Also in the day of your gladness and in your appointed feasts, and on the first days of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be as a reminder of you before your God. I am the Lord your God.” (Numbers 10:10)
The RPCNA uses their interpretation of the Regulative Principle of Worship to claim that instruments in worship were only associated with sacrifices in the Old Testament, and thus, forbidden in worship in the New Testament.
Worship is to be offered only in accordance with God’s appointment, and in harmony with the scriptural principle that whatever is not commanded in the worship of God, by precept or example, is forbidden. (RP Testimony 21:2)
The Psalms are to be sung without the accompaniment of instruments, which are not part of the New Testament pattern of worship. Musical instruments were commanded for use with the offering of sacrifices in the Old Testament temple worship. The death of Christ being the perfect and final sacrifice brought an end to this way of worship. There is neither command for nor example of the use of musical instruments in the words or practice of Christ and the apostles. The command of the New Testament is to offer the sacrifice of praise—the fruit of our lips. (RP Testimony 21:6)
Eisegesis is a common failing in Biblical interpretation. When the Bible is interpreted through the lens of "what do I want it to say" and not "how do I gain understanding from what it says," we end up with convoluted and often inconsistent approach to practice.
The RP Testimony goes above the Westminster Confession of Faith which says:
The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. (21:1)
WCF says that worship is "limited by [God's] revealed will" and he "may not be worshipped" in "any other way not prescribed in ... Scripture". RPT says whatever is not commanded or demonstrated by example is forbidden. Very clear cut and black and white.
There is a secondary argument, though. "the New Testament pattern of worship". So, the RPT seems to be saying that command and example must be specifically through the lens of New Testament worship. What this means is that even though musical instruments are used throughout the Old Testament, their use is forbidden in modern worship. That also applies to dancing, even though the Psalms suggest, or even command praising God with instruments and dancing (e.g. Psalm 150).
What about baptism?
What is missing in the RPCNA consideration of worship is a careful evaluation of other worship practices. For example, circumcision was done on the 8th day after birth in the Old Testament. It is not coupled to any sort of worship. In the New Testament, the examples of baptism are arguably outside the context of congregational worship. People are baptized when they are converted, not when they are presented to the congregation.
What we see here is thus eisegesis. Instruments are forbidden not because of "command or example" but because "command or example" is a convenient way to claim the spiritual high ground over personal opinion. If "command or example" is the litmus test, baptism cannot be done in worship, as there is neither command nor example in the New Testament of baptism being done in worship.
What about the offering?
What else gets dismissed? Offerings. Offerings are clearly an aspect of worship in the Old Testament, although it's questionable how it worked within congregational gatherings. Paul says, "On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come." (1 Cor 16:2) As far as I know, this is the only suggestion that offerings belong in worship, and it fails on two points. First, it is a special collection for downtrodden saints in Jerusalem, not an offering to support the ministry of the local church. Second, the fact that it is "on the first day of the week" does not couple it to corporate worship. That would be like saying that churches can "thresh grain" in worship, because the disciples did it and it was clearly on the Sabbath.
What about the benediction?
The benediction is clearly commanded in the Old Testament in Numbers 6:22-27, but, that is the Old Testament, and RPT is saying that only New Testament commands and examples count for determining what can and can't be part of modern worship. Even if we can make that argument, the command is specifically the Aaronic Blessing - "The Lord bless you and keep you, the Lord..." not the blessings sprinkled throughout the New Testament writings.
As an ex-RP, I don't agree with the RPT interpretation of everything must be re-established in the New Testament (it's clear that they do not walk the talk anyway!) I hold the WCF interpretation, that what God wants in worship can be understood from scripture and that we are likely sinning when we invent new worship practices (bowling??) or try to follow practices from other religions without supporting them from scripture.
What are your thoughts on how God wants to be worshiped?
7 comments:
“Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship” (Romans 12:1).
Can we worship in our song? Absolutely. But this is not our primary worship. Worship is how we live and bring glory to God. We are all worshipping something.
I can’t say if those who initially instituted the regulative principle did so in good conscience, as I don’t know. The people who teach on it seem to really believe it. But we can just as easily and truly believe any lie as well as any truth- how much more when some truth is mixed with some error?
I don’t believe the church who holds this rp concept will ever be willing to righteously examine its validity, as they have been successful in one very crucial area: it has been very effective in retaining their members. It becomes such a complex in their minds that they can’t seem to break free to even attend another church without feeling they are sinning…and this is an important point not to lose sight of. They do this with other things, too. For example, it’s clear in the Bible we should accept the children produced within the marriage- but they hold this one high because they cannot sustain their denomination without it. More babies born equals more future members, greater likelihood members won’t leave because they’ll lose more family members, and because it can be used as a source of pride to those who like to boast in the fullness of their quiver- even if he has no real love for those children.
Thanks, that is helpful! It was definitely the biggest hurdle leaving the RPCNA - that no other Reformed church had the same view and practice of corporate worship.
I think it's also very pertinent for you to point out that "worship" is how we honor God with our lives every day and not just on Sunday. I remember cherishing Sunday because weeks were filled with manual labor and it was a chance to rest. RPs were mostly good at that. Right now, I need rest less from physical toil, more from the emotional burden of feeling responsible for the success of my family, work and church (in different ways and capacities). I can't say I ever learned how to set aside that emotional work one day a week.
That’s interesting… I think it’s precisely that rest Jesus would have us have in Him. Rest from the striving to be good enough, righteous enough- it’s trust, essentially. A big part of leaving was admitting that in this church one cannot simultaneously trust God and it’s leadership. Trusting in and yielding to the leadership is what merits a good RPer, regardless of whether one has searched the scriptures to see if anything they teach is actually true. One has to practically transfer trust in God to trust in men in order to get by. It begins to eat at the conscience, and then you arrive at a crucial fork in the road: turn to God or turn forever to man alone. The more one yields to the leadership in, especially, the things which violate or trouble the conscience, the more one increasingly hardens his heart. Once the conscience is seared, only a miracle of God can bring a person back.
Perhaps that's what is so hard to escape in the RP system. The exclusive worship is hard to leave, but what about the years and years of being taught to seek and rely on man's approval (pastor, elders and even peers)? Part of leaving is knowing that those people will at least distance themselves from me and perhaps reject me outright.
I think it helps to have a think about why the exclusive worship is hard to leave. You said the crucial word, ‘exclusive.’ Of course it’s in the title, EP, but there’s a double-meaning to exclusive. I think it’s 2 things:
1. The EP concept can form a complex in our minds. Not all complexes are negative things. We are taught to develop complexes for good reasons as soon as we’re toddlers, practically. “Don’t talk to strangers,” etc. In the case of EP, I believe the complex is overwhelmingly negative, and serves only the leadership. Even people who have seen the clear reason to move their families and have counted the cost and are willing to leave, find themselves dragging their feet over this one issue. They are definitely afraid they will be sinning if they attend a service in any other tradition. Breaking down this complex will force the person to do one of 2 things: leave the faith altogether, or, and hopefully (and with the help of God), begin to see the legalism undergirding such an idea. The latter will not be an easy process. There’s so much talk about ‘deconstructing’ we hear now, and it breaks my heart. But there is a positive type of deconstruction wherein a person begins to deconstruct the error in their theological beliefs, and that is something we can only do with the help of the Holy Spirit to open our eyes and lead us into the truth. Even our yearning and willingness to engage in this process is a gift from God alone. Hard as it is to go through, it’s beautifully refining and refreshing to the soul!
2. Pride. Being in this church, members are consistently reminded, in one manner or another, of the exclusivity of the group. Being the “only faithful people who are doing it right” contributes to the enormous spiritual pride you find in groups like this.
By the way: both of these things are top things you see in cults. For a long time some churches can fly under the radar because the model of cult identity currently precludes those emerging from within orthodoxy. Some churches are 'good' about insulating their members from being able to put together the pieces.
And there's a third thing already: dissociating from people who leave, as if they are really unsaved. Cults do this.
Completely agree. I think "deconstruction" is negative in the same sense that it DOES NOT serve the leadership.
Deconstructing is me saying, there is a higher standard than what my parents, church, society is telling me and I need to find the proper place for those voices beneath what is primary.
I have friends who started questioning, "the pastor said X and it bothered me, but then I asked myself 'does this bother me because it's false, or does it bother me because someone told me falsely that it's false?'"
That's the core of deconstruction, IMO. I was taught about a Jesus that I don't see in scripture - one of legalism, authoritarianism and exclusivity. To follow the Jesus I read in scripture, I have to deconstruct my legalism, my pride and my feelings of superiority, and, honestly, I don't want to be in the tents of those who proclaim Jesus but hate their neighbors.
That said, there is a good side to the complex - there is a strong degree of care for worship as being something we offer to God and something that edifies the congregation. So, RPW, etc., likely came from a desire to obey God and serve wholeheartedly, but devolved legalistically into tribalism, superiority and cult.
Post a Comment