What Is "Acceptable Worship"?

Thoughts on an Acceptable Worship:

"We all agree there should be truth in worship. But shouldn’t worship also be in truth? There’s a big difference between having truth in worship and worshipping in truth. Having truth in worship means you got some Bible in there. But worshiping in truth means the whole thing is by the Book. So the Bible commands us to worship acceptably (Heb 12). When the Bible commands acceptably, the Bible means the Bible. Where else would the Bible appeal the command than itself?

"And there is order in Hebrews 12’s exposition of worship. We are called to offer “acceptable worship with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” Acceptable means worship accordingly. Reverence and awe means formality. Consuming fire means you should smell the charred remains of Nadab and Abihu in the smoke and tremble before your God asking only one question, “Has God commanded this worship?”" - Jared Beaird, The Antecedent To Worship 

Although I agree with the teaching that Rev. Beaird goes on to make in his essay regarding Reformed liturgical worship, I'm not sure that the writer's focus in Hebrews 12 is the regulative principle. Here's verse 28 that he refers to:

"Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace [or gratitude], whereby we may offer worship well-pleasing [acceptable] to God with reverence and awe." - Heb 12:28

It strikes me, that this verse follows on heels of the overall gospel theme of Hebrews, that of the necessity of faith in Christ alone for acceptance with God (as opposed to the ceremonial law-keeping of the Old Covenant); i.e. a lively faith in Jesus' blood shedding sacrifice for sins once for all, his eternal priesthood, and his mediation as revealed in the much more excellent New Covenant.

Here are some earlier verses in Hebrews that depict this theme of faith in Christ for our acceptance with God:

"so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." - Heb 6:12

"a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God... but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." - Heb 7:19b, 24-25

"Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance... For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf." - Heb 9:15a, 24

"let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water... but my righteous one shall live by faith,

and if he shrinks back,

my soul has no pleasure in him.”

But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. "- Heb 10:22, 38-39

"And without faith [in Christ alone] it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." - Heb 11:6

And of course, "looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith" -Heb 12:2 that is at the beginning of the chapter under consideration.

Here is what John Calvin writes in his commentary on Hebrews 12:28 -

 

"He makes hence a transition to another exhortation, that we are to lay hold on that kingdom which cannot be shaken; for the Lord shakes us for this end, that he may really and forever establish us in himself. At the same time I prefer a different reading, which is given by the ancient Latin version, "Receiving a kingdom, we have grace," etc. When read affirmatively, the passage runs best, -- "We, in embracing the Gospel, have the gift of the Spirit of Christ, that we may reverently and devoutly worship God." If it be read as an exhortation, "Let us have," it is a strained and obscure mode of speaking. The Apostle means in short, as I think, that provided we enter by faith into Christ's kingdom, we shall enjoy constant grace, which will effectually retain us in the service of God; for as the kingdom of Christ is above the world, so is the gift of regeneration."

And what does Scripture mean by to worship in truth? Looking to the apostle John:

"Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers." - John 4:22-23

Those born of the Spirit and faith in Jesus are the true worshipers of God.

Again, John Calvin:

"It amounts to this, that God is not properly worshipped but by the certainty of faith, which cannot be produced in any other way than by the word of God...

"Now that they [the Jews] deny the Son, they have nothing in common with the Father... The same judgment must be formed concerning all who have turned aside from the pure faith of the Gospel to their own inventions and the traditions of men.

"The worship of God is said to consist in the spirit, because it is nothing else than that inward faith of the heart which produces prayer, and, next, purity of conscience and self-denial, that we may be dedicated to obedience to God as holy sacrifices...

In all ages God wished to be worshipped by faith, prayer, thanksgiving, purity of heart, and innocence of life; and at no time did he delight in any other sacrifices.

To worship God through faith in Christ alone is what makes our prayers, thanksgivings, and praises to be well-pleasing and acceptable to him.

Finally, Rev. Beaird's thoughts on a gospel-centered liturgical worship are excellent.  I very much appreciate these words near the end:

"I prefer a liturgy structured: gospel, law, gospel. To begin and end with the gospel secures me in my only comfort in life and in death...

"Here’s my application, turn the gospel up to eleven every Lord’s Day. And for that, you will need a proper biblical liturgy." 

The article is well worth reading > The Antecedent to Worship

T. David Gordon on Praise Teams and Biblical Worship...

Are praise bands biblical?  What constitutes biblical worship when it comes to congregational singing and music?  T. David Gordon weighs in on these questions with insight and command of Scripture in an article titled The Problem With Praise Teams at Second Nature Journal.  A few snippets...

There has been a good deal of discussion recently about the Praise Team/Praise Band phenomenon, a phenomenon that has become a liturgical commonplace. Most of that discussion has centered around the practical issues of the expense, the placement of the instruments (front, side, back?), the adjusting of the volume, etc. Many of us regard that cost/benefit analysis of the matter to fall heavily on the “cost” side, and do not regard the practice as being worthy of the effort, expense, and other logistical headaches involved. If a student or former student were planting a church today, and if he asked me whether he should have a Praise Team/Praise Band, I would advise against it on practical grounds. Recently, however, someone asked me if I regarded the practice as biblical or unbiblical, and this provoked me to think about the matter differently. When one asks whether the practice fulfills the biblical duty, the question is framed quite differently, and I now have a provisional opinion on the question of whether the practice is biblical....

... For example, if Justin Bieber showed up and sang several songs for the congregation, would this fulfill what the Scriptures require the congregation to do? Do the Scriptures merely require some musical act of any sort, or do they require a particular musical act? If the entire congregation stood up and hummed “Amazing Grace,” would this satisfy what the Scriptures teach? I suggest that the Scriptures teach three audible things about the singing of praise in the Christian assemblies: that the singing be congregational, that it be together (not necessarily unison, but together), and that it be vigorous (loud or robust)...

... So when I talk about what “the Scriptures teach” about the singing of praise in the Christian assemblies, I do not narrowly mean “what the Gospels teach,” or “what the book of Acts teaches,” or “what the Pauline letters teach,” but what the whole of Scripture teaches about singing God’s praise in Christian assemblies. It is entirely possible that some would disagree with me here, and say that we can settle the matter only by the Acts of the apostles, or only by the canonical Gospels, or only by the epistles, or only by the canonical psalms, etc. I would entertain such an argument reasonably and, I trust, charitably, but I do not embrace such a view. My understanding of tota Scriptura is that we are to account for what the entirety of Scripture teaches on a given matter. When I say that “the Scriptures” teach that congregational praise is congregational, together, and vigorous, I derive those three traits from the whole of Scripture.

Read the entire article Here!

Gleanings Part 2: The Regulative Principle of Worship and the Book of Common Prayer

A common misunderstanding is that the use of the Book of Common Prayer was rejected by Presbyterians and Puritans due to its content.  While it can be argued that certain sections were in need of further reform, this was not where the objections focused.  They stood on the principle that no church authority could bind the Christian conscience except by doctrine taught in Scripture, based on the principle of sola scriputra.  This regulative principle of worship was, then, the believer's protection from Church imposition of practices lacking Scriptural authority.  This especially grew in importance during the years under the regime of Archbishop Laud.  Regarding the Regulative Principle of Worship and Christian Liberty (WCF 20), Robert Letham, in his book The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context, writes that the...

WCF 20.1 provides the basis for Christian liberty.  This has been purchased for us by Christ under the gospel.  This pertains not only to freedom from sin and its consequences but also to the liberty won by Christ that brings "deliverance from bondage to man... He alone is Lord of our conscience.  We are thus freed from anything that is contrary to his Word in matters of faith and worship, we are also freed from the obligation to follow commands that are additional to what he has revealed in his Word.  In the context of the Laudian repression, this was a powerfully liberating statement.  Indeed, Christians are prohibited from yielding their consciences to the whims of man.... Samuel Rutherford summed it up pithily in his comment:  'It is in our power to vow, but not in the church's power to command us to vow'. (pp. 300-301)

The imposition of liturgical demands by the Church/State authority in England had moved many of the best clergy in England to more fully embrace the regulative principle of worship as found in embryonic form in  the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.  A case can certainly be made that the RPW grows out of Article VI:

Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

Yet some will certainly argue that even under the reformer Thomas Cranmer the Book of Common Prayer was imposed by force of law.  One need only look to the ordination of Bishop John Hooper as an example.  But rather than a proof for the imposition of the BCP, this is an example of the Erasmain mindset the early reformers were born into, a hangover from the years of Christendom under the Holy Roman Empire.  The reforming of doctrine always precedes the reforming of practice, which comes about more slowly.

Robert Letham continues, explaining why the Westminster Divines thus rejected the set liturgy of the Church of England:

When we reflect on the drastic imposition of the Book of Common Prayer by the Elizabethan settlement and its aftermath [the Laudian repressions], we see why the Assembly produced a directory of worship giving freedom to individual ministers to conduct worship services within the boundaries of the regulative principle of Scripture.  It was the binding legal requirement, imposed by the crown, with penalties attached, that was the real nub of the problem with the liturgy for Puritan minds.  While opposing the legal imposition of set liturgies, the Assembly was not abandoning liturgies as such.  The Directory for Publick Worship of God contains a range of model prayers to be used in the regular service, at the start, before the sermon, after the sermon, before and after baptism, during and after communion, at the solemnization of marriage, in visiting the sick, and at public solemn fasting.  Even John Owen, a few years too young to have been appointed to the Assembly, when writing on liturgies, stressed that he was not opposed to them or to the Book of Common Prayer. but to their imposition by law, with the forbidding of the slightest deviation from the set words.  The standard practice of the Reformed churches had been to have a liturgy with set prayers; the problem for the divines was the rigid impositions and the repressive, punitive [state] sanctions for failure to comply. (pp.303-304)

In A Discourse on Liturgies and Their Imposition John Owen elaborates concerning his objections to the BCP liturgy and its use:

They who are willing to take it upon their consciences that the best way to serve God in the church, or the best ability that they have for the discharge of their duty therein, consists in the reading of such a book (for I suppose they will grant that they ought to serve God with the best they have), shall not by me be opposed in their way and practice. It is only about its imposition, and the necessity of its observance by virtue of that imposition, that we discourse. Now, the present command is, that such a liturgy be always used in the public worship of God, and that without the use or reading of it the ordinances of the gospel be not administered at any time, nor in any place, with strong pleas for the obligation arising from that command, making the omission of its observance to be sinful. (chapter 7)

John Owen highlights that one objection to the use of the BCP was its imposition by force of law.  It was this imposition, repressive due to the penalties attached and its lack of Scriptural warrant, that ran afoul of the Christians's liberty of conscience in Christ.  And particularly onerous, regarding these laws under Archbishop Laud, was the restriction limiting sermons and thus the preaching of the gospel.  Robert Letham adds more insight to Owen's thinking in a footnote found on page 304:

25.  John Owen, "A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, and Their Imposition" (1662), in Works of John Owen, 15:33, where he states, " I do not in especial intend the liturgy now in use in England, any further than to make it an instance of such imposed liturgies, whereof we treat."  He adds, "Nor, secondly, do I oppose the directive part of this liturgy as to the reading of Scripture... nor the composition of forms of prayer suitable to the nature of the institutions to which they relate, so they be not imposed on the administrators of them to be read precisely as prescribed.  But, thirdly, this is that alone which I shall speak unto,--the composing of forms of prayer in the worship of God... to be used by the ministers of the churches, in all public assemblies, by a precise reading of the words prescribed unto them, with commands for the reading of other things, which they are not to omit, upon the penalty contained in the sanction of the whole service and the several parts of it."  The problem for Owen and his friends, he explains, was that this imposition was accompanied by a restriction on preaching.  Later he refers to "the prescription of the liturgy, to be used as prescribed: (15:47), and to "the precise reading and pronouncing of the words set down therein, without alteration, diminution, or addition" (15:49).  Kelly is wrong when he writes that Owen was "against all set liturgies" ("Puritan Regulative Principle," 2:74)

Gleanings: Puritanism and the Book of Common Prayer, Part 1

The book, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context by Robert Letham, is well worth the time to read.  Among other things, it's helped give me a better understanding of  the social, political, and religious influences in England that led to Puritanism and eventually the Westminster Assembly.  What's interesting to take into account are those particularly oppressive influences that affected the returning Marian exiles in the late 1550s going forward and how those influences and actions of the State/Church authority led to a Puritanism that gradually moved away from an episcopal polity toward presbyterianism and the regulative principle of worship; ultimately rejecting a state enforced liturgy as was the case with the Book of Common Prayer.  Following are some of my thoughts and gleanings from Letham's book:

Soon after Elizabeth took the throne the Protestant church was reestablished.  Yet those religious refugees recently returned from Europe found that what was taking place was far from a continuation of reforms started in Cranmer's church under Edward VI.  New legislation set in law the use of the new prayer book and other prescriptions and requirements.  In fact, "The Act of Settlement (1559) ... laid down savage penalties for departing from the prescribed liturgy."  And though they made efforts to moderate these developments, he returning Marian exiles "failed to secure any concessions to placate them" (Letham, p. 14). Initially, "draconian penalties were prescribed for any who diverged from the Prayer Book although these were rarely, if ever, enforced."  This soon changed.  "Only from around 1564 was rigid uniformity required..." (p. 15).

Letham continues,

"When tighter control was implemented by the establishment, a nascent Presbyterian movement emerged in the 1570s and 1580s... Indeed, it was estimated by some, and reported by Mitchell, that at one point up to one-third of the clergy of England were under suspension, with attendant destitution and penury, while their congregations were as a result deprived of the ministry of the Word and sacraments." (p. 15)

These men were clergy of the Church of England and not some strain of radical Puritanism.

Indeed, as Mitchell observes, '"the points of difference between the Puritans and those who fail to be distinguished from them in the Reformed Church of England seem at first to be few in number, and of minor importance" (p. 16) ... the only expression at variance with the principle of Puritanism in the Articles of the Church was the first clause of the XXth Article, asserting the power of the Church to decree rites and ceremonies.  This clause was not present in the corresponding article as framed in the time of Edward, VI; and the Puritans strenuously contended it had been foisted in, somewhat inconsiderately, in the time of Queen Elizabeth (p.17).

The battle lines had been drawn by Queen Elizabeth's new Settlement and the principle at stake was whether worship and polity were to be under the authority of the State or under the authority of Scripture.

The chief point at issue for the Puritans was whether the church has the right to bind consciences with anything other than the declarations of the Bible.  Mithchell puts the matter well when he says that the Puritans "claimed to restrict the authority of the church within narrower limits than their opponents, and to reclaim for liberty a larger province than they [their opponents] were disposed to allow her."  For the Pritans, worship and church polity--as well as matters of salvation--were to be drawn from the teaching of Scripture, wither expressed or implicit (p. 18).

Despite this contentious issue the doctrines of the church were solidly as what can be described as Calvinism.  This reformed theology held sway in the church through the years up until the time of Charles I and Bishop Laud.

Spinks, in his evaluation of Perkins and Hooker, finds that both "stand firmly within a broad-based Reformed theology."  Hooker "never departs from a Reformed position."  Both Hooker and Perkins are legitimate interpreters of the Thirty-Nine Articles, while "Hooker finds his theology expressed n the 1559 Book of Common Prayer; Perkins gave no hint that his theology was contradicted by it" (p. 53).

Yet under Bishop Laud, Reformed doctrines and preaching were being rooted out while older medieval church practices returned.

It was a sea change in the theological balance of power, effected within three hears of Charles's accession... This change was clearly against the doctrine of the Church of England as expounded expounded by the Thirty-Nine Articles, as presented in Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer(p. 21)... [Archbishop] Laud required absolute submission to the king, extending to acceptance of every detail of church ritual.  He introduced genuflecting, called the communion table an altar, and banned all publications that called the pope the Antichrist (p.23).

From a 21st century American point of view it's difficult to grasp the brutal and oppressive nature of the authoritative hand of the State in the church's worship.  Politics and religion were inexorably intertwined.  
"Not only were the political and the religious so inextricably intertwined that 'secular' was a meaningless category, but the religious issues alone had the strength to generate the passion needed for armed uprising against the king" (p. 26).  The changes brought on by Laud contradicted the clear teaching of the Book of Common Prayer as in the case of the drastic restrictions on the preaching of sermons.

This antipathy to preaching did emerge before the Civil War, under the direction of Laud, and was pursued with vigor in some dioceses...  Yet such policies were contrary to the form for "The ordering of Priests" in the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer: (p. 51).

The following are excerpts from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer for the ordination of priests.  The Bishop's words to the prospective priest:

Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?

... And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments...

... TAKE thou Authority to preach the Word of God...

 The Book of Common Prayer became, in a way, the leading edge of a legislative sword used by the English episcopal authority against those who, at one time, had been in the mainstream of the church. I think it and the oppressive Church/State authority were of the same cloth in the minds of Puritans suffering under Laud's regime and thus they wanted to throw them both off. They wanted a church reformed solely according the God's Word and not one imposed by Parliament. One result of this history is a common misunderstanding held today that the Presbyterians/Puritans of that era were therefore against any set liturgies whatsoever. This was not the case at all.

Our faith is built upon Thy promise free...

In this morning's worship we opened with the hymn I Greet Thee, Who My Sure Redeemer Art.  I so enjoyed singing this song of praise and worship that I decided to google it in order to find out who wrote it.  Although not dispositive, there is evidence that it was written by John Calvin.  Yes, I know the RPW psalmody-only-chorus will object and point out that Calvin was a Psalms-only-man and that the hymn could very well have been penned by Jean Garnier.  For purposes of this post it is really not an issue.  But here is a blip that weighs in for Calvin:

The hymn first appeared in the 1545 Strasbourg Psalter, the very same year Calvin produced the new liturgy for his old congregation. Is it not possible that he wrote the hymn for them too? According to Philip Schaff, it was also discovered in ‘an old Genevese prayer-book.’ (Christ in Song, Anson Randolph, New York, 1869, 678). While external evidence might not be conclusive (see Bushell, op.cit., [Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, Crown and Covenant Publications, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1980."] p.199, n. 56), strong internal evidence of style and piety comparing the hymn with Calvin’s recorded prayers arguably strengthens Schaff’s case for Calvin’s authorship of the hymn.  

The Westminster Directory of Public Worship (1645) article by Alan Clifford, 1989 

The lyrics:
I greet thee, who my sure Redeemer art,
My only trust and Saviour of my heart,
Who pain didst undergo for my poor sake;
I pray thee from our hearts all cares to take.

Thou art the King of mercy and of grace,
Reigning omnipotent in every place:
So come, O King, and our whole being sway;
Shine on us with the light of thy pure day.

Thou art the life, by which alone we live,
And all our substance and our strength receive;
O comfort us in death's approaching hour,
Strong-hearted then to face it by thy pow'r.

Thou hast the true and perfect gentleness,
No harshness hast thou and no bitterness:
Make us to taste the sweet grace found in thee
And ever stay in thy sweet unity.

Our hope is in no other save in thee;
Our faith is built upon thy promise free;
O grant to us such stronger hope and sure
That we can boldly conquer and endure.


In particular I loved the last stanza and, in light several of my recent posts (here, here, and here) on faith, I want to expand on "Our faith is built upon thy promise free."  His promise free, the gospel, is the food that feeds and builds our faith.


3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness... 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all...
(Romans 4) ESV


In the ears of the hearer, the proclamation of the good news of God's free and gratuitous salvation in Christ Jesus is that which initiates, nourishes, and builds faith.  That growing faith in Christ alone, apart from any works of our own, is at the center of what strengthens our sure hope and is inseparable from our sanctification... our conquering and endurance.  This faith is not some empty effort exerted by the hearer, but a work and gift of the Spirit who, through the preaching of the Word, presents Christ crucified as food to his people... the sure and only refuge in their sojourn.  The presentation of God's free promise of righteousness through faith to all that believe is food for the soul on every Lord's day.  And it is reinforced as the Lord's people partake of Christ's body and blood in the Supper.  In the words of the Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer:


HE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.
HE Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful. 


Personally, I'm partial to the idea that this hymn was composed by Calvin.  But regardless of who was the author, the truths contained therein are both solid and eternal.

The Regulative Principle of Worship

     As one who came to the Anglican tradition about eight years ago, and more recently to the Reformed tradition,  I have found the issue of the Regulative Principle of Worship to be a hotly argued and more often than not, misunderstood teaching.  A couple years ago I read R.S. Clark's book , and highly recommend it.  At the time I had some questions here and there (and a few still remain), but otherwise I learned much.  The discussion is a necessary one in light of today's multi-quilted worship formats in Christianity, seemingly to fit any and every inclination.  And as it is that I am still thinking this through, it would probably benefit me to go back and reread the book even though my understanding of the RPW has matured since then.
Recovering the Reformed Confession
     That being said, one crucial point that's helped in my understanding is that rather than being a principle solely to "restrict" what a church can and can't do legitimately in its worship, the RPW in allowing only those"elements" with Scriptural warrant into the Church's worship is a protection for the individual believer's conscience against the Church imposing or requiring anything that extends beyond what God himself requires of his people.  Some of the confusion that comes into these discussions is a result of the "elements of worship"  often being misdefined.  And as well, the three other aspects of the RPW (circumstance, form and rubric) are often ignored or conflated into that of "elements."
     To help shed some light in order to foster a more profitable debate on this topic, I'm posting (with permission) this short book review by T. David Gordon:

Principles of Conduct

"Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle", by Ralph J. Gore, Jr.

T. David Gordon

In light of the comparative dearth of historically and theologically informed studies of Reformed worship, one is inclined to welcome any contribution to the field that is characterized by both. R. J. Gore, Jr.'s most recent book is just that, although the book turns out to be more concerned with the subtitle than the title. He expends only 26 pages on covenantal worship per se; the majority of the work is devoted to the unproven thesis that the Puritans embraced a different principle of worship than Calvin did.

The strongest aspect of the book is the clarity with which Gore describes the differences between the worship practices of the English Puritans and those of Calvin, and the historical occasions of these differences due to Puritan fears of the (perceived or real) tyranny of the Anglican Church. The most refreshing aspect of the book is the candor with which Gore repudiates the teaching of the Westminster Assembly on worship: "All that has preceded has been helpful in determining that the regulative principle of worship, as formulated by the Puritans and as adopted by the divines at the Westminster Assembly, is unworkable. More importantly, it is simply not the teaching of Scripture" (137). While I disagree entirely with both aspects of this sentiment, its boldness contrasts refreshingly with the prevarication usually found among less-candid Presbyterians who have no more regard for the regulative principle of worship than Gore does but who profess to agree with it. Bravo to Gore!

Traditionally, students of Reformed worship have recognized that four categories require careful attention in understanding the regulative principle: element, circumstance, form, and rubric. An element (sometimes called a "part" and sometimes "mode") of worship is a distinct and ordinary act of worship. Prayer, singing praise, the ministry of the Word, the ministry of the Sacraments, are all "elements" of worship. A "circumstance" is some consideration regarding a matter that is not religious in itself, what the Westminster Confession (1:6) calls, "common to human actions and societies." Such considerations include the time and place of the meeting, amplification of the human voice, how best to provide seating and lighting, and so forth. A "form" is the lexical (or, possibly, musical) content of a given element. Thus, if one determines that prayer is an element of worship, the decision to employ the "Lord's Prayer" is a decision regarding "form;" not an element or circumstance. Finally, a "rubric" is a specific manner of conducting an element, such as the rubric of kneeling, standing, or sitting for prayer, or the rubric of breaking the bread (fraction) when administering the Lord's Supper. Each of these four realities is governed differently.

Reformed Christianity (Calvin and the Puritans) has distinguished itself from the Lutheran and Anglican traditions by permitting only those elements that are warranted by Scripture; whereas the Lutheran view permits any element not prohibited by Scripture. Thus, if an element is proposed as a particular act of religious worship, and if Scripture says nothing about it, the Lutheran tradition considers it permissible, and the Reformed forbids it. Consequently, Scripture "regulates" the elements of worship by positive warrant; where a biblical justification is absent, such an element is impermissible. Circumstances, by comparison, are not regulated by the Word alone; to the contrary, the Westminster Confession states that circumstances are "governed by the light of nature and Christian prudence." Thus, when determining whether to amplify the minister's voice, or whether to set the chairs or pews in a certain arrangement, one has no recourse to Scripture, but only to those considerations common to other "human actions and societies."

"Forms" of worship, according to the Reformed tradition, are regulated by the teaching of Scripture (in the sense that whatever is said must accord with biblical truth), but are not restricted to the actual words of Scripture. Thus, while Reformed churches may employ the "Lord's Prayer," ministers may also pray specifically for Mr. Smith's cancer surgery, which is not mentioned expressly in Scripture. Similarly, a sermon must accord with the teaching of the Word of God, but ministers are permitted to do more than merely read Scripture's own words; they compose sermons using their own wisdom and judgment.

"Rubrics" are governed by a combination of the considerations regarding forms and circumstances, because there are specific ways of performing certain acts that could either enhance or impinge upon the biblical realities contained therein. So, all the discussions regarding kneeling or standing in prayer appeal to more than that which is "common to human actions and societies" because such considerations need to grapple with how to perform an element in the most appropriate, most edifying, and most respectful manner.

Although Gore eventually uses all four terms in the book, he employs only two in his discussion of the Puritan understanding of worship: element and circumstance. This removal of "form" and "rubric," combined with his later redefinition of "circumstance" (to refer to "adiaphora") is the fundamental flaw in this book. If there are only two considerations in making decisions about worship (element and circumstance), then everything that is not a circumstance must, by definition, be an element. Thus, for Gore, differences between Calvin and the Puritans on forms and rubrics turn into a full-blown disagreement on the elements of worship.

Gore's failure to do justice to all four aspects of corporate worship leads to his conclusion that the regulative principle of worship is "unworkable." Although he never clarifies this point, what he apparently means is that the doctrine is either "difficult, or "not free from some difficulties," because, as he demonstrates, Reformed Christians have never worshiped uniformly. But the trouble is that this judgment is analogous to saying that the doctrine of the authority of Scripture is "unworkable," because some who profess the doctrine (e.g., Lutherans and Calvinists) arrive at different conclusions. Are the doctrines of the Trinity, or the two natures of Christ, "unworkable" because they are difficult or mysterious? Agreeing that worship is regulated by the teaching of Scripture does not guarantee entire unanimity on the relevant scriptural passages or their meaning.

What Gore's verdict shows, however, is a complete misunderstanding of the regulative principle. That is, what is "unworkable" for him is not the regulative principle itself, as articulated by Calvin or the Westminster Assembly. Instead, what is unworkable is a notion about Reformed worship that is divorced from the doctrine of church power; that confuses "worship as all of life" with "worship" as the first-day gatherings of God's visible covenant people; that redefines "circumstance"; and that fails to appreciate the place of "forms" and "rubrics" alongside the elements of worship.

Ironically, I agree with Gore in preferring Calvin's worship to that of the Puritans. On almost every point where Calvin and the Puritans diverged on some formal issue, or some matter of rubric, I agree with Calvin. For nine years, I pastored a church where we used an order of service that differed only in small details from Calvin's Strasbourg liturgy. I believe in weekly communion and in corporate prayers of confession, especially but not exclusively those found in the old Book of Common Prayer, followed by scriptural declarations of pardon. I believe it is wise to confess the faith weekly using either the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed; and I think the nonsacramental worship typical of the Puritans has tended to remove mystery from worship, and to make the Reformed tradition more ascetic than aesthetic. Yet none of these differences requires me to repudiate the fundamental principle of both Calvin and the Puritans: that when the Christian assembly gathers in the presence of God, it should approach him only by means of his own appointment.

T. David Gordon is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and associate professor of religion at Grove City College (Grove City, Pennsylvania). 

This article originally appeared in the 2003 Sept./Oct., Vol. 12; 5 edition of Modern Reformation and is reprinted with permission. For more information about Modern Reformation, visit Modern Reformation or call (800) 890-7556. All rights reserved.

Also see:   an outline of Nine Lines of Arguments in Favor of the Regulative Principle by Gordon