Apparently the Westminster California hermeneutic has now infected the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Ligon Duncan recently issued a statement that clarified difference among ACE members on whether or not to sign the Manhattan Declaration. (For some of the diversity among evangelicals or conservative Protestants, go here.)
Duncan wrote:
The Alliance has not historically weighed in on social ethical issues, not because they are unimportant, nor because it is inappropriate for Christians to do so, but because of the mission of the Alliance which is “to call the twenty-first century church to reformation, according to Scripture, so that it recovers clarity and conviction about the great evangelical truths of the gospel and thus proclaims these truths powerfully in our contemporary context.” Specifically, we are an alliance of confessional Protestants (and heirs of the historic Reformed Confessions) who work together to “promote the reform of the church according to Scripture, and to call the church to be faithful to the Scriptures, by embracing and practicing the teaching of Scripture concerning doctrine, life and worship.”
So if the Bible speaks to all of life, including marriage, and the sanctity of human life, and ACE is committed to reforming the church according to Scripture, then why wouldn’t the Alliance advocate the Manhattan Declaration for the church in ministering the word of God? Could it be that even when the Bible does speak to some moral matters, it does not do so in a way suitable for the larger society?
In other words, could it be that the kind of distinction between kingdoms for which Westminster California is notorious is not so radical but even appeals to the good confessing evangelicals that constitute ACE? Hmmmm.
174 Comments
OK, so you do see Rom 13.4 as providing a job description for the magistrate. I can agree with that.
But now, there are some other things that are generally true, that are ruled by special revelation and redemption. Most importantly: all men everywhere are called to repent and believe the Gospel. That’s true of both Constantine and Mao.
So I don’t understand the part of the argument that flows from
“every magistrate, Christian and non-, has the same calling” (True)
to “so therefore, they are not obligated to use special revelation to do so.” (Huh?)
I’m not arguing that they *should*, necessarily. I’m just saying that this part of the argument isn’t tight. It seems in conflict with Calvin, for example.
JRC
I think what you mean is that “Christian parenting will look similar to non- in the areas that they overlap (material provision; perhaps, teaching of manners or even ethical norms). But Christian parenting will also include some additional redemptional areas. So that some parenting is creational and some, redemptive.”
Is that what you’re saying?
JRC
(1) This needs more thought, but I would quibble over your terminology. You seem to have the highest possible view of creation. Mine is certainly below yours, but well above, say, a Fundie view. I’m not willing to concede that anything below the highest possible ought to be called “low.”
(2) I’m a little nervous when I put your comments together with DGH’s. He has previously argued that Scripture is not sufficient in the church (citing denominationalism, etc.), much less the common. I’m nervous if our position is going to be “Scripture is not sufficient, but creation is.”
(3) I’m working from memory, but I thought Calvin specifically disputed the sufficiency of creation of governance.
JRC
Jeff, well plenty of people who do think that the Bible speaks to all of life do think they have power to determine where others fail. John Frame’s review of Mike Horton comes to mind, as do the recent reviews of WSC by Kerux and Christian Renewal. The Bible is sufficient for all of life line keeps telling the 2k folks they are wrong, unbiblical, and not Reformed. What’s up with that?
I also don’t see what is so confusing about distinctions between the sacred and the common, precisely because you have brought up the magistrate again. In a mixed society, not to mention one without a religious disestablishment, it’s hard to say that every citizen is duty bound — by the magistrate — to follow the 7th commandment in the way that Christ’s followers are. In other words, there is a common sphere inhabited by believers and non-believers. What are the norms for them in a polity? Do you really want to say it’s the Bible because it speaks to all of life, including to the magistrate’s duties.
Of course there is going to be fuzziness. The church is not an unmixed lot. It has goats and sheep. And to complicate things, Christians and non-Xians inhabit the civil polity. But again if you bang the drum for the Bible as the rule for everything — and also say that non-believers can’t interpret general revelation apart from special, as some Bible only people do — you have made no room for non-believers in civil society.
Jeff, I don’t know where anyone of the 2k variety has said the state, or the public, or the common is the kingdom of liberty. Liberty of conscience is bound up with doctrines like the RPW. But law and liberty prevail in both kingdoms and relate in different ways. In some ways, the kingdom of Christ is the most liberal place because the gospel liberates us from the kingdom of sin and death.
A better short hand is that the kingdom of the church is governed by forgiveness. That is the church’s mission, to forgive sins and restore sinners to fellowship with God through Christ. The state’s mission is justice — to penalize wickedness and reward goodness. If the state operated like the church — forgave sins — we would have no law or order. And if the church operated like the state, we would have no salvation.
So I don’t understand the part of the argument that flows from
“every magistrate, Christian and non-, has the same calling†(True)
to “so therefore, they are not obligated to use special revelation to do so.†(Huh?)
Their calling is grounded in creation. The book of creation is general revelation. I don’t understand why one would use the book of special revelation to carry out a creational task anymore than using the book of general revelation to carry out a redemptive task.
I think what you mean is that “Christian parenting will look similar to non- in the areas that they overlap (material provision; perhaps, teaching of manners or even ethical norms). But Christian parenting will also include some additional redemptional areas. So that some parenting is creational and some, redemptive.â€
Is that what you’re saying?
I suppose that works as far as it goes. But since what you call overlap is “nine-tenths†of just what all parenting is, how do you get the idea that Christian parenting will be “remarkably different�
1) This needs more thought, but I would quibble over your terminology. You seem to have the highest possible view of creation. Mine is certainly below yours, but well above, say, a Fundie view. I’m not willing to concede that anything below the highest possible ought to be called “low.â€
Fundies have low opinions/low views. You have a high opinion/low view. I have a high opinion/high view. It’s not too unlike how there are a range of opinions on evangelical views on the confessional formulations. Low views go from low opinions like “paper popes†to high opinions “really helpful guides,†but all fall short of the high view that they are “binding and authoritative.†In the same way, you like creation a lot more than a Fundie, but like the Fundie you don’t think general revelation is binding on creational norms. Which makes little sense to me.
(2) I’m a little nervous when I put your comments together with DGH’s. He has previously argued that Scripture is not sufficient in the church (citing denominationalism, etc.), much less the common. I’m nervous if our position is going to be “Scripture is not sufficient, but creation is.â€
I think you have missed his point here. What he has meant is that Scripture is certainly sufficient for the church, as in sola scriptura. But it relies on sinful human agents, which is why we’re in disarray (denominationalism, etc.). In the same way, general revelation is sufficient for common enterprise. But it relies on sinful human agents, which is why the world isn’t perfect.
(3) I’m working from memory, but I thought Calvin specifically disputed the sufficiency of creation of governance.
Don’t know for sure. But even if he did, the Protestant tradition is larger than any one man. That was the whole point of the Reformation.
I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. Obviously, if one steps within your system (in which Scripture is the book of redemption and general revelation is the book of creation), then it’s a no-brainer.
I was asking, however, why one not inside your system (*waves hand*) would have cause to believe in two separate books.
As opposed to, say, two complimentary books, or two overlapping books.
JRC
You’re asking me to defend something I’d rather not defend. I spent a very depressing evening in December reading Frame’s review of Horton and the various responses to it.
I don’t think, however, that theological dispute is the sole provenance of the “Bible speaks to all of life” crowd. Kline’s review of Chilton’s work declared it to be wrong, unbiblical, and not Reformed.
So the causation argument (“Bible speaks to all of life” causes “you are wrong!”) seems to be ungrounded. I know plenty of techies who are far more self-assured than the “Bible speaks to all of life” crowd.
Besides: Isn’t the thrust of the 2k position that non-2k positions are wrong, unbiblical, and not Reformed? Or is the “paleoCalvinist” label just incidental?
But in any event, I think it’s possible to distinguish between disagreement and laying down of commands. You and I, for example, haven’t placed any anathemas on one another.
JRC
Opinions are distinct from views? This is starting to sound positively dispensational.
I think I missed the systematics class where “opinions” and “views” and their distinction was discussed.
Hi Jeff,
I don’t mean to butt in, but was wondering if anyone has suggested that you read David VanDrunen’s new book: Natural Law & the Two Kingdoms? I just listened to an interview VanDrunen gave with Scott Clark, where he mentioned that he has a JD among other degrees. I think it might be very helpful in sorting out your thoughts and answering some of your questions. You can find the interview and book info here: http://tinyurl.com/ydqdbpy
I know that in previous discussions, Belgic 36 has been raised ad nauseum. But just for clarity, when the current BC says,
You would dispute that
* the civil authority is called to contribute to the advancement of society that is pleasing to God;
* or that it is tasked with removing obstacles to the proclamation of the gospel, or of worship;
* or that its call is so that the Word of God may have free course and the kingdom of Christ may make progress and that every anti-Christian power may be resisted.
Do I understand that you disagree with all three?
Sorry to ask, but I don’t know the history of the BC nor of the relationship in CRC polity of the BC to the Westminster Confession.
JRC
Hi Lily,
Thanks for the rec. Dr. Hart has likewise recommended it, and it’s in the queue. Somewhere.
JRC
That makes more sense. Thanks.
JRC: I’m working from memory, but I thought Calvin specifically disputed the sufficiency of creation of governance.
SZ: Don’t know for sure. But even if he did, the Protestant tradition is larger than any one man. That was the whole point of the Reformation.
Ah, yes, I had in mind Inst. 4.20.9.
I understand and agree that Calvin is not canonical, though one might expect a little more loyalty from PaleoCalvinists.
(just kidding; I couldn’t resist).
But seriously: assuming Calvin is in fact wrong, then why? Where did he fall off the rails?
It seems to me that SOTC would be better explained as “doctrinal development” than “a return to Calvinism”; after all, the various confessions were not SOTC-ish until amended in the 18th c. and beyond.
JRC
I was asking, however, why one not inside your system (*waves hand*) would have cause to believe in two separate books.
As opposed to, say, two complimentary books, or two overlapping books.
I am not suggesting the two books are hermetically sealed off from one another, rather that they have different purposes. Maybe the book thing isn’t helping. Maybe instead of book we talk author. There is one author to the two books. Each is written with two different purposes. Or think of a school principal. He has two different employees who report to him, a teacher and a custodian. He governs both equally but differently. If one doesn’t carefully distinguish these things he will end up with a principal who evaluates a custodian on whether he has an effective lesson plan or whether a teacher is getting the vomit out of the shag. All-of-life neocalvinism is the theological equivalent of one confused school house.
I think I missed the systematics class where “opinions†and “views†and their distinction was discussed.
That’s because it wasn’t systematics, it was English comp. But how about another marriage analogy? A man says to a woman that he thinks their relationship is “vast and exciting” but not not so great as to warrant marriage. He has a high opinion of their relationship but not quite a high view. It’s great to have fun, Jeff, but at some point one also either takes things seriously or he doesn’t. High opinions/low views of creation are theological versions of well-intended fornication. I’m not sure how else to describe the difference between he who says creation is good and he who says, along with God, that it is “very good.”
Jeff, fair enough. But sometimes we do need to consider the company we keep.
I’m not saying the 2k position doesn’t engage in theological controversy. How could I? But I have yet to see folks at WSC do what Frame, Kloosterman, and Kerux are doing to WSC. In fact, it’s the 2k folks who know that other positions exist within the Reformed world and even the Reformed tradition. It is those who have a Bible-only outlook — whether Framean or hyper-Vossian — who are shocked, just shocked to find that a 2k view exists within the Reformed tradition.
In other words, I think the 2k folk do a lot better with the diversity of our communions than their critics. Does that mean they do not try to correct the anti-2k view? Of course, not. But I have yet to see from the 2k position a claim that this, and this alone is THE tradition.
Um, no, that doesn’t work. Accusing me of fornication because I don’t take your view is quite high-handed.
—
The aspect of creation that we are talking about here, the conscience, is no longer “very good”, but is also touched by sin. Acknowledging that is not “taking a low view of creation”, it’s “remembering that the fall happened between Creation and now.”
JRC
Um, no, that doesn’t work. Accusing me of fornication because I don’t take your view is quite high-handed.
It was an analogy to make a point, not an accusation to put you off. Sorry it didn’t land as intended.
The aspect of creation that we are talking about here, the conscience, is no longer “very goodâ€, but is also touched by sin. Acknowledging that is not “taking a low view of creationâ€, it’s “remembering that the fall happened between Creation and now.â€
A high view of sin is precisely what a paleo-Calvinist 2K theology is all about. It’s the neocalvinism that seems to forget the fall into sin, or at least take the edge off considerably.
But the confessional Protestantism distinguishes between the essence of creation and its condition. It is essentially very good, conditionally sinful. This means the conscience, to the extent that it is created, is still very good even though it’s sinful. My eyes are bad, my feet are flat and my mind is dull. But that doesn’t mean I reach for something else to see, walk or think. Broken as it certainly is, why should I disregard my conscience?
Again, it seems to me that neocalvinism is simply uncomfortable with the reality of human sin and the fact that things fall apart. So it breaks the emergency glass, pulls out the Bible and says, “Here is what we need to make it all better, or at least not quite as bad. Have this rule all of life and we won’t go as badly as when we use our created faculties.†But if the church is in disarray using the Bible as its sole rulebook, what makes anyone think it will fix the world’s problems?
No harm done with the analogy. Just setting boundaries.
Here we want to make some distinctions.
(1) There is distinction between a Biblicist who wants things to go better (and therefore uses the Bible to achieve that end), and a Biblicist who believes that he is normatively obligated to the Scriptures regardless of how things go. We would put Daniel in the latter category, Simon Magus in the former.
I have been arguing for the latter, not the former.
However, I will also agree with you that there is a *lot* of the former going around, and that it is a pernicious and perennial evil to be resisted.
(1a) So note that if improperly explained (without making this distinction), SOTC actually runs the danger of violating the conscience of the latter type of individual, because it shames him for trying to be faithful, accusing him of making the Bible a “magic book.” The last sentence of WCoF 19.6 is a powerful antidote to certain types of silliness.
(2) There is a distinction between disregarding the conscience entirely and shaping it according to the Scriptures. The latter is enjoined in the Scripture and in the Confession as well.
JRC
This is in response to Zrim, but I wanted to break it out for more general discussion.
There has been talk of the “insufficiency of Scripture” for all of life (see the Ken Meyers thread) and a corresponding “sufficiency of creation” for creational life.
This was related to Jeb’s thought-provoking example of Christian plumbers who ultimately over-reach in their “piety.”
JRC: I am *not* suspicious of the goodness of the original Creation… But “sufficient†is … a very bold claim. It implies that *everything we need to know* (say, about parenting), without exception, is found in general revelation. It means that anything not found in general revelation is not necessary to be known.
Zrim: That is precisely what the sufficiency of general revelation means, and I am glad you have stated it so well. General revelation is more than a vast and exciting field for exploration. It is also where we mine for what is right, true and good in temporal life.
Then followed a discussion in of parenting, in which I pointed out that the Scripture has some things to say about parenting, despite parenting being a “common” endeavor.
Zrim: But parenting, like ruling, is a creational ordinance and not a redemptive one. They are six-day or creational activities. This means that Christian parenting or ruling will actually look remarkably similar to pagan parenting or ruling, not different.
There is an apparent contradiction here. On the one hand, creation is *sufficient*. Nothing need be added.
On the other, the Scripture has things to say about parenting that are not found in Creation. (Such as, bringing one’s child up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord). As a result, parenting by Christians should look different from parenting by non-Christians.
Zrim says, ah, yes, but not that different. Christian and non-Christian parenting are 90% similar.
But at that point, Zrim, haven’t you given away the game? Whether 10% or 90%, if there is even one thing that Scripture adds to our understanding of parenting, that we could not find from creation, then haven’t you conceded that creation is insufficient?
I’m not trying to play word games here, or find a way to score points. Rather, I’m trying to grapple with why someone would declare creation *sufficient* to know all things apart from salvation and faith.
It seems to me that if this were the case, then Proverbs would not be in Scripture. Ephesians would stop at chapter 3. James would be a very odd book.
Apparently, the Holy Spirit thought it necessary to provide people with instructions about life in the common.
Ah, you say, but those instructions are to Christians, not to all people.
Sure. But that’s the point: living Christianly in the commons is supposed to look different from living non-Christianly in the commons.
And that comes back also to my point about the WLC and the 10 Commandments. Apparently, the Westminster Divines *also* thought that the Scripture had some things to say about the common life that *should be said*. If they really believed that creation was sufficient, wouldn’t they have made the WLC shorter?
So help me out here. What does it mean to say that “creation is sufficient” and at the same time, “Christian parenting looks like non-Christian parenting 9/10 of the time”?
JRC
Jeff,
I realize you want to distinguish between two different types of Biblicism and place yourself in the soft instead of hard camp. But wanting the Bible to norm the civil sphere is wanting the Bible to norm the civil sphere. It’s a categorical mistake no matter how one wants to soften it up against the “pernicious and perennial evil†of the harder lot. It might even be the sort of categorical mistake one sees in Romanism on the ecclesial front: “The Bible is great, but look at all the fracture in Genevaville—that’s what you get with all that sola scriptura jazz, so let’s reach for another source, like the Magisterium, that’ll settle things and give us the sort of unity we want.†The civil parallel is: “The book of nature is great, but look at all the fracture in the world—that’s what you get with all that natural law-2K jazz, so let’s reach for another source, like the Bible, that’ll settle things and give us the sort of relief we desire.†But you can’t mix-and-match rulebooks just because sinners keep screwing up.
Zrim says, ah, yes, but not that different. Christian and non-Christian parenting are 90% similar. But at that point, Zrim, haven’t you given away the game? Whether 10% or 90%, if there is even one thing that Scripture adds to our understanding of parenting, that we could not find from creation, then haven’t you conceded that creation is insufficient?… So help me out here. What does it mean to say that “creation is sufficient†and at the same time, “Christian parenting looks like non-Christian parenting 9/10 of the timeâ€?
I think we have to clarify what a thing is sufficient for. General revelation is sufficient to do creation (it needs nothing from special revelation), special revelation is sufficient to do redemption (it needs nothing from general revelation). It becomes complicated—but not incoherent—when certain individuals have a dual citizenship or a foot in both spheres simultaneously, which is really what we’re talking about here. Parenting is a creational ordinance, not a redemptive one. That means that created creatures, whether damned or redeemed, look very similar as they carry out their shared creational vocations. Sure, one baptizes his brood and the other doesn’t, but that seems more a redemptive inequality amongst created equals than a feature that makes for a radical created difference. If we think “churchly†instead of “worldly†here we might begin to see just what the “resident†in “resident aliens†really means, or even what it means to be “in the world but not of it.â€
Really and truly, I think you are confusing your argument with mine.
It is not my argument that “common grace doesn’t work, so let’s reach for something else.”
It *is* my argument that a Christian is personally, normatively obligated to Scripture at all times. (And in fact, you’ve agreed to this point; and it is eminently Biblical and Confessional).
You (and dgh) on the other hand have been consistently arguing, “look at how badly transformationalism has worked out here, or here, or there. We need a new approach.”
That’s your argument, and you’re welcome to make it … but we need to keep the structure of the arguments straight.
Now it may be confusing because I have argued at a couple of points that Natural Law is not enough to govern the common. And so it might seem like I’m making an argument of the form above. But my purpose in arguing this is not to argue “and so, we have to have the Scripture.” (as indeed the theonomists like Bahnsen do). Rather, it is a pushback against the claim that Natural Law is sufficient.
That is: there are three separate arguments going on.
(1) The Natural Law is sufficient for governance.
This argument, I think, is falsifiable on philosophical and Scriptural grounds.
(2) The Scripture is sufficient as the basis for governance.
This argument is more complicated, but I think it is probably false also. Here is where your ‘Christian plumber’ examples are useful.
(3) The Christian magistrate is normed by the Scriptures.
This argument seems (to me) straightforward. But it is not the same as (2). It is the difference between necessary and sufficient. It is necessary to obey Scripture; that principle is not sufficient to dictate all actions.
Further, it is the difference between personal and corporate. The Christian magistrate is obligated to the Scripture; he is not obligated to create laws for others out of the Scripture.
It is my contention that this is the same needle that Calvin is threading in Inst. 4.20.
Your claim is that there is no distinction between (2) and (3), but I think you’re simply mistaken (sorry).
JRC
Jeff, it means that natural law or general revelation is sufficient to trust non-xian parents and non-xian magistrates, that with such knowledge they are capable of doing those things that they need to do as parents and magistrates. The question for you is what do you expect a parent or magistrate to do? Is it to behave like a Christian? If so, then general revelation would be inadequate. But who says parents or magistrates have to be Christian to fulfill their ordained responsibilities?
Jeff, interpreting the Bible always runs the rise of violating the conscience (wrongly informed) of a Christian. That is what a preacher does when he tells me the Bible means something that I thought it didn’t mean. To say that SOTC runs this risk, as if it is a risk that only SOTC bears, or inconsistently appropriates, is naive since the whole point of figuring out what the Bible says is to conform my conscience to it. In other words, if SOTC binds someone’s conscience according to Scripture, it’s not a violation.
Jeff, how can a Christian magistrate in the U.S. be normed by Scripture when the Constitution makes no reference even to God? At least the Covenanters saw this problem and forbade Covenanters from holding office and voting in elections. But you want to say that Christians do not need to play by the rules of our polity because we are Christians and the Bible trumps natural law or the Constitution. A magistrate is bound to uphold the laws he has vowed to uphold. If those laws conflict with his faith, he needs to resign or change the laws.
I don’t think you grapple sufficiently with the reality of the laws of the land. You are dealing with abstractions like natural law or what the Bible teaches about the magistrate. But we live in the United States and we have a polity.
Also, I don’t see where your argument is going. You say you’re not saying that common grace is not enough so let’s reach for something else like the Bible. The you say, natural law is insufficient so let’s reach for the Bible. I don’t see the point of trying to make a difference in these two claims.
So one of your hopes, I think, is that if we can keep civil laws from carrying the weight of “Thus saith the Lord”, then we keep from binding the conscience.
This makes sense. But doesn’t the Confession reverse this: we obey the civil law, but we do not internalize it to our consciences? (WCoF 20.2).
It may be that we need to do some of each.
JRC
If you’re saying that I don’t have it all worked out, then you’re right. Sorry to disappoint.
JRC
Jeff,
I think you do have it relatively worked out, actually. 2K says that natural revelation is sufficient to govern natural life (the way supernatural revelation is sufficient to govern supernatural life). You say it isn’t. It’s a simple enough difference, but it makes all the difference. If being in a majority helps you, take heart, it seems the larger balance of Christendom agrees with you.
Not quite. For some, there are two opposing ideas, and knocking down one counts as building up the other. They might say, “the natural law is insufficient, so let’s reach for the Bible.” So any time points are scored against the natural law, it is viewed as scoring points in favor of “reaching for the Bible.”
But actually, that’s a mistake in logic. Knocking down one does nothing to build up the other. I am saying, “The natural law is insufficient.” That’s all. It doesn’t imply “so let’s do X instead.”
What I actually do is to consider the two as supplemental. The Scripture sets a framework, whose details are filled in by creational knowledge. In my view, this is what the Westminster Divines meant by WCoF 1.6 (being unconvinced by T. David Gordon’s hypothesis).
JRC
Jeff,
First, it’s pretty hard to believe that when a Christian says that natural law is insufficient to govern natural life he’s not going to reach for the Bible as that which is going to make up the difference. I mean, that’s what I’d do since there are only two books to choose from.
Second, if “Scripture sets a framework, whose details are filled in by creational knowledge,” then how do you explain well-tuned civil societies far removed from scriptural reference to set up that framework, like the Far East? All the Ming Dynasty had was creational knowledge. And I daresay that particular civil society had much of what has been arguably lost in 2010 America, a society with “Scriptural framework” up the yin-yang (pun intended). If Scriptural framework is a prerequisite to building good society, how do get around the necessary conclusion that very good societies are not so good? How do you avoid a sort of Christendom-tinged jingoism? Or how about this one: if Scriptural framework is a prerequisite to good parenting, how does the believing son not violate the fifth commandment by rendering his good but unbelieving parents less than ideal folks?
I fully admit that I see Scripture and natural revelation as complementary. I just don’t see the same structure that you do (“This is deficient here, so let’s paper over with some Bible verses.”). We’re talking about framework and details, not holes and wall-plaster.
You can to point to a society that God would call “very good”? I thought we were aiming for faithfulness, not utopia. I think you have me confused with the postmils.
Do you hold that the 5th commandment requires us to believe our parents to be ideal?
I thought a major theme of Scripture is that even godly parents are deficient in comparison to the Father.
JRC
Whatever else may be said, this thread demonstrates my total inability to navigate the Oldlife thread system.
Reponse replicated below:
—
I fully admit that I see Scripture and natural revelation as complementary. I just don’t see the same structure that you do (â€This is deficient here, so let’s paper over with some Bible verses.â€). We’re talking about framework and details, not holes and wall-plaster.
You can to point to a society that God would call “very good� I thought we were aiming for faithfulness, not utopia. I think you have me confused with the postmils.
Do you hold that the 5th commandment requires us to believe our parents to be ideal?
I thought a major theme of Scripture is that even godly parents are deficient in comparison to the Father.
JRC
I fully admit that I see Scripture and natural revelation as complementary. I just don’t see the same structure that you do (â€This is deficient here, so let’s paper over with some Bible verses.â€). We’re talking about framework and details, not holes and wall-plaster.
Jeff,
Then I wonder if you could elaborate on just what you mean by saying that “the Scripture sets a framework,†for what I presumably take to be a framework for creational enterprise. I know it sounds good—like “Seeking to renew the City socially, spiritually and culturallyâ€â€”but what do phrases like these even mean? I can’t help but think it’s just more religious fantasy.
You can to point to a society that God would call “very good� I thought we were aiming for faithfulness, not utopia. I think you have me confused with the postmils.
If you’re saying that a society cannot be very good that actually sounds more like the Cynics than the Posties. But recall that “very good†isn’t yet “righteous,†as in the probationary period in Eden, as in a covenant of works yet to be fulfilled perfectly. Or do you really think we are unable to judge between right and wrong, good and better?
Do you hold that the 5th commandment requires us to believe our parents to be ideal?
I thought a major theme of Scripture is that even godly parents are deficient in comparison to the Father.
I hold that the fifth calls us to honor our parents, regardless of their redemptive status. It seems to me that if we say good parenting requires “scriptural framework†then those who don’t have it are automatically handicapped at making creational goods, or at least as good as those who have “scriptural framework†(whatever that is). That sounds pretty dishonoring. My folks never had any “scriptural framework,†but they did very well.
On the last point: you’re asking me to pass judgment on your parents, and I really don’t want to go down that road, if that’s OK. Their offspring seems to have turned out just fine.
Here’s something to think about. If the common derives its goodness from Creation (agreed), then goodness is Edenic, not post-Fall. I think you’ve crossed categories by appealing to pre-Fall creation for the goodness of the natural world, but then assigned “good” to mean “as good as we get in this fallen world.”
Is the world fallen or not? If yes, then we have to admit some deficiencies in creation. If not, then we have to apply Edenic standards to our term “good.”
I think our consciences alternately accuse and defend us in our sin. I’ve seen folk with wise, realistic assessments of themselves. I’ve seen rank self-justification. I’ve seen people in the church and out who were completely sold on a course of action without any discernable self-insight. In short, I think the human heart has a wide “dynamic range” of good and ill, with complex layers of motive added on, so that seemingly good folk can be covering for foul intent, and seemingly bad folk can be laboring under even something as simple as a biochemical problem. I don’t think that painting broad brush-strokes of “generally good” or “generally bad” does much.
Think about this: we know that God’s commands have not been given to us so that we can become more righteous in His eyes, but rather so that we can know how to live as those already declared righteous. “Anyone who has this hope purifies himself, just as He is pure.” That is to say: sanctification is not a matter of cultic cleansing, but of living rightly (as God’s children).
If the conscience were truly all that, then why would we need the commands? Wouldn’t the Holy Spirit + conscience be enough?
Are you sure you want to evaluate it as fantasy before I’ve elaborated? That doesn’t provide much incentive for me to spend the effort! (Though perhaps your frankness is salutary? Although on second thought, should I take seriously the implicit claim that you have achieved reality and everyone else is stuck in fantasy?)
Mischievously,
Jeff
Is the world fallen or not? If yes, then we have to admit some deficiencies in creation. If not, then we have to apply Edenic standards to our term “good.â€
Like I suggested before, confessional Protestantism distinguishes between the essence (“very good”) of creation and its condition (“sinful”). The fall didn’t diminish creation’s essence. It’s still very good, but it seems as though you think sin did harm to creation’s essence, which may be what this “scriptural framework” is all about?
I don’t understand what is problematic with calling creation very good but sinful. I wonder if it is not wanting to live with the obvious tension this presents? But don’t let any of this keep you from explaining what the “scriptural framework” notion is.
Jeff,
I’d like to sort of regroup before moving forward. First, we both accept the RPW. And we both understand the rule as simply meaning that public worship should consist of only those things that Scripture requires–if something is not commanded by Scripture to be a part of our public worship, it is forbidden in public worship.
Our disagreements are over what Scripture commands concerning public worship. To be even more precise, you find in the Scripture more commands concerning worship than I do. As to singing, we both agree that Scripture commands us to sing psalms, but you also I find a command in Scripture to sing hymns. As to the playing of instruments in public worship, I find no command in Scripture, but you find such a command. Ultimately, and perhaps most importantly, we both agree that this is a serious matter and that we cannot both be right.
Though neither of us has said so explicitly, I think we both also agree that Scripture permits the singing of not just hymns but also all sorts of songs outside of public worship. So everyone is free to sing Wesley’s hymns in the shower, in the car, and in their home worship. And the same is true of playing instruments. Charlie Daniels can play his fiddle for Jesus on every hill in Georgia.
So our differences boil down to two points: (1) whether Scripture commands the singing of songs that are not psalms (i.e. hymns); and (2) whether Scripture commands the playing of instruments.
Our discussion of these issues has given rise to two distinct lines of inquiry, which I think I have been guilty of carelessly tangling together. The first line is the straightforward question of whether Scripture indeed commands these things. The second line is the practical question of how a local church should handle a disagreement of this nature. I think we should address these in turn.
Let’s stick to the first line of inquiry for now.
As I see it, you find the command to sing psalms and hymns primarily in Ephesian 5:19. Is this right? And you see the playing of instruments as commanded in the inspired psalms of the OT and find no proof that the command has been set aside. Is this right?
If I have oversimplified matters, please clean it up. I think we will both learn the most by keeping the discussion tidy.
Golly Lily,
His name is Ligon, not Lignon.
Too funny, Eliza. Tu Quoque? Is that the best you can do?
Eliza,
I am sorry I was curt with you and wish I had taken the time to explain what I think you are missing in giving me a tu quoque. When one posts a comment and one is challenged on it, then, generally speaking, one has the opportunity to defend, explain, revise, or withdraw the comment via apology. I challenged your comment because it did not make sense and pointed out why. The burden of supporting your comment is up to you, not on my spelling imperfection. If I may make a suggestion, please look up what tu quoque means and consider adding logic and/or debate classes to your educational curriculum. I’m not saying I’m good in these subjects, I’m not, but they do help one think more clearly and help one answer challenges better.
RL: I agree with your analysis and the plan for discussion.
Here’s the larger picture for me: as I think about the RPW, it hinges on two concerns: To worship God as He has commanded; and to preserve liberty of conscience for the worshiper against “commands beside the Word of God.”
When we adopt those as strategic goals, we are generally able to write worship services and lead them.
My concern, however, is that the RPW has the paradoxical potential to become a command of man that restricts liberty in worship under this narrow set of circumstances:
If Alice believes that X is commanded (say, hymn singing), but Bob does not, then Bob can appeal to the RPW concerning his scruple.
So what are the options? Could Alice and Bob come to a reasonable accommodation? Or must Alice submit to Bob’s scruple as to a weaker brother? Or should a church court decide the issue of fact?
That’s the hypothetical. And to flesh it out, I offered up a real scenario: in my understanding, hymns and instruments are commanded. I’m more certain about hymns than instruments. On your account, WCoF 21 is exhaustive in its interpretation of Scriptural commands for “elements of worship”; since it does not contain hymns or instruments, it must be the case that there is no Scriptural command for either.
At the back of this (in very untidy fashion) is the larger discussion of Frame’s take on the RPW and DGH’s analysis thereof. My natural habit of thought runs in Frame’s direction, but it seems self-evident to me that he’s gone much further in his interpretation of the RPW than I would allow. I’d like to be able to discover, specifically, why.
I’ll address the specific question of the commands for hymns and instruments below.
JRC
I have two lines of reasoning. (H1) The first is that Eph. 5.19-20 explicitly commands singing hymns and spiritual songs in a way that clearly describes private worship at minimum.
The second (H2) is that we have various examples, both in OT and NT, of individuals singing non-psalmic hymns in what appears to be worship. The most prominent examples are Deborah’s hymn in Judges 5, the songs of Revelation, and the act of singing a hymn by Jesus and his disciples directly after the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Matt 26).
I reason that these examples are sufficient to demonstrate the command in that (a) they are presented with approval, and (b) they could not be approved unless they were also commanded, since thus is the logic of the RPW.
I feel substantially confirmed in this reasoning in that my own denomination has interpreted Scripture in a similar fashion: BCO 51 specifically permits hymns in worship.
The only objection I foresee is that hymns might be commanded for private worship, but not public. But this objection would gut the claim that WCoF 21 is exhaustive, since it covers both public and private worship.
Or one might be more radical and claim that Eph. 5 is not speaking of worship … this seems spurious, since I’m not sure what else we would call making music to the Lord; but more importantly, this objection would still leave the various examples (H2) intact.
I admit that the case here is less compelling, but it seems enough. Here, I have three lines of reasoning:
(I1) The command is given directly in Psalms to praise the Lord with various instruments.
Calvin takes the view (Comm. Ps. 92.3) that this command is a part of the ceremonial law and is done away with:
….but the Jews, who were yet under age, were astricted to the use of such childish elements. The intention of them was to stimulate the worshippers, and stir them up more actively to the celebration of the praise of God with the heart. We are to remember that the worship of God was never understood to consist in such outward services, which were only necessary to help forward a people, as yet weak and rude in knowledge, in the spiritual worship of God.
Calvin then ties this idea into a polemic against the worship practices of the RC church, “aping the practice in a senseless manner.”
It appears to me that Calvin on this point departs from his usual good sense, perhaps out of reaction against the excesses of Rome.
For if playing of instruments is an outward service, designed to stimulate the emotions, then what shall we say of singing? Wherein lies the difference?
More exegetically, what sense does it make to say that Psalm 92 refers to a corporate stimulation to worship that would otherwise be lacking? The actual text of the song is speaking of a single person, David, reflecting on his own practice of worship, which consists both of singing and playing of instruments. It is unlikely that David required the stimulation that Calvin alleges. He was already worshiping truly and from the heart.
So Calvin’s read here appears to be speculative, leaning on the opinions of the fathers and perhaps confirmed by his observations of abuse in the RC church.
We certainly see no evidence from OT or NT that instrument-playing was considered separate from singing, with one being ceremonial and the other being “true” or “pure” or “spiritual” worship; that idea first appears in the church fathers.
(H2) The elders in Revelation are playing instruments.
As before, according to the logic of the RPW, any example of permitted mode of worship counts as an implicit command.
(H3) And in any event, the kind of instrumental music I’m primarily thinking of is not solo, but rather accompaniment for singing.
Here we run into a difficulty with the RPW, distinguishing elements from modes. Is accompanied singing a “mode” of singing, as one might argue that polyphonic singing is a “mode”?
Or, is it a separate “element”?
Even if we don’t want to throw out the distinction entirely (as Frame seems to do), still there is a difficulty.
Again, I find my lines of reasoning confirmed by BCO 51: “Praising God through the medium of music is a duty and a privilege. Therefore, the singing of hymns and psalms and the use of musical instruments should have an important part in public worship.”
The sanction of the church court here seems to me to confirm that (a) my reading of Scripture is in the near, and (b) WCoF 21 is not exhaustive.
JRC
Ack, I got lost in my lettering. The two lines of reasoning for hymns should be numbered (H1) and (H2) and the three lines of reasoning for instruments should be (I1) – (I3).
While we are on WCF 21, I need to point out that in one of your recent posts in this thread you linked to an article (by Alan Clifford) to support your claim that the there was a certain level of disagreement among the Westminster Divines when drafting the confession.
You cited this passage: “Unlike the drafting of the Confession of Faith, the [Westminster Directory of Public Worship's] passage in committee and debate was often stormy.” (Emphasis mine. Brackets yours.) From page 1 of the article.
The clear import of that statement is that the drafting of the Confession was not stormy or contentious. Later in the article, Clifford is clear that one are of consensus was exclusive psalmody:
“Time and propriety forbid a lengthy discussion of the exclusive psalmody versus hymns debate. This was simply not an issue for the Westminster Assembly….” (Emphasis mine.) Page 7 of the article.
It wasn’t an issue because they all agreed on psalm-only worship services. Conspicuous by their absence from the DPW are two words: “hymn” and “circumstance” (as one would expected if the drafters thought that these issues fell under the domain of “circumstances” in WCF 1.6). The intent of the DPW is clear–psalms were the only songs to be sung. There was no debate. History confirms this. Non-inspired songs didn’t start creeping back into Reformed worship until the early 18th Century.
Let’s start with Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. It’s undeniable that the word hymns appears in those sentences, and that those sentences take the form of an imperative. But it’s not clear (at least to me) that Paul intended hymns to refer to non-inspired songs. I’m not trained at all in NT Greek, so I can’t go down that road. But I think there is significant progress to be made by looking just at the English translation.
The first point that I would like to make is the context of these two statements. As you hinted at above, they may only apply to a Christian’s private conduct. The overall movement of the later parts of Ephesians 4 and all of Ephesians 5 seems to go from addressing how believers should conduct themselves toward their neighbors to addressing how they should address one another.
The same movement can be seen in Colossians 3. The preceding versus move from a call to virtue in a broad sense to a call for a certain kind of conduct between believers. Both Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are preceded by calls for virtuous treatment of other generally and fellow believers specifically. Both versus are immediately followed by the call for virtuous treatment in even more intimate settings (e.g. the slave-master relationship & the husband-wife relationship). To me, this indicates that Paul is discussing behavior within interpersonal relationships, not public worship.
In any event, it’s not readily apparent that Paul is addressing the church’s public worship. If he is addressing anything else, it is beyond the scope of the RPW, which we agree only applies to the church’s stated Lord’s Day worship service.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that these verses apply to public worship, I see no reason that we must conclude that hymns and spiritual songs refer to uninspired writings. First, isn’t it possible that the three words are meant as appositives or synonyms–i.e. a psalm is a hymn, and a hymn is a psalm, and they are both spiritual songs? If that’s the case, it’s very easy to conclude that he is referring to the books in the Psalter.
I’m not thoroughly convinced by this interpretation, but it would seem to clean up a problem I see with your interpretation–what do you make of spiritual songs? If the verse refers to three different things–(1) psalms, (2) hymns, and (3) spiritual songs–musn’t you find a definition of each? And then isn’t the command to sing spiritual songs as forceful as the command to sing psalms and hymns? And this, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg. How do we decide whether each new composition is a hymn or a spiritual song or neither? What are the principles?
Even if we reject the notion that the words are synonyms, isn’t it possible to conclude that psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are three words that each refer to different types of inspired writings? I think there’s some support for this. For example, in the vast majority of it’s occurrences, doesn’t spiritual mean “given by or inspired by the Holy Spirit” or “pertaining to the Holy Spirit.” So the verses might be reworded as “psalms, hymns, and spirit-inspired songs.” Under this interpretation spiritual songs might include those songs sung by Mary or Zacharias. This would at least seem to me to place the burden on someone in your position to show that hymns referred to an uninspired song, just because it would seem odd to sandwich uninspired songs between two types of inspired songs.
Let’s go one step further and assume that the verses apply to public worship and that hymns refers to uninspired songs. Aren’t we now met with a very real problem of deciding what is or is not a hymn? What are the principles? Can lay people write hymns or does is it something that an ordained person must do? As I argued before, this cannot be one of the “circumstances” of WCF 1.6 since those are defined as things “common to human actions and societies.” To say that the ability to distinguish a hymn from a non-hymn is something “common to human actions and societies” would be quite a stretch, don’t you think?
This leaves us in a pickle–we are required to sing uninspired songs in public worship, but not just any kind of uninspired song. It has to be a hymn.” So we need a definition of a hymn or at least a way to tell a hymn from a non-hymn, especially if we think believers can still write hymns. If we say that we can’t find this definition in Scripture, we have to admit that Scripture is insufficient when it comes to worship?
It’s getting late here, and I need to help my brother move in the morning (pray for my back, please), so I’ll come back to the other strands of the argument tomorrow.
Lily,
I teach logic.
Please look past the spelling, grammar, and syntactical errors in my post. It was pretty late here, and I didn’t proof read. Sorry.
Wouldn’t the concerns about liberty of conscience also extend to creedal subscription? Why buy into the whole of the Confession and Catechisms and get hung up over four elements in worship (word, sacraments, prayer, and offering)?
But why not simply sing psalms because hymns are inferior to psalms? Is there any way that the best hymn can compete with the “worst” psalm? Plus, would you rather try to discern God’s meaning in a song, or Charles Wesley’s?
Right, especially in light of the goal of the singing stated in Colossians: “Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly….” If the song is inspired text, I can lay hold of it and treasure it in my heart without reservation. But even if the song comes from a great teacher of the church, even Martin Luther, I can’t take hold of it with reckless abandon; when it comes to the teachings of men, whether prose or poetry, whether spoken or sung, it must be viewed with some level of circumspection.
This would seem especially important in a worship service. Even if a song is based on perfectly orthodox theology, but I have never read or study it, should the church be able to bind me to greeting my brothers with such a song. If the congregational singing includes an uninspired song, the members are not only required to let it dwell richly in their hearts, but are also dragooned into the service of the theology of the song by implicitly endorsing it to everyone present at the worship service–how can the church ask me to do that if the song is not the word of God plain and simple? (I want to be careful here. I’m not saying that my singing of a song endorses the author, just the theology as expressed by the song.)
The only way that I can give or receive a song with absolute reckless abandon is if it is inspired. And that’s because the author is God. I give what I get, nothing more, nothing less. I receive from God His unadulterated Word, and that’s what I give back to Him and what I give to my church family.