Photo by Ove Tøpfer; from Stock Xchange
Author/evangelist Mark Driscoll did a series of sermons on the topic of “Religion Saves and 9 Other Misconceptions.” The last sermon in that series had to do with the Regulative Principle, the hermeneutical approach that says that unless Scripture specifically authorizes something, that thing is prohibited.
Driscoll stated the theme of the sermon as a series of questions:
Do you believe that the Scripture not only regulates our theology but also our methodology? In other words, do you believe in the regulative principle? If so, to what degree? If not, why not?
He then went on to offer an evaluation of the Regulative Principle and its counterpart, the Normative Principle. Let me share his analysis of the two principles (some of this taken from this blog which summarizes the sermon):
- The Regulative Principle (Only do the things specifically warranted in Scripture)
- Strengths:
- Seeks to define worship by God and his Word
- Tries to honor the Bible and hold it in high esteem
- Draws a ditch between the world and the church keeping out syncretism, worldineess and paganism.
- Weaknesses:
- Separates worship in the assembly from worship in everyday life
- Insufficient. Doesn’t answer questions about things not mentioned in the Bible (service length, approved seating, order of worship)
- Legalistically applied making rules with extreme applications that are not in the Bible (Psalms-only worship)
- The Normative Principle (Things are allowed unless forbidden by Scripture)
- Strengths:
- Sees the bible as principles and gives flexibility for methods
- Allows cultural contextualization
- Treats gathered and scattered worship the same. When you live throughout the week you live by the normative principle
- Weaknesses:
- Opens the door to syncretism, the mixing of biblical principles with ungodly cultural principles
- Makes our enjoyment and not God’s pleasure the object of our worship
- Elevates unbiblical elements to the point where they squeeze out biblical elements
Driscoll goes on to say that he doesn’t fully follow either principle. He states his own view as
“All of Christian life is ceaseless worship of God the Father, through the mediatorship of God the Son by the indwelling power of God the Spirit, doing what God commands in Scripture, not doing what God forbids in Scripture, in culturally contextualized ways for the furtherance of the gospel when both gathered for adoration and scattered for action in joyous response to God’s glorious grace.”
Reactions?
That might be the best Driscoll quote I’ve ever encountered. I typically avoid him like I do most self-identifying neoCals, but quotes like that do help explain why his Mars Hill (as opposed to Rob Bell’s Mars Hill) is as popular as it is.
I especially appreciate the specificity of this line: “…doing what God commands in Scripture, not doing what God forbids in Scripture…”
We spend so much time squabbling over all the stuff symbolized by the comma in that sentence.
I too would agree with Driscoll. I am neither for the regulative principle nor the normative principle because both seem to have an assumption that scripture was written to function as a constitution. Don’t get me wrong, I believe scripture is given to us as God’s word for our formation as disciples of Jesus (cf. 2 Tim 3.16-17) but that does not mean it was meant to be read as solely as an eternally prescriptive text. Of course, that raises a question of when is scripture meant to be appropriated as prescriptive and when should it be descriptive? I don’t have all the answers I’d like to have on that last question.
What this shows is that, contrary to how many view the new-Reformed movement, they do not all walk in lock-step with one another regarding some things. John MacArthur, for one, has been highly critical of Driscoll’s methods, particularly when addressing the “culturally contextualized ways” of doing things. Historically, Calvin was a strict Regulative guy, from unaccompanied singing (acappella) and even so far as to not allowing crosses to be displayed in buildings (vs. 2nd commandment; and his general objection to anything that led to idolatry, ignorance, and superstition); and most conservative Reformed churches are the same today (even singing only the Psalms). That being said, Driscoll’s view is probably the most broad, yet restrictive one can be in regards to freedom and Scriptural attention. However, I don’t agree with his first weakness of the Regulative: that it separates worship from every day life. The same could be said for the Normative. That issue is across the spectrum. Nominalists abound.
The warning against syncretism is a big one for me. One thing Jesus and Paul really could not stand was syncretism. The Regulative helps protect from that.
[As a note: I notice there are a grand total of three comments (including mine) on this thread after almost two days. This is some interesting commentary, as one could imagine how many comments you would have on a thread that was critical of Driscoll; and that speaks volumes, and reveals much, of the “anti”-crowd. Come on Tim, don’t you know how to drive traffic to your blog? Go find a 2 minute YouTube clip and do it right. Locusts unite!]
Grace be with you –
Jr
What Driscoll means, I believe, is that the Regulative Principle is all but impossible to apply to “daily life worship.” Otherwise, one would be driven to find specific Scriptural authorization for every breath they take & every choice they make.
A thoroughgoing application of either the regulative or the normative principle both suffer from the same defect, assuming that the various books which now constitute the Bible were ever intended to form an exaustive rule book for Christian practice. This shouldn’t be controversial: there are bad things which are not forbidden in Scripture; there are good things which are not enjoined in Scripture. Adherence to either the normative or regulative principles as overarching worldviews grossly errs in trying to make the Bible comprehensive rather than sufficient. Driscoll’s ‘doing what the Bible tells us; not doing what it forbids us’ more nearly approaches a responsible use of Scripture.
I guess I would fall more into the normative camp since I am Lutheran, and our liturgy, while much of it is drawn directly from scripture, does have elements (certainly the chants) that are not directly prescribed by scripture.
However, I don’t see this as an “either/or” dichotomy. All Christians make up the one holy catholic church. While the entirety of the one holy catholic church won’t be made manifest to all until the marriage feast of the lamb, I believe as Luther said in the Small Catechism: that we are all drawn to the church by the Holy Spirit that has enlightened us with his gifts as the Holy Spirit does for each and every believer.
I remember the first Sunday in 1989 when I walked into the local congregation of the ELCA. I grew up independent Baptist, I tried out an independent nondenominational church (and learned much about the New Testament, by the way), but when I walked into that ELCA church–I knew I was in the right place. I feel that to this day. Likewise, I believe that a person can *know* with the same certainty that their particular congregation or denomination, whether regulative, normative, or somewhere in-between.
Thanks Peter. Nice to have a different viewpoint on things. Lots of Church of Christ people here.
Thanks, Tim. I ran across your Web page using the program Zite on my iPad. I do believe that the Church would be better off if we all learn how to “do” theology. I found your articles right down the alley of things I love thinking & talking about.
My church background is varied, but I see Christ in it. I make it a point that while I am a devout & practicing Lutheran, I will visit as many different churches as I can. I am fortunate to live in a city that has many offerings. Regrettably, the churches in my own neighborhood seem to be the ones I neglect the most (there’s a Cooperative Baptist church, an American Baptist church, a PCUSA church, a Friends house, and a Church of Christ all within walking distance of where I live).
My own pastors like to remind us from time to time that while we are part of the holy catholic church, we are by no means the only members of it. Neither have much opportunity to worship among other Christians, so they do appreciate my reports back to them.
Thank you for the welcome.
I’m not sure if there is such thing as a “third” option, such as proposed by Mark Driscoll. Both Normative and Regulative principle agree on receiving teachings the Scripture has explicitly spelled out, whether things urged or prohibited. Their disagreement is only on the area in which the Scripture does not say anything. In such case a Normative guy says yes we have the freedom to choose, while a Regulative guy shakes his head and says nay.
This debate has been going on for centuries, and I am sure the Reformers would have settled it long ago, if there is another logical choice that lies in between.
Based on Mark Driscoll’s statement of contextualization, it is apparent that he is in favor of Normative principle. Contextualization is just contradictory to the Regulative principle, and to be sure most churches no longer ask women to wear their hair a certain way, or greet each other with a Holy kiss. We might still debate about their different merits, but as far as practices are concerned church today has all but abandoned the Regulative principle.
And I’d imagine most people would fall in the same camp too, listening to the Holy Spirit on what things ought to be done or avoided, in a church service or outside, even when they are not mentioned in the Bible.
Christ and the apostles were specific about what constituted corporate worship. Let’s forget about the “normative” and “regulative” principles as those terms were derived by man, not Christ or the apostles.
As we read through the entirety of the NT, we will find the requirements of worship as commanded by Christ. There are practices in which we are allowed to expedite and accommodate for hygiene purposes. However, the one true church which Christ established should not be in the business of entertainment. My wife tells me any time we discuss church that “it is boring.” If church is “boring” that is not the church’s fault, it is the fault of the person to whom it is boring. We should go to church to be edified, not entertained.
I could go on and on about this, but will close by suggesting a book by John Price (a Baptist minister) entitled “Old Light on New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, A Theological, Historical and Psychological Study.” I have read much about this topic and he thoroughly covers all aspects of it.
That’s an interesting thought, Rod. I’m not convinced about just how specific Christ and the apostles were about what constitutes corporate worship. Want to expand on that?
Michael,This sounds to my ears like a ptiamargc position based on a calculated outcome rather than a normative (uh oh ) position, which is not to say it was unwise for Luther to do it. It seems analogous to Judean reformer-kings who did not take away the high places. I don’t mean to multiply imagery here, but Christ employed the opposite approach with the money-changing enterprises in the Temple.Others have likened it to attempting to reverse the course of a loaded oil tanker that is going 180 degrees from the proper course: slow an incremental change prevents capsizing the entire vessel. I don’t know if Scripture authorizes this approach or not: I’m inclined to say that it doesn’t.