I write to offer a potential conclusion to the exchange that Dr. Picirilli and I have had over the last several weeks on worship. I hope this will serve as a response and partial summation.
I’m hopeful that the recent exchange that Dr. Picirilli and I have had demonstrates that we agree that (1) worship ought to be regulated and governed by Scriptural principles; and (2) the entirety of church life and life in general should be regulated and governed by the same standard. I hope all our readers will join us in these crucial affirmations.
Even as we distinguish church polity from family life from professional ethics, and recognize what makes each unique, we must maintain an overarching commitment to Scriptural authority and sufficiency. As Dr. Picirilli said in an earlier post, sometimes we debate how that sufficiency should come to bear on specific questions. However, being clear in our theological commitments will hopefully be a touchstone for conversations on all kinds of issues.
Dr. Picirilli has also offered a concrete suggestion on terminology. He prefers we avoid phrases like the “regulative principle” or “regulative principle of worship,” and instead stick with “sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice.”
His rationale is certainly sound. He identifies two key advantages: (1) this terminology has a “long and honorable tradition among us”; and (2) avoiding the RPW language will leave hearers less vulnerable to misperceiving RPW-advocates as making inflated claims about its usefulness or authority.
I want to offer four responses to this suggestion.
First, I can embrace Dr. Picirilli’s suggestion. Indeed, our tradition has spoken of Scriptural sufficiency for a long time. It even finds a home in our confessional documents. If one believes in Scriptural inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility, then sufficiency is unavoidable. We need to continue to make that case to those who are doubtful.
I would only quibble with the reasoning behind this move. If one opts for the conventional articulation of the RPW, which dates to the Reformation, and one traces the arguments many Baptists have made historically about the church, the RPW is certainly “at home in our view of the church.”
I chuckled when Dr. Picirilli mentioned his Southern Baptist friend and theologian who had never heard of the RPW. When I attended a Southern Baptist seminary, I encountered many who didn’t know about Classical Arminianism, feet washing, or that some people actually believed one could “lose their salvation.” We’ll probably always face the problem of people being unfamiliar with language not native to their denomination. The question is, “Do they share the underlying, principled commitments?” Dr. Picirilli rightly speaks of the familiarity of “sufficient for faith and practice,” and so I’m happy to focus on that phrase for prudential and historical reasons. Our utilization of the word “ordinance” over “sacrament” is perhaps analogous in some ways.
Second, I still think that the second concern about the RPW is overstated. It depends upon a widespread misunderstanding of the actual substance of the RPW. If it were inevitable that people would misinterpret the RPW as a substitute for Scriptural exegesis, then let’s discard that language. However, if for no other reason than intellectual integrity, let’s seek to understand what something actually purports to be and do before judging it as unnecessary or problematic.
The RPW, in its historic form, articulates the authority and sufficiency of Scripture as applied to worship using Scripture’s own premises. It’s not an extra-biblical technical apparatus or guidebook. I must say this because I’ve read no account of the RPW that treated it as such.
Perhaps an illustration may help. I could see the uninitiated person taking Dr. Picirilli’s argument and saying, “The word ‘Trinity’ isn’t in the Bible, so let’s quit acting as though our modern formulations about Trinitarianism are better than Scripture’s language about the Father, Son, and Spirit. Let’s just stick to biblical phraseology. Let’s not pretend ‘Trinity speak’ is giving us something better than what John gives us.”
I believe this wouldn’t be a faithful application of Dr. Picirilli’s argument. While the exact phrase “sufficient for faith and practice” does not appear in Scripture, many verses teach that truth quite clearly. It goes to show that any irresponsible or naïve person can take something and misuse it. I believe that many who reject the RPW haven’t read deeply on it (Dr. Pic excepted!), and therefore find it inferior to a “stick to the Bible” type of reasoning.
Please note that I’m not equating the RPW with the Trinity. Rather, I am talking about how we do theology.
Third, I still suspect we differ slightly on how far Scripture goes in prescribing certain elements of worship. I’m slow to say this because part of why this is hard to evaluate is that we often lack a shared, practical standard for distinguishing between what is done and how it is done. Ironically, the RPW offers us some categories and language for thinking about the difference between what is done (some songs are sung) and how they are done (what types of song, how many songs, etc.).
I disagree with a pastor friend about baby dedications. We both affirm the RPW, but he feels that they aren’t Scripturally justified. I’d be the first to say that I believe the practice is often abused and misunderstood (Do parents really understand this commitment?). Yet let’s focus on the practice itself. What’s happening? We have prayer, instruction, and oaths being made. Those sound like Scriptural elements to me. I don’t think I need Old Covenant examples of baby dedications at the temple to justify having a carefully worded baby dedication that focuses on parents, who are members of the church, invoking God and the congregation’s help in a prayer of dedication.
Now I realize that this example may help Dr. Pic’s case. “Look at these two RPW-advocates who can’t agree on something.” Of course, I made clear in a prior post that the RPW doesn’t produce uniformity. But I offer this example to show that when we talk about “what happens in worship,” we need to look closely at what is actually happening, how it is done, how it is explained, why it is done, etc. This careful reflection better positions us to judge things Scripturally. Let me conclude on that note.
Fourth, I want to affirm and add to the exhortation to adjudicate worship-related questions by appealing to Scriptural exegesis. There’s a methodological concern we need to heed, and a practical one.
I’m not entirely sure we can always “come to the Bible directly” in the way that Dr. Picirilli advocates. None of us who have been Christians any length of time do that. We bring to bear on biblical texts our background knowledge, including well-founded doctrinal formulations. This isn’t necessarily eisegesis. Years of Scriptural study inevitably give us truths, principles, doctrines, and categories. These can be very helpful in the exegetical process, even if they shouldn’t be the first step. I take it as axiomatic that we need to start with the text—the words, phrases, grammar, etc. Before long we’re looking an entire passage, chapter, or book. But our interpretation will inevitably be informed by doctrinal knowledge from elsewhere in Scripture.
I suppose this caveat is a moot point. I know Dr. Picirilli is aware of this. But it may be moot for a more discouraging reason. He helpfully enjoins us to make Scripturally informed arguments about everything we should be doing, what we should stop doing, or what we ought to do differently. Yet my experience has shown me that people will nod their heads in agreement with his counsel, yet simply go on doing what they’ve been doing.
I think we have a problem. We may have a high, formal view of Scripture, but we often appear to have a low, functional view. We don’t always read the Bible much in worship. Sometimes, however, we use the Bible in a cursory way to justify our aims.
I’ve heard more than once how our worship services should be “exciting.” I simply can’t find that in the Bible. I do find “joyful.” But I think most people think “exciting” and “joyful” are the same, which is why if we’re told we need to be more excited, this appeal is made on the basis of verses which speak of “joy.” How can we find out if being excited and joyful are the same?
We could exegete the passages which speak of joy and gladness. We could also exegete passages that more generally speak of the spirit or tone of the Christian assembly and life. But it would also be reasonable to ask, “Where did this notion of excitement come from?” We could engage in some study of American popular culture and media and begin to detect how this cultural value has become a lens through which we’ve been interpreting and evaluating our worship experiences. Perhaps even some reflection on 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 might clue us into the fact that different members of the body experience and express joy differently, though not always.
I add these additional layers because I think Dr. Picirilli and I both want to remind people that we can’t just say we want to be Scriptural. We’re going to have to pay very close attention to Scripture. And we’re going to have to ask hard questions about everything we’re doing and taking for granted.
Culture, tradition, reason, and experience are always implicated in our worship decisions. These four influences need to be exegeted by Scripture, too. It won’t lead to uniformity in worship across congregations. In fact, we may all find that we must change some things.
I want to say again how much I appreciate Dr. Picirilli participating in this exchange with me. He’s welcome anytime to share further perspective on this subject or anything else at Churchatopia.
I pray that this exchange serves as a model for the kind of thoughtful, respectful dialogue that we want to encourage on all matters of life and ministry.