Did I accidentally step into some FV by reading a Steve Schlissel essay on the RPW?

[E Nomine]

I just read Steve Schlissel's contribution "The Synagogue of Christ" in The Rushdoony Festscrift A Comprehensive Faith. I thought it was very interesting and thought-provoking and worthy of further study. Being unfamiliar with Schlissel, I googled him and searched the PB and it appears he's labled a hardcore Federial Visionary (sic).

He suggests that the strict Regulative Principle of Worship was tied specifically to the OT temple worship and thus does not apply after Christ's perfect fulfillment of the old, sacrificial system. He writes that sacrificial worship was centralized in the Tabernacle & Temple, but that synagogues of teaching were decentralized and allowed by God. He maintains that New Testament worship continues in the "flexible" synagogue model, not in the strictly regulated temple model.

I see how this contradicts the WCF, but is his interpretation part of the Federal Vision?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Mr S is well-known for his idiosyncratic theology. He's making it up as he goes along, including an explicit rejection of justification sola fide.

The RPW is nothing more than an expression of the 2nd commandment and the Reformation Scripture principle (sola Scriptura). It's not peculiar to the Mosaic period. The moral law is grounded in creation, not Moses. We're not free to establish idols now. We're not free to steal now and we're not free to violate God's law in worship now.

Here are some resources on worship:

Do the URCs Really Need a New Psalter-Hymnal? « Heidelblog

The Heidelcast is Back: Jesus on a Pizza? (Updated) « Heidelblog

 

[Jack K]

Doug Wilson interacts directly with Schlissel on this issue in Mother Kirk (p. 121ff). He seems to agree that Schlissel gets the main point right in pointing out inconsistencies and problems that come with taking a overly strict approach to the regluative principle that insists on direct, specific commands regarding every allowable element of worship. But Wilson also says a broader view of the regulative principle, in which thoughtful and reasonable inferences are made by a thorough understanding of the totality of Scripture, is necessary for proper worship. I haven't read Schlissel's essay, but it sounds like Wilson is in substantial agreement with him (at least in regard to "strict" regulativists) but maybe not total agreement.

Services in Wilson's own church, by the way, would remind you of a fairly traditional Reformed congregation. But they're not EP or a capella.

On the issue of Christ's fulfillment of the sacrificial system, which you mentioned as coming from Schlissel, Wilson says something that sounds similar:

With the fulfillment of the sacrificial system, and Christ's ascension to heaven, the restrictions are taken with it. The synagogue, meanwhile, which was the prototype of the Christian church, was required by God, but not highly regulated. What is still tightly regulated is the Temple service and the work of our High Priest. We are not to add to, or substract form, the gospel.

This means that controversies over the "regulative principle" often miss the real problem. When we are confronted with worship services conducted by Kuba the Clown, and we marvel at the flag drill team over by the baptistry, we are tempted to attack the weirdness, instead of the doctrinal confusion which preceded it and produced it. That preceding foolishness is always an abandonment, diminution, or atleration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is always the real problem.

Of course, not every teaching associated with FV guys is necessarily wrong just because it's associated with that movement. I just read over these pages from Wilson and found them thought-provoking, as you say you did with the essay you read.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

For what it's worth, speaking as a pastor here, I think we should be really careful about taking a stance that says, "I know Wilson's doctrine of justification is off but...."

Can we imagine the Apostles saying, "I know that the Judaizers get the gospel wrong, but they're really good on some other issues." Really?

These guys (Schlissel and Wilson) are two of kind. They are both masters of the law (but not apparently mastered by it).

Maybe they don't get either the gospel OR the law?

 

[Jack K]

For what it's worth, speaking as a pastor here, I think we should be really careful about taking a stance that says, "I know Wilson's doctrine of justification is off but...."

Can we imagine the Apostles saying, "I know that the Judaizers get the gospel wrong, but they're really good on some other issues." Really?

These guys (Schlissel and Wilson) are two of kind. They are both masters of the law (but not apparently mastered by it).

Maybe they don't get either the gospel OR the law?

Yeah, I get the seriousness with which we must take challenges to the gospel. It's very important. At the same time, I occasionally tire of what seems at times an unwritten rule around here that every time we mention _______ (fill in blank with name of whatever guy we don't like) we must make sure to say lots of bad things about him, even if it's off-topic. So now and then I probably sound like I'm defending people I actually have some serious problems with.

I'm also a former journalist, and I get the urge to make sure we've accurately decribed a person's view before we light into it, so sometimes I'll post simply in an attempt to be informative. In this case, I knew where to find an actual answer to the OP's question. I like sharing info. Quoting the source should not imply support.

Anyway, my comment above had to due with how we judge doctrine. It's important we judge it by Scripture, not by who else has signed on to support it. I may be highly suspicious of a doctrine based on who's teaching it, but that isn't reason all by itself to reject the doctrine. For example, I may read an article about the Trinity and then find out it was written by a Catholic, but this discovery will not cause me to rethink my belief in the Trinity.

 

[MW]

I see how this contradicts the WCF, but is his interpretation part of the Federal Vision?

See WCF 20.2 for (a) the difference between moral and positive rule, and (b) the connection between faith and worship under the positive rule of holy Scripture. When worship is reduced to the mere "guidance" of moral norms, doctrine usually follows and tends to become a work which evolves rather than a divine revelation once delivered to the saints. Also, because worship requires theological reflection, corruption in worship usually leads to corrupt theology. Semi-Pelagian theology has been shown to ingrain itself in a ritualistic system. It is noteworthy that the regulative principle of worship emerged within the context of adhering to the doctrines of grace against Romanist innovation. Just as constitutionalism almost automatically follows a hard fought victory over tyranny, likewise the regulative principle emerged as a charter of the people's freedom from the domination of priestly rule. The FV seeks to raise the minister to the status of priest, and to invoke a participationist model of sacramental theology, thus creating ecclesiastical barriers to the people's freedom to worship God in the way that He has appointed. The only way to accomplish this ecclesiastical tyranny is to trample on the people's constitutional freedom, which is embodied in the regulative principle.

 

[TimV]

Interesting, Pastor W.

 

[kvanlaan]

If you step into some FV, how do you get it off your shoe?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I see how this contradicts the WCF, but is his interpretation part of the Federal Vision?

See WCF 20.2 for (a) the difference between moral and positive rule, and (b) the connection between faith and worship under the positive rule of holy Scripture. When worship is reduced to the mere "guidance" of moral norms, doctrine usually follows and tends to become a work which evolves rather than a divine revelation once delivered to the saints. Also, because worship requires theological reflection, corruption in worship usually leads to corrupt theology. Semi-Pelagian theology has been shown to ingrain itself in a ritualistic system. It is noteworthy that the regulative principle of worship emerged within the context of adhering to the doctrines of grace against Romanist innovation. Just as constitutionalism almost automatically follows a hard fought victory over tyranny, likewise the regulative principle emerged as a charter of the people's freedom from the domination of priestly rule. The FV seeks to raise the minister to the status of priest, and to invoke a participationist model of sacramental theology, thus creating ecclesiastical barriers to the people's freedom to worship God in the way that He has appointed. The only way to accomplish this ecclesiastical tyranny is to trample on the people's constitutional freedom, which is embodied in the regulative principle.

I remember "discovering" this Christian Liberty principle about a year ago. It was interesting to me how often the Reformed would point to violations of conscience and leaving men free from manmade regulations. Not only is God offended when we fail to worship Him as He has commanded but the Church who believes it has the latitude to introduce manmade principles treads all over the consciences of its members. There is a sin not only vertically (failing to love God) but also horizontally (failing to love neighbor).