In case you didn’t know or didn’t care Carla over at EmergentNo took a strange hit this week over the questioning of the influence of post-modernism among churches as a whole not just the EC movement. What struck me as strange was accusation of “uncharitable judgments in light of their passion for the 5 Solas.”
Carla is one of the nicest critics on the Godblogs, and yes I do believe you can critique and be nice at the same time. Just critiquing or questioning something is not mean spirited, regardless of what some of the more pansy bloggers believe. I read Carlas post and comments and felt the accusation was unfair, and there is no double standard here. I don’t mind critique.
Carla’s concern is one I myself share. Her question over these “ancient spiritual practices” and its influence on the church as a whole is legitimate. Her concern for whether or not these practices are even biblical is even more legitimate. So I want to take a second and address the bigger issue involved here.
Does God care how we worship or does God have a specific way He wants to be worshipped?
The 1689 London Baptist Confession states that
“The acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by Himself, and so by his own revealed will, that He may not be worshiped according to the imagination or devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.”
This is a great definition of the regulative principal of worship.
Hughes Old while not using the term “regulative principal” gives a description of a corporate worship principal that would satisfy any reformed confession.
“Most things we do in worship we do because God has commanded us to do them. It is because of this that we preach the Gospel, praise God through Psalms and Hymns, we serve God in prayer, we baptize in the name of Christ… Some things we do not because they are specifically taught, but are in accordance with scripture. The basic acts of worship we perform because they are clearly commanded of Scriture. The ways and means of doing them we try to order according to the scriptural principles. When there is no scriptural example to guide us in how we are to do some particular aspect of worship we should try to be guided by scriptural principles.
This is the basis for the regulative principle. Which is stated above in the London Baptist Confession. I believe God makes it clear throughout the Bible that He does indeed care very much about how we worship Him. So the question comes, where do these “ancient spiritual practices” fall in accordance with scripture? Can we automatically assume that just because some churches in the past took part in these practices that they are ok or in accordance with how God desires to be worshipped? More on Monday.
Tweet
36 year old husband, father, pastor, singer, musician, reader, eater, rider, watcher,
Q. Does God care how we worship?
A. Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.
(Lev 10:1-2)
I guess that’s a ‘Yes’?
I agree that God cares how we worship BUT I disagree with the Puritan Regulative Principle as defined by the LBC 1689 and the Westminster. (Though I am in general agreement)
I think there is a general principle set forth by the Bible for worship but not specifics. If we get into specifics, we may start burning musical instruments like the Puritans did or have to question whether it is Biblical to worship in a Church building, or have Pulpits, celebrate Christmas and Easter, to use hymn books etc..
It is interesting that most of our early classic Protestant hymns come from the Lutheran and Anglican Protestant tradition both of which rejected the Regulative Principle because the Puritans restricted creativity.
Dear Scott,
I only have one question:
Where in the world did you get that picture of me?! I thought for sure I destroyed them all.
I don’t actually see where the LBC gets into specifics.
I believe God is very much concerned with how we worship him. It appears that the church today has an unhealthy fascination with the “worship” practices of the medieval mystics that are basically rooted in paganism. Instead of turning to truth, we are rapidly turning to fanciful imaginations created in the deceitful heart of man. The popular ambiguous term “spiritual formation” is, as far as I am concerned, just a clever way of importing this nonsense into the church under the banner of creativity. Much of the contemporary church, by all appearances, is well on its way toward assisting with creating a new “tower of Babel” described in Scripture as “Mystery Babylon”. (Revelation 17:5)
Ihave the flu so I’ll just repost this conversation with your partener:
“ScottyB said…
Jason-
I think your right. I was a little irritated. Please forgive me if I was being offensive to my sisters.
Carla, please forgive me if you felt I was being unfair.
I was just surprised how Carla started out very graciously and how Dr.Keller responded graciously and then this happened and shocked me:
“Tim,
So we can now pick and choose which pagan practices we accept and because we’re professing Christians, now that practice is deemed “Christian”?
Where’s the discernment here?
Where’s the protection of the sheep?”
Carla apologized(see below). As you read in the main link to my post(“ENo post entitled–This needs to be said”) and disagreed strongly with Dr.Keller which is fine. I’m not into taize prayer either in fact I am glad that questions were asked about the book.
But I think Surphing and Nina were less than a blessing with Dr.Keller especially as an elder with a reputation for believing the right gospel we should be more gracious in our tone. These sisters do need prayer they are marginalizing the gospel with the way they treated him.That is why Dr.Keller said this here:
“Nina (and Surphing)–
Surphing was the one who made it personal. Carla simply disagreed with me strongly. That was fine. Surphing, however, questioned a)my commitment to the sheep and therefore my integrity, b)my discernment and therefore my maturity of character. That is not a ‘style’ thing–that is a very substantial thing. A charge like that is serious (particularly against an elder.) Carla didn’t do that. I asked Surphing what warrant she had not for just disagreeing with my position but for going after my character as a shepherd, and she never answered. When I looked around the website and saw that Surphing does this routinely, I thought it would be at least fair and maybe spiritually useful to call her on it. I don’t know Surphing personally, and maybe she doesn’t interact like this habitually. But there was some evidence of self-righteousness, I thought. So I’ve pointed it out. I’ve done this with a pretty measured tone of voice. If that is ‘shooting the messenger’ (as Nina calls it) I don’t know in what better form you would want your criticism to come.
I know you think this is ‘misdirection’ and just a ploy for avoiding a defense of my position, but if you’d go back and see how Carla invited me to post–she didn’t ask me for a full defense of my views on contemplative spirituality. She just wanted me to explain what I thought was commendable about the book. I did. I won’t be goaded into doing something I wasn’t asked originally to do. Nor is this the place to do it.
Since Nina is now asking me to defend or denounce Karen Mains (!)it is time to respectfully leave this thread. God bless you all. (I mean that. No irony intended at all!)”
Carla said this here:
“In that context I would like to apologize publicly for any unintentional insinuation that I have done this with Pastor Tim Keller. For the record, I do not believe (and never meant to imply) that I think Keller to be “EC”.”
and this clarifies even more another quote from Carla:
“I wrote this today because I wanted to make it as clear as possible, that I am not “attacking” Pastor Tim Keller, or lumping him in unfairly with the ECM. Obviously I don’t agree with Keller on this topic but that doesn’t mean I wish him any ill will or any of the other things I’ve been accused of, accusing him of. The one thing I really want to convey is that this isn’t personal against the man’s character, passion for the lost, or dedication to his church. Ultimately, this really isn’t about Keller at all. Or me, or you. Ultimately this is about Sola Scriptura and how it’s quite literally been abandoned today by so many professing believers.”
9:00 AM
Then Jason said this:
Jason Robertson said…
Fair enough. Thanks for the comment and clarification.
9:08 AM
and he sent me a gracious email which I forwarded to you.
If you want to talk about the regulative principle and contemplative prayer fine but Im really coming from a more SGM Bob Kauflin perspective on that. Seeing that Christ has fulfilled the Old Covenant law and that fulfillment informs my view of the regulative principle.
For no other reason than being fair – since Nina and Denise were brought up here, I’d like any readers to know that I have also responded to the treatment they have also received at my main blog. These sisters are my fellow contributors at ENo but this correspondence didn’t happen there, it happened here.
This comment thread linked above, is being read by many who are not commenting, but just watching (and have emailed me to let me know).
There are a lot of people out there with the same questions that I ask, Denise (aka Surphing), and Nina all ask. The title of this very thread here, asking if it matters to God how we worship, is a critical question.
I am not very familiar with the readership of fide-o, but I suspect to some degree the readership is similar to many blogs – many more readers than commenters. People who are watching & glad these points are being brought up & addressed.
The brothers here at fide-o don’t candy-coat the answers, and I appreciate that kind of straightforwardness. Scripture doesn’t soft-peddle the truth either – so neither should we.
SDG… Carla
How we worship is important–treating people with respect is also important. You did that to Tim Keller, Carla. If you are reading what Tim Keller is saying in the comments of the Reflections of the Times post that you linked to(which I referenced and reposted at my blog)-he is obviously asking graciously for a change in the way that we deal with those we dont agree:
Dear Surphing and Nina–Here’s one last rather plaintive attempt. I don’t see Carla using the same belittling tone you have used with me–putting my theology “reformed” in quotes as if I’m not, talking about my “picking up my marbles,” questioning whether I cared for my sheep as a pastor. Therefore I hope she will explain to her sisters that when they contend for truth with this kind of acerbic sarcasm–even when they are right–it only makes people not want to listen to the truth. I hope you don’t think this is an accusation of arrogance. It isn’t. It’s also not a move to defend myself. The three of you have been on my heart for the whole week. And if Carla deletes this because she thinks its an attack, well, at least she’s seen it.
Tim Keller | Homepage | 03.30.06 – 7:42 am | #
Scott,
Please don’t read this as a set-up…it’s an honest question I have about those who argue for a strict adherence to the regulative principle. Does your church use wine in the Lord’s Supper? If not, how would you say that is different from the Nadab and Abihu illustration given above.
Thanks,
Paul
So what’s the issue… Style or Content?
I mean yea we shouldn’t be flailing out of control, but are we limited to just a pipe organ and a piano or is there more that can be used as long as content is theologically correct?
Cheers!
Scott,
you seem to be rather insistant on bringing that aspect of the conversation up, after it’s already been addressed. While I agree that the way we treat people is important, that really isn’t the focus of this post here at fide-o, nor was it the focus of my disagreement with Keller.
These are two different subjects and since I’ve already addressed Nina & Denise’s method of writing & delivery, I’m not going to keep going back to it.
My interest lies in what’s being endorsed, promoted and practiced in local churches, under the banner of “Christian disciplines”. Too many folks are being drawn in to things that have no place in God’s house.
I look forward to fide-o’s address of this on Monday, Lord willing.
SDG,
Carla
Carla my intention was only to reference the conversation between your blog and Tim Keller as a starting point. Maybe I wrote too much about it in my post. However, I still felt like your original question was very legitimate and I never saw where anyone was disrespectful to Dr. Keller.
My intention is to deal with whether or not these “ancient practices” are biblical. I plan on using the regualative principal in the initial posts.
Paul, I don’t think you are trying to trap me. That is a legitmate question and one I have asked myself numerous times over the last several months as I study church history and reformed worship. I would love to see someone do a thorough post on it, but I am not ready at this time to do so.
We do not currently use wine in communion. I am not going to deal with the Nahab and Abihu illustration for two reasons. One, I don’t want to get sidetracked from my original thought. I do know, however, that the wine issue directly reflects what I am talking about.
Two, using wine at communion is something that all of the Pastors here have talked about. I will admit the possiblility that not using real wine is wrong, but that is a particular issue that the staff is working through. We don’t use it right now, but that is not to say we might not in the future. There are a lot of factors involved, especially in SBC churches. Believe it or not I almost didn’t start theses post on the regulative principal because I knew that very issue may come back and bite me.
So for now that will have to do.
Style or Content? Wrong question. Maybe I will answer it on Monday.
Although I need to learn to quit commiting to certian days to post.
Carla I just realized you were talking to a different Scott. However, my comment still makes sense just change the context.
Hi ScottH – yes, my last comment was meant for ScottB who is posting here, and at his blog, sections of the comment thread from my blog.
Sorry for any confusion.
SDG,
Carla
I realize what you were trying to do Scott and I suppose we have a different view Scott and Carla of how Tim Keller was addressed(many good men feel like he was dealt with very badly).
Your most recent post Carla from this morning on Reflections of the Times was a literal answer to prayer.
The main point I am making is this: while we can be right on our issue whatever is we can still miss the point.
We can be correct on the issue of biblical worship(free from any pagan influences)and we can be wrong about how we treated the person with which we differed on the way to making our point.
We all need to examine ourselves(myself included) and ask are we treating the person with whom we differ the way we want to be treated. Loving your neighbor as yourself is one of the central commands that bears on whether our worship is biblical.
On treating those with whom we differ:
http://www.founders.org/FJ33/article3.html
Some thoughts about the regulative:
http://www.reformed.org/misc/frame_regulative_principle.html
Thanks, Scott, though I’m a little perplexed with your comment “There are a lot of factors involved, especially in SBC churches.”
I understand that on a practical basis. Being in the buckle of the Bible belt I’m well aware of the practical issues involved. But you’ve also quoted the LBC and alluded to the Westminster confessions. If the regulative principle is a confessional matter what latitude is allowable to basically say that a church is bound by the reguulative principle except where Southern Bapitsts have a problem with a particular implication of it and in that case we’re not bound by it?
Just trying to think these things through with you. By the way, I was only using Nadab and Abihu as examples as they were mentioned in the first comment. I wasn’t necessarily asking you to explain it.
I guess a side question is, “Is worship really worship if it is not according to the regulative principle and if not what is it?”
Basically Paul what I mean is I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. To implement a wine in communion policy in our church would require a lot of teaching on the issue. That is all I meant by a lot of factors involved.
You said, “If the regulative principle is a confessional matter what latitude is allowable to basically say that a church is bound by the reguulative principle except where Southern Bapitsts have a problem with a particular implication of it and in that case we’re not bound by it?”
I am not saying this at all. That is why I said that I admit that I might be wrong here. I would say a church is only bound by the regulative principal if it agrees with that the principal is biblical. If you don’t agree then there is no commitment involved at all.
On your last question, I will say worship is not worship if it is not done under the biblical grounds God established for worship. Of course this is broad subject so any answer I give is going to raise more questions. That is why I am doing a series of posts. Basically working through my own thoughts on the subject. I by no means think I have all the answers to this.
ScottH,
you said “I will say worship is not worship if it is not done under the biblical grounds God established for worship.”
And might I say, amen brother. This is exactly the point (and the teaching) that must be firmly established – God Himself has told us in His word what is acceptable to Him and what is not.
In our day of Biblical illiteracy among professing evangelicals, it’s a literal free-for-all when it comes to worship.
I’m looking forward to your thoughts on this, and believe it’s a most timely, most critical issue as the CS (contemplative spirituality) is gaining more and more acceptance (and might I even dare say endorsements?) among otherwise conservative congregations.
SDG,
Carla
I think we should really treat all people with respect…inclduing those in the emerging church..how about it Carla?