Purity of worship as the litmus test of a Reformed church?

[CGS]

From the book Worship in the Presence of God:

“In these last comments, Knox points out an extremely important concept in the work of reformation. It is not simply a Reformed doctrinal statement that constitutes a Reformed Church. Rather, the litmus test is whether these Reformed principles are applied to achieve purity in worship. The corporate worship of a Church is the most truthful indicator of its spiritual condition.” (Emphasis mine)

Worship in the Presence of God (edited by Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman)
Chapter 18: John Knox and the Reformation of Worship in the Scottish Reformation by Kevin Reed
p. 321

I have some questions about this…

• Do you agree that purity in worship is the litmus test for a Reformed church? And, if so, what does this say about the state of many (maybe most?) Reformed churches today? Are they Reformed in name only if their worship is not regulated by Scripture (the regulative principle of worship) even if their doctrine is Reformed?
• Worship in the Reformed churches of our day is all over the place…there is no uniformity or consensus regarding what true Reformed worship is. If there is no widely agreed upon standard/definition of what Reformed worship is, how can it be used as a litmus test? How can we work to achieve uniformity on this issue across Reformed denominations, the local churches, etc. or is this a lost cause?
• Has there ever been anything close to a historic consensus on what Reformed worship is...something that we can look back to/recover and use as a litmus test? This article by Douglas Kelly suggests that even our Reformed forefathers were split over whether to use the regulative principle or the normative principle: “The great Protestant Reformation of the 1500’s basically divided into two major camps in regard to worship: the broader, Continental approach, and the stricter Puritan interpretation.”

Article: No Church Year for Presbyterians by Douglas F. Kelly

https://www.newhopefairfax.org/files/33.%20Kelly%20on%20No%20Church%20Year.pdf

Would just like to get your thoughts on all of this…thank you.

 

[83r17h]

From the book Worship in the Presence of God:

“In these last comments, Knox points out an extremely important concept in the work of reformation. It is not simply a Reformed doctrinal statement that constitutes a Reformed Church. Rather, the litmus test is whether these Reformed principles are applied to achieve purity in worship. The corporate worship of a Church is the most truthful indicator of its spiritual condition.” (Emphasis mine)

Worship in the Presence of God (edited by Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman)
Chapter 18: John Knox and the Reformation of Worship in the Scottish Reformation by Kevin Reed
p. 321

I have some questions about this…

• Do you agree that purity in worship is the litmus test for a Reformed church? And, if so, what does this say about the state of many (maybe most?) Reformed churches today? Are they Reformed in name only if their worship is not regulated by Scripture (the regulative principle of worship) even if their doctrine is Reformed?
• Worship in the Reformed churches of our day is all over the place…there is no uniformity or consensus regarding what true Reformed worship is. If there is no widely agreed upon standard/definition of what Reformed worship is, how can it be used as a litmus test? How can we work to achieve uniformity on this issue across Reformed denominations, the local churches, etc. or is this a lost cause?
• Has there ever been anything close to a historic consensus on what Reformed worship is...something that we can look back to/recover and use as a litmus test? This article by Douglas Kelly suggests that even our Reformed forefathers were split over whether to use the regulative principle or the normative principle: “The great Protestant Reformation of the 1500’s basically divided into two major camps in regard to worship: the broader, Continental approach, and the stricter Puritan interpretation.”

Article: No Church Year for Presbyterians by Douglas F. Kelly

https://www.newhopefairfax.org/files/33.%20Kelly%20on%20No%20Church%20Year.pdf

Would just like to get your thoughts on all of this…thank you.

For the first question:

The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (WCF 25.2)
This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. (WCF 25.4)

To ignore the purity of worship is wrong, as this is included in the WCF. Yet to reduce the marks of the church to purity of worship alone is also wrong, as other things are included in the WCF. Further, it is difficult to make "purity of worship" merely a "yes/no" decision. Hence the confession's use of "more or less." My stab at a more precise "litmus test" for a specifically Reformed church would be along the lines of if it adheres to, makes an intentional effort to follow, and does not routinely and self-consciously violate, a Reformed confession. Otherwise it's easy to fall into a "no true Scotsman" situation, since no church is perfect.

Regarding the second question about a consensus regarding a definition for worship: at least within Presbyterian churches we have WCF chapter 21. That seems to be a pretty uniform definition in Presbyterian churches. Whether or not it is followed is a different matter than uniformity on the definition though.

WCF 21 also seems to answer the third question. But I think that you might be reading too much into the use of the word "Reformation" in the quote. "Reformation" is distinct from "Reformed" (see Allen's book Reformed Theology for a helpful discussion of this distinction). Lutherans are "Reformation" but are not "Reformed." In one of the following paragraphs, talking about the regulative principle, Kelly includes the Reformed churches of the continent, referring to "large areas of Switzerland, France, Holland." So the claim that the Reformed were divided on the issue of regulative vs. normative is not what he is actually saying.

 

[CGS]

In one of the following paragraphs, talking about the regulative principle, Kelly includes the Reformed churches of the continent, referring to "large areas of Switzerland, France, Holland." So the claim that the Reformed were divided on the issue of regulative vs. normative is not what he is actually saying.

What exactly is the "broader, Continental approach" that Kelly refers to? And would the folks who hold to "the broader, Continental approach" not be considered Reformed? What are the confessional standards of this "broader, Continental approach"?

 

[83r17h]

What exactly is the "broader, Continental approach" that Kelly refers to? And would the folks who hold to "the broader, Continental approach" not be considered Reformed? What are the confessional standards of this "broader, Continental approach"?

Since he specifies that it is "Germany, Scandinavia and, later, England" I would imagine he is specifically thinking about Lutherans and (post-ejection) Anglicans. I admit that I am unfamiliar with the exact confessional standards of the Lutheran churches. I believe that the Church of England utilized the 39 Articles, although this is also beyond what I am familiar with. Some brief research turns up this resource on the topic: https://bookofconcord.org/epitome/church-rites/ For the 39 Articles, see articles 20 and 34.

 

[CGS]

Regarding the second question about a consensus regarding a definition for worship: at least within Presbyterian churches we have WCF chapter 21. That seems to be a pretty uniform definition in Presbyterian churches. Whether or not it is followed is a different matter than uniformity on the definition though.

There also does not seem to be a current consensus/uniformity on how to interpret and apply the regulative principle of worship taught in WCF chapter 21. Was there ever a consensus on this during the Reformation?

For example, would it be accurate to say that historically the majority of the Reformers who held to the regulative principle would have applied it in this way: Acapella exclusive psalmody, no instruments in worship, no choirs/soloists, no observance of Christmas/Advent or other holy days/seasons, no images of Jesus, etc.

Or was there a wide diversity of opinions on how to interpret/apply the RPW even during the Reformation?

 

[83r17h]

There also does not seem to be a current consensus/uniformity on how to interpret and apply the regulative principle of worship taught in WCF chapter 21. Was there ever a consensus on this during the Reformation?

For example, would it be accurate to say that the majority of the Refomers who held to the regulative principle would have applied it in this way: Acapella exclusive psalmody, no instruments in worship, no choirs, no observance of Christmas/Advent or other holy days/seasons, no images of Jesus, etc.

Or was there a wide diversity of opinions on how to interpret/apply the RPW even during the Reformation?

I think reducing WCF 21 to only the RPW is missing most of what is actually in WCF 21. The RPW is only the first paragraph of the chapter - it is a principle. The rest of the chapter is the application of that principle to the results of exegesis. So if the principle can be stated "if and only if X is commanded by Scripture, then X is acceptable for worship," then the rest of the chapter is the conclusion of exegesis about what different things it was believed that you can truly say "X is commanded by Scripture."

I am not a historical expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I think that the differences (if there are such) among the Reformed during that era would not be differences on interpreting/applying the RPW as stated. Rather, they would be differences in interpreting what Scripture concretely commands, or how to categorize things (as elements or as circumstances). You have to distinguish between the principle and the exegesis (or exegetical conclusions) to which that principle is applied, or you end up oversimplifying the issue. As far as what historical views were prevalent on the exegetical question, that is not something I'm familiar with. Everything I've read has been extremely consistent on the question of principle though.

 

[CGS]

I think that the differences (if there are such) among the Reformed during that era would not be differences on interpreting/applying the RPW as stated. Rather, they would be differences in interpreting what Scripture concretely commands, or how to categorize things (as elements or as circumstances).

That's what I was trying to get at by "interpreting/applying"....but the way you stated it is much more precise and clear. At the end of the day, if we want to understand the original intent of the authors of the WCF, I suppose we would need to look at how they implemented the regulative principle in their own churches, how they put it into practice, etc...and determine from that if there was a consensus/uniformity in how they worshiped or was there a wide diversity in how they implemented the RPW?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I think that the differences (if there are such) among the Reformed during that era would not be differences on interpreting/applying the RPW as stated. Rather, they would be differences in interpreting what Scripture concretely commands, or how to categorize things (as elements or as circumstances).

This is true; take the debate at the Westminster Assembly over the use of a table and sitting around it in communion. The Scots place priority on everyone being about a table so this necessitated successive actions and tables to accomplish that; the English majority rejected that and at least the congregationalist members insisted everyone needed to partake at once, nixing the priority of everyone being at the table. Same divide over prioritizing preparation for the Lord's supper versus frequency of it.