Tag Archives: regulative principle

Authorized worship

8 Replies

Last week, I pointed out some concepts regarding worship that I have come to reject. One of those is the idea of authorized worship. Thinking of worship as being “authorized” or “unauthorized” goes hand in hand with the Regulative Principle of Worship. One website expresses it this way: “If God has not authorized worship then there is no basis for it. However, if God has authorized worship, then it is to be regulated by His word.”

It was interesting for me to Google “authorized worship.” The first page of results were mostly from churches of Christ or other groups discussing churches of Christ. The last item on the page was a Google Books hit from the Christian Baptist, an article from Alexander Campbell laying out the idea of “authorized” and “unauthorized” worship (This particular article can be read on Dr. Hans Rollman’s site.. (There was also a page from a Seventh Day Adventist magazine, but it wasn’t actually about authorized worship, rather “who authorized Sunday worship?”)

It was also interesting to see that few of these articles actually seek to prove that there is such a thing as “authorized” worship. The Campbell article lays out a negative proof, that is it disproves the idea that “there is not a divinely authorized order of Christian worship in Christian assemblies.” Campbell says that if there is no authorized “order,” then nothing done in worship can be considered sinful. Therefore, there must be an authorized order.

Much has been made of Nadab and Abihu’s “strange fire”; for many, that’s one of the strongest examples of why we need to look for authorization in worship. (The example of Uzzah also gets used; interesting that both of these examples are frequently used by those who want to claim the entire Old Testament was nailed to the cross!) I spent a good deal of time with “the boys” a few years ago; feel free to read those articles. (And I’d better mention Eleazar and Ithamar, since I promised not to talk about two of Aaron’s sons without mentioning the other two!)

Other texts are thrown around here and there, but frankly, we use the term “authorized worship” because Campbell did. We inherited it from Restoration Movement leaders; we sure didn’t get the term from the Bible. And I don’t think we got the concept from there, either. It always worries me when we freely and regularly use phrases that the Bible itself doesn’t use. That’s not necessarily wrong (notice that I use the word Bible, a thoroughly unbiblical word), but it should raise caution flags.

Maybe I’m not being fair. Anyone want to stand up in defense of the concept of “authorized worship”? I’m all ears.

The silence of Scripture

29 Replies

“We speak where the Bible speaks. We’re silent where the Bible is silent.” I used to think that was actually in the Bible. It’s a common saying in churches of Christ, though I don’t know that the quote is original with us.

There’s a lot good about that saying, but it’s not as simple and straightforward as it looks. One of the big problems comes with the second part of that affirmation. How do we remain silent where the Bible is silent? (The first part is almost as problematic, but we can talk about that another time.)

Last week I pointed to the normative principle and the regulative principle, two attempts to deal with the silence of the Bible. One says that silence permits. One says that silence allows.

Another view is that silence is silence. It means nothing on its own. It is given meaning by its environment, its surroundings. Silence becomes meaningful when speech is expected. When the sheriff asks, “Who wants to join the posse?”, the silence of the townspeople speaks volume. When the son asks his mom, “Can I go to the party?”, silence can mean a number of things: she didn’t hear him, she’s thinking about the answer, she’s annoyed that he’s even asking the question…

I personally hold to this view. I think it’s a mistake to assign meaning to silence in general. On the one hand, we run the risks of making laws that God Himself did not make. On the other hand, we run the risk of rendering the Bible almost irrelevant, insisting that it speak to matters that were not within its intended scope (that is, applying its silence to things that were not of concern then, like the use of pharmaceuticals).

I do think, however, that it’s important that we focus on the things that the Bible DOES speak about. We can learn much by considering what things were of importance within the teaching of biblical authors… and what weren’t. But it’s a mistake to try to make silence “speak” in any way.

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?