NO SIMPLE MATTER
ON THE CONTEMPORARY USE
AND MISUSE OF THE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE
The Evangelical Theological Society – 66th Annual Meeting
November 19-21, 2014 – San Diego, CA
Derek J. Brown, Ph.D.
Pastoral Assistant – Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley
Adjunct Professor – The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
dbrown@gbfsv.org
Introduction
For centuries since the Reformation, the regulative principle has functioned to guide
and shape the worship service of many evangelical churches identified within the Reformed
tradition. Even evangelical churches that do not distinguish themselves as Reformed in a strict
sense are indebted to the general principles and overall emphasis on worship bequeathed to them
by their forebears in the Reformed and Puritan tradition.1 Much of what was forged in the 16th
and 17th century pertaining to church worship and ecclesial structure has, in some way, flavored
a good deal of the evangelical debate over such issues ever since.
Within the Reformed stream broadly defined, Baptists have also appealed to the
regulative principle (hereafter, RP) in order to provide a framework for discussions concerning
church worship and organization.2 In what follows, I will examine specifically the use of the RP
as practiced by two different Baptist proponents. I have chosen these proponents because they
represent two distinct and diverging hermeneutical streams within the regulative principle
tradition. It is the thesis of this paper that by not reckoning with these differing approaches to
See Edmund P. Clowney, “Presbyterian Worship,” in Worship: Adoration and Action, ed. D. A. Carson,
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 111.
1
2
John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 242. Hammett explains, “Guiding Baptist in their choice of the elements of worship, at least
to some degree in the past, has been what is called the regulative principle. This principle has held that worship
should only include those elements that Scripture explicitly or implicitly endorses.”
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
1
the regulative within the tradition and not taking full account of the theological and
hermeneutical complexities that attend this discussion, it is possible that these two proponents
may have applied the RP inconsistently.
In order to fully develop and defend this thesis, we will first need to acquaint
ourselves with the RP. I will first define the RP after examining its historical development,
noting the RP’s main advocates and how it has been traditionally understood and utilized. In the
second section, I will investigate some contemporary interpretations of the RP with an emphasis
on two specific proponents: Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D. C.,
and Scott Brown of Hope Baptist Church in Wake Forest, North Carolina. In this section, I will
not only examine how Dever and Brown implement and endorse the RP, but also demonstrate
that these RP proponents represent two distinct and diverging hermeneutical streams within the
RP tradition, thus creating an atmosphere that precludes simplistic appeal to the RP. The final
section will offer a brief proposal for future discussions and a conclusion.
The Regulative Principle: Historical Development and Definition
Whence comes the RP? It is commonly held that the great reformer, John Calvin, was
responsible for the RP’s initial formulations.3 It was Calvin who, in his insistence on the
simplicity and purity of worship and in direct opposition to the trappings of Roman Catholic
worship practice, sought to bring the worship of Christ’s Church in line with Scripture.4
Calvin’s principles for worship were later expanded and articulated in 1643-1644 by the
See John Allen Delivuk, “Biblical Authority and the Proof of the Regulative Principle of Worship in the
Westminster Confession” in Westminster Journal of Theology 58 (1996), 238; Gregg Allison, Historical Theology,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 667; D. G. Hart, Recovering Mother Kirk: The Case for Liturgy in the Reformed
Tradition, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 71.
3
4
John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, (London: W. H. Dalton, 1843), 10-11. Accessed at
Hathi Trust Digital Library, March 14, 2012.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
2
Westminster Assembly5—a gathering of English and Scottish divines who sought, as one of their
primary goals, to restructure worship among the reformed churches in England and Scotland
according to the Word of God.6
The Assembly’s principles for worship were expressed chiefly7 in two documents: the
Directory of Public Worship and the Westminster Confession of Faith. The former document
states the general aim of the Assembly in regulating worship. “Wherein our care hath been to
hold forth such things as are of Divine institution in every ordinance; and other things we have
endeavored to set forth according to the rules of Christian prudence, agreeable to the general rule
While the question of whether or not Calvin’s successors went beyond or remained consistent with Calvin
in their formulation of the RP is not of primary importance in this paper, it should be noted that agreement in this
matter is not unanimous. R. J. Gore suggests that the Assembly and later Puritan proponents of the RP applied
Calvin’s principles for worship more rigorously than the great reformer and did not give the same accommodation to
adiaphora (things indifferent) as their predecessor. See Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative
Principle, (Philipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2002), 88-89. J. I. Packer agrees with Gore at this point. See “The Puritan
Approach to Worship” in Diversity and Unity: Papers Read at the Puritan and Reformed Studies Conference,
December 1963, (Stoke-on-Trent, Hartshill: Tentmaker Publications, reprint, no date), 5, emphasis added). Horton
Davies argues for a divergence from Calvin to his Puritan progeny, although, Davies suggests, the Puritans were
probably unaware of their departure from Calvin. Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans, (1948,
reprint; Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997), 48. Roland S. Ward disagrees with Packer, Gore, and Davies,
contending that no significance difference existed between Calvin’s view of the view of the Westminster Assembly
[see Scripture and Worship, (Philipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2007), 106. Edmund Clowney shares Ward’s conviction that
the Puritan formulation of the RP was not a departure from Calvin [see The Church, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
1995), 122], as does Derek Thomas in “The Regulative Principle: Responding to Recent Criticism,” in Give Praise
to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship, eds. Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W. H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2003), 82. Clowney does admit, however, that in the years after the formulation of the
Westminster Directory and Confession, “there was amplification of this principle, as well as an unduly legalistic
development of it in the Puritan reformation . . .” (See Clowney, “Presbyterian Worship,” 115).
5
The Westminster Divines. “The Solemn League and Covenant” in The Westminster Confession of Faith,
(N. P.: First Presbyterian Publications, 1983), 358-359. There were other goals, but the reformation of worship was
among the primary aims. For a history of the Westminster Assembly, see A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith,
(Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1983), 14-23, John H. Leith, The Assembly at Westminster: Theology in the Making,
(Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1973) 17-55; Alexander Mitchell’s The Westminster Assembly: Its History and
Standards, (Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books, 1992 reprint 1882); W. Beveridge, A Short History of the
Westminster Assembly, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1904); John Allen Delivuk, “Biblical Authority.”
6
7
Worship as a subject is broached and discussed in the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, but it
does not add to or expand on what was already established in the Directory or the Confession.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
3
of the word of God.”8 The latter document, written two years later, references the regulation of
worship in three sections. In 1.6, under the heading, “Holy Scripture,” the Confession reads,
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s
salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary
consequence may be deduced from scripture . . . and that there are some circumstances
concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions
and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence,
according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.
Commenting on this passage from the Confession, A. A. Hodge captures the main thrust of the
RP: “That God in his Word has prescribed for us how we may worship him acceptably; and that
it is an offense to him and a sin in us either to neglect to worship him in the way prescribed, or to
attempt to worship him in any way not prescribed.”9 It was not enough to say that whatever God
has not prohibited was therefore, on that account, allowed in worship10; corporate gatherings had
to be delimited by explicit or implicit biblical prescription.
Section 20.2 of the Confession also touches on the issue of worship. “God alone is
Lord of the conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which
are in any thing contrary to his word; or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.” Chapter 21,
under the heading “Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day,” provides a concise definition
of the regulative principle.
The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all,
is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved praised, called upon,
trusted in, and served with all the heart, and with all the soul, and all the might. But the
acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His
own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and
8
Westminster Divines, The Directory of Public Worship, preface.
9
A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, 270.
10
This approach to worship has historically been called the normative principle. See Allison, Historical
Theology, 660. Robert Letham also observes the predominance of these two principles within Protestant worship.
See The Westminster Assembly: Reading its Theology in Historical Context, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2009), 301.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
4
devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other
way not prescribed in the holy Scripture (emphasis added).
Two important issues reside at the center of the RP’s formulation in the Westminster Confession.
First is the issue of Scripture’s sufficiency. The Westminster divines sought to employ the
Reformation principle of sola scriptura to all matters of church life, including public worship. In
so doing and by their formulation of the RP, they desired to exclude any practices in public
worship that were not acceptable to God.11 The distinction, however, between the Westminster
divines and their Anglican counterparts in the Church of England, was in how the former
approached Scripture to determine what was, in fact, acceptable to God. As the above excerpt
from the Confession demonstrates, the Westminster divines desired to limit what could be
considered legitimate worship according to the “revealed will of God.” In order to avoid
worship that was the product of “the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of
Satan,” public liturgy could not go beyond what was “prescribed in the holy Scripture.” The
Church of England, on the other hand, was willing to incorporate various ceremonies they
deemed helpful and edifying, even if such ceremonies could not be grounded in explicit or
implicit biblical warrant.
The second issue was the concern over conscience.12 Underlying the attempt to limit
worship only to what was prescribed in Scripture was the wish to protect the conscience of the
worshipper from man-made liturgical practices and the abuse of church power. Although the
Westminster divines recognized that the Reformers had done much to improve the state of public
11
Derek Thomas, “The Regulative Principle,” 78. See also R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed
Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 229.
12
Edmund Clowney, The Church, 122.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
5
worship and to remove what was “vain, erroneous, superstitious, and idolatrous,”13 there was still
more work to do. For example, the Book of Common Prayer, used at that time by the Church of
England in order to provide a fixed liturgy, had created a number of problems. Rowland Ward
explains the situation, quoting from the minutes of the Assembly.
The ‘urging reading of all the prayers,’ ‘the many unprofitable and burdensome
ceremonies contained in it,’ had caused difficulties. Good Christians had stayed away
from the Lord’s table. Some faithful men were unable in good conscience to exercise
their ministry, while prelates and their supporters made the liturgy so important as to
hinder or even force out the preaching.14
The Directory and the Confession, then, were meant to draw a mediating position between a
“completely fixed liturgy and a form of worship in which everyone would be ‘left to do his own
will.’”15 By tethering the practices of public worship directly to Scripture by way of the RP, the
believer’s conscience—whether a lay worshipper or an appointed minister—would be protected
from unbiblical, man-made edicts, and the church would find its guidance for such issues directly
in the word of God. Thus, the RP has traditionally been defined as follows: “Nothing must be
required as essential to public worship except that which is commanded by the word of God.”16
13
Directory, preface.
14
Ward, Scripture and Worship, 94. Ward is drawing from R. S. Paul, The Assembly of the Lord
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985). See also Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly, 213, 225.
15
R. S. Paul, The Assembly of the Lord, 364, quoted in Ward, Scripture and Worship, 94.
16
Derek Thomas, “The Regulative Principle,” 75. A more concise and perhaps more restrictive definition is
sometimes evoked: “that which is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden.” See Douglas Wilson, Mother Kirk:
Essays and Forays in Practical Ecclesiology, (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2001), 121; John Frame, Worship in Spirit and
in Truth: A Refreshing Study of the Principles and Practices of Biblical Worship, (New Jersey: P & R, 1996), 38.
Historically, however, the above definitions did not mean that the Puritans sought in the New Testament explicit
warrant of every detail for worship. Such an interpretation is a misreading of history. Iain Murray explains: “[The
Puritans] did not assert that the Church could do nothing except what was prescribed in Scripture. It was a
caricature of Puritanism which affirmed that they looked for every detail in the New Testament. What they did hold
was that nothing was to be made a part (as distinguished from a circumstance) of worship and nothing of spiritual
significance was to be added to the government of the Church except what Scripture prescribed or warranted by just
inference.” “Scripture and Things Indifferent,” in Papers Read at the Puritan and Reformed Studies Conference,
December 1963, (Stoke-on-Trent, Hartshill: Tentmaker Publications, reprint, no date), 25.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
6
But this definition by itself is not adequate; inevitably we are lead to ask the question: What, in
fact, has God required?
The Assembly was careful to nuance their statements on worship in such a way so as
to allow for accommodation to various situations—circumstances, as the Confession calls
them—in which direct biblical warrant was not required for a particular practice.17 In such
cases, the light of nature, the exercise of Christian prudence, and attention to the general rules of
Scripture were to be employed. Helpful, but this still does not give us a broad enough
framework within which to determine exactly what God has required or prohibited.
In reflection upon the RP, the Reformed tradition has typically distinguished between
circumstances and two other components: elements and forms. Elements are those aspects of
public worship that God has determined and are thus unchanging. Forms are the contents of the
elements, while circumstances, as we have seen, are those aspects of public worship that are
“common to human actions and societies.”
What are some elements? What are those features of worship that Scripture clearly
prescribed and are thus non-negotiable? The Confession provides several specific practices,
such as “Prayer with thanksgiving…the reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound
preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word . . . singing of Psalms with grace in the heart . . .
the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts
of the ordinary religious worship of God (XXI. 3, 5). The Confession also mentions other
elements such as “religious oaths” and “vows.18 Forms—the contents of the elements—must be
consistent with the nature of the element, lest they compromise the element. For example, Terry
17
Clowney, “Presbyterian Worship,” 111.
Terry L. Johnson, “The Regulative Principle,” in The Worship of God: Reformed Concepts of Biblical
Worship, (Taylors, SC: Christian Focus, 2005), 18.
18
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
7
Johnson would label the practice of “dancing the sermon” as an illegitimate use of forms, since
the sermon, by its very nature, is spoken communication.19 The element, in this case, would be
compromised by the form.
Further clarification was incorporated into interpreting the RP by George Gillespie,
John Owen, and James Bannerman. These three men appealed to the categories of circa sacra
and in sacris in order to help distinguish between elements, forms, and circumstances.
Bannerman explains the distinction.
“And so, likewise, there are matters not in the public worship of God, but about the public
worship of God, in regard to which the law of nature comes in. The ceremonies and
institutions of Church worship are properly and distinctively maters in sacris; the
circumstances of Church worship, or those that belong to it in common with the ordinary
proceedings or peculiar solemnities of men, are properly and distinctively matters circa
sacra.”20
In other words, “There are things which are religious in themselves (prayer, singing to God)
while there are things surrounding religious events (circa) which are not religious themselves
(speaking, instructing, singing).” 21 It was the circa sacris with which church leaders were
provided greater freedom since things like speaking, instructing, and singing, in and of
themselves, were not explicitly regulated by Scripture. Liturgical ceremony, on the other hand,
was inherently religious (in sacris) and was therefore must be controlled by Scripture. How
these principles have been interpreted and incorporated by contemporary proponents of the RP
will be the subject of the next section.
19
Ibid., 19.
20
James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, (1869; reprint. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1960), 2.349.
T. David Gordon, “Some Answers About the Regulative Principle,” in The Westminster Theological
Journal 55 (1993), 324.
21
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
8
Contemporary Use of the Regulative Principle
Contemporary appeal to the RP is typically found in churches that locate themselves
within the Reformed tradition. Nevertheless, despite the connection to their Reformed and
Puritan ancestors, some present-day proponents of the RP have failed to implement their use of
the RP with requisite theological and hermeneutical rigor. The two RP proponents whom we
will be considering are Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D. C., and
Scott Brown of Hope Baptist Church in Wake Forest, North Carolina.
Mark Dever: The Regulative Principle and Liturgical Dance
In his book on church polity and practice, The Deliberate Church, Mark Dever speaks
directly to the issue of the RP in his discussion of worship. Dever first defines the RP, carefully
following the Reformed tradition: “Briefly, the Regulative Principle states that everything we do
in corporate worship gathering must be clearly warranted by Scripture. Clear warrant can either
take the form of an explicit biblical command, or a good and necessary implication of a biblical
text.”22 While agreeing that no New Testament text provides us with a “paradigm for corporate
worship,”23 Dever contends that by guiding God’s people in worship, church leaders are, in a
sense, binding their consciences. If Scripture is the only authority that can ultimately bind the
conscience, then church leaders must bind one’s conscience only as far as biblical warrant
allows.
Dever then proceeds to provide some biblical and theological grounding for the RP,
demonstrating from the Old Testament that God’s concern for how his people worshipped was
22
Mark Dever and Paul Alexander, The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry on the Gospel,
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2005), 77.
Ibid. Dever is quoting D. A. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” in Worship by the Book, (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 25.
23
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
9
all consuming. Drawing from several Old Testament texts, Dever concludes, “Corporate worship
is too central to God’s purpose in redemption for Him to leave the specifics to the likes of us.”24
Dever concludes his brief section on the RP by citing and discussing two Old Testament texts
(Exodus 20:4; 32:1-10) and two New Testament texts (John 4:19-24; 1 Cor. 14) that affirm the
notion that God’s Word is meant to regulate corporate worship.25
In his next chapter, “Applying the Regulative Principle,” Dever turns to discuss how the
RP should function in actual corporate worship. The elements of corporate worship—those
things that are clearly commanded in Scripture, non-negotiable, and essential to the corporate
“life, health, and holiness of any local church”26—are: reading the Word, preaching the Word,
praying the Word, and seeing the Word (in the ordinances—baptism and the Lord’s supper).
Nevertheless, while supplying the reader with a list of elements that should be
included in a church’s corporate gathering, Dever’s treatment of the RP does not provide any
hermeneutical or theological apparatus with which to determine what Scripture actually warrants.
In his definition above, Dever notes correctly that the RP limits worship to what Scripture
commands explicitly or grants implicitly. It appears, however, that much of what this entails is
already determined. For example, Dever omits any discussion of Old Testament texts that
command dancing or the use of certain instruments in worship (e.g. Ps 150:3-5). Indeed, the
reader will quickly notice that Dever draws exclusively from the NT to build his case. Why?
Where is the discussion that justifies pulling from only New Testament passages to determine
how corporate worship should be structured? The RP, at least as it is defined in the Confession,
24
Ibid., 78.
25
Ibid., 78-79.
26
Ibid., 81. Emphasis original.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
10
does not appear to provide such a justification. This observation is not meant to suggest that
Dever is wrong to make such a move—it may be that we are meant to draw entirely New
Testament texts to establish the elements of our corporate worship—but the RP itself does not
institute this limitation. The RP restricts the structuring of corporate worship to what God
commands—this is clear. How we determine what God has commanded, however, is a matter of
some hermeneutical and theological complexity that requires more than simplistic and exclusive
appeal to a few New Testament texts.
In his chapter entitled, “Blended Worship,” in Perspectives on Christian Worship, cowritten with Michael Lawrence27, Dever provides a more extensive discussion and defense of the
RP. Here, Dever appeals to the three components of the RP—elements, forms, and
circumstances—defining each according to their traditional understanding and helpfully
developing the concepts under their own respective heading. The elements of corporate worship
are the same as Dever described above in The Deliberate Church. The forms and circumstances,
as Dever notes, concern the how of corporate worship and are afforded greater freedom in
Scripture than the elements. The Psalms, for example, are forms of the element of singing. The
forms can take different shape: some are Psalms of lament, some are Psalms of thanksgiving,
some are Psalms of praise, and so on. Dever also finds warrant in Scripture for departure from an
exclusive Psalmody28 in the biblical command to “sing a new song” (Dever cites Ps 33:1-3; 40:13; 96:1-3; 98:1; 144:9; and 149:1-2). Turning to the New Testament, “we see a similar freedom
Mark Dever and Michael Lawrence, “Blended Worship,” in Perspectives on Christian Worship: 5 Views,
(Nashville: B & H, 2009).
27
For a definition and defense of exclusive Psalmody, see Brian Schwertly, “A Biblical Case for Exclusive
Psalmody,” in The Worship of God: Reformed Concepts of Biblical Worship, no editor, (Taylors, SC: Christian
Focus, 2005), 181-204. To see where Schwertly’s arguments are inadequate, see Benjamin Shaw’s article “A
Defense of Biblical Hymnody,” in The Worship of God, 205-218.
28
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
11
with regard to the forms of worship.”29 Dever then explains further, providing a few clarifying
examples.30
The circumstances of our worship services follow a similar pattern. We are granted
freedom, according to our respective situations, to implement various aspects to our corporate
service that aid in facilitating the elements and forms of worship. Sanctified common-sense,
attention to potential consequences, and a commitment to only employ circumstances that are in
accordance to God’s Word are required in order to maintain consistency with the RP. Dever
then provides several principles to help shape corporate gatherings and regulate forms and
circumstances according to God’s Word. Drawing mainly from I Corinthians 14, Dever argues
that our corporate worship should be intelligible, orderly, edifying, unifying, and promote
reverence for God.
We do not have the freedom, however, to delete elements or add nonbibilcal elements
to our corporate worship service. What are some examples of nonbiblical elements? Dever
suggests things such as “liturgical dance or drama.”31 Regarding the issue of dancing, Dever
clarifies further,
It might be fine for you, with your own conscience allowing, to be involved in a dance
intended to interpret a Psalm. But nowhere does the New Testament require or even imply
that Christians should dance before the Lord in corporate worship. So it would be wrong
for you to force other Christians who may have serious reservations about the whole matter
to take that as part of their obedience to the requirement of a weekly gathering.32
But it is here that we run into some problems with Dever’s use of the RP. To revisit Dever’s
definition, biblical warrant for a particular practice consists of an explicit biblical command or a
29
Dever and Lawrence, “Blended Worship,” 242.
30
Ibid., 242-243.
31
Ibid., 221.
32
Ibid., 235.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
12
good and necessary consequence of a particular command. Issues of the hermeneutical
complexities tied to determining what God commands notwithstanding, it appears that Dever is
inconsistent here. Focusing on the issue of dancing for a moment, it would seem the Scripture
gives us ample ground for dancing in corporate worship by way of command (Ps 149:3; 150:2-5)
and example (Exodus 15:20; I Chronicles 15:29; Psalm 87:7).
Dever would answer this objection by noting that these are Old Testament commands
and examples and that the New Testament does not include dancing as an element for corporate
worship. Point taken. But as we mentioned earlier, if we are restricting ourselves to the New
Testament in determining what to include in corporate worship, we must demonstrate why we are
doing so. Applying the RP against itself for a moment: What biblical and theological warrant do
we have to use New Testament texts to the exclusion of Old Testament texts in our determining
what elements belong in corporate worship? While this question is not to imply that there is no
biblical warrant for choosing New Testament texts the way Dever does—the nature of the New
Covenant seems to give us some justification at this point33—it is meant to suggest that the
defense of one’s choice of elements and their rejection of others may require more theological
and hermeneutical rigor than is typically offered.
The issue becomes more problematic when we turn to a passage like Psalm 149 in which
dancing is not only commanded, it is given as a legitimate expression of praise to God and
intertwined with the command to “sing a new song.” Where does Dever, however, find the
justification to take from this Old Testament passage the instruction to “sing a new song” (thus
partly grounding his call for blended worship; see above) while rejecting the command to praise
33
R. Kent Hughes gives a brief yet helpful explanation on why and how the nature of New Covenant should
guide and shape our corporate worship. See “Free Church Worship: The Challenge of Freedom,” in Worship by the
Book, ed., D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: 2002), 140.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
13
God’s name with dancing? Again, Dever answers by using the New Testament to argue that for
New Covenant believers, singing, not dancing, is commanded.34 In order for this argument to
work, however, Dever would need to first establish that praise a subset of singing. If it is, then
the New Testament command to sing (assuming the legitimacy of Dever’s New-Testament-only
approach) would dictate how we are to praise; namely, by singing. The problem, however, is
that Psalm 149 presents the categories in reverse order: singing is a subset of praise. In other
words, singing and dancing (and making melody with tambourine and lyre) are specific
expressions of praising God. Said another way: The general command is to praise God; singing,
dancing, and making instrumental melody are three ways to fulfill that command. So the
question now becomes: Does the New Testament limit praise to only singing? In some New
Testament instances, singing is clearly the mode of praise (I Cor 14:15; Heb 2:12; 13:15; James
5:13). In other cases, the mode is not explicitly given (Eph 1:6; 1:12; 1:14; Phil 4:8; I Peter 1:7).
So the answer, at least initially, appears to be no: the New Testament does not limit praise to
only singing. Dever could respond by saying that Psalm 149 implies that the verbal aspect of
praise is always present and that dancing and various instruments are merely accompaniments to
and do not constitute the essence of praise. This, indeed, would be a good argument, but not
ultimately convincing. If praise is the category under which singing and dancing fall, and if the
New Testament does not explicitly connect all praising with singing, it would seem difficult to
restrict dancing from corporate worship. Dancing is, at least, a legitimate complement to verbal
praise and singing.
Additionally, while this essay is not as formal defense of liturgical dancing—I am,
admittedly, one of those situated in the Reformed tradition who is uncomfortable with the idea—
34
Ibid.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
14
what we have seen so far should at least exhort us to examine whether Scripture or personal
preference is actually driving our use of the RP in some cases. Scripture can be abused from
both directions: it can be used to stamp any practice with divine approval, and it can be
employed to curb legitimate practices that could otherwise be shown to be so upon further
theological reflection.
Scott Brown: The Regulative Principle and Age-Segregated Ministries
According to Scott Brown, age-segregated ministries, an essential component of
contemporary youth ministry, have had a destructive—albeit unintended—influence in the life of
many churches. By separating students from their parents in corporate worship and instruction,
placing them in ministries in which they are surrounded exclusively with their peers, and
developing programs that appeal to and encourage adolescent immaturity, age-segregated
ministries have done much to undermine the Church’s ministry to families and the overall health
of the body of Christ.35 But is age-segregation biblical? Should churches engage in developing
and fostering age-segregated ministries? Judging by the fruit it has produced, the answer from
Scott Brown to both questions is a clear, “No.” How, then, are we to structure the church so that
our ministry to youth is not only effective, but grounded in Scripture? To answer this question,
Brown turns to the regulative principle of worship.
Brown begins his discussion of the RP by using Mark Dever’s definition discussed
earlier. From this definition Brown concludes, “Therefore, the only permissible elements of
This is the general thesis of Scott Brown’s book, A Weed in the Church: How a Culture of Age
Segregation is Destroying the Younger Generation, Fragmenting the Family, and Dividing the Church, (Wake
Forest, NC: The National Center for Family Integrated Churches, 2011). While it is not the intention of this paper to
argue for the legitimacy of age-segregated ministries per se, it is interesting to note that the very phrase “agesegregated” already appears prejudiced. Given our nation’s history with racial issues, for example, integration is
always to be preferred to segregation. In the case of Brown’s book, the very use of this phrase seems to set agesegregation in a negative light prior to any discussion of its actual validity. In my judgment, the phrase “agespecific” would be far more even-handed. Nevertheless, I will use the phrases, “age-segregation” and “agesegregated” in order to remain consistent with Brown’s usage and overall argument.
35
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
15
worship are those that are instituted by command, principle, example, or by good and necessary
consequence.”36 Brown also understands that the RP is designed to guard the church from
“man’s ingenuity” with regard to corporate worship. Simply stated, the RP should urge the
church to ask, “What do the Scriptures say?” Brown acknowledges, however, that debate might
ensue over what truly constitutes a good and necessary implication; but evangelical churches, at
the very least, “must have the same guiding principle.”37 Scripture must be the standard, and the
RP—a central tenant of the Protestant Reformation, responsible for a host of changes during the
Post-Reformation period—should be reconsidered and reinstated among evangelical churches.38
With regard to youth ministry in particular, Brown laments the loss of the RP to guide our
approach to child and young adult discipleship.39
Brown then turns to survey the historical development of age-segregated youth ministry.
Beginning with Plato, Brown traces the church’s embrace of age-segregated youth ministries to
her uncritical acceptance of pagan educational philosophy. By founding age-segregated youth
ministries, the American church simply followed suit. “As children began to be educated in a
systematic, age-segregated world,” Brown observes, “the church imitated it. By the end of the
1940s, the practice of age-segregated education had come fully into the main stream of church
life, as this principle of separation began to be applied more and more broadly throughout
Christian culture.”40 Christian youth rallies now found their place within the Church’s
36
Ibid., 90.
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid., 93.
40
Ibid., 117.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
16
evangelistic strategies, while the youth minister—a new category of church leader—would now
be set apart for specific ministry to teens and preteens.41 Despite the good intentions of those in
the church who embraced the reality of age-segregation and sought to develop ministries based
on how public schools were structured, their actions “dismantle[ed] the biblical order of
discipleship in the church and family life outside the church,”42 and demonstrated a “diminished .
. . reliance on Scripture alone.”43
Brown desires to see the church return to the biblical position on youth discipleship;
something he and others who share his same philosophy call “the family integration model of
church ministry.”44 According to Brown, the Scriptures do not allow for the development and
implementation of age-segregated ministries. Instead, by way of commandment, example, and
principle, the Bible clearly promotes and requires ministry to youth in which corporate
gatherings consist of whole families—where the multitude of generations in the church are
integrated rather than segregated. To build his case, Brown turns to the Old and New
Testaments, while also briefly examining a few key examples from church history.
Throughout the Old Testament, Brown argues, we “consistently find examples of ageintegrated gatherings for worship, celebration, and instruction. However, we find no clearly
defined examples of age-segregation.”45 Whenever Israel assembled—for whatever reason—
41
Ibid., 118.
42
Ibid., 121.
43
Ibid.
44
For further reading on the family-integrated model of church ministry, see Voddie Baucham, Family
Driven Faith: Doing What it Takes to Raise Sons and Daughters Who Walk With God, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007)
and Paul Renfro “Family-Integrated Ministry,” in Perspectives on Family Ministry, ed. Randy L. Stinson and
Timothy Paul Jones (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2009), 55-78.
45
Brown, A Weed in the Church, 168.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
17
parents where directed to bring their children to the corporate gathering.46 Youth discipleship
was to occur in the home and conducted by parents (Deut 6:6-9), while the older generation
would teach the younger generation about Yahweh and his great works as the nation of Israel
lived and assembled together (Ps 78:3-4; 145:3-12).47
Nor does the New Testament provide any precedent for age-segregation among God’s
people. Christ himself taught children at the same time he instructed adults (Luke 18:15-17)
while ministering to the physical needs of whole families (Matt 14:14-21). Paul, as he writes to
the churches in Ephesus and the Colossia, assumed that children would listen to the reading of
his letters along with their parents (Eph 6:1-4; Col 3:18-22). New Testament ministry, like Old
Testament ministry, is multigenerational (Titus 2:1-8).
Brown also notes a few key leaders in the history of the church have held to the same
biblical pattern for age-integration, briefly examining the writings of Martin Luther, John Buyan,
and Matthew Henry in order to establish historical precedent for the practice.48 Brown then
dedicates a significant portion of his book to answering key objections to his position49 and
concludes by offering practical advice to church leaders on how to implement the transition from
age-segregation to age-integration.50
46
Ibid., 168-69.
47
Ibid., 184-189.
48
History is not uniform in this regard. Brown does not reference John Newton. John Newton was known
to hold Bible meetings for young children during his pastorate at Olney that were available to both members and
nonmembers. See John Piper, The Roots of Endurance: Invincible Perseverance in the Lives of John Newton,
Charles Simeon, and William Wilberforce, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2002), 54-55. Piper cites Richard Cecil’s Life of
John Newton, ed. by Marylynn Rouse, (Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2000), 143.
49
Ibid.,199-250.
50
Ibid., 255-281.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
18
So, what are we to make of Brown’s argument? Has he employed the RP correctly?
Unfortunately, Brown weakens his overall argument by giving little to no attention to the
historical RP categories of element, form, and circumstance. Although Brown touches on the
reality of various “circumstances,” he does not give any space to the discussion of what elements
or forms are, or how they are to be used in the corporate gathering. Granted, Brown’s focus is
very specific—he is only talking about the issue of age-segregation and not the details of
corporate worship as such—but this is precisely where his appeal to the RP becomes confusing.
Historically, appeal to the RP has been endorsed in order to arbitrate the discussion of what
elements belong and do not belong in the corporate assembly of God’s people. Typically, the
discussion has surrounded the public liturgy and the features contained therein. While the issue
of age-segregated youth ministry touches on the matter of corporate worship—one of Brown’s
major contentions is that Scripture commands and expects whole families to be together for
public assembly—it does not seem to fit squarely within the emphasis of the RP as it has been
discussed historically. Brown is broadening the RP to now include not only what is to be used in
the corporate worship but who should be included in corporate worship. This is certainly a new
way to appeal to the RP. Thus the question: If this is not the way the RP has been used
historically, on what basis does Brown enlarge the scope of the RP in this case?
Nevertheless, let us assume for a moment that Brown’s move to enlarge the range of
the RP is legitimate. Even so, by forgoing any discussion of elements, forms, and circumstances,
Brown does not afford himself the opportunity to grapple with the notion that age-integration
may be a matter of circumstance or of circa sacra. As we have already observed, the RP allows
freedom for issues of circumstances, yet Brown offers no argument for why he does not see the
issue of age-integration as a matter “common to human actions and societies,” or something that
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
19
concerns the government of the church that can be “ordered by the light of nature and Christian
prudence,” rather than explicit warrant from Scripture. Brown has already assumed that ageintegration is an element of corporate worship, not something for which the RP allows freedom.
This challenge is not meant to suggest that Brown is unable to present a valid rationale for
drawing the matter of age-integration out of the realm of circumstance, but appeal to the RP in
this case—given the prevalence of age-segregated ministries found in churches widely known to
be faithful to Scripture—would seem to require greater care and detail in handling this very
issue.
To be fair, Brown concedes that churches that develop and implement youth ministries
are not intentionally pursuing pagan philosophies. He does believe, however, that they “have
inadvertently adopted non-Christian philosophies and practices for youth ministry.”51 Granted,
there are youth ministries that have pandered to the carnal appetites of teenagers, torn asunder
the relationships between parents and children, hidden the life-changing truth of Scripture under
the silly antics of the youth pastor, and, as a result, failed to disciple students according to
biblical principles. But there are also some churches that have developed age-segregated
ministries that are characterized by strong preaching, discipleship between older and younger
generations, accountability, and active parental involvement. Consider Grace Community
Church in Sun Valley, California; Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota; St.
Andrews Church in Sanford, Florida; First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, South Carolina; or
Compass Bible Church in Aliso Viejo, California. One wonders, then, if these biblically faithful
churches are guilty of a “diminished . . . reliance on Scripture alone,” by their development of
youth ministries. While the existence of healthy youth ministries in strong churches does not
prove that age-segregated ministries as such are biblical, it should, at the very least, provoke
51
Ibid.,121.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
20
some extended reflection on the nature of circumstances and whether or not age-segregation falls
under such a category.
Brown comes close to discussing these issues as he answers the objection that many
things we use in church—like microphones, computers, and film—do not find express warrant in
Scripture. Given our current scenario, what is the problem with youth ministry? Brown notes
that such things are in a different category than corporate worship and discipleship.
Discipleship methods are defined and commanded in Scripture and are matters of explicit
biblical order (i.e. God’s revealed will that we are to obey). In contrast, things like
microphones, computers, and film are matters of technology (i.e. practical tools we can use
as means to carry out the Law of God). In regard to technology and other practical aspects
of church life (where we meet, the length of our meetings, types of seats we use, the color
or carpet, etc.), these matters are not clearly spelled out in Scripture and therefore are
matters of liberty that are under the biblical guidelines for the practice of liberty. This
means Scripture must be consulted to see if they contradict anything that Scripture
maintains.52
Despite these concessions, however, Brown’s statement here does not satisfactorily answer the
objection. Brown assumes that discipleship methods are “defined and commanded in Scripture”
and that issues of technology are matters that are “not clearly spelled out in Scripture and
therefore matters of liberty.” But the appeal to “clarity” is ultimately unhelpful since it does not
provide any theological or hermeneutical apparatus with which to navigate these issues; it merely
affirms those things that are “clear and unclear to Scott Brown.” The looming question is: How
do we know what God has commanded? How can we tell the difference between non-negotiable
elements and circumstances with which we are afforded some freedom? The history of the
debate over the RP should at least caution Brown to avoid using this kind of theologically
unsophisticated language. Simplistic recourse to “clarity” does not help to advance a
conversation that is already fraught with significant theological and hermeneutical complexity.
52
Ibid., 223
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
21
One area of hermeneutical complexity, for example, to which Brown give no attention,
is the issue of age-segregation as a recent phenomenon. To defend his thesis that age-segregated
ministry violates Scripture and the RP, Brown draws from numerous texts in the Old and New
Testaments that portray corporate assembly as nothing less than multi-generational gatherings.
As Brown has argued, however, age-segregation is a rather recent phenomenon in America; it
was not until 1848 that systematic age-segregation emerged within the American educational
system. It seems anachronistic and question-begging, then, to argue, from Scripture, that ageintegration is mandated and age-segregation forbidden when systematic age-segregation as a
widespread reality did not exist at the time of Scripture’s formation and completion. How are we
to determine whether a particular practice is biblical or unbiblical when the circumstances that
precipitated those practices were not in force at the time Scripture was written? Brown wants to
draw principles from the many examples of multigenerational gatherings in Scripture to
adjudicate the problem; merely drawing principles of age-integration from the biblical text,
however, does not answer important questions related contextualization and how a church might
minister in a culture where systematic age-segregation is a pressing reality.
Concerning these matters, Brandon Shields provides some helpful insight when he
observes the tendency of those argue for the family-integrated model to draw under-nuanced
distinctions between what is biblical and unbiblical. “The proponent of the family-integrated
model has, unfortunately, couched his disagreement . . . in terms of an oversimplified dichotomy
between ‘biblical’ and ‘unbibilcal.’ This is typical of those who hold to extreme perspectives on
the regulative principle.”53 Shields continues, arguing that those who utilize a method different
“Why Family-Based Ministry Still Works,” in Perspectives on Family Ministry, ed. Timothy Paul Jones,
(Nashville: B & H, 2009), 134-135.
53
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
22
from family-integrated model are not guilty of shirking sola Scriptura, but are simply utilizing
the freedom afforded to them in Scripture to reach the culture around them. 54
Again, it is one of the contentions of this article that the above questions and complexities
should push us back to the category of circumstance: Could it be that age-segregated ministries
are something that are “common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the
light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word?” Could not
age-segregated ministries be organized in such a way that parental involvement and
accountability are paramount, where multigenerational discipleship is regularly occurring, where
families are provided the opportunity to worship together, and where Scripture is faithfully
taught with direct relevance to students’ particular situations at school, in extra-curricular
activities, and at home? It appears that classifying such ministries as unbiblical on the basis of
their age-segregation would be unnecessarily restrictive and going well beyond the original
intention of the RP.
Let me stress, however, that I do not mean to imply that Brown’s proposal should be
disregarded outright. Bryan Haynes highlights a key issue well when he was asked to comment
on A Weed in the Church in a recent article in Christianity Today. Haynes acknowledges that
Brown’s desire for family integration within the church is, on the whole, a biblical impulse.
Where Brown veers into unhelpful polarization is his insistence that it is the exclusive way to
organize worship. Ken Walker explains,
Texas pastor and author Brian Haynes, who echoes some of Brown's concerns in The
Legacy Path, sees youth ministry as a branch that needs pruning instead of a weed that
should be plucked. “I wouldn't have a problem being a church with family-integrated
54
Ibid., 134.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
23
Sunday school classes,” he said. “Where I do have a problem is when you say that's the
only way to do that.” 55
The point of these challenges to Brown’s use of the RP is not to suggest that his emphasis on
family integration is altogether wrong-headed. Much of what he says resonates with a biblical
melody, even if the melody is sometimes obscured with instances of theological and
hermeneutical naiveté. We would do well to note Brown’s positive contribution: “Despite the
controversy, Brown may have a point: intergenerational discipleship may to be the strongest
method of strengthening teens' faith.”56
A Way Forward in Our Use and Discussion of the RP
As we have seen in the above two examples, contemporary appeal to the RP is liable to
overly-simplistic, unnecessarily restrictive application that appears to step beyond the original
intention and framework of the RP. In light of these two investigations into the RP’s usage in
present-day church life, it is my contention that future deliberation over the RP and its legitimate
application must avoid mistaking the call for biblical simplicity in worship to imply that our
work to determine what is biblical will itself be an uncomplicated endeavor. Although the RP as
stated in the Confession is rather straightforward, I agree with Jeffery Meyers when he avers,
“We must still do the hard work of biblical exegesis to determine precisely how God regulates
worship.”57 The RP was never intended to remove the need for painstaking theological,
Ken Walker, “Should Sunday School Be For the Whole Family?” Christianity Today, December 16,
2011, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/december/fromagetoage.html, (accessed on February 7, 2012).
55
56
Ibid.
Jeffery J. Meyers, The Lord’s Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship, (Moscow, ID: Canon,
2003), 314. Even while extolling the RP and commending its use for determining church government, John Richard
de Witt admits that it “is by no means easy to apply.” “The Form of Church Government,” in To Glorify and Enjoy
God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, eds. John L. Carson and David W.
Hall, (Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth, 1994), 166. I am far less likely to embrace approaches to the RP that assume
that is somehow easy to establish how God regulates worship. For example, after his overview of the RP, Terry
Johnson concludes by remarking, “The regulative principle is not difficult. It is not heavy or burdensome. It merely
57
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
24
hermeneutical, and exegetical labor to define exactly what God has prescribed and what he has
prohibited. To refuse to enter into such labor is to deny the fact that the regulative principle has
been “plagued by complex debates as to what [it] mean[s], today as well as historically.”58
Those who appeal to the RP today must at least acknowledge that they are entering into a
conversation in which respective positions within the tradition are far from uniform.59
Michael P. Farley, recognizing the need for greater work in this area, argues that the
difficulty inherent in the discussion of “biblical” worship is due to a lack of a shared theological
and hermeneutical framework pertaining to worship among evangelicals.
Many disputes about worship practices occur in part because there is no shared
hermeneutical and theological framework for developing a biblical theology of worship.
The hermeneutical diversity that exists goes deeper than mere disagreements over the
interpretation and application of specific texts. There is also a substantial lack of agreement
about which biblical texts are relevant and applicable to Christian worship at all.60
Farley thus concludes, “the first step toward advancing evangelical discussions about a biblical
theology of worship is a greater hermeneutical self-consciousness.”61 Farley then provides
requires that we worship ‘according to the Scripture.’ We are both to structure our worship with Biblical elements,
and fill those elements with biblical content” (“The Regulative Principle,” in The Worship of God, 27). True
enough. But I fear that by stating his case this way, Johnson makes it appear as though the process of determining
what it means to worship ‘according to the Scripture,’ is also ‘not difficult.’” T. David Gordon, in my judgment,
makes a similar mistake when he comments, “It is not at all difficult to distinguish those things the church officers
may lawfully require from things they may not lawfully require” (See “Some Answers About the Regulative
Principle,” in The Westminster Theological Journal 55 [1993]: 321-29: 328.) But has not the much of the debate
over the RP confirmed that it is precisely at this point that the difficulty arises?
58
D. A. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” in Worship By the Book, ed. D. A. Carson, (Grand Rapids:
2002), 54.
59
Timothy Keller notes that there has never been a complete consensus concerning corporate worship
within Reformed tradition even from the beginning. “Reformed [Historic Worship] advocates sometimes speak as if
a use of the ‘Regulative Principle’—a strictly biblical standard for gathered worship forms—will solve the ‘wars’
and bring us back to a single, simple kind os service. But Zwingli and Calvin, both working with the same biblical
commitments, came to such different conclusions that they birthed two distinct corporate worship traditions.” See
“Reformed Worship in the Global City,” in Worship by the Book, ed. D. A. Carson, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2002), 200.
Michael P. Farley, “What is ‘Biblical Worship?’ Biblical Hermeneutics and Evangelical Theologies of
Worship,” in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51 (2008), 591-613: 591.
60
61
Ibid.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
25
several helpful questions that, in my judgment, must be carefully weighed in one’s appeal to the
RP.62 Next, in order to aid RP proponents in their hermeneutical self-awareness, Farley
discusses the major categories into which RP proponents typically fall. Farley finds that RP
proponents can be divided generally into two major categories: 1) The praxis oriented regulative
principle; and 2) The theologically orientated regulative principle. Farley classifies the former as
a “hermeneutical approach to a biblical theology of worship that defines the norm for Christian
worship as the apostolic practice of corporate in the first century church. Thus . . . liturgical
practices are biblical only if there are explicit NT commands or normative examples of those
particular practices” (592). Regarding the latter category, Farley explains,
[this] hermeneutical approach . . . broadens the locus of liturgical norms in Scripture to
include general theological principles in addition to explicit descriptions of liturgical
practice. . . .Thus, proponents of this approach not only reason from explicit NT
commands and examples of particular apostolic worship practices but also from
general theological principles and patterns in Scripture” (596).
Farley then turns to demonstrate how each of these approaches to the RP produce significantly
different positions on what should be included in corporate worship.63
The fact that our examples above represent these two respective approaches to the RP
signals a need for Farley’s call to hermeneutical self-consciousness. Consider Mark Dever’s
methodology. He would seem to assume a praxis orientation which grounds the church’s
corporate worship practices in the New Testament primarily. Scott Brown, on the other hand,
seeks to draw from general patterns and principles from both the Old Testament and New
Testament in order to establish corporate worship practices; he would appear to fit under the
Ibid., 591-592. For example, “Where do we turn in Scripture to find norms to guide our practice of
Christian worship? What kinds of biblical texts are appropriate sources for deriving a Christian theology of
worship? How do we make sense of the diversity of worship practices found throughout redemptive history, and
how do w draw upon the full scope of biblical teaching about worship to develop a coherent and fully biblical
theology that can guide Christian practice today?”
62
63
Ibid., 597ff.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
26
theologically orientated RP. The question is now put in stark relief: How are we to arbitrate
between the discrepancies that exist within the RP tradition? The problem of what constitutes
biblical worship is much larger, I am afraid, than some Reformed proponents of the RP would
probably like to admit.64
Conclusion
Ultimately, according to John Frame, the RP should be used as a stimulus to regularly
force us back to the Scriptures to evaluate whether or not our worship practices are pleasing to
God.65 In light of the complexities discussed above, it should now be more apparent that the RP
should not be used as a simplistic solution to every worship problem we face. It is not wrong for
the proponents of the RP to say that we should ground our worship in the Scripture and that we
should refrain from that which is contrary to Scripture—certainly we can agree that this is a
helpful principle. Nevertheless, the question of what Scripture prescribes and what Scripture
prohibits pertaining to worship is laden with hermeneutical and theological complexities that
preclude simplistic, unreflective application.
64
It should also be noted that there are reformed theologians, scholars, and pastors who find significant
problems within the RP itself and inconsistencies in its original Westminster expression. See Frame, Worship in
Spirit and Truth, 48n7; Gore, Covenantal Worship, 50; and Mark Driscoll, Religion Saves and Nine Other
Misconceptions, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), 253-255. While not explicitly reformed, Arthur Bateman wonders
whether the RP can “sustain the weight of the myriad of worship issues without collapsing into its own subjectivity
(of interpretation) or becoming unduly legalistic.” Authentic Worship: Hearing Scripture’s Voice, Applying Its
Truths, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002), 181. While I am not ready to jettison the RP completely, Bateman does
recognize one of the major problems afflicting the RP: Without attention to relevant interpretational matters
surrounding the question of what God does and does not require or prohibit in his Word, the RP will be seen as
nothing more than a historically sanctioned means to trump worship practices a particular proponent does not like.
65
Frame, Worship in Spirit and in Truth, 52. D. G. Hart and John R. Muether summarize succinctly the
overall aim of the RP when they write, “…our purpose should be to worship God in a manner that is Reformed
according to the Word of God. The regulative principle is nothing more and nothing less than the Reformed
tradition’s effort to do exactly that—worship God in a way pleasing to him on the basis of his revealed will in holy
Scripture.” With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002),
87. Furthermore, R. Scott Clark rightly argues that how we organize our worship today will have direct impact on
Reformed piety and practice in the future. The question of how we should worship is of supreme importance. See
Recovering the Reformed Tradition, 228. See also Derek Thomas in “The Doctrine of the Church in the 21 st
Century,” Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, ed. A. T. B. McGowan (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2006), 345-346.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
27
Nor am I suggesting that advocates of the RP should be discouraged from applying the
principle to their worship practices. The existence of theological and exegetical complexity does
not imply that we should waive the call to clarity and refuse to develop sound argument for our
position. At this point, I am in full agreement with Dever and Brown: We must always seek to
be biblical. But the pursuit of faithfulness to Scripture with regard to worship practices in the
church requires far more than just the recitation of biblical passages or a general appeal to the
“regulative principle.” As we have already noted, care must be taken to understand the RP in its
original context, to rightly understand and apply the various components of the RP (element,
form, consequence, circa sacra and in sacris), and to weigh carefully the relevant hermeneutical
concerns. To merely state that something is biblical or not biblical—given the theological
complexities inherent in the issue—only begs the question and stifles fruitful discussion.
Rightly understood, the RP seeks to free the believer from the shackles of man-made
regulations to offer true, heart-felt worship to God according to his Word. But the RP cannot be
used as a mere panacea—a kind of trump card to be dismissively laid across apparent
innovations that do not readily appear to have biblical warrant. In order to avoid legalism from
the other direction—limiting legitimate aspects of corporate worship66—we must engage in
66
Ironically, the RP can be used in such a way so as to burden consciences. Frame ns that the Confession
itself actually contains “very little of the Puritan theology of worship.” The Puritan and Scottish divines, Frame
observes, “were wise not to include in [the Westminster Standards] all their ideas on worship.” From where did
notions of minimalist worship come? “The principles responsible for liturgical minimalism come from Puritan and
other Reformed texts that go above and beyond the confessional documents.” Consequently, confusion and guilt has
crept in amid some Presbyterian pastors. Frame reports, “The result has been that although few conservative
Presbyterian churches actually worship in the Puritan way, the Puritan theology of worship remains the standard of
orthodoxy among them. This discrepancy sometimes leads to guilty consciences. I have talked to pastors, for
instance, who are unwilling to go back to exclusive use of the Psalms in congregational singing, yet feel awkward
about singing hymns. They almost seem to think they ought to worship as the Puritans did, even though they have
no intention of doing so. They worry that this wavering amounts to an inconsistency in their commitment to the
Reformed faith and to Presbyterian orthodoxy.” Worship in Spirit and in Truth, xii-xiii. I am afraid that the kind of
misuse of the RP we have encountered in this essay may contribute—even unwittingly—to the same kind of
spiritual encumbrances. Such a development is certainly odd and unexpected considering the RP’s origin.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
28
rigorous theological reflection over the innovations in question, and be careful to apply the RP as
it has been understood historically.
© 2014 Derek J. Brown
29