1 of 20

The Regulative Principle David Robertson Introduction Once in a somewhat heated discussion I heard a young man declare, stuff the regulative principle, what does that have to do with the Bible? Why dont we just get on with worshipping God? Sadly such an attitude is not uncommon even within Free Church circles. Even those who say they support and advocate the regulative principle are sometimes at a loss to describe what it actually is. This paper seeks to answer that question and to examine its relevance to the current debate within the Free Church on the question of public worship. The answer to the young mans question was that we do have to worship God, but we need to know how. The regulative principle is key to helping us answer that question. What is the regulative principle? It is simply the doctrine that nothing is to be prescribed or permitted in the worship of God, except that which God has expressly commanded. Often this is contrasted with what is termed the Lutheran view, which is that as long as Scripture does not expressly ban it, then it may be used. There have been millions of words written about this subject and although the title may appear to many Christians to be somewhat esoteric, it remains the case that the worship of God is surely the most important thing that we can engage in. It is after all why we were created. For the purposes of clarity let me simply state the pre-suppositions that are behind this paper. i) Although the term worship is rightly used for the whole of life, in this paper we are referring to the public worship of Gods people when they meet together collectively for that purpose. ii) Scripture is the ultimate authority for all that we do. Church tradition and councils must of course be taken into account (it would be a chronological snobbery of the worst kind to think that we had nothing to learn from our forefathers) but as the WCF points out, synods may err, and we are not ultimately bound by them. Sola Scriptura must always be the standard and practice of the Biblical Church. iii) Although there are valuable insights to be learned from different branches of the Christian church throughout the ages, for the sake of brevity and clarity, this paper will be confined to what is know as the Reformed Church, i.e. Those churches which derive from the Protestant Reformation and in particular, the Calvinistic tradition. 1) Is the Regulative Principle Biblical? There are many biblical passages which teach that God is concerned about how he is to be worshipped. The view that as long as we worship God it does not matter how we worship him, is flatly contradicted by the scriptural data. This has long been the understanding of reformed theologians. John Calvin

2 of 20
argues that the letter to the Colossians teaches us that we are not to seek from men the doctrine of the true worship of God, for the Lord has faithfully and fully instructed us how he is to be worshipped1. In addition he declares: Let it, I say be our fixed principle that the voice of the Shepherd alone is to be heard, that of strangers guarded against and rejected.2 Although the doctrine of the worship of God is clearly taught throughout scriptures, there are some texts that are more frequently used to justify the regulative principle. I list these below: Exodus 20:4-6 The Second Commandment. Leviticus 10:1-3 Nadab and Abihu and the offering of strange fire. Deuteronomy 12:28-32 Offering false worship. 1 Samuel 13:8-14 Sauls unauthorised worship. 1 Chronicles 13:9-14 and 15:11-15 The death of Uzzah. Mark 7:7-13 The commandments of God and the traditions of men. John 4:20-24 Worship in Spirit and in Truth. Colossians 2:20-23 Will worship. The Trouble with the Regulative Principle The problem is not with the Regulative Principle but rather with the practical out workings of it. There is no one who teaches that everything we do in worship has to be prescribed by Scripture. For example the fact that we use electric light, or the timing of services is not prescribed by Scripture and no one claims that it should be. The traditional understanding has thus been to make a distinction between the elements of worship and the circumstances of worship. We are not at liberty to change, add to, or take away from the elements of worship, but the circumstances are variable. The trouble is how do we know which is which? 2) The Historic Understanding of the Reformed Church Given the simplest understanding of the regulative principle it would seem that things should have been clear. God tells us how we are to worship him in his Word and we obey. All the Reformed confessions teach the regulative principle: The Belgic Confession article 32; Heidelberg Catechism 93; Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1742, all agree with the Westminster Confession on this. But the history of the Reformed Church clearly demonstrates that whereas the principle was in general agreed and established, the application of it, differed. In fact as Dr John Ross argues If uniformity of worship marked the unreformed Church, the Reformation introduced diversity3. Even a casual reading of church history post reformation confirms this analysis. There were differences between Lutherans and Zwinglians, Anglicans and Calvinists, Presbyterians and Puritans. The strictest interpretation of the regulative principle was developed in England during Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. McNeill) Westminster John Knox Press (revised 2006). Book IV:10:8 2 Calvin: Selected writings of John Calvin: (ed. Beresley and Barnet) Baker (1983). Vol3. P.242. 3 Ross, John: Thoughts on Worship, Covenant and Change www.johnsturatross.wordpress.com/worship
1

3 of 20
the period from the Elizabethan settlement in 1550 to the end of the English Civil War in 1660. Although the differences are sometimes exaggerated there is a clear distinction between the practice of John Calvin and the later puritans, as JI Packer demonstrates in his paper on The Puritan Approach to Worship: Diversity in Unity. Calvin was prepared to allow greater latitude in adiaphora (things indifferent) than the later puritans. Hughes Old argues that the Reformers did not intend to make a choice between what is not forbidden is allowed and what is not commanded is not allowed. Calvin for example, kept Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, and Ascension. Knox got rid of them all. The Anglicans went more along Lutheran lines. Article 34 of the 39 articles states: It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times and mens manners, so that nothing be ordained against Gods Word. The Scottish church came somewhere in between the Anglican and Puritan positions. With regard to the Church of Scotland, it avoided the severe application of the Puritan regulative principle of worship, thus allowing for diversity of practice in matters deemed indifferent, but useful, by the Scots.4 Amongst the puritans there was disagreement as well. Baxter was happy to use liturgy but Owen was strongly against. In 1662 he wrote his Discourse concerning liturgies and their imposition in which he argued against all set liturgies, including the Lords Prayer, thus going against the Westminster Directory for Public Worship. The later puritans also sought the removal of all ecclesiastical garb on the grounds that it was a violation of the regulative principle. Again it illustrates the somewhat selective and arbitrary nature of much of todays discussion where there are those who argue that singing hymns is against the regulative principle, but wearing a dog collar is not. In terms of the current discussions in the Free Church it is relevant to note the Puritan position on singing. Calvin encouraged the singing of the 150 psalms, but also included the Apostles Creed and the Magnificate as suitable for singing. However by the time we get to the mid-17th century there were those who were opposed to any singing whatsoever, because it was seen as being against the regulative principle. Although psalms were well established by the middle of the 17th century (Marots psalms were published in 1562, the Anglo-Genevan psalter of 1556, Rous Psalter in 1641), some puritans were opposed to singing of any kind. There were those who were opposed to singing Davids psalms in metre because it involved an alteration of the words in the scriptures and was contrary to the regulative principle. Baptists and Congregationalists were often opposed to any singing. Even when it happened it was argued that the regulative principle would only allow one person to sing (as there was only one person praying or preaching). The General Baptist Assembly of 1689 for example declared of congregational psalm singing, It was not deemed any way safe for the churches to admit such carnal formalities.the singing of one was the same as singing of the whole, as prayers of the one are the
4

Gore, R.J: Covenantal Worship Presbyterian and Reformed (2002). P.51.

4 of 20
prayers of the whole congregation.5 In some churches women were prohibited from singing because they were to be silent. In others unbelievers were told not to sing. All this demonstrates that the simple adoption of the regulative principle does not mean there will be unanimity or uniformity. It also proves that there never was a golden age where all the Reformed were agreed that the regulative principle meant exclusive psalmody with no instrumental music. The argument for exclusive psalmody was simply that all elements of worship were prescribed; song is an element of worship; scripture prescribes singing of psalms; it does not prescribe any other songs in worship; therefore song in worship is limited to psalms. It should be noted that this did not prevent the 1707 Assembly allowing for paraphrases of other parts of Scripture. In fact it is the case that exclusive psalmody has never been the legislative position of the Scottish Presbyterian church although the understanding and practice of many in the 20th century Free Church was that this was what the regulative principle demanded. Later developments included the paraphrasing of the psalms by Isaac Watts and then during the Methodist revival the development of popular hymnody. It is interesting to note Wesleys Rule for Methodist Singers Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing him more than yourself or any other creature. In order to do this, attend strictly to the sense of what you sing and see that your heart is not carried away with the sound, but offered to God continually.6 As regards the use of instrumental music Calvin and the Puritans were at one in being opposed to the use of church organs. In later years the case against instrumental music was uttered most strongly in the 19th century by John L Girardeau in his work, Instrumental Music in Public Worship. The biggest problem with Girardeaus argument is that it uses a dispensational argument which depends on the practice of the synagogue, but as Graham Keith points out in his paper, The argument for the practice of the synagogue, we do not know what the 1st century practice in the synagogue was, and furthermore it is surely against the regulative principle itself to allow anything other than the explicit commands of scripture to determine our practice. It is also noteworthy that the founding father of the Free Church, Thomas Chalmers, had no difficulty in speaking in support of instrumental music in public worship (obviously the ordination vows he drew up did not preclude such support!). Let me not undervalue instrumental music in church, when I find that here it is called in to give utterance and effect to such sentiments as are breathed forth in this ode. (Chalmers comments on Psalm 92).7

Cited in Horton Davies: The Worship of the English Puritans Soli Deo Gloria Publications (1997). P172. 6 Cited in Roberts, Vaughan: True Worship Authentic (2002). P.76 7 Cited by Hay Thorburn in his valedictory address. Daily Readings Vol.3.p 100.

5 of 20
3) What is the Current Understanding and Practice of the Reformed Church? Gore argues, It may be fair to state, that in practice today, there is no widely received formula or regulative principle of worship among evangelical Presbyterians.8 In my view this is something of an exaggeration. In the course of preparing this paper I contacted over forty Reformed church leaders throughout the world and asked them what their understanding of the regulative principle is, and what their practice is. These leaders were in different denominations and organizations. Not all responded but of those who did the answers were very consistent. The vast majority accepted the regulative principle as traditionally understood, but almost all did not accept that the regulative principle meant acapella singing of the psalms. Whilst there is agreement on what the regulative principle is, there is some disagreement on how it applies, although this is not as widespread as Gore and others would have us believe. The majority view is that whilst there were detailed prescriptions for worship in the OT temple, such prescriptions are either far fewer or non-existent in the NT. An example of this is the response from Ranald Macaulay, director of Christian Heritage in Cambridge, citing his father-in-law, Francis Schaeffer. Clearly he intends us to live within an organised structure and our times together do need to be governed by a respect for doing things in a seemly manner etc. But if I take anything from Jesus teaching and practice in the NT it is his unwillingness to kowtow to formulas invented by man! So all Christian activities, whether in the home or in institutions like schools or choirs etc should demonstrate this aspect of humanness - of being willing to be flexible and not too rigid, of experimenting with new things almost as a principle to show that we KNOW that things aren' t set in concrete - especially when we take into account the huge diversity of the human race historically and geographically. And behind this principle in turn lies the even deeper sense of freedom with which God has blessed us, namely that we are made to be free - I mean as human beings (i.e. not animals or machines) Because of this inherent feature of all human social life, its diversity and essential freedom, the Scripture doesn' t give us a rigid formula for each and every activity. It tells us we need to meet together and sing and have the Lord' s Supper etc - but does it spell out exactly how to do each of these things? No!9 The Dutch Church responded: The bible does not teach us to keep a particular specific order to celebrate liturgy. There are certain elements in the worship service that should always be present: reading, preaching, worship, prayers and also a regular celebration of the sacraments. That means the church has got a lot of freedom and responsibilities. Another type of response was from those who are fed up with some of the shallow and superficial worship they perceive, but who think that the Free Church goes too far in our restrictions. One man wrote; I would like to add that whereas I have no problem with musical instruments and other than
8

Cited in Ryken, Thomas and Duncan (ed): Give Praise to God Presbyterian and Reformed (2003). P.77 9 Personal Correspondence November 2009

6 of 20
metrical psalms, MUCH of the praise choruses that are sung in many churches today are rubbish. Any song of worship that I could easily sing to my wife, I consider as rubbish in terms of their worship value. That is, the Jesus is my boyfriend, lover types of choruses need to be removed forever from worship in all churches. Worship is not about how I feel or think or perceive at any particular moment. It is not about me, me, me; my relationship with my best friend who I love so much, and for whom I will do so much during my life time, etc. Worship is about Jesus; what he has done for us; who he is; what he continually does; his faithfulness; his love; his grace and mercy; etc. Thus a complete purging of the Jesus is my boyfriend, lover type praise choruses should enable any church to worship in truth and spirit! That is where we are on safe ground when singing the psalms, except for the novice in the faith where a good exegesis of the psalms before singing them should help in discovering the Christo-centric truth of each psalm. But I believe that is asking too much for a worship service. One last comment is also typical of the responses received: it always seemed to me that if David could use the dulcimer or harp, that would be the equivalent of musical instruments today; and songs and hymns show two kinds of hymnology; one for Scripture and the other for choruses or hymns. The reason for singing songs in addition to Old Testament psalms are clearly stated by those who do so. For example Dr Doug Kelly, a keen exponent of the regulative principle, argues for inclusive psalm singing: I am not at all convinced that the regulative principle calls for exclusive psalmody. It seems likely that the New Testament itself contains fragments of hymns (some of them substantial), and covenantally speaking, after we have experienced the bodily reality of the incarnate Lord, who was pointed forward to so eloquently by the Psalms, it seems proper that new songs should be forthcoming, which reflect the greater knowledge we have of Him, His names, person and work. That is definitely the case in the last book of the Bible, where they sing the Song of Moses and the Lamb. If the saints and angels are singing a new song above, could it be wrong for the believers below to sing new songs based on his completed work and continuing ministry?10 As John Ross, summarizing David Brown from the 19th Century points out, The Christocentric orientation of New Testament worship not only justified but required the use of Christian hymns..If the sacraments, the prayers, the reading, and the preaching of new covenant worship all exalt Christ plainly and explicitly, is it not indeed anomalous that the Church should be forbidden to utter in its songs the name of the one who is the object of all its praise?11 Derek Thomas questions the hermeneutic of exclusive psalmody: "I find it an odd hermeneutic to say, I can pray to Jesus, I can read publicly Jesus, I can preach Jesus, but I can' t sing Jesus...and that to me is really odd. I have moved from Old Covenant into New Covenant - I assume even my exclusive psalmody brothers when they get to heaven will sing the song of the Lamb....its an odd hermeneutic to bring our reading into the

10 11

Kelly, Doug: The Puritan Regulative Principle (Unpublished paper-1993). P.31 Ross, John: op cit

7 of 20
New Covenant, our preaching into the New Covenant, but not our singing"12 John Frame is amongst many who charge those who advocate exclusive psalmody with inconsistency. If psalms are an element of worship then so are prayer and preaching, so why dont we use only the written prayers of the bible (which are surely the inspired Word of God and better than any merely human prayers) or the written sermons (which again are clearly the inspired Word of God in contrast to our human sermons)? Frame also lists a series of objections which are largely held by most Reformed people. Scripture no where says that the psalms are the only books of praise; although psalms must be sung and are to be the model for our praise, they are not adequate on their own for Christian worship; furthermore why do we sing uninspired paraphrases of psalms? Others who are more sympathetic to the traditional understanding of the regulative principle also do not accept that it requires exclusive psalmody There is at least one denomination in the Reformed tradition that sings only psalms for Sunday morning worship. They reason that the psalms were inspired by God, so there is no danger of bad theology in their words. They sing that whatever we sing should be the Word of God. I dont think we need to go that far but whatever we sing must be consistent with the Word of God.13 Likewise Dr Ligon Duncan, a good friend of the Free Church, explains, We are to sing the Bible. This does not mean that we can sing only psalms or sing only the language of Scripture, though this tremendous theological resource of the church should not be overlooked. What we mean by sing the Bible is that our singing ought to be biblical, shot through with the language, categories, and theology of the Bible.14 On the question of instrumental music there is more sympathy here for the current Free Church practice, although again almost no one does, or wants to, follow our practice. And no one agreed that the regulative principle forbids the use of instrumental music in praise. Indeed the general view is that musical instruments are commanded by Scripture. R C Sproul comments on Psalm 150 Clearly God sanctioned the use of many different instruments for worship.15 Some point out that instruments were used in other than temple worship (e.g. Exodus 15:20 Miriam). Furthermore the early Church Fathers were against instrumental music in the church because they were against instrumental music per se, associating it with the pagan temple worship. The current puritan position of banning it from church but using it elsewhere was completely unknown to them. Some also question the use of pitch pipes why use them and then ban the whole congregation from being given the tune of instrumental accompaniment? In addition the bible never says that all parts of temple worship were destroyed. The temple was after all a house of prayer and no-one is saying that we should not pray! Derek Thomas again questions the hermeneutic: "I find it an odd hermeneutic that OT use of instruments which cannot be denied in the Temple was part of the ceremonial law - what does that mean? Those in some way the musical instruments pointed to Jesus and in some way were fulfilled at the coming of Jesus. I just find that really weird hermeneutic. Rather than the obvious -that the reason why instruments were
12 13

Speaking on The Reformed Forum 31/07/2009. Sproul, R.C: A Taste of Heaven; Worship in the Light of Eternity Reformation Trust (2006). P.159 14 Ryken, Thomas and Duncan (ed): Give Praise to God Presbyterian and Reformed (2003). P.67 15 Sproul, R.C: op cit p.152

8 of 20
employed in worship was to accompany worship, to provide the base for leading a tune to the glory of God"16 In general there is little or no support for our position in the wider Reformed church. Even those who admire our stance tend to do so in the sense of regarding us a plucky Scots going against the tide. It is not something that they would do. They like to visit us because we are quaint in much the same way that they might like to ride a horse rather than go by car interesting and fun to do occasionally but not something that you would normally do! Others think that we have ossified: The smaller Presbyterian churches, and particularly the Free Church and the Free Presbyterians have allowed their worship to ossify..in their own eyes their worship is preserving evangelical purity; to others, and to many of their own young people, it is tedious, didactic and somber17 4) Conclusion: Where do we go from here? In summary I would state the current position as follows: a) The regulative principle is clearly taught in Scripture and has been adhered to by the vast majority of reformed churches. b) Whilst the principle itself is generally agreed upon, the application of the principle is not. The question of what are elements and what are circumstances is the key issue. c) With the few exception of the handful of small churches which have their origins in Scots/Irish Presbyterianism, there is almost unanimous agreement in the Reformed church today that the application of the regulative principle does not require psalms only and the banning of musical instruments. d) Furthermore current Free Church practice is neither one nor the other. To ban the use of musical instruments in church but have them at home would have astounded the Early Church Fathers. To ban them on a Sunday morning in a Free Church but allow them on a Sunday evening in a youth fellowship or another church would have puzzled the Free Church Fathers. e) A considerable number of Free Church ministers and elders now no longer accept that the use of instrumental music or the singing of hymns is unbiblical and sinful. Indeed in personal correspondence and conversation I am struggling to find more than a handful who would accept the 1905/1910 position. If the only reason we hold on to our practice is tradition then the Free Church will have abandoned the doctrine of sola scriptura and Christ being the sole head of the Church. We will also have abandoned any possibility of church discipline.

16 17

The Reformed Forum op cit. Forrester, Duncan: Studies in the History of Worship in Scotland 2nd Edition T and T Clark (1996)

9 of 20
f) One possibility is that we go the route of the Reformed Presbyterians and remove from office anyone who does not agree with the exclusive psalmody acapella position. In my view that will be the end of the Free Church. g) However I believe that we have a real and distinctive contribution to make to the wider Church, because of our worship practice and experience, if we adapt and change sensitively and biblically. It is possible for us to retain what is good and not throw out the baby with the bath water. Indeed if we reform in a biblical way then we may well end up being the only denomination in Scotland which takes the regulative principle seriously and manages to apply it to contemporary culture. If the Free Church is to a biblical reformed Church then, in the opinion of the writer we need to do the following: i) We need to uphold and reaffirm the teaching of the WCF on the regulative principle (21:1, 20:2 and 1:6). 21:1 The light of nature shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and does 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 with 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 devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. 20:2 God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. 1:6 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: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: 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. These are wonderful statements and guidelines that we need to think about, reflect upon and act on. The WCF men were so concerned about this because they were so concerned with God. There is a

10 of 20
balance and a depth in these teachings that we need to apply. Cunningham correctly points out that 1:6 is a modification of the regulative principle. It would be wise of the Free Church to recognize that and allow that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God which can be ordered differently. Free Church elder Graham Keith makes an important observation on this: Later debates on the Regulative Principle, at least in Presbyterian circles, have sometimes been characterised by a failure to realise how much the Confession has left unsaid, especially in the key area of the distinction between elements and circumstances. As a result, controversy has turned on such issues as the appropriate material to sing in church and whether instrumental music is warranted in public worship. Compared with the range and importance of issues raised in the 16th and 17th centuries, these questions take on a secondary role. They are surely mere footnotes to the more momentous issues raised in the 16th and 17th centuries.18 ii) We need to be quite precise in our understanding of the regulative principle. It is not that we require a specific text for everything that we do. In that sense we would be no different from our adult Baptist brothers who argue that because there is no specific command to baptise children, we should not do it. The regulative principle is better understood as whatever is not commanded by Scripture, or warranted by it, is not allowed. Dr Derek Thomas helpfully defines the regulative principle as nothing must be required as essential to public worship except that which is commanded by the Word of God.19 The key thing here is that whilst nothing can be required as essential unless commanded by the Word of God, there are things that can be helpful which can be used. For example it is an essential part of New Testament worship that the Word is read and preached, it is not an essential part that it is read and preached in a building specifically set apart for that purpose. According to a strict and consistent interpretation of the regulative principle, church buildings should be banned, but taking the more nuanced and balanced biblical and confessional view, buildings, whilst not essential to public worship, may nonetheless be useful. Instruments likewise are not essential to Christian worship, but they can be helpful and used within the guidelines of Scripture, aid and assist our worship. iii) We need a reaffirmation of the headship and sole priesthood of Christ. It is his Church, not ours, and we must always be asking, What does the Shepherd say? In this respect it should go without saying that our worship must be biblical. Not only must we not add to the bible we must not take away from it. That is why those who believe that the regulative principle gives us every detail of how we are to worship today end up in so much trouble. Whilst there is a great deal of regulation for temple worship in the Old Testament, there is none for synagogue worship and no detailed New Testament instructions. As Don Carson argues: There is no single passage in the New Testament that establishes a paradigm for corporate worship.20 Indeed there is explicit teaching that states that the detailed regulations for worship have now gone. They were only external regulations applying until the time
18 19

Keith, Graham: The Regulative Principle (Unpublished). P.18. Ryken, Thomas and Duncan (ed): Give Praise to God Presbyterian and Reformed (2003). P.75 20 Carson, D A (ed): Worship by the Book Zondervan (2002). P.55

11 of 20
of the new order (See Hebrews 9:1-10). To attempt to apply an OT understanding of the regulative principle is self-contradictory, because it goes against the NT understanding. The NT does give us the elements, but only the elements. We must not turn circumstances, traditions or personal or cultural preferences into essential elements. iv) We need to know what are the essential elements? Most Reformed commentators are in agreement on the substance of this. Acts 2:42 gives us the four pillars built upon the rock that is Christ and the foundation of the apostles and prophets. These are the apostles doctrine, the fellowship, prayer and the breaking of bread. To these, or included in these, are the reading of scripture, collection, and the sacraments. Nowhere in the New Testament is it even suggested that singing psalms only or the nonuse of instrumental music is an element. And there is no obvious logic or reason when we try to argue that church buildings, clerical dress or versions of the Bible are mere circumstances whereas using a piano is an element, or worse still, singing the name of Jesus is an element which should be banned. The Free Church is in the wonderful position of having a rich heritage of psalm singing; we have an excellent modern Psalter. We should never be in the situation where we abandon psalm singing but it may be that in allowing (as the regulative principle would warrant) other biblical materials of praise and musical accompaniment, we would enhance and encourage, rather than detract from the importance of the psalms. v) We need to ascertain whether the regulative principle permits us to sing anything other than psalms. The question would be better framed; does the regulative principle allow us to forbid the singing of biblical hymns and spiritual songs? The exegesis that Ephesians 5:18-19 and Colossians 3:16 simply mean psalms, psalms and psalms is at best stretched and at worst, eisegesis (reading into scripture what is not there). It is difficult to come across many major commentators who uphold that interpretation. From a theological perspective it has sometimes been argued that we should still sing the psalms only because God never changes, and of course his praise is always the same.21 Clearly this is theologically, biblically and logically weak. If that were the case then we would still have Old Testament temple worship and the Levitical priesthood and there would be no possibility of singing to the Lord a new song. In fact there is a case for arguing that exclusive psalmody, if not commanded in scripture, is itself a breaching of the regulative principle and therefore a binding of conscience. It is easy to sympathise with those who ask if the ban on stringed instruments to sing songs which were named psalms precisely because they were accompanied on stringed instruments, is not itself an invention of man? Bushell argues that The failure in fact, of so many in recent days to attain to a correct apprehension of the teaching of the Confession with regard to the regulative principle of worship derives, in almost every instance from a failure to understand adequately the distinction between essential and circumstantial parts of worship.22 If this were the case then we would expect Bushell and others to be
21 22

Cooke and Edgar (ed): The True Psalmody James Gemmell (1883). P.211 Bushell, Michael: Songs of Zion Crown and Covenant Publications 3rd edition (1999). P.131

12 of 20
able to point us in the right direction and get us out of our confusion. But alas he only makes things worse. He goes on to explain An essential or substantial part of worship, on the other hand, is any action that have been invested, by divine or human prescription, with religious or spiritual significance.23 What does this mean? That a human can prescribe what is an essential or substantial part of worship? Therein lies the road to anarchy. Again he ties himself in knots and shows the impossibility of trying to turn man made rules into Gods commands. Because the words of the songs sung in scriptural worship have spiritual and religious significance, they must also be considered to be substantial parts of worship, and do not therefore lie within the realm of the discretionary power of the Church.24 Again this definition creates more problems than it solves. Are prayer and preaching not substantial parts of worship? Why then do we not just use the prayers or the words of the Bible? Is the church building, or the ministers clerical garb not a substantial part of worship (many certainly consider them to be so)? All Bushell has done is illustrate the confusion when you try to apply an OT worship paradigm to NT worship. The shoe just does not fit. vi) We need to reject the concept of absolute uniformity of worship. Those who argue for uniformity of worship need to be reminded that adherence to the regulative principle, as we have already said, does not bring about uniformity of worship practice it did not in the 17th century any more than it does today.25 In actual fact those who advocate uniformity of worship cannot turn to the regulative principle for support, because that very principle undermines such uniformity. If we are only warranted to command what is commanded in Scripture, and if the commands in Scripture are limited to the essentials, then uniformity of worship across generations and cultures is impossible. John Ross points out Whether in the hands of Anglican or Presbyterian, uniformity of worship has been a blunt instrument to impose a majority position on a reluctant minority. I suspect the current cry for uniformity of worship on the part of some Free Church folk has as its objective their personal liturgical comfort, that is, to travel throughout the Free Church and nowhere find anything to jar their preferences regardless of the convictions and proclivities of individual congregations26 This perhaps explains why some who would fight to the end any attempt to change anything within the Free Church in Scotland, seem to have little difficulty in supporting and helping our sister churches overseas who have a different practice. By exchanging the doctrine of uniformity of worship for the more biblical doctrine of unity in diversity, we will also avoid the fears that some have of being compelled to change in their local situation. In passing permissive legislation none would be compelled to change, but none would be unbiblically restricted, and the divisiveness that follows from that. vii) We need to focus our worship on Christ and not be afraid of following him. The authenticating, inner essence of worship is being satisfied with Christ, prizing Christ, cherishing Christ, treasuring
23 24

Bushell op cit. p.132 Bushell op. cit. p.134 25 Thomas op. cit. p.83 26 Ross, John: op cit.

13 of 20
Christ.27 There is a fear that hymns will inevitably lead to heresy. This is sometimes accompanied by the rather proud notion that our form or worship is somehow pure at least in comparison to others. This is, to say the least, not immediately evident. Is the only thing keeping the Free Church from heresy exclusive psalmody? John Ross deals with this question well. The fear is sometimes expressed, that the passing of permissive legislation would remove all controls and constraints. I believe this to be scaremongering. An examination of the worship of other conservative, Confessional Presbyterian churches would readily dispel such alarms. If permissive legislation regarding the use of hymnody were to be passed, the regulation of sung material would then function in precisely the same way as the regulation of preaching and praying. If we do not submit sermons for approval prior to being preached, or record prayers for theological analysis afterwards, then neither should we insist on prior approval being granted regarding what is sung. Confessional subscription must imply trust28. vii) We need to develop a contemporary Calvinistic application of the regulative principle for use in 21st century Scotland and beyond. Given the teaching of the WCF above it seems that Tim Kellers view that we forge our worship best when we take into account the Bible, the cultural context of our community and the historic tradition of our church, is one that should commend itself to the Free Church. We are not free to introduce, or withdraw, essential elements of worship. There must be scriptural warrant for all that we do. Gods character, Word and Gospel must govern our worship of him. We read the Bible, sing the Bible, pray the Bible, teach the Bible and see the Bible (in the sacraments). But we are to implement those elements in the cultural context in which we live and the historic tradition of our church. Bryan Chapell in his outstanding book Christ Centred worship provides us with a helpful definition: The goal for our worship should not simply be to honour tradition, or naively to assume there are no abiding truths to guide us, but rather to recognize that God has set an agenda for our worship that takes precedence over human tradition or preference. That agenda can have many variations, but it cannot vary from re-presenting the gospel without ultimately doing damage to the church.29 viii) Finally we must deal with the threat of disunity. I have been in the ministry long enough to know that there are those in the church who continually use the threat of disunity to manipulate or bully (do this and I will leave). We have to be more mature than that, or we will not survive. There is absolutely no need to split the Church over this. In this respect the words of Dr Iain D Campbell are wise There is also the fact that we get hung up on secondary issues. For the New Testament church, there was only one issue: far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. That was the primary, driving force behind the work of the New Testament church: how to lift up the cross and how to evangelise a lost world.30 Dr Campbell went on to opine that the apostle Paul would have found our worship wars entirely distressing and unnecessary. He then concluded, The vision of the Disruption Fathers was of one Scottish Church which would be free to regulate its own affairs in
27 28

Piper, John Brothers we are not Professionals Crossway. P.236. Ross, John: op cit. 29 Chapell, Bryan: Christ Centred Worship Baker (2009). P.101. 30 Campbell, Iain D cit on www.johnstuartross.wordpress.com/worship/ May 28th 2009.

14 of 20
the light of the teaching of the Word of God. Have we lost that vision? Perhaps the day has come, for the sake of the Gospel, when we need to express our unity not just in spirit but in organization, allowing latitude for divisions on secondary matters, in order that we can be more effective as the body of Christ in Scotland. A more excellent use and statement of the truly reformed understanding of the regulative principle would be hard to find! There is scope for unity in diversity. Perhaps in a paper of this nature it is appropriate to leave the last word to John Calvin. I mean that the Lord has in his sacred oracles faithfully embraced and clearly expressed both the whole sum of true righteousness, and all aspects of the worship of his majesty, and whatever was necessary to salvation therefore, in these the Master alone is to be heard. But because he did not will in outward disciplines and ceremonies to prescribe in detail what we ought to do (because he foresaw that this depended upon the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages,), here we must take refuge in those general rules which he has given, that whatever the necessity of the church will require for order and decorum should be tested against these. Lastly, because he has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones. Indeed, I admit that we ought not to charge into innovation rashly, suddenly, for insufficient cause. But love will best judge, what may hurt or edify; and if we let love be our guide, all will be safe.31 Bibliography Beaton, Iain To the Glory of God (Unpublished paper Oct 2007) Bushell, Michael: Songs of Zion Crown and Covenant Publications 3rd edition (1999). Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. McNeill) Westminster John Knox Press (revised 2006). Calvin: Selected writings of John Calvin: (ed. Beresley and Barnet) Baker (1983). Campbell, Iain D Blog cited on www.johnstuartross.wordpress.com/worship Carson, D A (ed): Worship by the Book Zondervan (2002). Chapell, Bryan: Christ Centred Worship Baker (2009). Cooke and Edgar (ed): The True Psalmody James Gemmell (1883) Cunningham, William The Reformers and the Regulative Principle Banner of Truth (1960). Forrester, Duncan: Studies in the History of Worship in Scotland 2nd Edition T and T Clark (1996) Frame, John: Worship in Spirit and Truth- Presbyterian and Reformed (1996). Girardeau, John L: Instrumental Music in Public Worship- New Covenant Publication Society (1983 reprint of the 1888 edition). Gore, R.J: Covenantal Worship Presbyterian and Reformed (2002). Horton Davies: The Worship of the English Puritans Soli Deo Gloria Publications (1997).
31

Calvin op. cit 4:10:30

15 of 20
Johnson, Terry L: Leading in Worship Oak Ridge Covenant Foundation (1996) Keith Graham: The Regulative Principle (Unpublished). Kelly, Doug: The Puritan Regulative Principle (Unpublished paper-1993). Macleod, Donald (ed): Hold Fast Your Confession Knox Press (1978). Packer, J I: A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life Crossway (1990). Piper, John Brothers we are not Professionals Crossway. P.236. Roberts, Vaughan: True Worship Authentic (2002). Ross, John: Thoughts on Worship, Covenant and Change www.johnsturatross.wordpress.com/worship Ryken, Thomas and Duncan (ed): Give Praise to God Presbyterian and Reformed (2003). Sproul, R.C: A Taste of Heaven; Worship in the Light of Eternity Reformation Trust (2006). Appendix: Graham Keiths Paper on the Synagogue. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE PRACTICE OF THE SYNAGOGUE In an essay describing what was effectively standard Free Church practice on purity of worship for the 20th century, the late Hector Cameron made much of synagogue practice, particularly in respect of the absence of instrumental music. He affirmed that all OT references to the use of instrumental music in worship related to the temple, and had a typological significance which was now superseded in the NT era by the plentiful outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of Gods people. This gave them an inner spiritual joy which made the sort of outward joy associated with the playing of musical instruments redundant.32 Today Christians should follow the pattern not of the temple, but of the synagogues which Cameron, following John Girardeau, believed were established early in Israels history. Their activities, intended by God for permanent observance, included the reading and exposition of Gods Word, exhortation, prayers, the singing of psalms and the giving of alms. And when it came to psalm-singing, Cameron quotes the conclusion of Girardeau, the well-ascertained practice of post-exilic synagogues clearly established the absence of instrumental music from these weekly assemblies.33 Unfortunately, modern scholarship will no longer support the view that Cameron and Girardeau take of these synagogues. And this has serious implications for the whole case presented by Cameron. If there is little OT evidence for the functioning of synagogues and if synagogue practice even up to the

The essay is contained in (ed.) Donald Macleod, Hold Fast Your Confession (Knox Press, Edinburgh 1978) 95-128. 33 Ibid. 120 Cameron is alluding to J. L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in Public Worship, (Richmond 1888) 41-49.

32

16 of 20
time of Christ remains obscure, then any contemporary formulation of the Regulative Principle cannot be based on synagogue procedures.34 What do we know of the synagogue? Paul F. Bradshaw begins his book The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship with an explanation and description of the revolution which took place in Jewish liturgical studies in the rough period from 1960 to 1990. The revolution had occurred not because of the emergence of new sources, but as a result of a more careful analysis of the original source material. The major difficulty is the lateness of the source material available to us. The earliest comprehensive Jewish prayer book dates from as late as the 9th century. Earlier scholarship had assumed that it was possible to distinguish different layers in this material, with the assistance of comments on and discussion of liturgical matters found in the Misnah, Tosefta and Talmud. More recent scholarship is not so sure and even the earliest of these documents, the Misnah, dates from the end of the 2nd century CE. 35 If we wish to determine what Jewish worship was like at the time of Jesus, the situation is further complicated by the radical transformation undergone by Judaism after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Bradshaw points out that this not only spelt the end for various significant groups within Judaism like the Sadducees and the Essenes, but meant that various aspects of temple worship had to be reoriented. Bradshaw comments, Indeed, the whole of post-70 C.E. Judaism may be viewed as a kind of cultic surrogate, in which the former sacrificial activities were metaphorically transferred to the daily life of the Jewish people to the act of Torah study, to the obedient observance of the commandments, and to prayer in the synagogue. 36 Moreover, later Jewish writers tended to tone down the extensiveness of the changes that took place at this time. As a result, we have to be cautious in assuming that many features of later Jewish life and synagogue worship would have been familiar to Jesus and his apostles. Treating the question of psalmody, Bradshaw points out that an earlier generation of scholars could assert with confidence that psalmody was a standard part of the early synagogue liturgy, some even suggesting that there was at some point a triennial cycle for the Psalter at the Sabbath afternoon service, corresponding to that for the Torah, in which the psalms were read through in order. Bradshaw, however, suggests that a more sober appraisal of the evidence requires a very different conclusion. He speaks of an almost total lack of documentary evidence for the inclusion of psalms in synagogue worship. He continues, The Misnah lists a psalm for each of the seven days of the week (24, 48, 82, 94, 81, 93, 92) which was sung by the Levites at the Temple sacrifices (Tamid 7.4), and at the important festivals the Hallel (Pss. 113-118) accompanied the sacrifices. But while the Hallel Girardeau invoked Psalm 74:8 as evidence for the early existence of synagogues; but the word translated as synagogues by the AV need not carry this sense. Derek Kidner suggests three possible senses for this word cf. his commentary on the Psalms at page 267. 35 Paul F. Bradshaw, The Search For the Origins of Christian Worship (Oxford University Press, 1992) 1-2. 36 Bradshaw, 11.
34

17 of 20
seems to have been taken over into the domestic Passover meal at an early date, and apparently also into the festal synagogue liturgy, the first mention of the adoption of the daily psalms in the synagogue is not until the eighth century.37 On a more positive note, Bradshaw does find evidence that hymns and songs were being composed and used in some way in the first century CE. But the setting for these compositions is unclear. Bradshaw suggests they may have belonged to more informal and domestic situations than to formal synagogue assemblies.38 If we cannot be clear that psalms were even sung in the synagogue of Jesus day, then there is no point in stressing the lack of musical instruments in the synagogue even if that were a detail of which we could be certain! Bradshaw may not be an evangelical, but he is a renowned expert in early Christian liturgy, including its supposed Jewish antecedents. His comments are to be regarded with the utmost seriousness. They are corroborated by Don Carson, a leading evangelical New Testament scholar, who writes, It has been repeatedly shown that all the evidence for liturgy in the Jewish synagogue system is considerably later than the New Testament documents: we simply do not know what a synagogue service looked like in the first century. 39 Some scholars have even questioned whether worship of any sort went on in Jewish synagogues, which they prefer to see as centres of educational and social life for the Jewish community. It seems impossible absolutely to confirm or refute their scepticism. 40 Jesus own presence in the synagogues It is clear that Jesus regularly attended a synagogue on the Jewish Sabbath and often taught in various synagogues. Supporters of the Regulative Principle, however, have tended to draw too sweeping conclusions from this. Even John Frame, who more than anyone in recent times has subjected the Regulative Principle to constructive biblical criticism, goes too far when he writes, Jesus attended the synagogue regularly and taught there (Luke 4:15-16), so there can be no question as to Gods approval of the institution.41 I believe that Frames assertion requires modification. In Matthews gospel Jesus advises his disciples and the crowds generally on the attitude they should take to the religious teachers of their day, The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practise what they preach. 42 Jesus then proceeds to modify the apparently total approval of scribal Bradshaw, 22-23. Bradshaw, 24. 39 D.A. Carson, Worship: Adoration and Action (Paternoster, Carlisle, 1993) 14-15. 40 John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora (T and T Clark, Edinburgh, 1996) 416 n. 29 cites another scholar H.A.McKay, Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism (Brill, Leiden, 1994) who argues for an absence of formal worship in the synagogues. 41 John Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth (Presbyterian and Reformed, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1996) 23. 42 Mt 23:2-3
38 37

18 of 20
teaching which he had earlier given when he says, They tie up heavy loads and put them on mens shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them a statement which is commonly interpreted as a reference to scribal prohibitions which effectively added to the Mosaic code. Jesus nuanced approach to the religious leaders of his day gains all the more significance from the fact that as a youth he voluntarily exposed himself to the teaching of some of the religious experts of that time.43 Clearly, from his later remarks he did not accept everything they said or did. The same, I suggest, is likely to be true of Jesus experiences in the synagogues. It is most unlikely that he endorsed everything that went on there. No doubt, in a broad sense he thought the institution did some good, but it would be unwarranted to presuppose a form of ecclesiastical perfectionism that Jesus would attend only those places of study or worship to which he could give 100% approval. It adds to the wonder of Jesus work as well as to his ability to sympathise with his people - that he entered a society where the visible church had plummeted to more than an ordinary level of decadence. Another feature of Matthews gospel confirms this impression. It speaks on several occasions of their synagogues.44 Sometimes, as at 13:54, the phrase is primarily descriptive, denoting in this case the synagogue belonging to and run by the people of Nazareth. But at 10:17 Jesus uses the phrase of institutions run by enemies of the gospel. The same applies to the phrase your synagogues used in the context of hostility to the scribes and Pharisees at 23:34. At the very least these references suggest a distancing from the typical Jewish synagogue. Interestingly, when Jesus speaks of my church at 16:18, he employs ekklesia not synagogue. These considerations should make us cautious in any assertion that Jesus approved all that went on in synagogues of his time even if we could be certain we knew what that was! Was synagogue actually a technical term in Jesus time? Contemporary use of the word synagogue is inevitably affected by its emergence as a technical term from medieval Christendom to denote the hub of Judaism. We fall heir to a long tradition which has set up the synagogue and the church as rivals. Inevitably, there is an inclination to read this back into the pages of the New Testament. It seems, however, that in the New Testament age synagogue was an imprecise word denoting for a number of different religions either a place of assembly or a meeting in whatever location for that purpose. At James 2:2 it is used of a Christian assembly. While in this context it is likely to have been a Jewish Christian assembly, there are uses of the word in early Christian writings where the context is more likely to have been Gentile Christians.45 Going further afield, Arndt-Gingrich cite a

43 44

Lk 2:46-7. The full list of passages is 4:23, 9:35, 10:17, 12:9, 13:54 cf. 23:34. 45 Hermas Mandate 11:9,13; Ignatius To Polycarp 4:2.

19 of 20
superscription on a Marcionite assembly-place near Damascus which uses the term synagogue.46 They go on to illustrate a few examples from pagan religious contexts. In view of the breadth of the use of the term in the 1st century CE it is unwise to draw many conclusions from its use in the pages of the New Testament. This also affects a related issue. If the word synagogue was used generally of many religious gatherings, we dare not presuppose that practice and procedure in all Jewish synagogues in Jesus time were uniform. Considerable variation may have existed. A positive way forward? John Frame points out that in an important section dealing with Israelite festivals Moses connects the Sabbath with a sacred assembly, without further specifying what was to take place at that weekly meeting. He goes on to point out the great contrast between the legislation regarding the tabernacle (later applicable to the temple) and that concerning the regular Sabbath assemblies. Whereas procedures for the tabernacle were laid out in great detail, almost nothing was said of the Sabbath assemblies. He concludes that it was left to the discretion of the people what detail was included. Of course, he says, they knew in general what God wanted: he wanted his word to be taught and prayer to be offered. But God left the specifics open-ended.47 That means that an important assumption of much recent literature in support of the Regulative Principle must be discarded. Religious practice was not prescribed for the Israelites in absolute detail. That is to make the priestly activities surrounding the tabernacle or temple the whole of Israelite religion; but it was not. Frame observes that hardly anything was said in the Old Testament not only about the Sabbath assemblies but also about the ministries of prayer and teaching which were carried out in the temple precincts. We can, therefore, ask in the light of the whole of Scripture whether there remain significant areas of worship which are left to human wisdom. Do the Scriptures, as Frame suggest, distinguish between clearly prescribed practices and other practices which should follow the general principles in Gods word? This is a vital issue to consider because an affirmative answer would imply that it is wrong to insist that all of worship should be prescribed down to the last detail; for that would fall foul of the Scriptural prohibition not to add to what God has laid down. A return to the Westminster Confession would help us here. If Paul Bradshaw is right in his identifying a work of 1696 On the Old Synagogue by Dutch theologian Campegius Vitringa as the first to suggest a close link between the synagogue and early Christian liturgical practices, that would mean that the authors of the Westminster Confession had not embraced such a connection.48 Vitringas work A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 1957) 790 see synagoge uses 2b and 5. 47 Frame, 23 he refers initially to Lev 23:3. He tentatively suggests these Sabbath gatherings were the starting-point for the later synagogue, but this must remain a speculation. 48 Bradshaw, 27. The title of Vitringas book was originally in Latin De Synagoga Vetere.
46

20 of 20
seems to have set a trend followed by many works in the next two centuries. By contrast, the divines of the Westminster Assembly had the benefit of working before scholarship had plunged down this blind alley. That is not to rule out that possible future discoveries about the synagogue may affect our understanding of what Jesus and his apostles approved and disapproved of the synagogue procedures of their own day. But such future evidence would have to be dated very carefully and its provenance would have to be carefully reviewed, given that we cannot assume that synagogue procedures were standardised at the time of Jesus. Within current Free Church discussion on purity of worship, therefore, I would urge all participants to use the utmost caution when they refer to the synagogue. I would prefer that the synagogue was left out of the issue altogether; but I will not object if anyone takes pains to show the evidence they adduce about the synagogue (a) refers categorically to the synagogue at the time of Jesus; and (b) it can be generalised to all synagogues at that time. Graham Keith