I want to thank Dr. Picirilli for his response to my initial article on the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW hereafter). I’ve benefited from his wisdom on many topics over the years, so I’m eager to continue the dialogue here.
Introduction
In my prior article I sought to (1) define the RPW, and (2) defend it against a charge often leveled against it—that it curtails the freedom of worshippers.
Dr. Picirilli’s concerns about the RPW give me opportunity to expand on the subject by responding to him, while also adding some additional definition and texture to how I think the RPW has been understood (and is still understood) by many modern-day advocates.
I understand Dr. Picirilli’s objections or concerns to relate to the proper scope or extent of the RPW, the helpfulness, practicality, or applicability of the RPW, and the origins of the RPW insomuch that it may be deemed relevant to modern Free Will Baptists. I will respond to each of these.
The Proper Scope or Extent of the RPW
First, Dr. Picirilli is concerned about limiting Scriptural authority and sufficiency to corporate worship. Drawing on John Frame’s views, he wants us not to place worship in a narrow category cordoned off from the rest of the Christian experience. As the adage goes, “all of life is worship.”
I couldn’t agree more. It makes no coherent theological sense to treat Scripture as being the primary regulator of worship practices, while granting it less authority in the larger Christian life.
Two relevant questions then follow. “How should we understand phrases like ‘sufficient for faith and practice’?” And, “Is corporate worship for New Testament believers the type of thing that God intends to regulate or guide in a more specific way?”
Sola Scriptura and the sufficiency of Scripture tend to go together for most authors, Reformed or not. When they speak of such sufficiency, they often say sufficient for “faith and practice.” The problem is that while “faith” tends to refer to “doctrine,” there is a wide consensus among the authors I’ve read to see “practice” as not merely referring to the Christian life in general, but specifically to the church’s ministry, including congregational worship.
Dr. Picirilli mentions two Reformed luminaries in his article. If we look closer at the writings of theologians like these, we’ll see that they either (1) took for granted that people knew that the sufficiency of Scripture included its sufficiency for worship, or (2) their views of the RPW were nestled alongside more widely used language, such as “ordinary means of grace.” I perused several Reformed systematic theologies this week and found nearly all sections on the Doctrine of the Church to include as much. To emphasize “scriptural means of grace” for these authors meant that Scripture defined the scope and content of the church’s practices, including worship. I’ll return to this historical observation below.
The concern I have with framing the issue as Dr. Picirilli does is that it may minimize or obscure a distinction. We don’t need to lose the thread of both testaments, which affirm something specific as corporate worship, and something as broad as seeking to honor (i.e., worship) God in all of life. The Old Testament will point us to the cultus of Israel, whether it be in the tabernacle or temple. Yet the prophets indict those who maintain rituals on Sabbath while oppressing the poor on Tuesday.
The New Testament can also point to something as broad as offering oneself as a living sacrifice to God (e.g., Rom. 12:1-2), and to the worship of the ekklesia (Acts 2, 1 Cor. 14; Heb. 10:25) [1]. We surely agree that God’s moral will applies to those living in either era and to either kind of worship.
My point in mentioning this distinction is not to pretend as though the biblical “rules of the road” differ drastically from one aspect of worship to another. But if we agree that these are two different activities—one being individual and general, and another being corporate and specific—then it’s not surprising to find some instructions that are oriented toward the more specific one, some to the more general experience, and some that apply to both.
The second concern I have with this framing is that it can overstate the paucity of Scriptural guidance we have that may inform the worship experience of the church.
On one level, I concur with the sentiment of “how little is said about Sunday worship services in the New Testament.” But that logic, as well shifting the frame of reference to all of life instead of corporate worship, could lead some to conclude that since the Bible has so little to say about daily modern life, we should be content with general principles alone. We shouldn’t expect to find too much about the nitty-gritty of things.
But then we find what most commentators agree are correctives and warnings in more than one place (e.g., Col. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11, 14). We find believers enjoined to sing unto one another and unto the Lord, in “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). They’re told to do all things decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:26). They’re commanded to pray and speak in a way so as to be understood in the assembly, by believers and unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:7-33).
I know Dr. Picirilli is aware of these and other specific instructions--including less direct implications of various texts. After all, he wrote a commentary on more than one New Testament book! My point is to say that the RPW proceeds from the assumption that (1) God cares how His people worship Him; (2) Idolatry and other sins which flow from it compromise true worship; (3) Letting Scripture prescribe the substance of worship is the best guard against turning the focus off God and onto us.
The Helpfulness, Practicality, or Usefulness of the RPW
Assuming we agree on the first and second assumptions above, let’s focus on the third.
How to “make use of Scripture’s sufficiency” and dealing with the fact that no one will “agree about every practical application we adopt” are indeed issues to reckon with. On the first count, if we assume that there’s nothing too distinct about congregational worship, then this will have the unintended effect of discouraging people from looking too closely in the New Testament for guidance in the arena of worship.
I know Dr. Picirilli doesn’t intend to do that, nor would he personally approach it that way. He’s exactly right when he says, “Those who want to use overheads and guitars—or more serious innovations—are going to do so, regardless how firmly anyone stands on the RPW or any other grounds. I wish that weren’t so, and I wish we would think carefully, critically, and deeply about all we do, and that we would do it collectively and not just individually…”. However, I think this is exactly why the RPW helps us. Seeking Scriptural warrant for all that we do forces one to proceed with caution.
The second concern about finding agreement among people in different settings is part of the beauty of the RPW, properly understood. It doesn’t seek uniformity. It distinguishes between those things prescribed, such as preaching or singing, and the forms and circumstances those acts assume.
This is why I think Frame completely misses the boat. He wants to nullify the RPW in any recognizable form by discarding terms like “forms” and “circumstances.” After all, since the Bible doesn’t use those exact words, then we can’t either. Yet no one is proposing we grant them canonical status. They’re simply descriptions of phenomena inherent to any attempt to perform the acts of singing and preaching. What will we preach? For how long? What will we sing? How many songs? Accompaniment or not?
While I grant that there are stricter and less strict applications of the RPW (just talk to the PCA Presbyterians), most anyone you read on this topic will emphasize that the RPW calls for churches to limit the components of worship to those found in the New Testament. Beyond that, general principles of Scripture are to inform the choices of forms and circumstances.
Listen to one contemporary RPW advocate explain:
The content of each component [element] must convey God’s truth as revealed in his Word . . . As for the form of the elements there will be some variations: different prayers will be prayed, different songs sung, different Scriptures read and preached, the components of worship rearranged from time to time, the occasional elements (like the sacraments, oaths, and vows) performed at various chosen times, and the like. There will be, of necessity, some human discretion exercised in these matters. So here, Christian common sense under the direction of general scriptural principles, patterns, and proportions must make a determination. Finally, as to circumstances . . . these things must be decided upon in the absence of specific biblical direction, and hence they must be done (as with the case of the forms above) in accordance with ‘the light of nature and Christian prudence according to the general rules of the word’. [2]
The RPW doesn’t bracket off prudential judgments made by people. Anyone who articulates the RPW, pretending as though it answers every question and settles every dispute has misread the tradition.
In short, when it comes to what we do—especially in the main—"there must be scriptural warrant for all that we do. That warrant may come in the form of explicit directives, implicit requirements, the general principles of Scripture, positive commands, examples, and things derived from good and necessary consequences.” [3]
The distinction between “essentials” and “non-essentials” doesn’t really figure into the discussion in the way Frame has described. I can’t recall any RPW advocate who wants to press that distinction. Of course, I’m not troubled by these words, provided when people use words like “essential” they follow it by explaining essential for what purpose!
The Historical Origin and Relevance of the RPW to Free Will Baptists
Another question broached in Dr. Picirilli’s response might be worded this way: “Where does the RPW enter our modern conversation such that it should have any weight among us?” There’s an historical component to that question, and a systematic-theological one. [4]
As to the historical one, he rightly references the Reformed tradition responding to the abuses in Medieval Roman Catholic thought and practice, including worship. Yet if we dive deeply into those sources, the Reformers saw their emphasis on the “ordinary means of grace” and sola Scriptura as a recovery of the ancient church’s focus on the apostolic witness.
I won’t be able to answer the Free Will Baptist history question any better than Dr. Picirilli. After all, he’s written two or three books on that topic, so he’d know better than me. I’ll merely note that I seem to recall R.K. Hearn and E.L. St. Claire both emphasizing Scriptural sufficiency for “faith and practice.” Of course, that won’t help much if “practice” only refers to the Christian life in general, or church polity more generally. I also think the English General Baptists spoke a lot about the ordinary means of grace, which as I mention above, tends to be coupled often with a commitment to the RPW, even if that language isn’t used precisely.
Conclusion
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. What I don’t hear him advocating for is the Normative Principle, which would permit all manner of things in Christian worship that aren’t explicitly prohibited.
Ultimately, I think his use of the word “satisfying” is very significant. I think a lot of people are of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, they want to refute the notion that the New Testament gives us guidance on worship. On the other hand, they want to defend their approach to worship using the biblical text. I find this unsatisfying.
The benefit of the RPW is not that it settles every dispute or answers every question. Rather, it gives a Scriptural framework for identifying and prioritizing the biblically prescribed elements of worship. Beyond that, it calls for judicious, careful reflection even upon the way in which these elements are expressed, trying to rise above cultural accretions, unthinking tradition, and raw pragmatism to make decisions.
________
[1] As an aside, I have often taught that worship is portrayed as “capital-W worship,” and “lowercase-w worship.” The former is the kind of “all-of-life worship” we’re speaking of here, and the latter being the congregational worship experience.
[2] Ligon Duncan, Does God Care How We Worship? (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2020), 15-16.
[3] Duncan, 14. The latter quotation comes from the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.6).
[4] As to the systematic-theological question, the RPW isn’t just an extension of the Reformational emphasis on sola Scriptura and the sufficiency of Scripture. It’s an implication of one’s doctrine of God and doctrine of the church.