|
J.D.,
I'm not, strictly speaking, EP for many reasons but would not have qualms about attending a Church that is. This, I suppose, qualifies me for the explanation. I'm also the person who created the sub-fora after consultation with the other Mods.
The purpose for the new sub-forum is for the very reason that Exclusive Psalmody is held (Confessionally) by thousands of Reformed believers but many more thousands take exceptions to this Confessional point and even many more thousands don't even know it's in the Confessions.
What happens, far too often, in EP discussions is a broad charge of either Pharisaism on the part of those that are not EP or a broad charge of idolatry by those that are. Recently, one Brother left, charged the entire board with being un-Reformed, and the only way he considered the EP dialogues to be "fair" is if he were allowed to continually refer to EPers as Pharisees. I guess I'll have to live with his illusion that those who do not take an exception to the WCF on this point are non-Reformed. I think it's patently ridiculous to believe that, not only may we take an exception to the WCF on this point but we must - otherwise members are charged with Pharisaism.
Honestly, the argument for the EP position is not terribly difficult to follow once you understand the basis for the RPW and then the basic building blocks about how they arrive at their conclusions. I engaged in some dialog early on in my participation and will occasionally weigh in but I normally don't believe there is much point in debating their view further.
Why? Because they are convinced by the same arguments I'm not totally convinced by and I know precisely what the arguments are going to be.
Now, here's where the trouble comes in with certain points of argumentation and they run afoul not just of EP but of the board in general. Whether we are EP or not there are certain foundational principles - among them are Covenant Theology and its continuities/discontinuities and, especially, the RPW. On the first point, Baptists actually have more discontinuities than Presbyterians and on the second point, both are committed (Confessionally) to essentially the same RPW - whatever God has not stricty commanded is forbidden as an element of worship.
Thus, a debate on EP really needs to proceed from the same foundation. There's not much point in allowing a Lutheran to participate in a debate with a Presbyterian because they're not standing on the same ground. You really need to have some common assumptions. If you don't agree with the RPW then there's really no point in debating EP or instruments. God has not forbidden Mega Death in worship so rock out! Same thing with Covenant Theology - it's not possible to have the same debate if ceremonial laws are still prescriptive.
There is a tendency, in these debates, for some participants to "throw the kitchen sink" at the EP problem. In other words, some will jump into Lutheran ground or other types of ground and argue for a non-EP position. Some of the EP debate proponents may only be sticking to their arguments and not point this problem out. Others point that problem out but it is not always understood by the person doing it that they're really not being Reformed.
At these points of friction we would ideally be able to de-construct where the underlying assumptions place the debaters on different ground and debate that point rather than wasting a lot of energy and causing a lot of frustration. Sometimes that happens, though, and the participants are accused of "straining out gnats" because they're trying to get the participant to see an error in logic or a departure from the RPW.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that many of these dialogues become completely fruitless and lead to rancor. I don't consider EP proponents to be blameless. One of my early forays into this discussion over 2 years ago was prompted by over-the-top "all non-EPers offer strange fire and all degeneration stems from this abandonment" kind of dialogue from the other side of the issue.
I would prefer this discussion be handled more in the form of each party understanding the arguments for the position on the basis of common assumptions and then decide whether you are convinced on the basis of the RPW, etc. If not, then let's agree that God is our Judge. For my own part, I remember several years ago first learning that EP was in the WCF and thinking: "What nut would still do that and how could they possibly believe that?" I then read an article in Modern Reformation that convinced me that they had a really solid Biblical argument for the position and I repented of my disrespect for the position. These are men and women that love Christ and His Gospel and practice EP because they do.
I've also seen some on this board who have claimed that the reason my EP brethren practice EP because they don't appreciate the "emotional component" of worship. Zwingli, for instance, was probably the most accomplished musician of the major Reformers. He knew quite well what his skill as a musician could evoke in himself and others. He was actually one of the most austere when it came to instruments and singing in worship. In fact, our EP brethren can help us have a healthy reminder about the dangers of music in manipulating hearts and stilting real maturity in hearts that are able to praise God without the aid of stirring music.
Thus, I would like this forum to be a place where we can avoid the common pitfalls and make sure the parameters of debate are well defined especially with respect to either side throwing out bombs in their exasperation. I also want many to learn why the Confessions teach EP because it enriches their understanding of the RPW.
On a side note, I think you need to keep in mind what Semper Reformanda means and what it doesn't. G.K. Chesterton noted that we used to be modest about ourselves but not modest about Truth. Today we think of modesty as being less than firm about our convictions of Truth and less modest about our own abilities to determine it. Semper Reformanda deals much more in the reformation of self to Truth rather than the idea that Truth itself is always negotiable and needs to be re-cast in the light of our evolving understanding. The Confessions are not irreformable but we need to remember that it is we who need reformation and, if the Confessions are true, then we ought not to be expecting their reformation.
|