The Regulative Principle of the Church 3: Its Historical Meaning (Part 2)
SubscribeThis principle articulated by Calvin and the Reformed against Luther and the Roman Catholics was given sharp focus in the debates between the Puritans and Anglicans in late 16th and 17th Century England. It was given its classic and definitive statement in Reformed confessions formulated in the 17th century in Britain. It is stated in identical language at Chapter 21, Paragraph 1 in both the Westminster Confession and at Chapter 22, Paragraph 1 in the 1689 London Baptist Confession.
The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and 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 imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.
This Puritan statement may best be understood by contrasting it with the statement of the Church of England found in the 39 Articles. The Twentieth Article of the Church of England’s Thirty Nine Articles states: “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in the controversies of the Faith. And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written.”1
G. I. Williamson helpfully and popularly states the Puritan principle exemplified in the Confession: “What is commanded is right, and what is not commanded is wrong.”2 James Bannerman provides this helpful contrast between the Puritan doctrine on this matter (contained in our Confession) and the Anglican doctrine.
In the case of the Church of England, its doctrine in regard to Church power in the worship of God is, that it has a right to decree everything, except what is forbidden in the Word of God. In the case of our own Church, its doctrine in reference to Church power in the worship of God is, that it has a right to decree nothing, except what expressly or by implication is enjoined by the Word of God.3
G. I. Williamson helpfully illustrates the difference between the Anglican and Puritan understandings of the regulative principle with the following diagram.4
The difference between Puritans and Anglicans may be helpfully illustrated by means of two builders intent on building the temple of God. Mr. Anglican must use the materials of the Word of God, but has no blueprint and may use other materials. Mr. Puritan must use only materials of the Word of God and has a blueprint. It takes no special genius to discern that the two completed buildings will differ drastically or to discern which will be more pleasing to God.
1 James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1960), 1: 339.
2 G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, 162.
3 Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 1: 339-40.
4 Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, 160.
Dr Waldron,
I’ve been following your series on the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) with interest. I’m glad you’re intent is to bring balance to an issue that’s been debated among Reformed believers. I think this is needed.
Knowing that’s your intent, I wonder whether the portrayal of the non-RPW position given by Williamson is really helpful. It seems potentially misleading to me. Perhaps Williamson qualifies his remarks in the larger context or elsewhere in his writings. But is it really true that all non-RPW theologians and/or churches would advocate the idea that “true worship” consists in “what is commanded, plus ANYTHING not expressly forbidden”? That sounds awfully broad. No doubt there are liberal denominations and weak evangelical churches that are governed by a kind of philosophical pragmatism and, as a result, might employ such an approach. But would Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer really advocate such an open ended, unbounded approach to corporate worship and church life?
For example, would Martin Luther advocate boar hunting, Gesellschaftstanz (folk dancing), or loving-making as an “element” of worship or intrinsic distinctive of the church’s mission simply on the basis that these are not “expressly forbidden” by Scripture? Would Thomas Cranmer agree with the characterization that the Scriptures provide us with “no blueprint,” and would he, therefore, argue that the church must pull the elements of worship (at least some of them) out of thin air? Or would Luther and Cranmer argue instead that aspects of church worship, government, and life must find some warrant, whether direct or indirect, from Scripture?
Of course, I think Lutherans and Anglicans are wrong when they take what might appropriately be viewed as a circumstance of worship and elevate it to the level of element (i.e., sine qua non). I wouldn’t personally object to a fixed liturgical form (like the Book of Prayer), clerical vestments, and special days might be appropriate if they were treated “circumstantially” and not mandated as intrinsic parts of worship for all churches in every place.
Similarly, I don’t object if a church or churches create a “position” or “office” called “missions coordinator” or “seminary dean” provided that these positions or offices are not viewed as elements, as intrinsic to the government of a New Covenant church or churches. (I’d be out of a job if I did object.) I think these kinds of positions or “callings” are warranted by general biblical principles and precedents together with the historical and cultural exigencies of our day. So long as a church or network of churches views the missions coordinator and seminary dean as a circumstantial facet of its administration and mission, that church or network of churches isn’t violating the Second Commandment or the teaching of the Confession (1.6) in my opinion.
It would seem, then, that the primary difference between so-called RPW and NPW views relates to distinguishing the elemental from the circumstantial. More conservative non-RPW evangelicals don’t really advocate or practice an “anything goes that’s not expressly forbidden” approach to worship. The contributors in Worship by the Book (edited by D. A. Carson) include a Presbyterian, Anglican, and Evangelical Free pastor. While each contributor’s corporate worship and church government looks differently, each consciously endeavors (as I remember) to affirm a worship and church government that finds some warrant in Scripture. This isn’t to say that the details of each man’s position are equally valid or appropriate. We may and should legitimately criticize some aspects of the polity and practice of each contributor. But I question whether the rightness or wrongness of each man’s position can be boiled down to the simplistic distinction offered by Williamson. In other words, the criticism seems to be more a question of misusing or misapplying Scripture rather than non-using or non-applying Scripture.
Does that make sense?
One of my reasons for posting my lectures on this subject is to solicit the helpful feedback of people like yourself, Dr. Gonzales. Let me thank you for your helpful comments and probing questions. It is useful to me to have my own ideas probed by someone I respect.
Having said that, let me acknowledge that Williamson’s presentation may be misunderstood. At the same time, it seems to me, it is often necessary to state simply and clearly fundamental differences between positions without qualifying ourselves to death. When we qualify ourselves to death, we may fail to make real differences clear. Williamson believes, for instance, in the distinction between the parts and circumstances of worship (and this qualifies in a sense what he says about the views of those who hold the regulative principle), but he says nothing about that here either.
Furthermore, it seems to me that some of your illustrations of things Luther would never dream of allowing in worship forget that Williamson did say “anything not forbidden.” I am quite sure that one could make a case that public “loving-making” is forbidden every place and certainly in worship. Interestingly, “folk-dancing” or at least liturgical dancing is widely advocated by the heirs of Luther’s normative principle who do not hold the regulative principle and also those involved in the project of reinterpreting it including John Frame (Worship in Spirit and Truth, 130-132).
You ask, “Would Thomas Cranmer agree with the characterization that the Scriptures provide us with “no blueprint,” and would he, therefore, argue that the church must pull the elements of worship (at least some of them) out of thin air? Or would Luther and Cranmer argue instead that aspects of church worship, government, and life must find some warrant, whether direct or indirect, from Scripture?” Let me answer your questions. I am no expert on Thomas Cranmer, but I rather assume that he agreed with Richard Hooker’s statement of Anglican views in The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Hooker does not believe we have a biblical blueprint for worship or church government. This is why Hooker then and Peter Toon today (Cf. the four views book, Who Runs the Church?, 21-41, especially 23 .) believe that reason and the church councils of the first five centuries must be used in addition to the Bible to create an adequate or complete church government. Let me also remind us all that it was Luther who continued the Medieval idea of the state church in the German Lutheran churches. He denied the separation of church and state and called on the German nobility to reform their churches. Was it the Bible or pragmatism (or perhaps a little of both) that led Luther to do this? Of course, Calvin and the original Westminster Confession also adopted the state church ideal. I would argue, however, that they adopted it without the Erastian or Papal framework which alone made it work-able. This is why developing from the seed planted in Geneva (when Calvin resisted the City Council’s presumption that it could control who could come to the Lord’s Table) freedom of religion and a proper understanding of the separation of church and state developed in the Reformed tradition. Thus, the Westminster’s state-church-ism was removed in the 1689 Baptist Confession and by American Presbyterians in the 1780’s.
Finally, let me say that I find your willingness to use the term, office, for administrative positions or functions not specifically appointed or regulated by the Bible incautious and perhaps a bit novel. I gather from what you said that we are to think in terms of a distinction between “elemental” offices and “circumstantial” offices.” Is there some precedent for such terminology of which I am unaware? All my reading in this subject has led me to think that “office” in discussions of ecclesiology ought to be reserved for authoritative positions in the church more directly appointed by the Scriptures. It is so used in Reformed discussions of the subject. Hence the question of the two-office or three-office view of the church is frequently discussed. Your terminology also makes me worry about the resurrection of a system of church government among us with so many “circumstantial offices” combined with the “elemental offices” that one can no longer see or discern the grand simplicity of Christ’s appointed government in the church. Additionally, I am reluctant merely to use the distinction between elements and circumstances with regard to office in the church. While we hold it and must hold it, if we are to maintain any commitment to the regulative principle, the contemporary discussion has made clear the many disagreements and difficulties over it. I would rather not make biblical church government quite so dependent on this distinction. I believe that reserving the word, office, for elders and deacons and the things that distinguish those clearly appointed and authoritative positions in the church may be a better route.