Thread: What is the RPW's rationale regarding...

Greetings all.

I continue to wrestle with the regulative principle of worship as a theological framework. I've been around here long enough to know this is an oft discussed subject, so I apologize for beating a dead horse. But one must when it's a zombie, right?

Ok, anyway, I can't quite understand why we see so much debate (in Reformed circles, anyway) over exclusive Psalm singing and instruments and other issues regarding what constitutes proper elements, and why we don't typically see other things clearly commanded in Scripture practiced in our public worship services.

What do I have in mind?

Clapping
Raising holy hands
Bowing
Kneeling
Greeting one another with a holy kiss
Dancing
Etc.


Thanks,

Austin

P.S. Contrary to what my signature says below (because I don't see where to change it), I am a member of a RPCNA church (Sycamore Reformed Presbyterian Church). I love this body of believers. I love the order and Word centeredness and simplicity. I have tasted the fruits of the RPW and it is good. That being said, I think John Frame's perspective on these matters is probably right.

Does that effect anything, as far as my worshipping with a RPCNA body? Not at all. Their order of service is a sweet application of the RPW. Could it be different? If Frame is right, then yes. Does it have to be different? Nope. It's good.

So that's where my heart is at while I discuss this issue.

If I may attempt a response, it seems a first step would be to work from ground zero and make sure you have the foundation laid straight:

Opening doctrine: God is sovereign over all--As Priest, He is sovereign over His worship, as Prophet, He is sovereign over His doctrine (Word) and as King, He is sovereign over the government of His Church.

The derivative corollary then is that we must have clear warrant from Scripture and/or must be able to support by good and necessary consequence, our practices in worship, doctrine and polity.

That much is indisputable (or should be). What derives from those points may be arguable--things such as exclusive psalmody--but the above foundational statements are essential. [I'm sure others can put it in better words]

From there, seek out good teachers who carefully handle consideration of the particulars. And of course full consideration of some of those particulars needs to be done in the exegetical light of various texts supporting the basic doctrine of the regulative principle.

Maybe I've said nothing here that you didn't already know, in which case, my apologies.

Calvin's Necessity of Reforming the Church is one excellent discourse to have in hand for any of this discussion.

Originally Posted by austinbrown2

Greetings all.

I continue to wrestle with the regulative principle of worship as a theological framework. I've been around here long enough to know this is an oft discussed subject, so I apologize for beating a dead horse. But one must when it's a zombie, right?

Ok, anyway, I can't quite understand why we see so much debate (in Reformed circles, anyway) over exclusive Psalm singing and instruments and other issues regarding what constitutes proper elements, and why we don't typically see other things clearly commanded in Scripture practiced in our public worship services.

What do I have in mind?

Clapping
Raising holy hands
Bowing
Kneeling
Greeting one another with a holy kiss
Dancing
Etc.


Thanks,

Austin

P.S. Contrary to what my signature says below (because I don't see where to change it), I am a member of a RPCNA church (Sycamore Reformed Presbyterian Church). I love this body of believers. I love the order and Word centeredness and simplicity. I have tasted the fruits of the RPW and it is good. That being said, I think John Frame's perspective on these matters is probably right.

Does that effect anything, as far as my worshipping with a RPCNA body? Not at all. Their order of service is a sweet application of the RPW. Could it be different? If Frame is right, then yes. Does it have to be different? Nope. It's good.

So that's where my heart is at while I discuss this issue.

It might be more fruitful if you narrowed and clarified your question. Exactly what do you want to discuss?

Wayne: I very much agree. So allow me to address KMK and expand my question.

KMK: You're right. I need to narrow the discussion.

Much is made over the RPW in contexts where exclusive psalmody no instruments is discussed. That's understandable. It's a fundamental component to the position's rationale. So for those who hang a lot on a tight view of the RPW, why don't we see more clapping or bowing or congregational hand raising during Lord's Day worship?

Here's why I ask. There's a significant amount of debate over instruments (which requires quite a bit of nuanced argumentation in order to arrive at an instrumental cessationist position). And for those who come down on the no instrument side, they speak dogmatically about the issue. The Scriptures speak plainly about this matter, in their estimation. For some, it's an issue to divide over. Yet, so far as I know, those who hold to this conviction don't incorporate clapping, etc., into Lord's Day worship... the very things that are plainly commanded.

I mean, the cessation of instruments requires a fairly sophisticated argument. But does clapping or raising hands? Surely not.

I suppose one could point out that a lack of instrumental accompaniment happens by default, in the absence of a command. And then someone could point out that I'm assuming that whatever is commanded has to be included in Lord's Day worship. Good point. And actually, as someone who believes that the Scriptures permit the use of instruments, I might want to agree, as it's often pointed out that if one does believe instrumental accompaniment is permissable, then they must use instruments (and certain ones).

Here it appears that the RPW is flexible, Scripturally speaking. One doesn't have to do everything commanded or permitted at once. That seems right. And if that is right, then one doesn't have to clap...

But doesn't it seem strange that there would be such a profound absence of hand raising or clapping or bowing in congregations that seek to truly ground themselves in the commands of Scripture? It just seems odd.

Austin

But Austin...it's just not Presbyterian!


Keep your hands at your side, Praise the Lord.
Keep your hands at your side, Praise the Lord.
Keep your hands at your side, keep your hands at your side,
keep your hands at your side, Praise the Lord.

Don't you dare crack a smile, Praise the Lord.
&c.


(Sung to the tune of “She'll be Coming 'Round the Mountain”).

I think an important first-question would be "What is this 'clapping'?"

What was it? What did it sound like? Where and under what circumstances do we find it in Scripture? What was it meant to convey?

Today (and this is a cultural factor, and therefore propriety bears upon the discussion) our "clapping" resembles applause. Frankly, applause has no business in a worship service, and I do not think Israel was Congratulating God in the clapping we might find in the Bible.

Is there/has there ever been clapping (of any kind) in synagogue? This knowledge would shed valuable light on how ancients treated the notion of clapping, in worship that much resembles ours.


Rhythmic clapping, as a form of instrumentation, was and still is common in M.E. semitic culture (Arab/Jewish/Persian/etc.). Personally, while I find rhythmic clapping culturally jarring, I could conceivably accept it, if sufficient justification was offered to warrant it. But I want to know: what is it for, and what is its meaning?

Whatever we do, as a corporate act, we should be demonstrating the unity of the assembled hosts of the Lord. So, if we CLAP, it needs to be all of us basically together. No "lone-ranger" clappers drawing attention to themselves.

(this is one problem with individualistic "amens" from the congregation--little personal affirmations, telling people about himself, or stroking the pastor's ego--is that what worship is about?)

Originally Posted by Wayne

But Austin...it's just not Presbyterian!


Keep your hands at your side, Praise the Lord.
Keep your hands at your side, Praise the Lord.
Keep your hands at your side, keep your hands at your side,
keep your hands at your side, Praise the Lord.

Don't you dare crack a smile, Praise the Lord.
&c.


(Sung to the tune of “She'll be Coming 'Round the Mountain”).

Amen. Love that song.

I appreciate the thoughtful response.

In many ways, it is precisely this ambiguity, not only regarding clapping, but a good many other things, that leads me to wonder if the RPW is simply too rigid in its construction (especially as people try to come up with distinct elements for Lord's Day worship in distinction from everyday worship).

Even as I say this, I know there is much to commend the RPW, but there is also much that confounds it. I guess I can't help but wonder, when I look at the NT data, why, if we were meant to have a list of elements for all times in all places, there is so little said about this matter (Like the instructions we see in the Law). I see basically three things:

1. Direct commands
2. Apostolic example
3. Principles drawn from certain circumstances (like head coverings, holy kiss, etc.).

In the case of the direct commands, they often leave room for flexibility. For example, sing, but to what tune? Sing, but what lyrics (And even here there is much that could be done with the 150 Psalms. For example, could we sing a Psalm like the contemporary song Prince of Peace?).

Apostolic example leaves lots and lots of room for debate. Lord's Supper every week? What about 1 Corinthians 14? If tongues and prophecy have ceased, then should we have people, other than the pastor, contribute to public encouragement and exhortation and teaching?

These could be multiplied, as many well know.

Again, it seems to me that Christian charity should mark our attitude in this matter- Christian charity functioning in the context of worship flexibility, governed by sanctified wisdom and godly leaders.

So back to clapping.

What is it for? Well, it's never really defined, as you point out. But I think I know what it means. Like dancing or shouting or raising hands it is a natural expression of joy.

This past Lord's Day, my pastor read a letter from a RP missionary in the Sudan. For years he has been laboring there. Little fruit. But recently, some 44 people have come to know the Lord, burning their idols and amulets. In response to the One true God, they were clapping and dancing. In a word, they were happy.

So it is, I think, with clapping. But could it also be rythmic? I guess my perspective would be like what I said above. The Scriptures don't specify how or why exactly, so there's freedom (within the confines of godly oversight, sanctified wisdom, pure motives, etc... Yes, I suppose much like what you pointed out.).

You think this is right?

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 04:24:10 EST-----

Austin,
The point of the RPW has to do mainly with determining what it is God wants from us. Its HIS meeting. Were the Sudanese praising the Lord? Yes. Was it a worship service? Doesn't sound like it. Seems more like the burning of the sorcery books in Acts 19:19.

You think you know what "clapping" means, great. How was/is it done? Should I, as pastor, be leading the people in clapping as with the rest of the service (leading is the Minister's job). Is this something they left out of my seminary education? Or is it 1) an expression of joy that is good on one occasion, but not all; 2) could it be more of a circumstance of worship, rather than an element?

Cain's and Abel's offerings are good examples. Cain brings that which he thinks God should accept. He worked hard on that garden. What reasonable God wouldn't accept the fruit of an honest man's sweat-of-the-brow? God cursed that ground, and Cain had wrestled with it, just as God said he must.

But Cain's offering isn't acceptable. Abel's offering, OTOH, is acceptable. "Reasonableness" cannot be determinative of what we may bring to God. There is a biblical pattern, and it is very, very old. It has been variously expressed, but for the most part, its right there on the surface of Scripture.

What the RPW confines us to is whatever Scripture teaches: no more, no less. The basic elements of worship are not really questioned by anyone of practically any denomination. But then, people seem to want more. It isn't that God hasn't given us enough to do, but people want to add all sorts of things, provided they appear sufficiently religious.

Sometimes, they might even look to the Bible to find justification. But that takes more than a Bible verse. It takes exegesis, and a thorough theological explanation.

Now, if this thing has a bona fide worship aspect, then to be sure not only is it justifiable, but it becomes mandatory. Well now, we need liturgy that brings it in. It must be explained and taught.

This is the case if clapping (once it is defined) is found to be properly a thing God has commanded. If, on the other hand, clapping is more akin to a circumstance (something than enables the commanded things to be done, for instance keeping everyone singing together in time), which can vary from place to place, then we will look at it differently.

Several of your questions fall under this secondary rubric of "circumstances" (which the WCF addresses, 1:6). JohnFrame, however, being not too concerned with the actual arguments and definitions of the Puritan and Presbyterian framers (and their forbears in Calvin, et al), has just decided that "elements" may be practically anything even mentioned in the Bible in an apparently favorable light, and "circumstances" just about anything that comes to mind, provided it doesn't literally contradict a command.

But this just means he favors not the Reformed RPW, but the Lutheran worship principle. "Good oversight," "sanctified wisdom," ... all I have to say is this is not Reformed in principle. We do not trust our idol-making hearts so far. OTOH, this is the principle that animates the non-Reformed world. Go to your average non-denom, or other-denom church; "if it isn't forbidden, let's give it a try, let's see if it works." Its the pragmatic principle.

If your elders decide that you should sing, then you really should be trying to sing the best you can. By the same rule, if they say you should dance, then in submission to your elders you really need to get out in the aisle. OTOH, if they may not bind your conscience beyond what Scripture commands, then you can refuse on the basis that dance in worship is an unsanctioned practice.

I appreciate your pastoral concern, and at many points, I have to agree.

As I read through your post, I can't help but wonder if these Reformed convictions, while flowing from good motives and flowing from a number of biblical examples, simply go beyond the interests of the NT itself.

What do I mean by interests?

I mean to say that when I read through the NT, I don't see anything really resembling the kinds of discussions taking place between Reformed guys regarding worship. And by this I mean careful distinctions between circumstances and elements, instructions regarding Lord's Day worship (both gathered formally and otherwise), etc. The apostles certainly do deal with bad practices and the like, but Paul, for example, when speaking to the Corinthians in chapter 14, gives some specific instructions regarding tongues and prophecy and women, but also provides general instructions like letting everything be done for edification, and let everything be done decently and in order.

Sure, the implications of Cain's offering is serious. So is the strange fire. But it seems to me that when we come to the NT, we simply don't have explicit instructions regarding many, many things.

Should we observe the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day? Some say yes, others no. Does this issue carry the same weight, in terms of being displeasing to God, as Cain's offering? Couldn't someone say, "Well, I don't trust my idol making heart, that's why I have communion every Lord's Day." Or, maybe we should only partake of the Lord's Supper while eating a meal (during a love feast)?

These may not be the best examples, but I hope what I'm trying to express is clear. No doubt Christians must be weary of worshipping God according to our own devices, but isn't it also true that when we talk about elements, we are making tons of judgment calls about what is elemental and what is circumstantial? Granted these decisions are based upon careful exegesis and the like, but still, the door can swing many different directions. And why? Because the NT itself doesn't seek to spell these things out like what we see in the Law.

Am I wrong here?

Just consider 1 Corinthians 14 again. What were the elements of worship for them? And given what we see, what should be incorporated into our worship services (which weren't even entirely in view in the apostolic Church, if we believe in cessationism)? They had more congregational participation. How do you know, and I'm asking genuinely, how do you know that multiple contributions aren't fundamental to worship services? What do I mean? In 1 Cor. 14, some were exhorting, some were encouraging, instructing, etc. (or maybe a little of all). What if it was God's intention to have more than one person instruct during public worship? Have other insights added? Have others speak words of encouragement?

That's what we see. So why assume that that is, say, circumstantial?

Maybe it is circumstancial? But my point is that it just isn't clear. And thus the whole element vs circumstancial thing often seems to break down.

So I don't know, let's have preaching, singing, reading of God's Word, Lord's Supper, praying, offerings, etc. But then when we begin to talk about preaching, we all know that the accumulation of permissable circumstances might cause the preaching to be poor. The pastor may have too many anecdotal stories, giving it a light fluffy feeling. He may have lots of pictures on powerpoint. And so on. All of the circumstances could very well reflect an idol of the heart.

Sure, that can be dealt with, but my point is that the elements are given a lot of form by the leaders. And if we are going to talk about idols, then isn't right to say that this same impusle toward idols can just as easily slip into a tight RPW worship service as a "Good oversight" and "sactified wisdom" service?

At the end of the day, there's still a lot of room for debate, even with a robust view of the RPW.

And to return to my original issue, the Bible commands bowing and the like. Sure, it may be a circumstance. But still, I mean, it is commanded, right? Surely one would expect to see some hand raising or clapping or bowing once in a while in a Lord's Day formal gathering service. No?

Sure, the implications of Cain's offering is serious. So is the strange fire. But it seems to me that when we come to the NT, we simply don't have explicit instructions regarding many, many things.

Perhaps some of your struggle rests with trying to see worship as a separate, NT, entity? The same principles apply through all time when you have an unholy people approaching a holy God ...

Austin,
In comments like these: "when I read through the NT," and "NT itself doesn't seek to spell these things out like we see in the Law," I'm seeing a particular hermeneutic at work. Its one that seems to be built on the notion that our fundamental direction regarding our faith (in all aspects, presumably, but especially in worship perhaps) must come starting in Matthew, or perhaps even from Acts onward.

But the NT didn't drop down out of heaven, in an ahistoric fashion. The first disciples and the apostles were all religious, OT Jews. They brought a framework of worship with them. They self-consciously maintained a significant degree of synagogue order in the Christian order. We in the Reformed church understand that the essentials of synagogue worship are of divine, not human origin.

From the days of Moses, the nation had weekly Sabbath holy convocations, Lev.23:3. The depredations upon the people led them to lament, "they burned all the meeting places of God in the land" (Ps.74:8).

So, when you ask for NT directions as to what are the elements of worship, etc., it indicates to me that you are approaching the question itself in a fundamentally different way than the apostles themselves did. They did not intend to "revamp" worship entirely, but were reliant upon the Scriptures they were familiar with to give them sufficient guidance, with additions and changes provided through inspiration.

If you want the nearest thing to "church order" texts in the NT, I would look to mine the Pastoral epistles for all they were worth. I certainly do not recommend a heavy or principal reliance on the narrative texts of Acts, or the letter to the messed-up church in Corinth, to set the direction for our practices.

Not that those other passages aren't of great value, but they require a deft handling: to separate initial circumstances from normative ones; to separate instruction for good practice from descriptions of poor practice, or a mediating practice that would tide things over smoothly until Paul was able to come personally, and set things back in proper order.

Simply pointing out that Paul gives a general directive ("decently and in order") doesn't indicate that they were simply to follow that as a principle of general, vague guidance that would keep them "in bounds." The RCC and EOs, Anglicans and Lutherans, certainly have orderly liturgy, very ancient and disciplined, but not therefore profitable or God-pleasing. Paul very evidently had left the Corinthians with something decent and orderly. Which they had not long thereafter undone.

Should you have the L.S. every week? We can argue about that, and seek God's mind. But THAT we should have it comes generally without argument. Should it be in conjunction with a "love feast" (which I take to be a fellowship meal)? Jesus didn't institute a love feast, so this really doesn't seem to be a part of actual worship. But the frequency of the L.S. isn't something we were explicitly taught (implicitly perhaps, but that we seem to debate).

But how does the fact that we have disputes on that subject call into question the more fundamental principle of "worship by divine institution only"? If we accept that God can lay down a very explicit "general rule" once, in the OT, then all we really need are echoes of it in the NT; we don't absolutely need it repeated in the same form.

I think you are really wrestling/questioning the idea that anything that is expressed in the OT has binding force today. That's why I said at the beginning that I believe the real heart of the issue before you (personally) is a hermeneutical one.

As for "bowing" etc., there are questions that relate to posture. Legitimate questions. And I have a suspicion that we could conceivably improve our practice in some ways by more attentively attending to the Word as it touches on those matters. But we've been 500 years now dealing with Rome, and the clutter she made of worship for 1000 years. So, we still hesitate at kneeling for corporate prayer, because that was "Roman" for taking communion and some Anglican high-church for prayers.

But, can you point to the specific place in worship where "bowing" is COMMANDED, and for what? Can we bow our hearts or heads? Can kneeling in certain situations be defended within the RPW? I happen to think it can, but here is a perfect condition where we have to exercise prudence. Can this be done with our present church-architecture? Do we want everyone to turn around when they get down, and face the rear of the building? Or "flop" so it looks like a tired-out charismatic congregation, or a JimJones redux?

I happen to think we could raise our hands with profit, but once again I would want to see us all act in concert, and not give the impression that the corporate worship of God is pretty much just a gathering of individuals having a private audience with God, just in the same room physically with all these other people.

So, let's just see the whole biblical witness to our decorum. Let's try to discover what must be done at all times, what must be done as occasion directs, and what circumstances dictate are necessary for the best conduct of the aforementioned.

jwithnell and Contra M,

I would certainly want to agree that the NT doesn't drop out of heaven. Nor does the Bible start with Matthew. You're right. But questions of continuity and discontinuity are exceedingly thorny (Or at least Jonathan Edwards thinks so). Here I am also reminded of D.A. Carson's section in the second volume of Justification and Variegated Nomism. In his chapter he highlights the "paradoxes" of Paul regarding the Law and its present application.

I would want to maintain that Christ's advent did have a profound impact upon worship. I think that is evident. For one, the outpouring of the Spirit made a tremendous mark on the life and practice of the church. And the shadows were fulfilled.

But were the apostles Jews? Well, sure. That certainly factors into my thinking. They met in the Temple for a while. Peter required a vision to eat unclean foods. The Jews in Acts 21 almost tore Paul apart. The shift from distinctively Jewish practices to more consistent Christian ones took time.

Hebrews 7:12 also tells us that with a change in priesthood there is of necessity a change in law as well (See 1 Corinthians 9:21).

So yes, I do think all these factors, and many others, do complicate the issue. And therefore, I don't think it is unwarranted to ask for NT directions as to what constitutes elements of worship. The fact that the NT is written during a major transitional era only serves to heighten these concerns, IMO. Nevertheless, there are timeless truths in the OT regarding worship. In other words, Cain and Able does teach us something (Romans 15:4).

But does having that hermeneutic firmly in place really help solve any of the specifically NT Christian questions? Some, no doubt. But not all. As you say, "but they require a deft handling: to separate initial circumstances from normative ones; to separate instruction for good practice from descriptions of poor practice..."

That's exactly my point (Why I ultimately brought up clapping and all the rest). Isn't there a lot of division and strife over these RPW issues precisely because there often isn't a flat out command to do such and such (Like the book of Leviticus)? Doesn't Paul's example teach us how relate to those who practice differently (Differently within the bounds of acceptable worship)?

I know you agree (at least in part), but I still want to say it out loud. I mean really. I've listened to the debates over Psalms only no instruments. I've read the forums. I know a little Church history. I've heard what people have said about John Frame, a man I respect and think is a good man. People are railing each other over details. I just think we should agree that some things aren't spelled out clearly. And God designed it that way. There is flexibility. More than I think some Presbyterians want to admit (And I'm a member in the RPCNA, a group not known for being too shabby on the RPW).

Lastly, regarding your comments on bowing and all the rest. I think your pastoral concerns are fair and balanced. I think your concerns are wise. And in that respect, the "circumstances" don't get out of hand or undermine fundamental concerns... which again, seems to mean that circumstances can have the FORCE of elements. For example, has God commanded that if we do raise our hands, we raise our hands in unison? If not, where do you deduce doing something in unison, under the direction of the pastor and as congregation from?

Here I'm not suggesting that your concern is wrong, but that it is guided more by wisdom and general principles outlined in the Scriptures. You don't want people showing off, like those lone Amen'ers, or giving the impression that they have a private audience with God. But this surely isn't a law spelled out in Scripture (Thou shalt raise hands in unison). It's wisdom, right?

I'll end with your words, "So, let's just see the whole biblical witness to our decorum. Let's try to discover what must be done at all times, what must be done as occasion directs, and what circumstances dictate are necessary for the best conduct of the aforementioned."

Agreed.

P.S. Again, none of this discussion stems from dissatisfaction with my pastor or the local body that I worship with each Lord's Day. I want to make clear that I am neither seeking to stir up trouble nor am I angry with someone. Rather, my place as a future missionary or elder in the RPCNA, or other similar bodies, depends on where I come down on these issues.

Austin,
To answer one of your points above, in response to those who were binging in their innovations to Corinth, Paul (after addressing certain of their irregularities and claims to "freedom") writes:

1Co 11:16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

That observation seems to make it clear that Paul did not leave Corinth, and expect his instituted practice (cf. supra) to be set aside in deference for one neither he, nor any of the other churches of God had.

Toleration regarding worship practice seems to be confined (in Paul's mind) to a relatively narrow band of acceptability. There must be some standard practice, and more to the point, it needs to be discernible from Scripture, once the Apostles are all gone. Otherwise, how can this same charge be leveled at any future divergence?

Again, respecting NT church order, I would point you first to the Pastorals as foundational, assuming you at least consent that the synagogue (complete with converted elders providing new leadership for the primitive NT congregations) at least provided the frame for the church's initial gatherings.


As a cessationist regarding the Spirit's gifts, I am not able to acknowledge that extraordinary times (such as the Apostolic era, without a competed set of inspired writings) set as with a high-water-mark the ordinary tide of activity in the church. What exactly does the pouring of the Spirit upon the population change?

I can think of one thing, specifically, that is that women and Gentiles are freed to approach God in worship as equals to Jewish males. But other than the removal of certain walls-of-division, what of ordinary worship changed from the synagogue?

Raising the issue of Temple worship--besides not being something directly affected by the Pentecostal shower--all those activities are just as "remote" in one sense (and less in still another) as they were when they took place in Jerusalem. Only now Jerusalem is "above;" the Temple is now where it always belonged--in heaven--and Christ is there doing his Mediation, and we are translated there from our modest "synagogues," in a far more "real" way than Israel enjoyed with the physical Temple and its scattered synagogues.

In other words, when it comes to actually describing the incipient post-apostolic life of the church, where are the allusions in the Pastoral Epistles to anything extraordinary, or indicating changes to ancient worship patterns that have taken or will take place? The "quality" of worship in the Spirit has improved, no doubt. But I do not see ANY indication that much has changed in the manner of public devotion. And those are the NT writings where I believe one would have expected to find the most detail concerning major changes to Messianic worship, if such changes had been envisioned.

Why do I believe that what we do as a congregation must be "common" practice? Because everything else we do, we do as one.

We sing as one--or we ought to.
We pray as one, either in unison (for example, when using the Lord's Prayer), or engaging our hearts with the Minister's.
If we say, for instance, the Apostle's Creed, it is in unison.
We "wait" as Paul instructed, for the others to be served when we eat the L.S. together, partaking of the elements all at one time.
We pay attention,
we stand,
we sit,...

What does all this say, nonverbally? That He is the Lord Sabbaoth, the Lord of hosts. We are his assembly, his disciplined army. The gates of hell are falling down before his advance; the walls of Jericho are tumbling. We should be the ultimate antithesis of chaos in our gatherings. Not merely "not-crazed" (1Cor.14:23) but in fact able to strike terror in the foes of the gospel (see Phil.1:28).

Am I saying the church consistently thinks like this? No, but as a Reformed minister, well trained and catechized, I do think this way, and I see it as my duty to lead my flock this way, and to encourage all other Christians to think this way. We are to value unity, not above truth, but consistency in theology should produce consistency in worship. And that consistency is reinforced by even our words, postures, and behavior.

I don't think this is an "indifferent" thing. Worship is the most important thing in the whole world. We might as well labor painfully on thinking, believing, and doing it right.

Peace to you.

Well said. I especially appreciate your explanation of doing things in unison. That makes sense to me.

Regarding 1 Cor. 11:16 and worship practice being confined to a relatively narrow band of acceptability (at least in Paul's mind): Yeah, I can't disagree. When he planted churches he surely instructed them in the ways of public worship. There were surely standard practices.

I not entirely sure, however, that this narrow band of acceptability was of such a nature that Paul would have scolded people over divergences of practices performed within the bounds of acceptable worship, like their postures, their singing lively songs, their having multiple teachers contribute to the service, ways of confessing, etc. And I think you agree. I think you would say that many of these things are circumstantial and occasional and ordered according the wisdom and oversight of elders. In that respect, then, I think we are on the same page.

See I'm reacting more against what I perceive to be overly narrrow worship boxes. For example, no reciting of the Apostle's Creed, only singing the 150 Psalms, no instruments, etc. I would say that your "box" has wider boundaries. And rightly so.

In other words, isn't it a bit strange that some take the RPW and make a very narrow box? They criticize others for having a beat to their music. A beat, so they say, that entices people to sway! Well, I want to say, "Look at the Scriptures! There are all kinds of practices that would make you uncomfortable. I dare say that if I could plop you down in a well ordered service like that found in 1 Cor. 14, you would get a little nervous. Moreover, you would probably feel uncomfortable worshiping with a well ordered African service, where the people sway and worship with more bodily expression. Kneeling, raising hands and all the rest are biblical. If perchance a body of believers suddenly did some of these things under a power working of the Spirit, I'm afraid some RPW'ers would grow pale in the face."

Maybe the Scriptures teach us (Paul's example and teachings) something else about worship, namely, not to bite other genuine Christians over the RPW, when it comes to debatable matters. Of course, for some, nothing is debatable. I think this attitude can fit more with 1 Cor. 11:16, ironically, than godliness.

And so I think Paul would be perfectly at ease with quite a divergence of worship particulars, so long as they don't cause problems like division, contintious behavior, not putting others first, lack of holiness, elevating one's self, etc.

Brother, I think we are largely on the same page. It might prove enjoyable to discuss some other points, like the synagogue, but I have some waffles waiting for me downstairs... and I'm hungry :-)

Peace,

Austin

This is an excellent thread

Originally Posted by austinbrown2

Clapping
Raising holy hands
Bowing
Kneeling
Greeting one another with a holy kiss
Dancing
Etc.

Clapping is figurative for a great noise. Floods don't literally clap hands.

Raising the hand is done in the swearing of an oath. It certainly doesn't apply to singing and swaying.

Bowing recognises a visible superior authority, but God does not visibly appear in any place today except in the body of Christ, which is universal.

Kneeling is acceptable in private prayer or corporate humiliation, but decency and order suggest standing to pray in ordinary assembly.

Greeting with a holy kiss was never prescribed as an act of worship. It is akin to foot washing in that the love expressed is applicable while the specific action itself might be discontinued across cultures.

"Dancing" probably refers to another musical instrument; but even if it is not so understood, its close assocation with musical instruments makes it a part of the carnal ordinance which became obsolete with the sacrificial worship of the OT.

Armorbearer,

Honestly, I don't even know what to say. I mean, if that is what you really think, then ok. But I think your explanations are explaining them away or placing them in a very small box (unjustifiably so).

Take kneeling. It isn't at all obvious to me that decency and order precludes the notion of kneeling in public worship.

And take the raising of hands. Yes, we swear with a raised hand, sometimes, but what about these passages: Neh. 8:6; Pss. 28:2; 63:4; 134:2; 141:2; 143:6; Lam. 2:19; 3:41 and 1 Tim. 2:8?

Could it be that you are uncomfortable with bodily expressions of praise? I have no idea if that is true, but I can't help but wonder given your explanations...

Originally Posted by austinbrown2

Could it be that you are uncomfortable with bodily expressions of praise? I have no idea if that is true, but I can't help but wonder given your explanations...

Were God to command me to give bodily expressions in a specific form in worship to Him I would be more than comfortable and happy to submit to Him. The reality is, after studying the biblical references, I came to the conclusion which I have provided in my previous post to this thread. If you have other thoughts on the matter, I am available to discuss the biblical data, but I don't think it is wise or charitable to suggest bias simply because somebody ventures to disagree with you.

You said, "but I don't think it is wise or charitable to suggest bias simply because somebody ventures to disagree with you."

I agree, that's why I said "could it be," and "I have no idea if that is true..."

Look, I'm sorry, but I think your explanations sound like they are trying to explain the bodily expressions away. That's why I hinted at the suggestion. If you say otherwise, then I believe you... and I'm not going to try and convince you to the contrary because (1) you sound quite convinced (2) I don't think I could convince you to the contrary.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by austinbrown2

Clapping
Raising holy hands
Bowing
Kneeling
Greeting one another with a holy kiss
Dancing
Etc.

Clapping is figurative for a great noise. Floods don't literally clap hands.

Maybe we forgot about this one?

Psalm 47:1,6 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of the Sons of Korah.

"Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy ... Sing praises to God, sing praises! Sing praises to our King, sing praises!"

Originally Posted by Archlute

Maybe we forgot about this one?

Psalm 47:1,6 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of the Sons of Korah.

"Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy ... Sing praises to God, sing praises! Sing praises to our King, sing praises!"

I took this text to be the point of reference, and I alluded to the floods clapping hands to show how the reference might be taken figuratively. It no doubt calls for exuberance, but need not literally be understood as calling for these physical actions to be done as a part of the ordinary worship of God.