Application of the RPW

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Does the RPW demand that certain elements of corporate worship are present every week? If so, which elements are absolutely required?

I'm thinking this through as I'm wondering whether modern churches which have rather poor liturgies (i.e. Welcome/Call to Worship, Several songs, Sermon) are necessarily in violation of the RPW by lacking certain elements, or whether the issues there are not related to the RPW.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Does the RPW demand that certain elements of corporate worship are present every week? If so, which elements are absolutely required?

I'm thinking this through as I'm wondering whether modern churches which have rather poor liturgies (i.e. Welcome/Call to Worship, Several songs, Sermon) are necessarily in violation of the RPW by lacking certain elements, or whether the issues there are not related to the RPW.

That's a good question. I've also wondered about this. I think it's possible that by lacking certain elements there could be a violation of RPW. I'd also be interested to hear what folks think about the scope of RPW here on PB: is it all worship or just corporate worship inside the four walls of a church?

My family and I ended up adopting more of an "all worship" position, hence the ladies headcover (or at the very least have a headcovering on hand) at home (1 Thessalonians 5:17 + 1 Corinthians 11:2-16).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm sure someone can put it better, but not necessarily. You only have baptism when you have someone to baptize; similarly, the Westminster Assembly, left the administration of the Lord's supper to the best judgment of the congregation's elders as to how frequently it is to be observed. Even churches practicing frequent observance like weekly, every other week or monthly, should suspend it when the elders think it necessary (open scandal, division, etc.). Also, illness, lacking a regular pastor, will mean preaching may not happen one Lord's Day. So the lack of an element is not necessarily an illicit violation or neglecting of prescribed elements.

 

[iainduguid]

I say this every time but the RPW doesn't "demand" anything beyond the fact that your worship be based on what God has commanded. What we actually do in worship requires exegesis, which means that not everyone is likely to agree on what exactly is required (though some things are certainly clearer that others). Even the Westminster divines didn't agree on everything. When one of the English commissioners died, the Scots refused to attend the funeral because there would be preaching at it and they didn't think they could provide Biblical warrant for it.

Your point, however, raises some interesting questions. On the one hand, it reminds us that we can sin by omitting things from our worship that we believe ought to be there Biblically, as well as by including things that ought not. In their context, where people were forced to attend the state church, the Puritans were understandably concerned about binding people's consciences, which tended to make them very conservative about what they included in their worship service. In our context, where people are free to follow their consciences and attend the church that they think best matches with Biblical requirements, that may be less of a factor.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

I say this every time but the RPW doesn't "demand" anything beyond the fact that your worship be based on what God has commanded. What we actually do in worship requires exegesis, which means that not everyone is likely to agree on what exactly is required (though some things are certainly clearer that others). Even the Westminster divines didn't agree on everything. When one of the English commissioners died, the Scots refused to attend the funeral because there would be preaching at it and they didn't think they could provide Biblical warrant for it.

Your point, however, raises some interesting questions. On the one hand, it reminds us that we can sin by omitting things from our worship that we believe ought to be there Biblically, as well as by including things that ought not. In their context, where people were forced to attend the state church, the Puritans were understandably concerned about binding people's consciences, which tended to make them very conservative about what they included in their worship service. In our context, where people are free to follow their consciences and attend the church that they think best matches with Biblical requirements, that may be less of a factor.

Be interested in a source for that account regarding the funeral if you have one? From what I've seen, according to Robert Baillie's letters, when John Pym, member of parliament and of the Westminster assembly died of cancer, it wasn't recorded that the Scots commissioners refused to attend his funeral, but only that they did not hear the sermon.

Interestingly, the Synod of Dort was also against funeral sermons.

 

[iainduguid]

Be interested in a source for that account regarding the funeral if you have one? From what I've seen, according to Robert Baillie's letters, when John Pym, member of parliament and of the Westminster assembly died of cancer, it wasn't recorded that the Scots commissioners refused to attend his funeral, but only that they did not hear the sermon.

Interestingly, the Synod of Dort was also against funeral sermons.

It's been a while since I consulted it, but I think it is Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans, 46. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't be absolutely sure. (At least this seems to cover the discussions on the topic at the Assembly; if the narrative isn't here, it may be in the relevant volume of Davies' massive Worship and Theology in England.)

 

[NaphtaliPress]

It was Baillie that records regarding Pym's funeral sermon by Stephan Marshall, which he called eloquent and pertinent that "they would not hear; for funerall sermons we must have away with the rest" which seems clear they refused to attend, but otherwise they seemed to have attended the proceedings, and Baillie seems to have had a report of the sermon at least (given Baillie's penchant for flipflopping I wonder if one can read a tad bit of criticism of the Scots' position?). Letters and Journals. I don't recall that there were any issues attending Twisse's or Coleman's funerals or what the proceedings were in those cases, being of their own assembly and ministers and whether the Scots did nor didn't; Coleman had made himself somewhat a pariah by that point, Baillie even going so far as saying "not good to stand in Christ's way".

It's been a while since I consulted it, but I think it is Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans, 46. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't be absolutely sure. (At least this seems to cover the discussions on the topic at the Assembly; if the narrative isn't here, it may be in the relevant volume of Davies' massive Worship and Theology in England.)

Be interested in a source for that account regarding the funeral if you have one? From what I've seen, according to Robert Baillie's letters, when John Pym, member of parliament and of the Westminster assembly died of cancer, it wasn't recorded that the Scots commissioners refused to attend his funeral, but only that they did not hear the sermon.

Interestingly, the Synod of Dort was also against funeral sermons.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Yes they were of the view that, unlike marriages, it was not a part of the ministerial duty to officiate funerals and Baillie called funeral sermons an abuse of preaching and that the Scottish church had given them up for “many good reasons” but that they contributed to a portion of the English ministers’ income and he felt that was why they were reluctant to give them up.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Yes they were of the view that, unlike marriages, it was not a part of the ministerial duty to officiate funerals and Baillie called funeral sermons an abuse of preaching and that the Scottish church had given them up for “many good reasons” but that they contributed to a portion of the English ministers’ income and he felt that was why they were reluctant to give them up.

How interesting! Did they take this view with respect to both the funerals of unbelievers (letting the dead bury their dead) as well as believers?

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

How interesting! Did they take this view with respect to both the funerals of unbelievers (letting the dead bury their dead) as well as believers?

Seem to have..

We are not ignorant that some require a sermon at the burial, or else some places of scriptures to be read, to put the living in mind that they are mortal, and that likewise they must die. But let those men understand that the sermons which are daily made, serve for that use; which if men despise, the preaching of the funeral sermons shall rather nourish superstition and a false opinion (as before is said), than that they shall bring such persons to any godly consideration of their own estate. Attour [Moreover], either shall the ministers for the most part be occupied in preaching funeral sermons, or else they shall have respect to persons, preaching at the burial of the rich and honourable, but keeping silence when the poor or despised departs; and this with safe conscience cannot the ministers do. For, seeing that before God there is no respect of persons, and that their ministry appertains to all alike, whatsoever they do to the rich, in respect of their ministry, the same they are bound to do to the poorest under their charge.

In respect of diverse inconveniencies, we think it neither seemly that the church appointed to preaching and ministration of the sacraments shall be made a place of burial; but that some other secret and convenient place, lying in the most free air, be appointed for that use; the which place ought to be well walled and fenced about, and kept for that use only.

from the First Book of Discipline

The First Book of Discipline – Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland

www.fpchurch.org.uk

The custom seemed to be and still is today that a diet of family worship is held before a burial, and often the minister would take it, and when crowds of friends and family were too large to conveniently fit in a house, the family worship was held in the church, but it was just prayer with the bereaved family, singing of a psalm or two, and reading a chapter of Scripture. Then as per the Westminster directory, at the place of internment the minister, if present, would very briefly address the people gathered.

We judge it very convenient, that the Christian friends, which accompany the dead body to the place appointed for publick burial, do apply themselves to meditations and conferences suitable to the occasion and that the minister, as upon other occasions, so at this time, if he be present, may put them in remembrance of their duty.

That this shall not extend to deny any civil respects or deferences at the burial, suitable to the rank and condition of the party deceased, while he was living.