I’ve decided to tackle an uncontroversial topic in today’s newsletter. 😉
What Will Regulate Our Worship?
Those who regularly read my site are aware of my recent exchange with Dr. Robert Picirilli, beginning with my initial piece on the topic of the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW).
The RPW can be stated a few different ways:
“We should have Scriptural warrant for everything we do in worship.”
Or to put the matter more fully:
“God cares how He is worshipped. He has revealed in His Word how He wants to be worshipped. Therefore, the Scriptures should determine how we worship.”
Some people who encounter such arguments find them to be appealing, at least on their face. What could be more pious than to worship God the way He ought to be worshipped? Who wants to dispute that premise?
But the more some consider the framework and implications of the RPW, they begin to balk. Why? Because the RPW asserts that Scripture should determine the content of what we do in worship. That can seem restrictive. It may even challenge some of what a person’s church is currently doing in worship.
Some people get more anxious and skeptical when they hear that the RPW seeks to extend Scriptural authority to things like the “how” of worship, not just the “what.” This doesn’t mean that Scripture answers all questions about the manner of worship when it comes to the forms and circumstances, which elements like preaching and singing inevitably assume. Rather, it holds that Scriptural principles should still inform the choices that churches make in these other areas.
Let me give two examples. A church determines that the seating in its sanctuary or worship space is uncomfortable and outdated. They can upgrade their seating by spending $30,000 or $50,000. They reason, “It’s not unbiblical to create a worship environment that’s reasonably comfortable. After all, we want people—including those with bad backs—to be able to sit for an extended period of time.” Yet they might decide, “We’re going to go with the $30,000 seating option since we want to exercise wise stewardship. Why spend $50,000 when the difference of $20,000 could be used for fulfillment of the Great Commission?’
Even in the selection of a circumstance, something not explicitly addressed in Scripture, they’re trying to think Scripturally in reaching a decision. The point in this case isn’t so much the specific decision; it’s how they got there.
Consider another example concerning worship forms and circumstances. A music and media ministry are considering the placement and setting of speakers in the sanctuary. They reason, “Since Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 say that we should sing unto one another, we probably want to avoid getting things too loud so people can still hear themselves and their neighbors sing.” They then adjust the placement and setting of speakers to reflect that aim.
Whether music volume/amplification is treated as a form or circumstance, this music and media team is trying to honor a Scriptural aim in singing. There’s no decibel level found in Ephesians or Colossians, but a direct implication associated with the nature of Christian singing is that people should be able to hear.
These examples reflect how the RPW can give guidance and direction to a ministry seeking to honor God in their worship choices.
Uniformity, Unity, and Diversity
The troubles arise whenever those making worship service decisions err in one of three directions. First, they assume that uniformity is both achievable and desirable. They believe that uniformity in the forms and circumstances is an ideal to be strived for. This mindset leaves no space for cultural or practical considerations in context to context. Moreover, I would argue that it’s a misreading of a traditional articulation of the RPW.
One way this error manifests itself is through an arrogant and condescending attitude toward other ministries “who don’t do things like we do.” This is exactly the type of attitude we should expect. If there is a Platonic ideal for all Christian worship services in all times and places, then the church who has captured that ideal will certainly be tempted by pride. They’re faithful and true to the Word in a sea of churches who aren’t.
The second error some churches make is assuming that diversity and differences are more important than what unites Christian churches. They glory in the unique personality, aesthetic, and/or DNA of their worship services. They over-read the parts of the New Testament which speak of diversity, and allow this to be a license to innovate endlessly in the forms and circumstances. They end up ignoring, in other words, how Scripture gives guidance even in these areas. They don’t primarily celebrate what links them to Christ’s body elsewhere. They emphasize what’s different about their worship experience.
We’ll all heard the phrase, “It’s going to look different in your context.” If only I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard a conference or seminar speaker say this! There’s value to remembering to avoid cookie cutter solutions to our church’s problems. But perhaps it would be instructive to spend more time asking, “How might New Testament worship look the same, both in our church, the church we’re mothering, and the church plant we support on the West coast?”
The final error will seem less benign, but it’s likely the most common one. In the name of unity, church leaders frequently tell their church members not to focus on their preferences. Instead, they should focus on the Gospel, unity, and loving others. These are clearly laudable biblical goals to strive for, and if more church members focused on them than preference-oriented criticisms about aspects of the worship services, then the church would be much healthier and grow.
Here's the problem: someone is making decisions about the worship experience of the church. Over time thousands of decisions are being made about the assorted details of worship services, from song selections to sermon series to service orders and more. Now I clearly believe that the New Testament grants a lot of discretion to those planning and leading worship (e.g., Heb. 13:17). The main disposition of the church member entering a service should be one of submission, joy, and receptiveness, not systematic suspicion.
But isn’t it reasonable for an engaged member to wonder from time to time, “Why this and not that? Preacher, you tell us to lay aside our preferences, while it sure seems like you and the music minister’s preferences seem to rule the day!”
This is the liability of churches that think they’re steering clear of the worship wars by passionate appeals to unity and the Great Commission. They may not be sufficiently answering the question, “What is regulating our church’s worship?”
I’m not suggesting that pastors, music ministers, and deacons should have an open forum every month to let members air their grievances and complaints. Although, it might be better for church leaders to take the time to vet such concerns more carefully. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But those making worship service decisions need to consider what’s driving their choices: Scripture, tradition, culture, experience, or individual preferences?
In reality, there is no “culture-free” or “tradition-free” worship experience. All human rituals reflect some cultural values or features, such as the language they use to carry out such activities. And even so-called contemporary churches who pride themselves on being free from the shackles of tradition start to form patterns of activity over time. Eventually, they become a tradition unto themselves, though I doubt they don’t reflect other traditions in the background of their ministry.
Wise churches will develop a sensitivity to Scripture in seeking to make all kinds of worship decisions. They will refuse to let tradition, culture, sheer pragmatism, or other forces regulate and dictate these. They’ll recognize the place of practical concerns like accessibility, clarity, and functionality. They’ll appreciate the wisdom of saints who’ve gone before. They’ll even identify cultural dynamics that reflect God’s common grace, and those which reflect a disordered, broken world. Yet this awareness is made possible by the Word and Spirit working in tandem to order the church’s life, when they’re scattered, and when they’re gathered.
Currently Reading:
James K.A. Smith, On the Road with Saint Augustine: A Real-World Spirituality for Restless Hearts.
Quote of the Week:
...how would a country as massive, heterogenous, and politically fractured as this one ever arrive at a consensus so conclusive and overarching that it would ‘fix’ racism? The whites ‘out there’ are such incorrigible heathens, we are told. Okay, but if so, just what were we assuming would change their minds? Reading White Fragility? Try again. Tablets from on high sounds almost more plausible . . . And notice that the Elect find such questions unwelcome, or even arrogant, as if they are asking how we dare question the divine. . . So, to venture some additional arrogance: What would it be mean for America to ‘come to terms’ with racism? Precisely what configuration, event, or consensus would this coming to terms consist of? Who would determine that the terms had actually been come to? Why should we assume that the Elect would ever allow that the terms had been come to? They are, after all, obsessively condemnatory of any attempts to come to any today—they teach us that any sense we have that progress is happening is just another form of racism and ‘fragility,’ and are professionally resistant to allowing that any real progress has happened. (John McWhorter)