Tag Archives: hermeneutics

Mark Driscoll on the Regulative and Normative Principles of Worship

12 Replies

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):

  1. The Regulative Principle (Only do the things specifically warranted in Scripture)
    1. Strengths:
      1. Seeks to define worship by God and his Word
      2. Tries to honor the Bible and hold it in high esteem
      3. Draws a ditch between the world and the church keeping out syncretism, worldineess and paganism.
    2. Weaknesses:
      1. Separates worship in the assembly from worship in everyday life
      2. Insufficient. Doesn’t answer questions about things not mentioned in the Bible (service length, approved seating, order of worship)
      3. Legalistically applied making rules with extreme applications that are not in the Bible (Psalms-only worship)
  2. The Normative Principle (Things are allowed unless forbidden by Scripture)
    1. Strengths:
      1. Sees the bible as principles and gives flexibility for methods
      2. Allows cultural contextualization
      3. Treats gathered and scattered worship the same. When you live throughout the week you live by the normative principle
    2. Weaknesses:
      1. Opens the door to syncretism, the mixing of biblical principles with ungodly cultural principles
      2. Makes our enjoyment and not God’s pleasure the object of our worship
      3. 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?

Slippery slopes and fences

4 Replies

I’ve written before about the rabbinic principle of building a fence around the Torah. The idea is that one creates a barrier of rules around the Law to prevent the accidental breaking of the Law. According to some sources, Deuteronomy 22:8 is used to justify this practice: “When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.”

It was, of course, this fence around the Law that led the Pharisees to condemn Jesus; they accused him of not following “the traditions of the fathers.” He didn’t violate the Torah itself, but he was willing to go beyond their fences.

I realized recently the modern day expression of the fence around the Law is the slippery slope. Things that aren’t seen as condemnable in and of themselves are condemned based on what they might lead to. That is, action A isn’t seen as sinful, but it might lead to action B, therefore action A is wrong.

One church was discussing hand clapping during worship. Someone said, “If we allow this, next thing you know they’ll be dancing in the aisles!” That’s the slippery slope.

Problem is, of course, almost anything can be seen as leading to anything else. Are the Wright brothers to blame for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center? Slippery slope reasoning would lay the blame squarely at their feet. Reminds me of the song “Ya Got Trouble” from the musical The Music Man. In that song, Harold Hill warns the citizens of River City that the presence of a pool table in their community was a sign of impending moral corruption among their youth. (If you haven’t heard it, you can find it on YouTube)

One thing does not invariably lead to another. Slippery slopes are great for skiing on, but that’s about it. We need to judge things on their own merits, not conjectured inevitable consequences.

 

Photo by Spencer Ritenour

The Fissiparous Church

7 Replies

I came upon a quote from N.T. Wright that seems to speak to yesterday’s discussion:

It seems to be the case that the more you insist that you are based on the Bible, the more fissiparous you become; the church splits up into more and more little groups, each thinking that they have got biblical truth right.

I saw this quote in another context, but it comes from Wright’s excellent article titled “How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?” (Any quote that uses the word “fissiparous” has to be good!) I don’t have enough experience with other groups to speak to them, but Wright’s words certainly ring true about the churches of Christ.

As many have long said, hermeneutics are a big part of the problem; our approach to biblical interpretation is often flawed. (Especially among those who reject the idea of interpretation: “We don’t interpret the Bible, we just read it and do what it says.”)

But is that the whole problem? Philip’s analogy yesterday was helpful, talking about his relationship with his wife. Where there is love, all differences can be worked out. Where there is no love, any difference is grounds enough for separation.

The New Testament speaks more about love and unity than it does any other doctrinal issue. Unfortunately, we want to relativize those things. When a friend from the Boston Movement shared with me an article claiming that number of baptisms was the biblical standard of success for a church, I told him that unity was the biblical standard of success. He replied, “Yes, but it’s unity that comes from a common commitment to evangelism.”

Others claim that unity comes from complete doctrinal agreement. I disagree (which immediately puts me out of their circle). The early church maintained its unity despite doctrinal differences. When we place rightness over oneness, there is a division in our future.

Or am I off base? Yesterday’s comments were full of wisdom; I look forward to further guidance and necessary correction today.

Not everything in the Bible is true

Leave a reply

That’s right. You heard me. Not everything in the Bible is true.
I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I believe that it faithfully reports the events it reports. It also faithfully reports the words of uninspired men. Because of that, just because it’s in the Bible, doesn’t mean it’s true.
Ex.—The devil tells Eve that she won’t die if she eats the forbidden fruit. That statement isn’t true.
We understand that about Genesis 3, but we can forget that when it comes to other books. For example, the vast majority of the statements in the book of Job are the statements of uninspired men, especially Job and his friends. God later says that the friends had spoken falsely, and Job repents of the things he has said. Yet I hear people say, “God says in Job 12…” No, he doesn’t. God reports for us what men said.
I see the book of Ecclesiastes in this way. Much of the book is the record of a man’s faith journey. All of what is said in the book has to be evaluated based on what is said in the last chapter. Many of the Psalms do the same thing. They are a faithful record of men’s emotions and men’s reactions to what God is doing.
An example from the New Testament is the statement of the man healed of blindness when he says, “We know that God doesn’t hear the prayers of sinners.” God doesn’t say that. John doesn’t even say it. He quotes what this uninspired man said.
Gamaliel, in Acts 5, says that if a movement is not of God, it will soon disappear on its own. Fact is, that’s not true. Look at the false religions of this world that have been around for years. But we shouldn’t be troubled by the fact that it’s not true. God didn’t say it. Luke didn’t say it. Luke reported what Gamaliel said.
Be careful when you say, “The Bible says…” or “God says…” There are parts of the book that aren’t true. They are faithful representations of uninspired, false statements. Keep your eyes open!

Bacon on the side

1 Reply

I’ll share with you some insightful words that I read the other day. John Mark Hicks is doing a study on biblical interpretation in Churches of Christ (hermeneutics is the scholarly term). In the third post in this series, as he discussed the use of Baconian logic in our hermeneutic, Hicks stated:
The irony, of course, is that the Bible as a narrative of redemption is no longer the ultimate truth here. Rather, it is the systematic conclusions of an inductive-deductive method that finally gets us to the truth–it collects the scattered truths (facts) of the Bible, unearths what the Bible only implies, assembles together, collates them, orders them and produces a system (”sound doctrine”). The truth as given to us in the form in which Scripture offers it is thereby insufficient. We need to induct the facts, deduce the new truths, arrange them, systematize and order them into a presentation of the Truth.
Is it any wonder, then, that though Scripture never offers us the “five steps of salvation” or “five acts of worship” members of Churches of Christ in the mid-20th century were as certain about these as they were that Jesus died for their sins. Their certainty was derived from their confidence in the method–generated by the Enlightenment, popularized by natural science and applied by human wisdom. And, at the same time, they thought their method was “common sense” or even the Biblical method itself.
Wow! That perfectly describes my experience. Our divisions aren’t about what the Bible says; they are about what we say about what the Bible says. At some points the conclusions became what mattered. Vary from the brotherhood approved conclusions, and you’re a liberal at best, a heretic at worst (not sure where “change agent” fits on that sliding scale).
In the beginnings, the Restoration movement was about NOT dividing over inferences, about letting the Bible be our only guide. At some point, we decided the Bible wasn’t complete enough as written; we felt the need to cut and paste and fill in the gaps with syllogisms, proof texts and “necessary inferences.”
Maybe it’s time for us to have a back to the Bible moment.