Are We Free to Worship How We Want?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What surprises me is how many are confused about the historic nonconformist principle governing worship which we of late in the last 100 years have called the regulative principle of worship. I'm no ultimate expert but am not shoddily read either in this matter, having not only looked at this particular question since the mid 1980s, but having also helped survey all the RPW literature produced since the 1940s until the early 2000s. The RPW is a construct of a principle based in the second commandment and other scriptures that the worship of the Lord is to be regulated exclusively as He commands. It goes back to reformational statements but is confessionally defined as well in the Westminster Standards, which nowhere limit the principles governing worship to the public service. The Lord prescribes His own worship. What is not commanded is forbidden. Period; end of discussion as far as the nonconformist statement of the principle of worship. We get the elements of private worship from the Lord just as much as the public.

I think the cause of the confusion is simple: people confuse the regulative principle of worship with actual conclusions that flow from a study of the Scriptures. Thus people routinely say "The RPW forbids women preaching or singing non-inspired hymns etc." This is an understandable shorthand, but it easily leads to confusion. The RPW states that in worship we are only to do what God has commanded. It requires a second step then to study the Scriptures to see what it is that God actually requires (and forbids) with respect to the role of women or what we may sing. So in principle it is easy to see why you could have people equally committed to the RPW, whose worship practice was very different because their exegesis of the relevant passages differed. Of course, that doesn't mean they are both right in their practice, but the issue may be their exegesis not their commitment to the principle. It is similar to believing in inerrancy. It is an important first step but you then have to actually study what it is that these Scriptures inerrantly state.

To the issue at hand, therefore, the RPW can apply to all forms of worship without requiring the conclusion that all forms of worship (public and private) should necessarily be the same. That conclusion would require appropriate study of all of the various Scriptures that bear on the issue. Of course, if you have agreement over the RPW, then we are all agreed that we should only do what the Scripture teaches, expressly or by appropriate inference. That makes for a different conversation than with my Anglican friends for whom it is enough to say, "People have done this for a long time and they find it helpful."
 
I think you are correct, though that shouldn't be the case with TEs who are confused about this. Sadly, one does not have to speak to actual Anglicans to have that different conversation, as Presbyterian churches like the PCA and ARP allow exception to be taken to the RPW and actively teach against it.
What surprises me is how many are confused about the historic nonconformist principle governing worship which we of late in the last 100 years have called the regulative principle of worship. I'm no ultimate expert but am not shoddily read either in this matter, having not only looked at this particular question since the mid 1980s, but having also helped survey all the RPW literature produced since the 1940s until the early 2000s. The RPW is a construct of a principle based in the second commandment and other scriptures that the worship of the Lord is to be regulated exclusively as He commands. It goes back to reformational statements but is confessionally defined as well in the Westminster Standards, which nowhere limit the principles governing worship to the public service. The Lord prescribes His own worship. What is not commanded is forbidden. Period; end of discussion as far as the nonconformist statement of the principle of worship. We get the elements of private worship from the Lord just as much as the public.

I think the cause of the confusion is simple: people confuse the regulative principle of worship with actual conclusions that flow from a study of the Scriptures. Thus people routinely say "The RPW forbids women preaching or singing non-inspired hymns etc." This is an understandable shorthand, but it easily leads to confusion. The RPW states that in worship we are only to do what God has commanded. It requires a second step then to study the Scriptures to see what it is that God actually requires (and forbids) with respect to the role of women or what we may sing. So in principle it is easy to see why you could have people equally committed to the RPW, whose worship practice was very different because their exegesis of the relevant passages differed. Of course, that doesn't mean they are both right in their practice, but the issue may be their exegesis not their commitment to the principle. It is similar to believing in inerrancy. It is an important first step but you then have to actually study what it is that these Scriptures inerrantly state.

To the issue at hand, therefore, the RPW can apply to all forms of worship without requiring the conclusion that all forms of worship (public and private) should necessarily be the same. That conclusion would require appropriate study of all of the various Scriptures that bear on the issue. Of course, if you have agreement over the RPW, then we are all agreed that we should only do what the Scripture teaches, expressly or by appropriate inference. That makes for a different conversation than with my Anglican friends for whom it is enough to say, "People have done this for a long time and they find it helpful."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top