The discussion following my last post on church meandered around to the question of how Scripture should shape our congregational meetings. This question has often been cast as a debate between the Normative Principle and the Regulative Principle. Putting it very simply, the Normative Principle says “You’re allowed to do this thing in church so long as Scripture doesn’t forbid it”, whereas the Regulative Principle says “Only do this thing in church if Scripture gives clear warrant to do so”.
Both are aiming for something good. The Regulatives don’t want Scripture to be silenced. They want to take its authority seriously, and let its voice have an active role in shaping congregational life. They don’t want Scripture to be a dusty set of standing orders that only functions to rule out certain things.
The Normatives want to give greater weight to the freedom God has given us to work out the details. They don’t want the particulars of first-century church life to constrict the outworking of church life in other times and places. They want godly flexibility within clear scriptural boundaries.
The dispute arose at the time of the Reformation, and was classically argued out between Richard Hooker (for the Normatives) and the more radical puritans (Thomas Cartright et al., for the Regulatives). The issue at the time was how far one should go in reforming the accumulated Roman Catholic dross of centuries. Given that some things definitely had to go (the Mass, the mediatorial priests, the supreme authority of the Pope, and so on), how far should the razor be permitted to cut? Putting it simply (and I hope not simplistically), Hooker argued that if something was ancient, and approved of by reasonable men, then unless Scripture forbade it, the practice should remain. Cartwright and others argued that this approach did not give Scripture ‘enough say’, and that practices and forms should only survive the axe if Scripture gave them clear warrant.
There’s no room here to go into the intricacies of the historical argument and the consequences that flowed from it, but I have to say that the terms of the dispute have always struck me as odd in light of 1 Corinthians 12-14, and 14:26 in particular: “What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building.”
According to Paul, as he addresses the somewhat chaotic Corinthians, the central principle that should guide whether something is done or not in church is edification. And so if I was a Normative guy, I would regard 1 Corinthians 14:26 as a ‘No’ to any practice (no matter how well-established and regarded) if it had ceased to be edifying (that is, useful for building people in to the congregation, and building them up as members). And if I was a Regulative sort of person, I would regard the same verse as a clear scriptural ‘Yes’ for any practice that was edifying, whether or not I could find an example of it in the New Testament.
Perhaps we should call it the Constructive Principle: do that which builds; don’t do that which does not build. The question then becomes, “What is it that builds?”
[A PS to head off the inevitable comments: I’m not saying that ‘edification’ is the sole purpose or rationale for our congregational meetings, as if they are entirely utilitarian affairs. But it is the central New Testament principle for ordering our gatherings. Also see 1 Peter 4:10-11.]
Based on my limited personal experience, many churches which champion the RP seem to view their corporate time together (i.e. Sunday morning) primarily in terms of worship on the vertical level, at the expense of the horizontal (i.e. the “building up” to which you refer).
And I agree: using the terms “regulative” and “normative” have often seemed unhelpful, even unbiblical. (Does anyone consciously enter into a Sunday morning service thinking “I have to regulate myself!” I ask this rhetorically, but one fears an affirmative answer!
John Frame (who on more than one occasion has helped preserve my sanity on this topic) has a helpful article on the RP: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/RegulativePrinciple.htm
How do we know when something is edifying? Because the Bible says/implies that it’s edifying (regulative), because the Bible doesn’t forbid it from being edifying (normative), or what? If so, we’re back to where we started.
I assume we do not mean subjectivity to be the rule of whether something is edifying or not.
I should add that the Regulative Principle was designed also with Christian Freedom in mind – specifically that the church has no right to bind the practice of any of its members to anything not required and commanded by Scripture.
In answer to: what is it that builds?
If I am understanding Ephesians:
It is the Spirit that builds by the word of truth (gospel – Jesus)
The Spirit is building a dwelling place for God. (Eph 2:22)
The Spirit builds with the word of truth. Hence as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers speak the word of truth they equip the believers for works of ministry for BUILDING up the body of Christ.
So the Spirit builds by his word. Hence gathering (church) along with the rest of life is all about listening to (hearing and doing) the word so that
we can build up the body of Christ (Eph 4:13- reaching maturity – the fullness of Christ.)
We gather to be equipped to build and this is done by hearing and doing the word of truth. We must listen to others talk the word, we must talk (and perhaps sing) that word to others. We could eat together to foster such talk. We would pray with thanksgiving to God to help us to do this building. But we must be equipped by the word for building which will also involve bringing in more bricks for God’s dwelling.
So I reckon we would all be better off if we spent heaps more time than one hour together to do this.
There are heaps of different styles of gathering where this can happen eg a picnic gathering
Please do correct me if I am failing to understand the scriptures.
The thing I’ve always battled to understand with the RP is when that principle starts and ends. It would be hard to justiy by clear NT example using a printed bulletin or playing guitar or serving tea or welcoming at the door. But, unless one views the actual service as the only time needing regulating, then these too need to be shaped by Scripture. The RP certainly seems to lead towards understanding church as an event; something we do rather than something we are.
Philip, the question you wisely raise (and which I really ended the post with) was: How then do we ‘build’? How do we tell something that ‘builds’ from something that doesn’t?
And before I could even think about replying, Dianne pretty much nailed it for us!
TP
I couldn’t help but notice that you’d dropped the “of Worship”. The Regulative Principle is the Regulative Principle of Worship. As important as a text like 2 Tim 3:16-17 might be, if any one text underlay the historical argument for RPW it would be Colossians 2:23 and its critique of “self-made worship”. However, once one goes down the path of re-assessing our use of “worship” language then the RPW goes up for grabs too.
As classically formulated (say in the Westminster Standards) the RPW refers to the “elements of worship” in the context of either family worship or “stated times” of congregational worship, often tied to the “sabbath”. There are a whole raft of theological presuppositions tied up with the RPW which reflects its roots in 16th/17th British Reformed theology but which sit somewhat uncomfortably in a Sydney-Anglican-Evangelical context.
Unfortunately some adherents of the RPW seem to me to be as bound to tradition as adherents of the so-called Normative PW are. However, while adherents of NPW are very aware of their tradition some RPW adherents seem unaware of just how bound to tradition they are.
Personally I think the RPW is a category mistake, but I like the ‘instincts’ of the RPW in allowing the scriptures to more radically critique our congregational practices. And this is where I part company with Michael J’s comments on the original “not a real church” blog. Surely when Michael teaches Christian doctrine, in his critical appropriation of the teaching of the church he distinguishes between his sources and allows scripture to be the only norming norm which itself is not normed by any other. Asking questions about what qualifies as the essence of the church as seen in the NT seems to me to be a necessary precursor to effective critique of church history and historical theology. This is as true of the doctrine of the church as it is of any other doctrine.
Hefin Jones wrote that there are a “whole raft of theological presuppositions tied up with the RPW which reflects its roots in 16th/17th British Reformed theology.” My wife and I have been in a RPW church for a little over a year, so I don’t think we held those “traditions” before we came to our present church.
But for clarity, would Hefin be willing to indicate what some of those presuppositions would be?
Responding to Phil Larson…
Thanks for asking for the clarification. Here goes…
First, neither ‘presupposition’ nor ‘tradition’ in the original post was to be understood pejoratively.
Second, I think it is important to distinguish what I described as theological presuppositions from what I called tradition in my original comment. The RPW is part of a theological package – that’s the way I’m using ‘presuppositions’. My comment about ‘tradition’ in my third paragraph is not about the theological package but more about the actual practice of the RPW as I’ve seen it myself. I’ll return to that in a moment.
Third, some fuller info: the RPW grew out of the Puritan-Separatist wing of the British Reformation though precursors to it can be seen in Calvin and others. The full RPW position is generally held today by those who would subscribe closely to the principal British Reformed Confessions of the 17th Century, namely the Westminster Standards, the Savoy Declaration and Platform, and the 1677/89 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. The RPW depends on a definition of ‘worship’, and on a distinction between ‘elements of worship’ and ‘the circumstances of worship’. Further, notable adherents of the RPW specify its application to the Sunday/Sabbath day ‘stated time of worship’. This position can be clearly seen in the chapter titled “Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day” found in all three of the Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Baptist confessions of the 17th cent. (WCF 21, SD 22, 2LCF 22). Some form of Sabbatarianism (and consequently the third use of the law), a particular definition of ‘worship’ as a type of activity distinct from other forms of obedience, and a distinction between a closed set of elements of worship and an infinitude of possible circumstances are built into classical RPW. What I was pointing out was that this classical RPW position does not sit comfortably within Sydney-Anglican-Evangelicism which frequently questions the third use of the law, sabbatarianism and the traditional Reformed definition as well as the modern Charismatic definitions of ‘worship’.
Fourth, I am aware of significant discussion amongst modern Reformed folk about the meaning of the RPW (folk like Frame, Gore (?), et al). I’ve seen the RPW in practice amongst various stripes of Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist in the UK and Australia, as well as discussed it with Reformed friends in the US. It is clear to me that there is a variety of understanding and application of the RPW. However, some, and note the some, adherents of the RPW confuse their spare, conservative practice of “worship” with the RPW itself. While criticising other churches for holding on to “traditions” (a pejorative term now) they themselves can be blind to the degree of traditionalism that they have adopted. And being blind to it they are largely bound to it. The form (maybe the “circumstances”) of the “elements” have become so set, that they are confused with the “elements” themselves.
I hope that clarifies somewhat what I meant.
< Surely when Michael teaches Christian doctrine, in his critical appropriation of the teaching of the church he distinguishes between his sources and allows scripture to be the only norming norm which itself is not normed by any other. >
You are right, I do. I think my point in the previous post was a point about hermeneuctics, and it is simply this: we read the Bible with an awareness that we are reading it now, and not then. That’s all. It doesn’t change the Bible’s role as the norming norm. But that we read this side of the Reformation (for example) is not insignificant as we think about the doctrine of the church. That is certainly apparent in this discussion!
Reading the Bible in as an heir of the magisterial Reformation you’d recognise there is a worthy history of asking as TP did what is of the <em>esse<em> as opposed to the <em>bene esse<em> of church. It is reductive and it is not intended as the be-all-end-all account of church, but it functions as a crucial criterion in evaluating both the development of church and its current expressions. Calvin’s heirs certainly did use the ‘lopping’ method and the A19 of the 39A is fairly reductive too, isn’t it? Of course we read the Bible situated in a context – and my comments above on the RPW make clear that I’m concerned with the problems that occur when we loose sight of context historically or today.
Michael
I am really concerned about all this.
Didn’t the reformation remind us to look back at scripture? It reminded people that even the ploughman could understand God’s word.
Di
Di – you have misunderstood me.
Of course, the Reformation reasserted the primacy and authority of scripture – with which I concur, of course!
The discussion has moved on a bit from Tony’s comment, and I’ve only just caught up with it.
A few comments:
1) Edification WAS the principle to which Hooker appealed.
2) The RPW reply would be that we can’t trust ourselves to know what is edifying, but we can trust God to reveal that in Scripture. Meditating on candle’s actually isn’t very edifying, no matter how good it feels.
3) Vaughan’s comment about the political setting of the Puritan RPW is important to keep in mind, it means that holding a version of the RPW may lead to different applications and concerns in the 21st C.
4) If we acknowledge that edification is one important purpose in church and that whatever-you-call -consciously-engaging-with God-in -hearing-his-word-and-response (I think there is a shorter expression which starts with ‘w’) is another then how do they relate? We do one as we do the other. So if God determines the terms on which we relate to him and the way in which we do that, then the RPW will apply in edification as well.
5) This can be a storm in a tea cup. I have friends who love the RPW and want to have prayer, Bible reading, song, preaching and sacraments when the meet; and I have friends who’ve never heard of it and who profess to detest it, and guess what they want to do in church?!