iMonk 101: The Regulative Principle and Lessons From The Psalms
March 22nd, 2008 by Michael Spencer
Two of my older essays deal with the use of the regulative principle and the use of the Psalms. They are some of my earlier writing on the same areas as I’m discussing in the “Freedom in Worship” post. Both were written when I was a Calvinist, so don’t be confused into thinking I’ve returned to Calvinism. I haven’t. I am not defending a “strong” regulative principle. The previous post represents where I am on this issue.
Much of the nastiness of the “worship wars” could be avoided if elders and church leaders were taught to think and plan with a moderate regulative principle in mind. Of course, putting the Biblical story in the central place it deserves and scripture commends would cramp the style of a lot of church-growth preachers, who center “worship” around whatever pulls in a crowd. The question they may need to ask is why they continue to advertise as “worship” something which is clearly not, nor really even intended to be. If you want to have a kickin’ band play a set and then talk about sex after reading a couple of Proverbs, go ahead, but don’t fool yourself and others into calling it worship.
Here are the two essays:
Toward a Workable Regulative Principle
Lessons from the Psalms
Internet Monk is the web space of 
Here’s my question, as a non-Protestant (!), about the “regulative principle” and worship.
Did early Christians, even through the first two centuries, let’s say, use this “regulative principle” in worship? Was that their paradigm?
It seems to me that their paradigm was simply Eucharist and the organic growth of that ritual, first in the context of Jewish prayer and then,eventually, building on that. I really, really, don’t understand the obsession with using the book called the Bible as a “regulative principle” in worship when most Christians through history have looked at liturgy as a more living, organic thing ultimately rooted in Eucharist.
(NOT in defense of the current mode of evangelical/megachurch/seeker worship. The opposite, in fact.)
Greg:
First of all, I don’t think it’s any surprise that Protestants rely on the Bible in a way that non-Protestants believe leaves them vulnerable to questions of authority.
For us, scripture is the written version of tradition and we don’t believe a consistently infallible authority exists in addition to it.
Secondly, I think both Protestants and non-Protestants would find this sentence confusing:
>I really, really, don’t understand the obsession with using the book called the Bible…
To say the least, any Protestant could rewrite that sentence with “pope” or “magisterium” and be just as amazed.
Finally, you gave us your understanding of the growth of the Eucharist, the context of Jewish prayer, etc. Are you amazed that Protestants would say “Could we have some scripture on what you mean by those terms?”
If Protestants are anything, they are unwilling to allow anyone to stand up and tell them what is “obvious” without scriptural definition and a consensus agreement.
peace
MS
May God’s richest blessings be yours as you reflect on the extent of His love demonstrated through the death His Son on the cross and the awesomeness of His power exhibited through the resurrection.
To God be the glory!
-bill
a spiritual oasis
michael,
I as a Lutheran and therefore not quite protestant, have to side with Greg. I think you handled breaking his sentence in half very poorly. And I think he had a very good point. There are many obsessions surrounding the use of the Bible I find almost entertaining but sadly demonic. For instance its use as a talisman, or remember the Bible Code that came out a few years ago. I might object to it being used for toilet paper, or even a door stop also.
I thnk the main point of Greg’s response was what did Christians use before there was the New Tetament in guiding their worship? I think the new Testament gives some answers to that question itself. And coincidently I think Greg might be right for all the wrong reasons. They added the Eucharist to the forms of worship found in Jewish synagogues, the same ones that Christ and Paul, and Peter, and James, and John all worshiped in before and even after the resurrection.
You don’t find a strict regulative principle in Scripture, I haven’t found one anyway. You do see some things explicitly forbidden, Women giving sermons for instance. But many things are free. I think it was natural for the early Christians though to start with what had been given to them from the forms of worship, which God had explicitly laid out in Exodus, and Leviticus, and at least tacitly approved of in the synogues (He did worship in that manner when He became man.) Of course the temple and the sacrifices there in were no longer needed, being replaced with Christ’s Body and Blood in the New Testament. The Early Christians did not see a law commanding them to do so, the revelled in the freedom they had in worship, for instance switching the day of worship even from the Sabbath to Sunday to celebrate the resurrection. But neither did they see a need to give up all that had been given to them before and start anew, always questioning does God approve of this? They just went with what had been given them.
Bror:
1) If you are implying that I am arguing for a strict regulative principle, I would point out that in the previous post and in these I argued for just the opposite: I have advocated a very moderate regulative principle. Most of the reformed would argue I’ve rejected it completely.
2) Greg’s use of the phrase “obsession with a book called the Bible” doesn’t sound to me like he’s saying “we shouldn’t be Bible-worshippers.” If that was his point, I’d totally agree. I am as bothered by the magic book view of the Bible as you are.
Greg’s chosen phrase is quite odd, and seems to me to be quite outside of any recognizable affirmation of Biblical authority. “…a book called…” ??
3)What did Christians use before the NT? They used the OT and the Christian tradition that became in-scriptured.
peace
MS
Michael,
No I wasn’t arguing that you were going for a strict regulative principle. At that point I was more or less agreeing with you. I am familiar with the concept of a regulative principle, but the idea is still a bit foreign to me. I suppose the Lutheran counterpart is “where the Bible speaks we speak, where it is silent we remain silent.”
But Greg didn’t say “a book called” he said, “the book called.” And that leads to other questions I’m sure he was hinting at, like; “exactly what is the Bible?” (Oh well don’t want to get into that here and now, as I probably disagree with both of you and it is beside the point.)
I think though, Michael, that it is a reformed (using the term in the broadest sense possible, a right I claim as a Lutheran) dream that the Christian tradition became inscriptured. The New Testaments is curiously quiet about how much of the early services were conducted. Nowhere in the Bible do we find anything close to an Anglican “Book of Prayer” complete with rubrics. We don’t even find an order for service anywhere in there. We do find a few guidelines here and there, some admonitions, some examples, some hints. But I daresay the “Early Church Tradition” hardly became inscriptured. However, I don’t agree with the idea that somehow it lived on outside of scripture in the sense that the Vatican subscribes to either. For one I would bet that much of the so called Tradition varied from place to place. I’m sure there were common elements in place, and that the service in one church would more or less be recognizable to someone from a distant parish, but I hardly think there was “one” tradition slavishly followed by all the apostles and their churches.
Bror:
I guess I’m just slow on this one.
1) I’m not arguing for a strict regulative principle. That includes a “slavish” adherence to some detailed pre-New Testament order of service.
2) As I say in the essay on the Psalms, worship is derived from the total content of the Biblical message. I can get a workable regulative principle from the Old Testament. Jesus was an observant Jew. Why can’t I assume his followers used the Old Testament “regulative” principle (postexilic/synagogue variety)?
3) I certainly can’t derive any kind of regulative principle from “tradition” without admitting pope, magisterium or some authority structure. I’ll take my authority structures as local and as admittably fallible as possible.
4) A moderate regulative principle is Gospel centered worship in the reading and proclaiming of scripture, prayer, singing, giving, corporate confession, Lord’s Supper, some form of liturgy. All actively moderated by congregational leaders.
peace
MS
Michael:
I assume the key to this posting is the word “moderate”. I personally would have a hard time with the hard-core regulative worship of the puritans, where the Psalms were used exclusively, no externals were allowed and hymn writers like Isaac Watts were not accepted. As Thomas Howard states in “Evangelical is Not Enough”: “It is Buddism and Platonism and Manichaeanism that tell us to disavow our flesh and expunge everything but thoughts. The gospel brings back all our faculties with a rush”.
But Someone who is burned out by “kickin’ worship bands”, Powerpoint sermons, and gratuitous DVD clips might find simple, unadorned puritan worship a breath of fresh air. The same is true for acappella worship in the Church of Christ, for which I have a lot of respect.
Senses have a place in worship, but the manipulation of them in current worship fads is beyond excess to the point of abuse.
The Psalms seem to have no place in worship anymore - even among liturgical protestants. They are listed in my church’s lectionary, but they are rarely used. The only exceptions I know are the RC, EO, and Anglicans. I know many have tried to generate interest in the use of Psalms in contemporary worship - such as Scott Brenner.
Thanks for the links.
Basically, if I hear you right, the “moderate regulatory principal” boils down to searching the Scriptures for God’s objectives in worship, and then ensuring that all worship follows those objectives. If so, I could see why you say the Truly Reformed wouldn’t consider you to have a “regulatory principal” at all. But I also see the Scriptural usefulness of the concept as a reminder that Scriptures have “thou shalt” as well as “thou shalt not” with regards to corporate worship.
Michael,
I think this is where we are talking past eachother. You write :3) I certainly can’t derive any kind of regulative principle from “tradition” without admitting pope, magisterium or some authority structure. I’ll take my authority structures as local and as admittably fallible as possible.”
Now maybe I’m hearing this wrong from you. See Lutherans really love the liturgy as it grew up in the early church, and even through the middle ages, and the innovations added and subtracted even up to modern times, but maintaing a constant continuity to what was happening when Jesus read from the book of Isaiah in his hometown synagogue. This is the sort of thing that I hear when I hear tradition. Tradition that is not in conflict with scripture. If we were to find a particular tradition to be in conflict with scripture we would throw it out. But I don’t know that we Lutherans are as up tight about having a regulatory principle at all moderate, liberal, or conservative. We don’t think in these terms. I understand them but We have different terms with slightly different meanings. The question that guides us most isn’t so much can we find support or not from Scripture, but assuming scripture we ask is this helpful? That is we could find reason to use incense in worship from scripture. And wehre it can be helpful in some situations, many of us would not opt to do it for the fuss it may cause relative to it’s helpfulness.
But maybe there is a sense in which that tradition we received sort of acts as a defacto regulatory principle. I don’t think you need to go along with the pope and all that jazz to see it in this way. But as a Lutheran wants to add and subtract from worship there is always the question in the back of his mind as to why, and to what benefit. We find that if we investigate our tradition there are often times good solid reasons for having always done it that way.