My thanks to Dr. Watts for responding to the questions I raised about the “Regulative Principle of Worship” (RPW), and for providing opportunity to continue the discussion. I think I begin to see two things: (1) that though we differ we aren’t quite as far apart as might appear, either to us or to others; and (2) that in some ways I have failed to make clear where my somewhat indirect critique is headed. At any rate, his response prompts the following.
1. I gather we agree that the same “principle” by which we determine what is acceptable in corporate worship works as well for all areas of church life (which is as far as I went; Frame would say to all of life and not just “church life”). I wanted that to be established so that we could then use the same reasoning for worship issues that we use for other issues in church life, in order to test our reasoning. I take it that I can now do that.
By all means I approve applying whatever principle we use (regardless what we call it) to worship. Yes, that’s an important area of concern that is worth identifying and dealing with as a specific area. If we call this principle the “regulative principle” then when we apply it to worship it is the RPW. If we apply this principle in other areas of church life—like covenant expectations about members’ behavior, or the nature and structure of the church’s government, or the church’s theology or doctrine, it will still be the RP.
2. My second point is a suggestion for advancing our discussion. Let’s do away with the terminology “regulative principle,” and use the terminology Dr. Watts substituted several times: namely, something like “the sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice.” I am encouraged to think this may be acceptable, given a couple of sentences in his conclusion, as follows: “I wonder if there would be less anxiety, reservation, or suspicion toward the RPW if we called it the ‘follow the biblical text as closely as you can in ordering your worship services principle.’ I feel like this is what Dr. Picirilli is advocating, which I find to be consistent with a mainstream understanding of the RPW.” Yes, this is what I’m advocating, as follows.
3. I am not suggesting this for the sake of mere words. Grounding our recommendations for worship in “the sufficiency of Scripture for (or as the rule for) faith and practice” offers some advantages.
Advantage #1: We’ll be using terminology that has a long and honorable tradition among us. Hundreds of our historic denominational documents—especially in statements of faith—use this phrase or one very much like it. The brief articles of faith in our national Treatise say that the Scriptures “are our infallible rule of faith and practice.” In its longer statement, the Treatise says the Scriptures “are a sufficient and infallible rule and guide to salvation and all Christian worship and service.” Behold: “faith and practice,” “worship and service.” There’s the breadth I’m contending for.
By contrast, “regulative principle” is unfamiliar and new among us, leading to the “anxiety, reservation, or suspicion” that Dr. Watts mentioned. (There are some reasons for this suspicion, which I’ll soon mention.) In my first posting I observed that I had never heard of the RP until fairly recently and questioned whether it can be found in any published literature of the Palmer movement earlier, say, that 2000. A few days ago I mentioned the RPW to a retired, highly-respected Southern Baptist theologian who said, “What’s that? I never heard of it.” I suspect that the RP (whether in wording or in meaning) isn’t fully at home in the traditional Baptist view of the church.
Advantage #2: If we do this, we will also avoid a subtle implication that seems to inhere in using the RPW: namely, that it offers something more than the Bible itself, something that (to put it in practical terms) rules out things that are harder to rule out when relying on the Scriptures directly and alone. Those who support the RP may say that this is not a justified implication; I think it is. But even if it isn’t, grounding our discussion in the sufficiency of Scripture, rather than the RPW, will avoid even the suspicion that this implication is true.
In doing this, we will at the same time avoid the need for proving that the RP is justifiably drawn from Scripture. I am satisfied that it is not. I do not believe that any passage of Scripture or combination of passages can logically be understood to affirm that in worship we must use only the elements that the Bible clearly justifies—or some other wording of the RP. I am confident that, in order to do this, the Bible would have to speak somewhere in the New Testament on the subject of church worship services and (in one set of words or another) say what must and must not be included; I do not find that in Scripture. Of course, I realize that proponents of the RP believe that it is drawn from Scripture. But we’re relieved from the burden of that argument if we don’t use RP terminology. Then we can focus, as we should, on what the Bible says about worship. This way, we’ll be forced to come to the biblical evidence directly, not through the lens of a RP.
4. All this leads me to express my suggestion in a more positive way, and this I believe is the crux of the matter. If we are concerned—“we” collectively or any of us individually—about worship practices, let’s speak directly about worship and what it ought to be or not be, using biblical exegesis as a basis for what we say. If anyone thinks worship needs correcting (and it may), say what needs correcting and argue for that on the basis of Biblical teaching. If anyone thinks worship needs improving, or needs more emphasis on certain things (and it may well), tell what and how and use the biblical text, responsibly, for support. Be specific; don’t leave us guessing about what practice(s) we ought to add or subtract or change.
In saying this I’m not deliberately promoting discord. There is plenty that we all need to think about in the matter of corporate worship—as well as in other areas of church life. Study the Bible to see what it teaches about worship. Go through the entire New Testament, perhaps, and record everything said that can be applied to worship. Teach us what worship is, and how we ought to do it. Expose the pitfalls for us to avoid. Define what pleases God in worship. Write for us some good articles on the nature and practice of worship, or even a good book on the subject. We may well need to re-think how we do worship. Help us in that. Show us what practices the Bible approves or disapproves—and how you ground this in Scripture.
Of course we know, if we accept “the sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice,” our presentations of what we find there about worship and our understanding of how to apply what we find will be subject to the evaluation of others, likewise measuring what we say by how they read the Bible. Yes, but that’s true for everything else we draw from the Bible. It’s obvious that believers in the RP disagree among themselves about whether the Bible supports congregational or episcopal or Presbyterian church government; about whether Jesus died for the whole world or the elect alone; about whether the bread and wine should be administered to all believers or just to those in the particular church—and how often that ought to be done; about whether members should be permitted or forbidden to drink alcoholic beverages in moderation. RP didn’t settle those things, so it ought to be acceptable if commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice doesn’t settle every worship issue. Apparently our God allows for such differences of understanding of biblical teaching.
Controversial or not, teach us the Bible and let the truth hurt if it must. But let it be exposition of the text that speaks, not the RP. The Bible is better than the RP (even if it doesn’t strike us as quite as clear!).
Most of all, ask the Bible and then teach us the answer to this question: What ought to be in our hearts and minds when we worship, and how can we best experience that? If we can get the answer to that question right, we may be able to please Him who asks our worship.