one thing to be thought of as weird because you hold to the truth, but it is quite another to be thought of as weird because of the way you go about teaching the truth. We should use "everyday speech" to communicate the claims of the Gospel. in my opinion. After all, God has communicated to us in human language, so didn't He in some respect have to "dumb down" His communication so that mere humans could latch onto the truth?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 13, 2007)

> Too many are constantly trying to erect the entire edifice of the Reformed faith on top of people who's hearts still lack a basic Gospel foundation.



EXACTLY!

Rich, I am not accusing you, Bruce, or anyone here of acting "haughty" with anyone else here. This is the "Puritan Board" and I believe most should now it's a serious and deep theological discussion forum before they even join!

I'm simply talking about the average, evangelical Christian (as I once was) who walks in the door of a reformed Church, or gets to know some "reformed" Christians and finds most of what they discuss "out there".

I had the pleasure of finding this forum as I began going to my PCA church. That helped me greatly. I asked questions here I never would have felt comfortable asking at the new Church (although now I realize that may not be fair). So I am asking now for some ideas on how to really approach people who have a lot of zeal, but are not grounded in the actual truth very well.

I guess I want to know how to best witness and speak to someone who is exactly like I used to be. I went looking when I realized I was in error, and listening to those who made no biblical sense. Do we have to wait on that? Or can we approach those still drenched in modern day evangelical teachings and try to rescue them?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 13, 2007)

Find out where they are, and speak to them there.

Be as good an example of humble piety that you pray God can make out of you. People will see the truth, and desire the truth, long before they even know what to ask for.

Pray for them. Nothing will happen apart from prayer. Pray for opportunity, and wisdom to share what you know. And grace to not appear elitist.

Pray for your church. Pray for grace to be evident in them, and in your pastor. If you can invite a friend to come with you to church, that is the place where God reaches out most powerfully. We have forgotten that in our era of shallow preaching and faith, and (sadly) arrogance--in pulpits, yes, but also in unteachable people.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 13, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Find out where they are, and speak to them there.
> 
> Be as good an example of humble piety that you pray God can make out of you. People will see the truth, and desire the truth, long before they even know what to ask for.
> 
> ...


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 13, 2007)

Thanks Bruce!

This brings us full circle back to "worship". Any time I've ever gotten anyone to begin to listen to reformed teachings (DoG, etc.) and consider it, they attend a worship service and it's over, they politely say "no thanks".

I have a friend who will say "Worship is sacrifice" but then worship the way they want to (in church) with dancing and hip-hop chorus's. It seems to me that worship is the "breaking point" with so many people.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 13, 2007)

I think the RPW needs a fresh angle, or rather, a way of saying it to laymen that helps them understand the validity of the question and the relevance of anssering it correctly.

I define it in that context by saying, "God alone determines the manner in which sinners are to approach Him in worship."

I think that is a helpful way of putting it and so far, in field tests, it seems that it holds the gravity with which I intend to say it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 13, 2007)

I like that.


----------



## etexas (Aug 13, 2007)

joshua said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > Of course not! Nothing can fully represent our Lord! Never did I say it. Light is a creation, and is also a type of purifying. There are gifts of God that are "mere" creations that point to a higher thing, Josh.....would you leave your Bible on the floor of a public restroom? Of course not! Is that because Josh does not "know" his Bible is paper and ink, again it points to a higher thing. The fact that you do regard this paper and ink does not at all make you guilty of idolatry!
> ...


Josh, my Brother in Christ. No one in the Anglican Church is bound in any way to light a candle, or cross themselves or knock the breast during prayers of repentance. Here is where Presbyterians and Anglicans disagree over what "reformed" is, for us it was to drive out Roman Catholic superstition and vanity yet leave and refine and redefine aspects of liturgy, devotion, and......yes ceremony. Josh, you might not agree with all I hold as an Anglican and that is fine. I respect your views, but do we not agree on issues of salvation and scripture? After my time here and the time you have have spent as a Moderator reading my threads and posts(bless your heart), can you really say and be honest that you would not view me as a Christian man, who in his Theology is orthodox, conservative and Biblical. I think perhaps the "worst" you might say, you could say about any brother or sister in our Blessed Holy Lord, you do not always agree with me. I am no heretic....an certainly no Idol worshiper. You know this Josh. My expressions of worship are different than yours at times, be that as it may know this, we both worship the one true and same God, we were Baptized into the same name. We partake of the same body and blood. Here I stand. Amen.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 13, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I like that.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 14, 2007)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> I define it in that context by saying, "God alone determines the manner in which sinners are to approach Him in worship."



This is excellent!

Honestly, most evangelicals don't even consider that God has something to say about how they approach him in worship. They know what makes them feel warm and fuzzy (which means they worshipped) and they find a church like that.

We had a family that visited our church because they had been looking all over for a church that teaches expositionally verse-by-verse through a book. We, apparently, were the only one for miles around. They came once and never came back because our "worship style" wasn't what they were looking for.

In most evangelical churches, the congregation decides how they get to worship and they decide by their attendance or non-attendance.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 14, 2007)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> I think the RPW needs a fresh angle, or rather, a way of saying it to laymen that helps them understand the validity of the question and the relevance of anssering it correctly.
> 
> I define it in that context by saying, "God alone determines the manner in which sinners are to approach Him in worship."
> 
> I think that is a helpful way of putting it and so far, in field tests, it seems that it holds the gravity with which I intend to say it.



Again, while I appreciate (and would follow) the RPW, I think it also needs to have flesh put on it by those who are in leadership or who are knowledgeable. How does the RPW speak to contemporary styles of music in worship (those blasted 7-11 choruses done with a praise band)? How does the RPW speak to the awe-inspiring powerpoint? How does the RPW speak to casual vs formal?

I've been reading _Give Praise to God_, which is a book about worship written in honor of James Montgomery Boice. It is a very good book and has a few chapters about the RPW. They mention the difference between "elements, circumstances, and forms" of worship in an excellent chapter by Derek Thomas. I think these things need to be fleshed out and taught to the people in our churches.

We have, over the past year, slowly been increasing the amount of Scripture read during worship. We are no up to a chapter from the Psalms, a chapter from a genre of Scripture not being preached on (so, currently OT Prophet) and the portion of Scripture from the sermon. This is fairly shocking to most evangelicals, so it bears explaining as to why we do this and it should be explained regularly that God demands we read a significant amount of Scripture in His worship service.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 14, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> > I define it in that context by saying, "God alone determines the manner in which sinners are to approach Him in worship."
> ...



This has been my EXACT experience.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 14, 2007)

Yes, I think its as simple as that. Worship is what God accepts as worship. And He's given us sufficient revelation for that, for He calls us to worship Him through the Word. 

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately. There's something that's bugged me for a long time, and some things have finally come to light for me. I think that a lot of the problem lies in the word that was used in a previous post: "haughty". The simpler stuff is too simple for some, and the hard stuff is too hard for some, and there's just too much pride involved sometimes for either or both to admit these things to themselves. There's nothing wrong with being smarter or being not as smart, for some have to spend more time at their labour and don't have the time for study like others do. That doesn't lower them at all. 

Being smarter or more learned is not reason for being superior to someone else. Being smarter or more learned makes you more of a servant to those who ought to or want to know. Whatever state God gives you is what God gives you. Not everyone can be or should be a leader, but it does not make anyone less if he is not a leader. 

On the other hand, those who do not take the time to properly understand the wisdom of the learned have no right to simply dismiss it because they don't understand it. That too is being haughty. Before they dismiss anything they ought to know what it is they ar dismissing. It is not right to do so just because they don't understand. It is not wrong to know something others do not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 14, 2007)

JohnV said:


> Yes, I think its as simple as that. Worship is what God accepts as worship. And He's given us sufficient revelation for that, for He calls us to worship Him through the Word.
> 
> I've been giving this a lot of thought lately. There's something that's bugged me for a long time, and some things have finally come to light for me. I think that a lot of the problem lies in the word that was used in a previous post: "haughty". The simpler stuff is too simple for some, and the hard stuff is too hard for some, and there's just too much pride involved sometimes for either or both to admit these things to themselves. There's nothing wrong with being smarter or being not as smart, for some have to spend more time at their labour and don't have the time for study like others do. That doesn't lower them at all.
> 
> ...



 My experience is that the haughtiness of those who dismiss the learned is often exacerbated by the attitude of the learned but it doesn't excuse those that prefer to remain ignorant.

As much as I don't like the learned who are haughty, I've never liked the attitude that prevails among so many today that their home spun simple faith is as far as God desires them to grow. We each have differing gifts but our learning is continuous and all should try to continue to grow in wisdom.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 14, 2007)

I agree, Rich. 

For someone to dismiss, let's say, the Reformed doctrines, they would have to know the history of the Church, not just the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards, or the London Confession. It's easy, too easy, to take them out of context, to see them as "added to the Bible". These are the teachings of the Bible handed down over many, many generations. And each generation has done their homework again, the same homework, to find the source of all these teachings. The source is the Bible, and none other. That's what we confess to when we confess these articles of faith. Dismissing the Reformed faith is dismissing history as well.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 14, 2007)

And some leaders also do not understand that these are not excuses to lord it over others. They too cannot dismiss the unlearned so easily either. We don't have to understand all the doctrines to be one in the faith. If that were the case very few of us would actually be learned enough to be called Reformed. No, one need only confess Christ as Saviour. He may yet have a lot to learn, but to be allowed to learn he must. And that's not easy even for the learned, much less those who find it harder yet to learn.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 14, 2007)

I guess maybe what I'm saying is that the problem is not that we lack leaders, but that we lack servants. Or, the servant attitude. Everyone wants to be a leader because we're lacking good leadership. But how many do we see striving to be good servants? The reason that good leadership is not there is because the leaders are not good servants. And that in turn is because the ones who are not leaders won't be led anymore, because they don't want to serve, but lead. 

We're all in the same boat. God tells us all how He wants to be worshiped. Not one more than the other. He calls us all to different stations so that we might all together be one body. Not everyone the arm, or the head, but the whole body.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 14, 2007)

I agree John. I'm seeking permission from _Modern Reformation_ to re-publish their article about Solo Scriptura. I've sense for several years that one of the biggest problem in most Churches is submission.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 14, 2007)

Yes, I would agree. But I would say that it cuts two ways: the members not submitting properly to authority; and those in authority requiring improper submission.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 14, 2007)

> I've never liked the attitude that prevails among so many today that their home spun simple faith is as far as God desires them to grow.



Oh yes, this is a big problem in my opinion. But, it's not just that, many in this boat think their simple faith is a better faith, a more "pure" faith, even a safer faith. I honestly believe many are afraid of what they call "overly educated" Christians. Now in a way I understand that because often over educated "secular" people are liberal (extremely liberal) so I think this get applied to Christians as well. Many Christians I know would see most people on the Puritan Board as "over educated' relying on their personal education more than "simple" faith. Not saying that's fair, but it's how they would see it. Some have said as much to me.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 14, 2007)

No one is ever over educated. It does happen a lot, though, that people think they're more educated than they really are.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 14, 2007)

By over educated, I think they basically mean "intellectuals".


----------



## JohnV (Aug 14, 2007)

Well, if they've got it wrong then they're not very intellectual. 

Don't get me wrong, Adam. I'm agreeing with you. It's just that I wouldn't call such people "over-educated" or "intellectual". They've just got their curlers on too tight. How can being smarter make the answer wronger?


----------

