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.
Old Life 
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…
Maybe because as Duncan pointed out they are an “alliance of confessional Protestants (and heirs of the historic Reformed Confessions)” and the Manhattan Declaration was written by a Romanist.
LikeLike
Lignon also wrote:
“The issue boils down to a matter of judgment, not a disagreement in principle… The Council members have had good, robust discussions on these things among ourselves about this whole matter. We continue to love and respect one another, and we all want to continue to serve and work with one another. The bonds of our fellowship are unbroken… Our unity in the Gospel, and in the great solas of the Reformation is stronger than ever.”
Is that not also a classic confessional two kingdom stance? I am thinking of this in terms of the distinction between the church and the vocation each Christian has as a citizen. It is up to each individual to use wisdom and prudence while we act in our role as citizens and to respect the Christian liberty of each of us to come to different conclusions or convictions on these matters. I may be wrong, but I’m thinking this is a good example of the two kingdoms in action.
LikeLike
Lily,
I find it interesting what you decided to edit out of that quote.
The issue boils down to a matter of judgment, not a disagreement in principle, between those Council members who signed and didn’t sign. The non-signers believe that the content of the document and the associations of the primary authors imply an ECT-like confusion about the Gospel.
It’s laughable now to try and say that the reason many of the leading Reformed theologians and ministers, Horton, Sproul, McArther, el al, rejected it is based on a two-kingdom theory. They all insisted that the document lead to a confusion on the Gospel not some putative two-kingdom analysis.
LikeLike
igasx,
Whew! That’s refreshing the only problem with the Manhattan Declaration is that it gets the Gospel wrong, and here I was worried that it might not be good for the church.
Anyway, since you have it in bold, I want to draw your attention to the adjective ECT-like. The ECT, of course, stands for Evangelicals and Catholics Together. What sort of goals did the ECT confuse with the Gospel? Here are a few:
“Christians individually and the church corporately also have a responsibility for the right ordering of civil society. We embrace this task soberly…. In the exercise of these public responsibilities there has been in recent years a growing convergence and cooperation between Evangelicals and Catholics. We thank God for the discovery of one another in contending for a common cause…. Our cooperation as citizens is animated by our convergence as Christians….”
“To deny that securing civil virtue is a benefit of religion is blindness. Americans are drifting away from, are often explicitly defying, the constituting truths of [the American] experiment in ordered liberty. Influential sectors of the culture are laid waste by relativism, anti-intellectualism, and nihilism that deny the very idea of truth. Against such influences in both the elite and popular culture, we appeal to reason and religion in contending for the foundational truths of our constitutional order….”
“We, therefore, will persist in contending-we will not be discouraged but will multiply every effort-in order to secure the legal protection of the unborn. Our goals are: to secure due process of law for the unborn, to enact the most protective laws and public policies that are politically possible, and to reduce dramatically the incidence of abortion….”
“In public education, we contend together for schools that transmit to coming generations our cultural heritage, which is inseparable from the formative influence of religion, especially Judaism and Christianity. Education for responsible citizenship and social behavior is inescapably moral education. Every effort must be made to cultivate the morality of honesty, law observance, work, caring, chastity, mutual respect between the sexes, and readiness for marriage, parenthood, and family. We reject the claim that, in any or all of these areas, “tolerance” requires the promotion of moral equivalence between the normative and the deviant….”
“We contend together against the widespread pornography in our society, along with the celebration of violence, sexual depravity, and antireligious bigotry in the entertainment media. In resisting such cultural and moral debasement, we recognize the legitimacy of boycotts and other consumer actions, and urge the enforcement of existing laws against obscenity….”
You have to admit that the phrase “ECT-like confusion about the Gospel” cannot reasonably be read to exclude objections based on the 2K idea. Do you think that 2K advocated would get so worked up about the idea if we didn’t think that getting it wrong risked polluting the Gospel?
LikeLike
Igasx,
That’s fun moniker. Does it have a meaning?
I would ask in return, why did you edit out:
“The signers believe that the explicit assertions and emphasis of the documents relate only to areas of principled social-ethical agreement between evangelicals and non-evangelicals. Further, they believe that it is important for individuals from the major quadrants of the historic Christian tradition to speak on these pressing matters in solidarity.”
Both quotes need to be included if you want to understand the disagreement. Choosing sides in the disagreement was not the point of Lignon’s statement. His statement can be seen as a good example of a man who is applying a two kingdom understanding to the disagreement and concludes that Christian liberty should be applied to the matter.
LikeLike
Here’s Dr. Horton, in his own words, on Manhattan Declaration (from the White Horse Inn Blog):
“This declaration continues this tendency to define “the gospel†as something other than the specific announcement of the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness solely by Christ’s merits. The document recites a host of Christian contributions to Western culture, adding, “Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.†The declaration concludes, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.†In an interview, Mr. Colson repeatedly referred to this document as a defense of the gospel and the duty of defending these truths as our common proclamation of the gospel as Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals.
“Having participated in conversations with Mr. Colson over this issue, I can assure readers that this is not an oversight. He shares with Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI the conviction that defending the unborn is a form of proclaiming the gospel. Although these impressive figures point to general revelation, natural law, and creation in order to justify the inherent dignity of life, marriage, and liberty, they insist on making this interchangeable with the gospel.”
“The error at this point is not marginal. It goes to the heart of the more general confusion among Christians of every denominational stripe today, on the left and the right. The law is indeed the common property of all human beings, by virtue of their creation in God’s image….However, in [Romans] 3, Paul explains that a different revelation of God’s righteousness has appeared from heaven: God’s justification of the ungodly through faith alone in Christ alone.”
“When we confuse the law and the gospel, there is inevitably a confusion of Christ and culture, and there is considerable evidence in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical histories to demonstrate the real dangers of this confusion.”
There’s really nothing I can add to that. It’s impossible to miss the 2K theme in those paragraphs.
The article is here: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/250.html
LikeLike
John MacArthur is not Reformed.
LikeLike
RL,
Whew! Are you claiming that to hold to those cultural attitudes it automatically excludes one from knowing the gospel? A Reformed theonomist cannot know the gospel (I’m not one)? That one cannot logically trust Jesus for forgiveness and his imputed righteousness and hold those cultural values?
I’m not able to be Ligan Duncan but what i see when I read “and the associations of the primary authors” clearly implies that at least one of these authors association, i.e. the Romanist Church, has the gospel wrong irregardless of any two kingdom view.
Romanists believe that one can be saved through Natural Law so of course they try to implement as much Natural Law as possible into State Law. But yet they hold to a form of two kingdom distinction as well.
I think your conflating Law/Gospel too closely with two kingdoms.
LikeLike
Lily,
My parents blessed me with some fun initials. 🙂
“The signers believe that the explicit assertions and emphasis of the documents relate only to areas of principled social-ethical agreement between evangelicals and non-evangelicals.
But the document actually asserted and implied much more than “areas of principled social-ethical agreement”. Wasn’t it the problem that it actually implied unity on what was the gospel?
If this document had qualified up front that the document in no way meant that each tradition agreed on what was essential to the gospel I believe we would have seen more two-kingdom arguments.
LikeLike
Igasx,
Nice blessing! 🙂
The Manhattan Declaration disagreements are not an area where I would like to join in. I do think Lignon handled the matter well.
LikeLike
OK. Let me just hammer the final nail in this argument straight from the horse’s mouth:
igasx,
What argument are you nailing? What argument do you see the post as making? DGH’s initial post suggests that some members of ACE may have decided not to sign the Manhattan Declaration based on an understanding of the 2K distinction as taught at WSC.
And I know that you understand the post the same way because this is the argument to which your first comment responds–you suggested that another reason why certain ACE members didn’t sign was that the Manhattan Declaration was “written by a Romanist,” which I took to mean that the document embodied teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that are incompatible with the Reformed Confessions to which many ACE members ascribe. That, of course, is a perfectly valid reason to not sign the Declaration. And no one has suggested that it is not, have they?
In your next post you presented a sentence from Duncan’s statment and concluded, “It’s laughable now to try and say that the reason many of the leading Reformed theologians and ministers, Horton, Sproul, McArther, el al, rejected it is based on a two-kingdom theory. They all insisted that the document lead to a confusion on the Gospel not some putative two-kingdom analysis.” This is the last post of yours that I understand.
I took issue with this conclusion. I apparently didn’t make myself clear. Here’s what I thought was implicit in my comment. I thought that your conclusion was invalid because it was based on a false dilemma. You set “confusion of Gospel” and “two-kingdom analysis” as two mutually exclusive basis for not signing the Declaration–since Duncan reports that they refused to sign because they thought their signing would imply a confusion about the gospel, they couldn’t have refused to sign because the document violated 2K principles. This was your argument, right?
I tried to show that your argument was invalid by showing that one could refuse to sign the Declaration based on both principles. In fact, my implicit point was that the confusion of the gospel presented in the ECT was one that necessarily leads to violation of 2K principles. Namely, that the ECT and those associated with it present a version of the gospel offers hope for salvation thats is both outside of Christ’s (a confusion of the gospel) and, instead, grounded in a social movement (a violation of 2K principles). I also presented an excerpt from Dr. Horton that explained why he didn’t sign, which I thought supported my argument–he is after all one of the people who refused to sign.
I don’t know whether or not I convinced you because you didn’t really respond to anything I said. You merely accused me of adding law to the gospel by suggesting that I was claimed that salvation was condition on a believer holding certain cultural attitudes. The Irony! This is one of the evils that 2K theology protects against.
Now your last couple of posts are classic examples of doublespeak. All of your previous comments relied on Duncan being a reliable source for the reasons why some members didn’t sign. You now claim that he’s a unreliable source–we shouldn’t rely on his observations about why the others did sign. You can’t have it both ways. Why would he be reliable for one and not the other?
I really can’t figure out what you are trying to accomplish with your last post. It’s evidence that George sees the document as advancing Catholic doctrine. But I haven’t seen anyone here claim that it was grounded in Reformed orthodoxy.
I’m afraid that all you took from the horse’s mouth was straw, which you used to build several men.
LikeLike
Lily,
You are correct. At the same time, one wonders: if ECT-like doc’s like TMD are confusions of the kingdoms, thus confusions of law and gospel (as Horton helpfully points out), how can signing really be a matter of liberty? I thought liberty had to do with matters indifferent, as in how to solve certain political problems. Is it really liberty to undermine the gospel?
I respect respect and disagreement. But I hesitate when non-signers respectfully disagree over something that seems non-negotiable.
LikeLike
I thought that your conclusion was invalid because it was based on a false dilemma. You set “confusion of Gospel†and “two-kingdom analysis†as two mutually exclusive basis for not signing the Declaration–since Duncan reports that they refused to sign because they thought their signing would imply a confusion about the gospel, they couldn’t have refused to sign because the document violated 2K principles. This was your argument, right?
I never stated they were mutually exclusive I just pointed out that those who reported why they did not sign all referred to the confusion of the gospel as the most important problem. That a 2k principle may have been a secondary cause is no doubt probable for someone like Horton. In your post however you seem to think that the ECT-confusion is fully based on cultural issues and apparently since none of your quotes referenced the gospel we are to assume that this confusion is really all a 2k problem. So while you think I find them mutually exclusive, which I don’t think that is necessary, you seem to imply that if you get the 2k wrong you get Law/Gospel wrong and conflate the two. So Horton got the ordering right and started with the problem with the gospel and that lead to an additional problem with 2k as opposed to starting with a 2k problem and then claiming that that leads to a denial of the gospel, as you implied.
Now your last couple of posts are classic examples of doublespeak. All of your previous comments relied on Duncan being a reliable source for the reasons why some members didn’t sign. You now claim that he’s a unreliable source–we shouldn’t rely on his observations about why the others did sign. You can’t have it both ways.
I did no such thing. I pointed out that those who signed claimed that the document was just a “social-ethical” document and Duncan said “bull” to that and that it was a Natural Law gospel document. I gave primary source information from Robby George that a Natural Law gospel was his intention the whole time and he “sold” it to Evangelicals despite Protestants long history of denying the natural law gospel.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Thank you for responding. I found Horton’s assessment online and read it. Horton is right. I appreciate the corrective. The Manhattan Declaration is a snare. I was wrong to believe that TMD was an area of Christian liberty. Clearly, it is not. Several Lutheran pastors I respect chose to sign TMD petition and I was careless to not look into the matter further. Hopefully, I will not be so lazy next time. Again, thanks and a Happy New Year to you.
LikeLike
The money quote was here:
In other words, ACE as a whole did not *have* a consensus concerning a distinction between kingdoms; that lack of consensus prevented a unified statement for or against the MD. The *meaning* of the document itself was in dispute; thus, no position could be taken.
Duncan’s quote in the 2nd para (as cited by Dr. Hart) is unclearly related to what he says here. Certainly, nothing in what follows suggests that ACE as a whole declined to sign because of their 2K position. I suspect it reflects LD’s personal view to an extent.
Dr. Hart’s larger point, that a commitment to reforming the church did not entail a commitment to get involved in this social issue, is also noted.
JRC
LikeLike
The point of the post wasn’t that people refused to sign MD on 2k grounds. It was that to explain why ACE members signed and didn’t sign Duncan had to appeal to a 2k rationale. And built up in that rationale was the idea that even on the basis of Scripture, the church will not take a stand on some social and political matters such as the dignity of human life and marriage. Remember, ACE’s raison d’atre is to call churches to be faithful to Scripture.
Now to connect the 2k dots, lots of folks here have complained that 2k leaves the state without an adequate foundation — as in Scripture. But an organization like ACE claims to stand on Scripture and is committed to the church. But they do not feel compelled to take a stand on matters that anti-2kers want the state to take a stand on. And ACE is doing this in the name of being faithful to Scripture.
So how exactly is Westminster California radical or outside the mainstream? Or, why aren’t people as upset with ACE as they seem to be with WSC? Seems like a fair question to me, or again a lot of hypocrisy in the anti-2k — I mean, anti-WSC view.
LikeLike
DGH,
If I understand this situation more clearly (now that Zrim has so graciously offered me the corrective I needed), this is an example of a two kingdom approach that was misapplied. Instead of seeing that the gospel was at stake and taking a stand, ACE chose to allow the error to continue unopposed within it’s membership. If I am perceiving this correctly, they just let the camel’s nose into the tent? Or did I miss it (again)?
LikeLike
So is WSC the only Seminary out there that clearly espouses 2K theology? That might actually be a good marketing aspect about what makes WSC so distinctive and so biblical.
LikeLike
Sorry DGH, I veered way off topic from your questions: Why be P.O. at WSC and not ACE? From the angle I’m looking at the situation, it’s because the truth is not always welcome. WSC seems to offer truth that includes sharp borders. Compromise and soft boundaries are always more palatable for mainstream acceptance. ACE is mainstream confessionalism. WSC is decidedly Reformed. WSC may be a thorn in the side of the ACE that prevents it from being able to smoothly slide into the Episcopalian big tent niceness that led them completely off-track. Anywho, I hope this queer angle makes sense?
LikeLike
Big apology here, guys. I’m doing an awful lot of thinking out loud. I’m reeling from the implications of Horton’s assessment of TMD and the ACE’s statement.
LikeLike
Lily,
I’m not saying that ACE was in error. Since ACE did not act corporately on this, how can they be blamed? It seems to me that the MD is a personal decision. Members of ACE signed it. Members of ACE were critical. So Lig had to do a little two-step. But 2k means that individuals have liberty on matters like this.
The interesting aspect here is that a mainstream organization like ACE is suggesting that Christians will have different ways of approaching abortion and gay marriage — and yet be biblical. A lot of critics of WSC have trouble graspiing what ACE has done.
LikeLike
Yes, but the motives can work the other way. If you’re a small seminary trying to peel away students from one of the mainstream schools — and Westminster is a brand name — you ding WSC and hope to shake away some tuition dollars.
LikeLike
I’m not so sure. If WSC took that route (“We’re the only ones who teach 2k; we’re therefore distinctive and biblical”), they would be implying that every other seminary out there, that does not teach 2k, is unbiblical. It’s one thing to have a point of view. It’s another to declare everyone else “unbiblical” for disagreeing with you.
In point of fact, WSC benefits from being a part of the larger Reformed community. Marketing yourself as the Great One and Only in that community would not fly well. And in truth, I doubt that WSC thinks of itself in that way.
JRC
LikeLike
Zrim, this is precisely what a “matter of liberty” looks like: a disagreement over the *meaning* of a particular action.
The issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 10.23ff) was non-negotiable for some because they interpreted the meaning of eating to be equivalent to participating in idolatry (just as if they were participating in the service itself as in 10.14ff).
For others, it was just meat.
Everybody agreed that idolatry was wrong; they disagreed over whether eating the meat constituted idolatry.
The same is true here. For Mohler, the definition of the Gospel is not at stake (as it was with ECT), so he is free in his conscience to sign. For Horton, the definition of the Gospel is at stake, so he doesn’t.
There’s nothing in the Scripture or Standards that says, “Horton is right and Mohler is wrong”, so there we are.
The only thing that would change that is the ruling of a church court.
Think about your interactions with Elder Hoss over public school. As far as he’s concerned, something non-negotiable is at stake …
JRC
LikeLike
So it’s a question of conscience, right? I can think some were wrong to sign MD and that I was right not to sign it. Christian liberty doesn’t do away with correctness or error. Christian liberty is not an excuse for relativism.
The interesting point is how Christians tolerate a diversity of consciences, which seems to be the argument behind Paul’s teaching on weaker and stronger brothers. Both sides need to respect the personal choices of others — except on those matters where the church has corporately determined what is required for membership in the church. To require abstaining from signing MD would be wrong. So would requiring Christian schools. The 2k view is one that allows latitude for consciences. I don’t see a similar flexibility among 2k critics. Instead, they seem to want to make their own personal convictions the norm for every believer.
LikeLike
Agreed on all counts. (I didn’t sign either, not that anyone would have noticed or cared). You’ll note that I carefully circumscribed this: the Scripture does not forbid it; the Confession does not forbid it; a church court has not ruled on it.
Where I departed from Zrim is his description of liberty as covering “things indifferent” — a delightful phrase of Melanchthon’s, but not fully accurate. As in the case of meat sacrificed to idols, the thing is “indifferent” only to one side of the question.
Here, where Zrim sees a danger, the MD is not a matter of indifference to *him*. And so he withdraws the liberty card and plays the “Gospel is at stake” card.
But it’s still a matter of liberty, for the reasons I mentioned above.
(Larger context: over on GB, Zrim suggested that pastors should be sternly rebuked for signing the MD. I’m suggesting that his scruple on this matter is not a sufficient ground for such an action. In other words, far from suggesting relativism, I’m suggesting a more objective way of evaluating the question than an individual’s opinion about whether the Gospel is at stake: Scripture, Confession, courts)
Yet here I am, a (mild) 2k critic advocating liberty to a determined 2k advocate (Zrim) who wants to restrict liberty. The situation is seemingly more complex than a simple “2k extends liberty, anti-2k restricts it.” Sometimes 2k advocates are unable to extend latitude on matters they have determined to be “cult” instead of “culture.” Recall also our discussion about REPT restricting the liberty of the Christian magistrate. Think further about the desire of some Old-Lifers to restrict singing to Psalms only.
JRC
LikeLike
DGH:
I applaud the way that you participate in the conversations that your posts spark. It’s always clear that your comments are based on patient attention to and careful reflection upon what your readers have said. This shows you to have the heart and mind of a great teacher.
LikeLike
DGH,
Please forgive me for becoming discombobulated. I thought I understood the situation fairly well until I read Horton’s assessment. Seeing TMD through his eyes more than disconcerted me. It will take time for everything to fall back into place.
I have no qualms about there being liberty on how to handle the issues of abortion, marriage, etc. in the public square. I think that is the proper distinction between the two kingdoms. It is the subject of the gospel that put a stake through my heart, for that does belong exclusively to the kingdom of God. If one confuses the two kingdoms, then one inevitably begins a long downward slide of unwitting compromises/corruptions of the gospel and creeds. And that frightens me.
I can see why there is so much controversy. It is a sticky situation. ACE is not a church, per se, but I do not know what other category to put it into for the sake of two kingdom application. The church does need to take a stand on issues that pertain to the gospel, like it did on ECT. If TMD is a watered-down version of ECT, then the church needs to take a stand and correct any erring members. If my thoughts are correct, ACE did well to distinguish the left hand kingdom but failed to distinguish the right hand kingdom. Kyrie eleison.
It’s times like this that I am glad that I am mere laity. 🙂
LikeLike
Jeff, by extending the claims of Scripture to all of life and to common callings like plumbing and the magistrate you (or people who do this) end up restricting liberty. You cannot dissent from the Word. You can from someone’s pious opinion. So you may be right that it is more complex than this in practice. But that seems to be a function of the biblicist’s inconsistency — the Bible governs all of life, but Christians are free to live life in a variety of ways even though the Bible speaks with one voice.
And this is where psalm-singing is different from plumbing. The Oldlifer advocating psalm singing would be guilty of asking, don’t you think God has revealed how he wants to be worshiped? He’d also ask the biblicist, do you really think the Bible reveals how to plumb?
Just to be clear, and not to leave comrade Zrim in the breeze, I too think an implication for some who signed MD is to move in a direction that gets the gospel wrong. But an implication is an assertion and I don’t think anyone can be charged simply on the basis of an implication.
LikeLike
Lily, this is a very astute point about how parachurch organizations get to talk out of both sides of their mouth by seeming to transcend the kingdoms.
LikeLike
Thanks, but let’s not get carried away. My wife regularly points out what an SOB I can be. Sometimes I even agree. But in point of fact, sometimes it’s the SOBs who are the best teachers.
Thanks as well for not calling oldlife.org a ministry.
LikeLike
Well, that certainly *can* happen. I’m reminded of the time that a fellow saw me practicing my electric guitar and told me that the electric guitar was a sinful instrument. He played, of course, acoustic. I didn’t bother to get into a discussion about semi-hollowbodies. Just smile and nod …
But the larger question is the distinction you raised, that I would endorse: a pious opinion is not Scripture. If we keep this distinction, then one might “extend the claims of Scripture to all of life” in the way that, say, the Larger Catechism does (WLC 99: “For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed: That the law is perfect, and binds everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin.”).
This approach, even though described as “extending Scripture to all of life” does not thereby make Scripture a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Scripture informs my plumbing; it regulates my plumbing; it does not of necessity dictate every aspect of my plumbing.
So there’s no need to preserve liberty by making the 2k move. The liberty-preserving distinction is Word of God / word of man rather than sacred / common.
But Psalm-only fellow goes beyond this. It is a reasonable interpretation of Col 3.16 that hymns and spiritual songs *other than* psalms are acceptable worship of God. The exclusive psalmist disallows this interpretation, though the Standards do not, and sets up a “standard within the Standards.” It’s not an issue of RPW v. non-RPW; it’s an issue of Fred’s RPW v. George’s RPW. Fred wants to restrict George’s worship, even though George is deriving his practice from direct command of Scripture.
To my mind, the same principle applies to this issue as to the MD issue: Does the Scripture disallow reading Col 3.16 as including non-psalmic hymns? No. Do the Standards? No. Do church courts? No. So there is liberty of interpretation.
Do you disagree?
JRC
LikeLike
DGH, thanks for the compliment. I don’t find it particularly astute. I can see that they are playing games – it’s ugly. But phrases like ‘transcend the kingdoms’ said in my presence might draw blood. What good is a confessional para-church organization if it chooses to be yet another pot-hole in the road? But what do I know? Razzum frazzum.
LikeLike
Yet here I am, a (mild) 2k critic advocating liberty to a determined 2k advocate (Zrim) who wants to restrict liberty.
Jeff,
First, I was trying my hand at being provocative by asking if obscuring the gospel could feasibly be construed as a matter of liberty. Second, since you link it, you’ll recall at GB that my point was that this language of “respectfully disagreeing†with MD signatories seemed weak. And when asked by someone who agreed that it was weak and clearly wanted support for discipline, I suggested several reasons that discipline seems clearly misguided. While implications can be in some sense craftier than bald assertions, I agree with DGH that the MD is to move in a direction that gets the gospel wrong by implication instead of assertion, but implications are not grounds for discipline. At the same time, I don’t know how one “respectfully disagrees†with, nor renders as “a matter of liberty,†those efforts which move in directions that get the gospel wrong. If one sees a crime brewing in another’s efforts he may not have grounds for accusation, but he certainly has grounds to strongly suggest that certain behavior in unhealthy and suspect.
So, how about an analogy? I’m not restricting liberty here so much as saying that it’s pretty bad judgment for a married man to secretly rendezvous with an old girlfriend for exchanges that fall short of actual adultery. I would find it odd that a good brother would tell such a man he respectfully disagrees with his behavior. Wouldn’t a better friendship demand more realism, even harshness, in the face of obvious dysfunction? I mean, if nothing else, as my conversation partner at GB demonstrated, there are those who want to erroneously charge adultery when it hasn’t happened yet. Do we do our brothers any favors to make this a matter of respect and liberty instead of wisdom and the difference between good and bad judgment?
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
Good point. I did not mean to imply that WSC would focus on 2K to the exclusion of other great points about the seminary. I just think that 2K is important enough to at least keep in the forefront as to why WSC is such a vital seminary (I graduated back in 2000 by the way, so I am a hometown fan, so to speak).
LikeLike
P.S. I should probably explain my outburst of dander. Using sophistic rhetoric like ‘transcend kingdoms’ to justify the existence of para-churches and mangle the gospel is beyond my patience limits. And, I meant ‘draw blood’ figuratively (unless polemics makes their ears bleed). I assume pot-holes is self-explanatory.
LikeLike
@Zrim: To be fair to you, you were certainly calling for something less than discipline, and I probably should have qualified it in that way. Sorry. I should have given you more credit.
I’m zweifeled here. On the one hand, I agree with you. If I were Al Mohler’s friend, I would ask him, “In what way, exactly, are you called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace? What is the fullness of the Gospel, and how does it relate to the rest of the document? How does Christian’s refusal to compromise their proclamation of the Gospel relate to the avowed refusal to not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act…?”
And you can imagine that I would probably grill him a bit. 🙂
On the other hand, I’m seeing Elder Hoss peeking through your SOTC window. His concern about public schools is (in his eyes) a legitimate concern about idolatry. He sees you (and me, no doubt) as the man meeting the girlfriend of worldly wisdom on the sly, all the while telling ourselves that we can separate the business of the common and the pleasure of the sacred. In his eyes, he’s the faithful friend (prophet?) calling us to repent of our dalliances.
Why is he wrong? (Or is he?)
In my view, he’s wrong because he’s erecting a rule not found in Scripture and using it as a proxy for the Real Rule. The Real Rule is “no other gods”, not “don’t put your kids in public school.”
Final thought: it’s also a matter of relationship. I would grill Al a bit if he were my friend, or perhaps pastor. But given that he’s a complete stranger in another denomination, he’s not really my business.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff, this is what puzzles me and why I wrote about if not 2k, then two laws. You want the Bible to govern plumbing as a regulator of plumbing in general but not in particular. Well, who gets to decide what is general and what is particular. It could look pretty arbitrary — sort of like a hidden knowledge. And then when 2k people say Christ is lord but only in a creational way over plumbing, we get dinged for not bringing the Bible into plumbing. Both sides then allow room for plumbers to plumb according to standards found outside Scripture. But one of those sides keeps complaining that the other side allows plumbers to plumb without the Bible in their back pocket.
The reason why psalm-singing is different is that not everyone is called to plumb. So if someone plumbs in a way that I think foolish, that’s his conscience and vocation. But everyone is called to sing and to do so corporately. So if I have objections to singing hyymns, and my congregation requires me to do so by including them in the order of service, what am I supposed to do — disobey God’s command to sing? It’s one thing to sing hymns in the privacy of your home. It is another to use them in public worship where consciences are implicitly bound by what goes on in worship. In this case, how is a hymn-singer’s conscience bound by singing psalms? Do hymn-singers think it is wrong to sing psalms? If not, then the best way to obey God’s command to sing is to sing psalms because then no one’s conscience is bound illegitimately.
LikeLike
What you’re getting at is there is a lot more overlap between (reasonable) 2k advocates and (reasonable) neo-Cals than either side acknowledges.
I fully agree. This is why I suggested last year that Frame’s “situational” perspective is closer to your “common” than you might realize.
So rather than dinging you (“-5 No Bible!”), I would rather suggest that you are actually smuggling the Bible in the back door without … acknowledging? realizing? … it.
The Natural Law, for example, is simply Scripture sublimated into the conscience.
And, you hold to such items as WLC 99. And you have previously agreed with me that a Christian plumber is still obligated to fulfill the 10 Commandments in his plumbing, and that (under the right circumstances) this might even affect his choice of materials or some other pragmatic aspect of his plumbing … IF the violation or fulfillment of a command were in view.
Well, that’s functionally substantially equivalent to what I mean by “the Bible regulating our plumbing.”
So I don’t actually object to your practice. You do the same things I do. I only think that “Christ as creational Lord” is awkward and doesn’t accurately describe what you do. As applicable, Christ’s commands are also normative for the believer acting in the common sphere.
FWIW, I would also say that Frame’s language doesn’t adequately capture his practice entirely. On the one hand, he says, “In everything, we are to act in the name of the Lord Jesus (Col. 3:17), with all our heart (3:23). When I change a tire, I should do it to the glory of God. The details I need to work out myself, but always in the framework of God’s broad commands concerning my motives and goals.” ([1]). On the other, he says, “In other words, the regulative principle for worship is the same as the regulative principle for all of human life.” (ibid), which leaves one slightly perplexed about degrees.
In fact, the perplexion is reflected in your question: “Well, who gets to decide what is general and what is particular. It could look pretty arbitrary — sort of like a hidden knowledge.”
And I would answer: Scripture, Standards, courts, the individual. There is liberty in things not pre- or proscribed in Scripture, but that liberty is not exercised in a vacuum.
I imagine you would do the same thing I would do when I visit my in-law’s church: pass on the things you cannot participate in.
Likewise, a piano-player who finds himself for whatever reason in a voice-only church would refrain from exercising his gifts.
But my point was not to give a rule to the psalm-onlyist so that he can negotiate other churches; that’s the easy question. My point was rather to ask the psalm-onlyist, “Have you considered that you are proposing that we restrict the liberty of others in order to conform to your scruple?”
I would therefore disagree with your last sentence: singing psalms only is not simply the safe way out. It is also asking those with greater liberty to surrender it for the sake of a scruple. They might well do so out of charity … but it’s probably not right to ask it of them.
In a non-hypothetical church, this issue would probably have to be resolved as a “family matter.” If I were the pastor of two substantial contingents of exclusive and non-exclusive psalmists, I would probably order the worship service so as to be psalm-heavy.
JRC
LikeLike
Oops, my threading skills failed. Here’s my reply: https://oldlife.org/2009/12/31/the-virus-is-spreading-spooky/comment-page-1/#comment-4376
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
I think that your analysis of psalm-only singing psalm-and-hymn singing errs by treating as equal things that Scripture teaches are not equal. On the psalm-only side, the issue is a matter conscience. On the psalm-and-hymn side, the issue is a matter of liberty. When weighing a perceived loss of liberty against a bruised conscience, Scripture (I think especially the 8th and 9th chapters of 1 Corinthians) requires us to freely surrender our liberty. The two are not equal. That’s why a psalm-heavy service is an unacceptable compromise.
LikeLike
RL, I respect your principle but disagree with your analysis. Here, we aren’t talking about individuals making singing decisions for themselves. If I were an individual in a psalm-only church, I would (for the reason you cite — 1 Cor 8 – 10) refrain from exercising my liberty.
Instead, we are talking about the desire of some to extend their scruples to the rest of the church, making it a norm for the worship service. As an elder, I would resist this extension of scruple.
That is: it is one thing to surrender my own liberty; another thing to surrender someone else’s.
Suppose that an individual in your church sincerely believed that playing instruments was a Romish practice. Would you as an elder remove all instruments in order to accommodate this scruple?
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
Suppose that an individual in your church sincerely believed that playing instruments was a Romish practice. Would you as an elder remove all instruments in order to accommodate this scruple?
I want to give an unqualified “yes” to your question, but the wording of the question gives me pause. If you permit me to rephrase the question as follows, then I would answer “yes” without hesitation:
Suppose that an individual in your church presented [biblical and reasonable] objections to the playing of instruments during public worship. Would you as an elder remove [the playing of public instruments from public worship]?
I think my rephrasing still gets to the heart of the matter. Before I launch into an explanation, I want to make sure you find this rephrasing acceptable. I think it’s best if we proceed with as much precision as possible.
I worry that an unequivocal “yes” to the question as originally worded could be read to imply that I believe we should treat matters of personal preference or taste as matters of Christian conscience. (I’m not suggesting that you meant this). And the decision wouldn’t be to “accommodate a scruple”; it would be to spare his conscience and to preserve the unity of the congregation. Please execuse me if this is overly pedantic; in matters of this sort, I have very conservative instincts, and I’d rather move slowly (testing my footing at every step) than charge along.
LikeLike
Not at all; thank you for your caution.
The individual I had in mind was actually one of my favorites, Calvin. In his commentaries on Psalms (71.22, 81.3, and esp. 92.3), he teaches that instruments were a part of the OT dispensation and do not comport with the pure worship that takes place under the Gospel. In this way he appears to aim at reforming worship over against the instrumental practices of the Roman church.
Now suppose, hypothetically, that JC approaches the session and asks for a change in the worship service, and presents his reasons. Clearly, they are derived from Scripture. Are they reasonable? Here we might have to trifurcate:
Case 1: the session finds JC’s analysis to be flawed, over-emphasizing the separation between Old and New, and grounded more in reaction to Rome than in exegesis.
In this case, despite their finding, would you have them subject the rest of the worship to his conscience?
Case 2: The session finds JC’s analysis to be possible but not a good and necessary inference from Scripture. Same question.
Case 3: The session finds JC’s analysis to be compelling. Same question. (probably rhetorical in this case!)
You can see here that I place some reliance on the church court to help decide the question of biblical and reasonable. That is, I wouldn’t simply say, “Oh, you cite Scripture. Well, then.”
Coming back to exclusive psalmnody, part of my reasoning (not made clear) is that neither the court of the PCA nor of the OPC has enjoined exclusive psalmnody. This appears to decrease the sense of “biblical and reasonable”ness of the exclusive psalmist’s argument.
What do you think?
JRC
(A further thought. You mentioned in another thread that it was easily seen that the RPW ought to apply to private worship as well as public, even if some of the elements of public worship are absent. If this is so, then would not the non-psalmic worship songs found in Scripture (e.g.: Deborah, Hannah, Mary, Rev. 19) undercut the exclusive psalmist’s case? But this thought distracts from the theoretical issue)
LikeLike
I think all three cases must be handled with the same process–recognizing that reasonable people will reach different conclusions on matters of public worship, the church can maintain unity amid this diversity only by striving for biblical simplicity.
I believe that all would agree that the congregation has a duty to sing in public worship. I believe that all would agree that the most simple and least controversial way to fulfill this duty is to sing a cappella from the Psalter. If this is the only singing in the services, then the duty is discharged without question.
For now let’s consider only the addition of instrumental music to our congregational singing (saving for later the issue of adding hymns or even replacing the sung psalms with hymns). For the person advocating the addition of instrumental music, this is matter of right or liberty, not conscience. That is, if you agree to the premises stated above, then you agree that the congregation has no duty to add instrumental music.
So what then is the opposition to the addition of music? Is the opponent simply claiming the right not to have an instrumental-free service? No. The opponent, especially when thinking of Calvin as the opponent, believes that adding music is wrong. It’s not a matter of taste, it’s a matter of duty–if the congregation adds instruments to the singing, it corrupts the worship service; thus, the congregation has a duty to exclude the instruments.
If this issue is brought before a church session, the session need not be convinced by either side to determine that the instruments must be excluded. In fact, the session may find the that the person who wants to add instruments to present a more compelling case. So long as the psalm-only advocate presents a reasonable case from scripture (as I believe Calvin does) that adding to a public worship service is idolatrous, then the session should exclude the instruments. It’s the only way the two groups could worship together.
If the church adds the instruments, then objector cannot participate without a wounded conscience, regardless of the balance between a cappella singing and singing accompanied with instruments. Even if just one psalm of five includes instruments, then the objector has a wounded conscience. That is too high a price to pay for an exercise of liberty.
On the other hand, if you do not add the instruments, then all consciences are clear, because, as stated above, everyone agreed that their duties before God were discharged by the simple singing of psalms a cappella. (It’s also no small matter that they avoid the risk that Calvin is right and that the addition of instruments is prohibited; the church should be quite risk-averse in such situations).
LikeLike
I think all three cases must be handled with the same process–recognizing that reasonable people will reach different conclusions on matters of public worship, the church can maintain unity amid this diversity only by striving for biblical simplicity.
I believe that all would agree that the congregation has a duty to sing in public worship. I believe that all would agree that the most simple and least controversial way to fulfill this duty is to sing a cappella from the Psalter. If this is the only singing in the services, then the duty is discharged without question.
For now let’s consider only the addition of instrumental music to our congregational singing (saving for later the issue of adding hymns or even replacing the sung psalms with hymns). For the person advocating the addition of instrumental music, this is matter of right or liberty, not conscience. That is, if you agree to the premises stated above, then you agree that the congregation has no duty to add instrumental music.
So what then is the opposition to the addition of music? Is the opponent simply claiming the right not to have an instrumental-free service? No. The opponent, especially when thinking of Calvin as the opponent, believes that adding music is wrong. It’s not a matter of taste, it’s a matter of duty–if the congregation adds instruments to the singing, it corrupts the worship service; thus, the congregation has a duty to exclude the instruments.
If this issue is brought before a church session, the session need not be convinced by either side to determine that the instruments must be excluded. In fact, the session may find the that the person who wants to add instruments to present a more compelling case. So long as the psalm-only advocate presents a reasonable case from scripture (as I believe Calvin does) that adding to a public worship service is idolatrous, then the session should exclude the instruments. It’s the only way the two groups could worship together.
If the church adds the instruments, then objector cannot participate without a wounded conscience, regardless of the balance between a cappella singing and singing accompanied with instruments. Even if just one psalm of five includes instruments, then the objector has a wounded conscience. That is too high a price to pay for an exercise of liberty.
On the other hand, if you do not add the instruments, then all consciences are clear, because, as stated above, everyone agreed that their duties before God were discharged by the simple singing of psalms a cappella. (It’s also no small matter that they avoid the risk that Calvin is right and that the addition of instruments is prohibited; the church should be quite risk-averse in such situations).
LikeLike
Jeff,
Why is Christ as creational Lord a problem? Since when is clarity a problem? Christ as Lord doesn’t do justice to the different aspects of his lordship. Clearly, Christ is not lord of unbelievers in the way that he is of unbelievers. This is a major part of what 2k is trying to assert. But because we qualify Christ’s lordship and speak of creational and redemptive lordship — as opposed to petal-to-the-metal Lordship — then folks say we’re secularizing.
And I agree that for you and me the practices of a Xian plumber would likely be the same? But why do so many critics of the 2k position go out of their way to argue for Christian plumbing?
On the matter of liberty in worship, I’m surprised that it is as high a priority for you. All sorts of people sacrifice their liberty in worship. The Christian plumber does? He can’t plumb as part of the worship service and use his skills to honor and glorify God — even though he does it the rest of the week. (I have actually seen in world and life view Reformed churches a service dedicated for laborers to bring forward tools from their trade and lay it on the altar — I mean, Lord’s Table. That’s the closest it gets.) So our liberty is violated all the time in worship. It is ruled by Scripture. (Our liberty would be violated when we enter into the monarch’s court. We wouldn’t go in their expecting our liberty to be preserved. So why would worship be any different?)
And the point that Frame so clearly missed — and T. David Gordon pointed out to him in his response to Frame’s questions about the RP — was that Christian liberty is the flipside of RPW. If the church has no biblical warrant for requiring something in a service, the option isn’t to go ahead and do it because the Bible is silent. That is the Lutheran and Anglican view. The Reformed view is that the church must have a warrant.
Now I see that you think Paul’s counsel about singing permits (or does it require) hymns. That may be. I actually don’t think many of those passages about hymns, songs, and spiritual songs are anywhere close to the subject of corporate worship. And it interesting that until 1750 at least for Anglophones, hymns were not an option in Reformed churches. That lasted even longer for the Dutch Reformed — they didn’t sing hymns until the 20th century. But either way, the point is to find out what Scripture requires, not how much liberty I can muster.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Re Hoss, if you ever desire to upgrade your status of “mild 2K†to “determined 2K†(your words), you’ll have to stop worrying about the rise of certain specters in windows. How to educate children is just plain different from talking about what constitutes the gospel, either directly or tangentially.
Re Mohler, it was an analogy to make a rhetorical point, not a suggestion about what real people should do with other real people—at least, not what certain private persons like you and I should or shouldn’t do with respect to other public persons like Mohler.
LikeLike
Thanks for your thoughts. If I understand, your view is the following:
* In Case 1, where the case is not deemed reasonably Biblical, you would dismiss.
* In Case 2, where the case is deemed possibly Biblical, you would remove instruments in order to avoid wounding the conscience.
* In Case 3, where the case is deemed positively Biblical, you would remove instruments in order to comply with the Scripture.
Is that correct?
I have a lot of sympathy for this approach, but I want to explore the boundaries before settling on it.
(1) What if the case is brought, not by an individual to his session, but as a memorial of complaint from one church against another? That is, one church charges another with Romish practices because they are using instruments in the worship service. Would your reasoning hold, or would it change in some way?
(2) The Confession states, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.”
Likewise, the Directory for the Public Worship of God of the OPC states, (II.1), “Since the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice, the principles of public worship must be derived from the Bible, and from no other source.”
How would you respond to the claim that Case 2 is adding a tradition of men, not grounded in good and necessary consequence of Scripture, as a principle of worship?
(3) The BCO of the PCA states (51-2), “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.” Given that this is the case, should this affect the way a PCA session should rule? Or does Calvin’s scruple take priority?
(4) Now Bob comes to the session and says, “Playing instruments is a matter of conscience for me. I view Ps. 71 as a direct command to use instruments in worship. We have removed an element of worship that God has commanded.”
What would you do with competing scruples?
(5) You have mentioned that excluding the instruments is the only way for the two groups to worship together. But in fact, there is another way: for one group or the other to be persuaded. Suppose we’re in Case 2, where Calvin’s case is deemed understandable, but not a good and necessary inference from Scripture. How hard should the session work with Calvin to try to persuade him?
What I’m getting at with #5 is that you have viewed removing instruments as the simple solution, required by 1 Cor 8-10, so as to avoid wounding the conscience.
This is a partial view. The flip side is that the stronger brother bears a cost in order to extend charity. He loses not only his liberty to play instruments, but also accepts, to an extent, the shame of something he approved of being deemed “idolatrous.” Calvin’s scruple also wounds, and it places everyone else under his immature rule (keep in mind that I’m speaking under hypothetical Case 2, not of the real Calvin per se).
This might be necessary for charity’s sake, but it is not desirable from the point of view of moving on to maturity. Nor is it desirable from the point of view of being under grace.
So it seems to me that in Case 2 the session has the obligation not merely to accede to scruples, but also to work with the scrupulous and increase their faith. Do you agree?
JRC
LikeLike
Maybe I don’t understand the term. When I hear “Christ is creational Lord”, I think of His power (exhibited in Providence) rather than his authority (exhibited by our obedience). I think of his decretal will (“this is what shall be”), rather than his revealed will (“this is what ought to be”).
But clearly, Christians are ruled by both, whether in the common or the sacred realms.
What do you mean by the term “creational Lordship”?
I don’t know. Whenever I read accounts of what Christians are supposed to do in their daily lives, even by such transformationalists like Jaques Ellul, it sounds pretty much like what I’ve described:
The Spirit transforms me by means of the Word, so that
I am sanctified, so that
All aspects of my life, including plumbing, are more nearly in conformity with God’s revealed will.
That’s the extent of my Christian plumbing, at least.
Like I said, I think there’s greater functional equivalence than some realize.
Now: if we get over into laying tools on the altar and stuff, then I’m with you. That’s just weird, man.
Our entire lives are ruled by Scripture. Worship is special because Scripture commands it be so.
That is: NOT “Worship, liberty restricted; Common, liberty permitted”
BUT “Worship and some other areas of life, like marriage — certain commands restrict. Where a command does not restrict, liberty.”
The reason that worship is restricted is because a specific command of Scripture (Deut 12.32) makes it so.
This is also the approach that the Confession takes: “…there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. ”
and again, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.”
Why “beside it if matters of faith or worship”? Not because worship is a liberty-free zone. We have liberty from commands that are beside the Word (which interestingly is a broader category than things contrary to the Word. There are more commands of men that are “beside the Word” than are “contrary to the Word”). But rather because worship has been specifically restricted by Deut. 12.32.
Take a look at the prooftexts for that phrase “beside it if matters of faith and worship.”
The point here is not an anti-RPW point, NOR is it to completely obliterate the distinction between worship and other activities.
Rather, the point is that “liberty” v. “non-liberty” does not divide cleanly into “common” v. “sacred.” Rather, liberty is granted, as the Confession says, to be free from the commands of men that are contrary to the Word, or beside it in matters of faith and worship. My liberty is restricted *in the common*, when my actions are regulated in some way by the Word — such as, when I might want to eat meat sacrificed to idols at dinner, but my neighbor’s conscience won’t bear it. My liberty is exercised *in the sacred* when I “order certain circumstances of worship according to the light of nature, in accordance with the general rules of Scripture, which are always to be observed.”
So the bee in my bonnet is not to try to loosen up the worship service here, but rather to preserve that all-important distinction between the Word of God and the word of man.
JRC
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
While I am not sure I always agree with you, I could not agree with you more on the notion of biblical plumbing or it’s equivalent in any other respectable trade. Before I left the trade, I was a fourth generation plumber. It is utterly laughable that there is some sort of Christian plumbing that is in any way superior to “secular” plumbing. Since when does Scripture speak to the axioms of hydro-dynamics? When does Scripture speak to the structural integrity of pipe couplings or soldering joints? When does Scripture give any indication of how plumbers should employ all reasonable means and methods to get the job done on time and within the budget? Even more importantly how is plumbing much more than these key components?
At a pragmatic level, rewriting the basic tenets of plumbing to align with a so-called Christian perspective would not materially advance the discipline of plumbing in any demonstrable way. Maybe it would bring some measure of piety to plumbing which is lacking in most qualified secular plumbers, but it wouldn’t really advance the prevailing theories of mechanical engineering (the broader domain of plumbing). Last time I checked General Contractors are not in the market for pious plumbing Subcontractors to implement an ideologically superior product, they want what any GC wants: the right stuff installed in the right place at the right time at the right price, piety notwithstanding.
To apply the Christian or Reformed perspective to any and all applicable vocational domains would constitute an administrative, and economic nightmare that I am not sure the most even the most pious theonomist would support.
LikeLike
There was a weird double-post going on … I replied to the other one.
LikeLike
Yes, exactly. The seeming paradox is resolved by recognizing that *our understanding of Scripture* is not univocal (because of human limitation and also sin nature). Thus, diversity is allowed, in part, because our knowledge of Scripture needs to be partitioned from Scripture itself — the latter normative; the former, derivatively so.
It is also important not to blur the distinction between the freedom of one individual vis-a-vis another, which is what WCoF 20.2, 4 talk about, and the freedom of one individual vis-a-vis the Scripture and the Law, which is what 20.1, 3 talk about. I have a lot more liberty from Bob’s opinions than I do from my own conscience.
But as to your premises (that the Bible governs all of life; and that Christians are free to live life in a variety of ways), each is affirmed by the Confession (1.6, ch. 20). So the “biblicist” and the “confessionalist” affirm the same inconsistency.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
Let me address #2 above and then pause to clarify something before addressing the other situations.
Far from contradicting the historical confessions or DPW the RPW is simply an application of the same principles to the church’s public worship. The essence of the RPW is that God may be worshiped only as he has commanded and in no other way. In other words, unless scripture requires that something be done, it may not be done. These rules are the result of applying the doctrine of sola scriptura to public worship. The RPW is also supported by the confessional Reformed understanding of Christian liberty, which notes that scripture distinguishes between things required and things permitted. The RPW is the only way to preserve this scriptural distinction.
We all know that the church requires participation in public worship, and even though we may never think about, it’s obvious that this can mean nothing more or nothing less than participation in worship as done by the church, making the form of worship a de facto requirement for congregants. So if a congregation adds any one thing that is not required (e.g. the playing of instruments), it isn’t exercising liberty concerning that activity; rather the church snuffing out liberty by imposing a rule. It’s absurd to claim that the RPW is a human tradition. Everything that the RPW entails is derived from scripture; by its own standard, it excludes all else.
I think that the only reason that you could conclude that my earlier defense of the RPW was not based in scripture arises from the nature of the original hypos. As explained above, I’m convinced that the RPW is an inescapable implication of confessional Reformed theology—particularly the Reformed doctrine of sola scripture and the Reformed understanding of Christian liberty. The first set of hypothetical cases (especially Case 1) stretched things by asking me to apply my understanding of Christian liberty while at the same time pretend that I am unconvinced by the theological arguments that support it. I’m not saying that this made the thought experiment useless. Rather, it deprived me of theological arguments and forced me to argue from a pragmatic perspective—analyzing the problem in light of the certainty of our conclusions (i.e. how convincing the biblical arguments were) and the potential harm of acting on those conclusions (i.e. wounding the conscience) should they turn out to be wrong. Though this type of test cannot be done with mathematical precision, it showed that the surest and safest way to proceed would be with a worship service consistent with the RPW (even though the RPW forbids making decisions about elements of worship based on practical wisdom).
I want to be clear that the RPW is derived from scripture, not practical wisdom. But in many instances, practical wisdom will lead to worship that accord with the RPW, especially in the face of uncertainty. So before we move on, I’d like you to specify whether you’re asking me to defend the RPW as such or to elaborate on the practical arguments. I’m afraid of creating confusion by dancing between the two.
(The double post was due to a glitch…in my brain.)
LikeLike
RL,
I very much appreciate your drawing a distinction here. I generally endorse the view of the RPW that you’ve set forth, esp. this para:
This is why, I think, the Confession *allows* for liberty in worship from commands that are beside Scripture, a broader category than “contrary to Scripture.”
So I want to be clear that I have not been intending to argue against the RPW here, but rather to consider a thought experiment in which the application of the RPW is not straightforward. That is, I was trying to work out the pragmatics here, assuming the RPW in place.
In particular, I have not been trying to set the Confessions against the RPW.
There’s a complication at the level of the RPW first.
WCoF 1.6: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
It is here assumed in the Confession that there are some circumstances in worship that will not be exhaustively covered by the Word. I would suggest that this includes such things as: order of worship; choice of readings and songs; whether the minister alone, or the minister and other elders might lead worship; and so on.
Would you agree?
Second, the situations that I set forth (Psalms-only and voice-only) are curious because they proceed from a direct command of God (Col 3.16 in the first case; Ps. 71 etc. in the second) to a scruple based on a particular intepretation of that command. In the first case, the exclusive psalmist interprets that command to be directed at something other than public worship. In the second case, the exclusive voice-ist interprets the command to be a part of the ceremonial law.
And so the point I was trying to draw out was this: the particular scruple has the effect of binding the conscience to a particular interpretation of the command. In so doing, it has the effect of creating a rule for worship that is not based on good and necessary inference from Scripture.
That is: if Bob interprets Col 3.16 to mean that hymns *should be sung* in the service; and Charlie interprets it otherwise, then it seems like the RPW leads to an impasse. Consciences are not salved simply by choosing the minimalist course of action.
(Consider: what if Marcion joined your church and expressed a scruple over sermons from the Old Testament?)
My proposed solution was two-fold. First, to rely somewhat on the courts to set a rule for worship. Second, to recognize that even if a scruple is derived from the Bible, it may not pass a “good and necessary” test. If that is the case, and especially if that scruple conflicts with the consciences of others, it may be necessary for the session to say, “Look: I’m sorry that playing instruments offends you. Here is our Biblical warrant for doing so; we feel that your scruple should not override the consciences of the rest of the congregation. And, we do not feel that Bob’s playing of instruments is a command that you also should play an instrument.”
So the liberty that I have in mind here is not a Lutheran liberty to add to the worship service. Rather, the liberty I have in mind here is the liberty to not be bound in conscience by an interpretation of Scripture that does not rise to the level of good and necessary inference.
What do you think?
JRC
LikeLike
I have no idea how you’re going to separate the word of God from the word of man if you think the word of God speaks to all of life — that includes taking out the trash, picking a route to walk to work, which car to buy. (It really would be helpful if you could qualify “all.”) So if the Bible speaks to all of life, and the pastor ministers the word, the pastor can tell you what God’s word says about trash-taking, route-choosing, and car buying.
Here’s another way of looking at it. I believe that Lutherans and Baptists are wrong about certain matters of faith and practice, to the point where Presbyterians are not in fellowship with them. The reason is that Presbyterians believe the Bible reveals certain teachings and practices that Lutherans and Baptists don’t believe. So it’s a matter of the word of God that I am different from Lutherans and Baptists.
How on your notion of the Bible’s scope am I not different from Toyota drivers on the basis of Scriptural teaching?
LikeLike
Jeff, we don’t affirm the same inconsistency because the confessionalist does not think the Bible speaks to all of life the way the biblicist does. This is why the post about two kingdoms and two decalogues is relevant. The biblicist says that the Bible govern everything, and then has to make room for liberty of conscience even where the Bible is binding conscience. The confessionalist cuts through the knot by saying that the believer has liberty where Scripture is silent. It seems that you don’t think Scripture is silent about anything.
LikeLike
I’ll combine your two posts here, because I think that they get at the heart of the issue.
By “all of life” I mean something analogous to the Confession’s language concerning sanctification: “This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man.” As I understand it, the Confession is saying that the transformation wrought by the Spirit touches every aspect of our being.
Likewise, I understand Scripture to speak to every aspect of our beings.
In other words, in any given activity I engage in, God’s commands are “on.” BUT, God’s commands do not explicitly prescribe each detail of that activity.
Put another way, I am not permitted to break God’s commands, regardless of whether I am working in the common or the sacred kingdoms. AND, it may be the case that God’s commands have unanticipated implications, even in the common. Take our Christian plumber. Will his “Christian plumbing” result in a different theory of hydrodynamics? Or will it change his ability to provide the right material at the right time at the right price?
Unlikely — unless, “the right time” happens to be on Sunday. Or “the right price” (from the owner’s point of view) is “gouging.” (I’m a little bitter about this last — our plumber sold us a way overpowered well-pump when our last one went out. We were in a pinch, and they took advantage of that fact).
What I’m suggesting is not and has never been that the Bible provides a Grand Unified Theory of everything. Instead, I’m suggesting that a Christian in the common domain still owes allegiance to Jesus; and therefore, he does not *simply* resort to “common sense” or “natural law” to make his decisions. He *also* filters his decisions through the norms of the Word.
Think about the direction that WLC goes with the 10 commandments, and far-reaching the WLC with common life. I have in mind WLC 99, 124, 135, 136, 138, 139, etc.
*That’s* what I mean, nothing more nor less. And the interesting thing is that I think you agree with me; we’re just wrangling over what to call it. It’s “Sibboleth”, Dr. Hart: “Ssssiboleth.”
Turn about’s fair play: What do you mean by “Christ is creational Lord”?
JRC
LikeLike
By “all of life†I mean something analogous to the Confession’s language concerning sanctification: “This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man.†As I understand it, the Confession is saying that the transformation wrought by the Spirit touches every aspect of our being.
Likewise, I understand Scripture to speak to every aspect of our beings.
In other words, in any given activity I engage in, God’s commands are “on.†BUT, God’s commands do not explicitly prescribe each detail of that activity.
Jeff,
Then wouldn’t it be better to speak of the Spirit indwelling us in every square inch of our vocations instead of the Bible speaking to all of life? This is what I observe in my self-described Calvinist Transformationalists, a seeming confusion or inability to speak more precisely on the difference between the Word and the Spirit. (In fact, the ordaining of women was said to be a movement of the Spirit regardless of what the Word says, thus anyone bringing the Word to bear on the matter was said to be quenching the Spirit—not too unlike the bench-revivalists telling the catechism-confessionalists that to criticize revivalism suggests unregenerancy. Like Scott Clark says, how does one argue against that sort of tyranny?)
Take our Christian plumber. Will his “Christian plumbing†result in a different theory of hydrodynamics? Or will it change his ability to provide the right material at the right time at the right price?
Unlikely — unless, “the right time†happens to be on Sunday. Or “the right price†(from the owner’s point of view) is “gouging.†(I’m a little bitter about this last — our plumber sold us a way overpowered well-pump when our last one went out. We were in a pinch, and they took advantage of that fact).
As long as we’re being anecdotal, my Christian HVAC guy saved me over $3000 from another Christian HVAC guy (both world-viewers, like my mechanic). It seemed pretty clear the latter was trying to screw me, but even if you agree that “human beings being indwelt†is better language than “the Bible speaking to all of life,†I am not prepared to say the former was “more indwelt,†since one is either indwelt or he isn’t, grace doesn’t leak out our fingertips and sin still clings to all our doings more than it doesn’t. Instead, he was just a better HVAC guy, something a perfect Christ-hating pagan could be as well. Is that objectionable?
LikeLike
The problem that you describe in the CRC sounds more like separating the Word from the Spirit, “allowing” Him to “act” in ways contrary to the Word.
It seems like we ought to insist that the Spirit speaks to us and works in us primarily through the Word (and sacrament). So if the Spirit is going to indwell us in every inch of our vocations, His means of doing so will be through the Word (rather than primarily through pious feelings).
I can’t really speak for all self-described Calvinistic Transformationalists, of course. After hearing about laying tools on the Lord’s Table in the worship service, I’m prepared to believe myself downright stodgy.
I agree on the first. Sanctification is imperfect in this life, yada yada.
Concerning your HVAC experience: Better in whose light? In my plumbing case, I have reason to believe that overselling the customer is company policy. I’m willing to bet that these kinds of policies arise because they increase the bottom line. At a lot of MBA schools, that would be called “better.” So your honest fellow might be better in your eyes, but a loser by some metrics.
Think about the rationale for most advertising: to create the perception of a need that did not previously exist. That’s “good business”, but it’s not really in conformity with the 8th commandment (cf. WLC 141, 142).
Here the issue of “meta-ethics” that I constantly harp on raises its head again. At some point, we either have to define “good” and “bad”, or else leave them undefined. The first requires a meta-ethic. The second is simply solipsism: ethics are relative to the individual.
JRC
LikeLike
The problem that you describe in the CRC sounds more like separating the Word from the Spirit, “allowing†Him to “act†in ways contrary to the Word…It seems like we ought to insist that the Spirit speaks to us and works in us primarily through the Word (and sacrament). So if the Spirit is going to indwell us in every inch of our vocations, His means of doing so will be through the Word (rather than primarily through pious feelings).
“Primarilyâ€? Instead of “exclusively,” are you leaving the door open for the Spirit, then, to speak to us apart from Word and sacrament, as in primarily through Word and sacrament and secondarily through in “pious feelingsâ€? If so, then the goings on in the CRC, where Bible-speaks-to-all-of-life is basic Christianity, seem to suggest a very short leap from “the Spirit told me how to plumb†and “the Spirit told us to ordain Jane.†I fail to see why the CRC would be guilty of separating Word and Spirit while other world-and-life Calvinists aren’t just because they are subordinationists. Seems like pot and kettle stuff.
Concerning your HVAC experience: Better in whose light? In my plumbing case, I have reason to believe that overselling the customer is company policy. I’m willing to bet that these kinds of policies arise because they increase the bottom line. At a lot of MBA schools, that would be called “better.†So your honest fellow might be better in your eyes, but a loser by some metrics.
Think about the rationale for most advertising: to create the perception of a need that did not previously exist. That’s “good businessâ€, but it’s not really in conformity with the 8th commandment (cf. WLC 141, 142).
Here the issue of “meta-ethics†that I constantly harp on raises its head again. At some point, we either have to define “good†and “badâ€, or else leave them undefined. The first requires a meta-ethic. The second is simply solipsism: ethics are relative to the individual.
Oy vey. C’mon, Jeff. Nobody needs an MBA, the WCF or a course in meta-ethics to know that charging upwards of $3,000 for a new furnace when all that was needed was a $12 part is wrong, false and bad. That is the NL-2K point. What you’re suggesting is relativism, and only the privileged and (Christian?) educated can distinguish between good and bad.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Your reading of WCF 1.6, I believe, misses the mark when you include list “choice of songs” as one of the “circumstances concerning worship” that it leaves to be “ordered by the light of nature and Christian Prudence.” This paragraph creates two categories. One it labels “circumstances of worship.” Though it’s left unnamed, I think it’s fair to call the other category “elements of worship” (the Reformed tradition invoked an element-circumstance distinction in much the same way Aristotle invoked an essence-accident distinction; but at this point it doesn’t much matter what we call it).
WCF 1.6 describes the circumstances concerning worship as “common to human actions and societies.” The circumstances of worship are also defined by implication to exclude all things “necessary for [God’s] own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life….” because these things are known from scripture and clearly not “common to human actions and societies.”
Things that are necessary for God’s glory belong to the elements of worship. And WCF 1.6 is clear that the elements of worship must be “expressly set down in” or “necessarily deduced”
from Scripture. To these elements of worship, that is, these things that are “necessary for [God’s] own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life….nothing at any time is to be added.”
WCF 21 confirms this reading and provides the exhaustive list of the elements of worship. First, WCF 21.1 describes the source and limit of our knowledge of worship: “…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 imaginations and devices of men.” WCF 21.2 describes the object of worship. WCF 21.3 and 21.4 declare that prayer is necessary. And WCF 21.5 identifies the Word preached, the Word seen (Lord’s Supper), and the Word sung as those things that are required. WCF 21.5 is clear that the singing is the “singing of psalms”
We must read WCF 21 as an exhaustive list of those things that Scripture requires of us in worship. Those things to which “nothing is to be added at any time.” And since scripture presents a closed cannon this list is closed. The WCF contains all that is required of us in worship. And to that which is required of us nothing is to be added.
The drafters of the WCF had to have considered whether instruments were required by scripture to be a part of public worship. Since they didn’t include them in WCF 21, we have further have to conclude that they decided that they were not required. Applying the simple principle that we cannot add anything beyond the requirements set forth by God, the WCF mandates the exclusion of instruments. There is no way to avoid this result.
So what then are the “circumstances concerning worship” of which the WCF asks to apply the “light of nature”? These would be things like place, time, what is appropriate dress, the building’s plumbing, the language that the service is in, etc. At any event it excludes anything that could be describes as “sacred (but uninspired) songs.” Do you think that the drafters of the WCF would have thought of such things as “common to human actions and societies” or derived from the “light of nature”? Clearly those things belong only to the Christian community, and one is free to use them in private life, but they are prohibited from stated public worship.
There is only one RPW. And it results in a bright-line rule that excludes both instruments and uninspired music.
LikeLike
No. I’m leaving room for things like WCoF 10.3. I’m closing the door entirely to the idea that pious feelings can be genuine and conflict with the Word at the same time.
I have no idea what your situation was, so it probably would have been better for me not to comment (you didn’t mention the $12 part, for example).
Relativism? Seems a strange charge to me. Connect the dots for the slower members of our audience (i.e., me).
Elitist ethics? I think that charge assumes that distinguishing good from bad is binary: you either do it or you don’t. But in fact, distinguishing right from wrong is a learned skill, and falls along a gradient. Does not Heb 5 teach this?
JRC
LikeLike
I erred greatly in being unclear here. What I intended was that the particular choice of readings and songs (lets say psalms for a moment) is not directly prescribed. That is, nothing in Scripture says, “Sing ps. 1 on the 1st Sunday in January.”
My unclarity was very unfortunate because it made it look as if I wanted the issue in question (psalms v. hymns) was a matter to be decided according to the light of human nature. Which, if it were to be my argument, would undermine the whole rest of my argument.
So let’s retrench: Do you agree that the particular choice of scripture readings and the particular choice of songs (out of the set of songs allowed by the RPW whatever that may be) is to be ordered according to the light of nature, in accordance with the general principles of the word?
More importantly, was I clear in my other part that the issue is not “RPW v. not RPW”, but rather the issue of correctly utilizing the RPW when the proper meaning of a command of Scripture is called into question?
JRC
JRC
LikeLike
I would question whether this theory of WCF 21 is a proper understanding, on three grounds.
First, the structure of WCF 21 does not suggest that it is an exhaustive list. Prayer (21.3, 21.4) is separated out from the list described as “all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God.” If the word “all” were intended to be exhaustive here (as in “all of”), then prayer would have been re-stated. Offerings are not mentioned; yet are sanctioned by Scripture. The proper parts of private worship are not enumerated here. Given all that, I think the word “all” is more according to its grammatical sense: “each one.” As in, “each one of the following is a part of the ordinary religious worship of God.” That’s what the words say, at least.
It just strikes me that if the function of WCoF 21 were as you say, to provide an exhaustive list of parts of worship, then it would have been structured more obviously as such.
Instead, the Real Rule is stated at the outset: “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 imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.”
It is the Scripture, not the Confession, that sets the boundaries. Can we agree to this? For I believe it to be an important part of the whole document, that the Confession always defers to Scripture as the primary authority, and considers itself to be an interpretation of Scripture only.
In particular, I am concerned that we not do what the authors of the Confession would have disapproved of, to create an RPW-within-the-RPW: “Nothing shall be done in worship unless the Confession prescribes it.” This theory would subtly elevate the Confession to a status beside (or even above!) Scripture.
Second, neither the OPC nor the PCA have followed your theory to the conclusion you draw. Clearly, this is not dispositive; as Dr. Hart points out, the Reformed churches sang psalms exclusively for a while.
But it at least causes me to pause and question whether your characterization of “we must read WCoF 21…” is too strong. Many others, apparently, do not feel this need.
Third, and most importantly, in both the case of singing of hymns and also of using instruments, we are talking about *positive commands of Scripture*: “do this.” So while we might go back and forth about the proper meaning of the commands, we need to be clear that singing hymns in the service out of (attempted) obedience to Col. 3.16 is positively within the scope of WCoF 21.1.
We aren’t talking about dramatic presentations or videos and laser-shows. We’re talking about worshiping as the Scripture commands, at least under one interpretation.
JRC
LikeLike
Aren’t you glad you don’t have that problem.
Uh, Yeah, a lot of them really do.
LikeLike
The RPW, as far as I know, doesn’t address the order of worship at all. It’s concerned only with what is included in worship and what is excluded. Only those things required by God in Scripture are included; everything else is excluded. It’s silent on the order of worship.
As to WCF 1.6, I don’t think you can say that the order or worship is one of those things “common to human actions and societies.” Anyway, that’s beside the point. Introducing debates about liturgical issues would only confuse matters.
The RPW only addresses what is in and what is out. It does not permit of different results from one application to the next. It’s fixed. Only those things that are required by God become elements of worship. Everything else is excluded. It’s a universal rule.
The only way to introduce instrumental music into worship and claim to be acting consistently with the RPW is to claim that instrumental music is required by God in all public worship services. That means that you have to claim that wherever a service is done without instrumental music, it is deficient because it has failed to satisfy this requirement. This, of course, means that you have to say that every worship service done according to the teachings of Calvin, Ursinus, Bucer, Oecolampadius, Augustine, and the Puritans were wrong because these men failed to recognize that scripture requires us to use instruments and sing uninspired hymns. Do you hold to that?
LikeLike
No. I’m leaving room for things like WCoF 10.3. I’m closing the door entirely to the idea that pious feelings can be genuine and conflict with the Word at the same time.
I think this exchange helps point out what accounts for some of the confusion in this whole conversation—imprecise language. If you want to close the door entirely to “pious feelings†or intuitive spirituality then it might be better to not say the Spirit speaks primarily through Word and sacrament, but rather exclusively through Word and sacrament (and when our intuitions line up, great). That may sound sort of petty or too exacting, but like Keith Mathison says when distinguishing sola scriptura from solo scriptura, “What a difference a vowel makes.†Sometimes I wonder as well that when someone says the Bible speaks to all of life if he really means that Jesus is Lord. Certainly, when pressed far enough many will readily admit that the Bible is not a handbook for living, in which case it could be a case of simple imprecision instead of latent theonomy. One can only hope.
Relativism? Seems a strange charge to me. Connect the dots for the slower members of our audience (i.e., me). Elitist ethics? I think that charge assumes that distinguishing good from bad is binary: you either do it or you don’t. But in fact, distinguishing right from wrong is a learned skill, and falls along a gradient. Does not Heb 5 teach this?
You seemed to be suggesting that we can’t know right from wrong or good from bad, at least not without lotsa extrinsic help. You also suggested that what is right for him may not be right for me. That seems relativistic, or maybe Lockian in a tabula rasa sort of way. But tabula rasa is the theology of the Arminian (as in age of accountability), not the Augustinian-Calvinist (as in children of wrath). Per Reformed hermeneutics 101, Hebrews 5 must be read along with Romans 1. Sure, we are no more blank slates than we are automatons, and we are creatures of both nature and nurture. But when I was a child I knew taking what wasn’t mine was wrong without any teaching, and as an adult I know when I’m being ripped off without teaching. And salvific faith had nothing to do with it. If that’s not true, I have no idea how to explain the fact that I get along quite well with unbelievers.
LikeLike
Odd … I agree with what we both want to say, but your example of “more precise language” is actually less precise.
<pedanticmode>
By saying “exclusively”, you make 10.3 impossible. In that case, 10.3 becomes a falsifier to your language.
By saying “primarily”, I leave room for exceptions; by couching it contextually in a larger discussion of “Scripture is the standard”, I rule out the possibility you fear, that the Spirit could speak in contradiction to the Word.
It’s my inner mathematician: “X is true” means “X has no exceptions.” The word “exclusively” would be false here.
</pedanticmode>
Anyways, I think we’re talking about the same thing.
I think you’re reaching quite a bit with the relativism thing, especially since I’m arguing for a consistent meta-ethic (divine command), while you seem to be arguing for “whatever seems right” in the common realm. tu quoque, fine sir!
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff:
I wasn’t trying to create a rule within the rule. I was using the WCF as evidence of the conclusions that the drafters reached concerning what was required by scripture. I still think that WCF 21 is strong evidence that they concluded that scripture required singing only inspired songs.
If the drafters believed that God requires certain things of us in worship and that God commands us not to add to that list, why would they give us an incomplete list? Would you state a rule so bold as the one in 21.1 and then proceed to give an incomplete list? What sense would that make?
So I’m not elevating the confession as something above scripture–I’m simply holding it out as an exposition and summary of scripture that contradicts the claim that scripture contains a requirement to sing uninspired songs and play musical instruments. That’s all.
What does the structure of WCF 21 suggest to you? That the framers of the document held in their minds that God required elements A,B,C,D, E, and F in worship, but they decided to only list A,B, and C? Why would they do that?
LikeLike
I think you’re reaching quite a bit with the relativism thing, especially since I’m arguing for a consistent meta-ethic (divine command), while you seem to be arguing for “whatever seems right†in the common realm. tu quoque, fine sir!
Maybe you’re right. When I get the correct change from the pagan cashier, and it seems right to me, I should think about it way harder before I so easily slip it into my pocket. It sure seems like when that happens it implies she has both the knowledge of and ability to carry out what is right. But if she ever short-changes me I’ll be sure to pull out the Bible instead of appealing to her natural sense or her supervisor. Here’s hoping he went to Christian schools.
LikeLike
RL,
Thanks for your two questions. They’ve prompted some further thought and reading. I’m glad that you are avoiding pitting the Confession against Scripture.
As a matter of logic, we would either have to say that these fathers in the faith erred in good faith, or else that many of our more recent fathers in the faith have done so.
So you place a tragic choice before me. 🙂
Augustine I could dispense with, given his belief in the efficacy of relics. Great man, great theologian; but a little less Reformed than we might like. His objection to instruments is that the harp &c. were associated with pagan cults and wild riotous behavior. It’s not an objection so much from the RPW as from the pages of Bill Gothard.
Chrysostom, Aquinas, and others, however, make Calvin’s argument: that instruments were Jewish in nature and that the worship of God should be through the pure spiritual instrument, the voice.
I have to say: on the one hand, the combined testimony of the church fathers counts for a lot with me.
On the other, I think there is, indeed, a good possibility that they may have erred.
If the Psalms that command us to praise God with instruments are still canonical for the church (and thus, to be sung in church), then it seems absurd that what they command could have passed away. In my mind’s eye, I see a congregation all singing to one another, “I will praise God with the harp and lyre” — and not actually doing it.
Put contrapositively, if we are going to consign the form of worship enjoined in the psalms to the ceremonial law that has passed away, then we would also have to consign the psalms themselves to the ceremonial law. I think we all agree that the latter result is absurd.
Further, the worship of the elders in Revelation includes instruments; this seems to falsify the notion that pure worship is vocal only.
My analysis may well be wrong. But for now, this is where my conscience sits: instruments are positively commanded.
With regard to extra-psalmic hymns, I think the case is even stronger. As I mentioned before, we have examples of individuals singing non-psalms to the Lord. Jesus and his followers “sang a hymn” on their way to the garden. And of course, the NT command is direct: sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.
It might be argued that none of these directly state, “in a public worship service.”
But if the RPW holds for private worship as well as public, it would seem foolish to deny that Jesus and the disciples were doing anything but worshiping the Father as they sang the hymn; or that Paul’s intent in Col. 3.16 is that we sing for some reason *other than* worship.
So if I were to rank my certainty, I would place the command to sing hymns above the command to use instruments.
*IF* the services of the Puritans were deficient, it was a minor deficiency, made in good faith and out of a sincere conscience. They would not be deficient in the offensive way that Nadab and Abihu were.
And I think that would be one of the criticisms (if I may) of the way that you have framed the RPW. As presented here, it appears that the RPW is always all or nothing, good or bad, total success or total fail. Perhaps I’ve perceived incorrectly?
But the purposes of the RPW are to (1) worship God in spirit and truth, and (2) preserve liberty of the conscience. We will not achieve perfection in our outward actions, and we cannot avoid differences of opinion entirely concerning the exegesis of Scriptural commands and the application of the RPW.
If the RPW moves outside of (1) and (2) and becomes instead a new law by which we trample the consciences of others, then we have erred in the *use* of the RPW, even if our exegesis is spot-on.
That was my point with question #4, and to a certain extent with question #1. Even good laws have unlawful uses.
Do you agree?
Hm. I think “all” is not entirely correct. We would not consider a worship service deficient if it lacked a baptism (perhaps *regrettable* if indicative of insufficient evangelism or childbirth, but not *deficient*), or an ordination to office.
It seems to me that a command might be generally obeyed without requiring that it be obeyed in every service.
Likewise, I would not consider that each individual must play an instrument. Not all preach; not all are baptized. Indeed, not all partake of communion unless you happen to attend a paedocommunion church.
Two questions back to you:
(1) Do your church and denomination hold to a voice-only, psalms-only position?
(2) Neither the Scripture nor the Confession enjoin singing harmonies to songs. Do you object to polyphony also?
JRC
LikeLike
It suggests that the Confession was written by committee, and that these elements were the ones that they all agreed were commanded by God. The language *in 21.5* (“The reading of Scripture, &c. … are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God…”) is inclusive language, not exclusive.
(A similar confusion sometimes trips up some readers of 18.3: “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. ” It is sometimes erroneously believed that this language forbids immersion; when in fact, it merely declares immersion unnecessary.)
As I mentioned before, 21.1 establishes the Real Rule: whatever is commanded by Scripture is to be done; whatever is not commanded is not to be done. But we need not imagine that the writers of 21.5 all agreed as to what was commanded by Scripture.
Quite The Contrary!
Permit an extended reference here:
(see also footnote #69 re: Calvin and hymns).
So I conclude that the general principle of 21.1 was intended to be the Real Rule, and that the following sections were intended to be a joint statement of agreement.
The Westminster divines knew how to enumerate things exhaustively, and they did so using exclusive language (WCoF 1.2, 3). If they had intended for 21.5 to fill up the whole measure of 21.1, they would have placed it in 21.1, or nearer there. They certainly would not have placed prayer in separate sections, apart from 21.5.
And again, the omission of offerings is very curious. BCO 54 is of the opinion that they belong to the worship service. Do you disagree?
JRC
LikeLike
You can do that. And when I’m out in public with my daughter, and the girl behind the counter slips us too much change, and my daughter says, “But daddy! She gave us too many dimes!” (Yes, she’ll notice — she’s That Kind of Bear) — I’ll just say, “What does the Natural Law tell you? Look into your heart.”
That’ll do it. 😉
JRC
LikeLike
Jed, the same goes for you I’m sure. We don’t agree always but I appreciate some real help from a real plumber. You have given me the categories I need when I update my talk on Christian plumbing. It does sound pious and reassuring to think of the Bible as informing everything, but I can’t remember all the times that such grand language fails to take everyday reality into account. Such as, would you rather hire someone who only has the Bible under his arm with his tool box but has no experience with plumbing? Or would you rather hire someone who knows plumbing but not the Bible when you have a leak? The answer seems pretty obvious. But what does that example tell us about the limits of Scripture and the importance of general revelation, and even the ability of non-xians to perceive general revelation correctly, even without knowing the Bible? I think it says a lot, but you rarely see that lotness in the way that neo-Calvinists make claims about special revelation and regeneration.
LikeLike
Have you actually encountered anyone who claims that “Christian plumbing” leads to a different theory of hydrology?
LikeLike
Jeff,
You do a pretty good Barth. But if you really want to mock natural law with gusto, I’d go with exclamation points over emoticons (“Nein!”).
LikeLike
No Jeff, but while I worked for the family business we hired plenty of Christians who were more about being Christians in the workplace than being workers. I have worked in businesses of various kinds for years, and I can honestly say that any common vocation “from a Christian perspective” reeks of arrogance. Work is work is work, either you excel at or you don’t, rarely does underlying ideology other than possibly work ethic (which is by no means the exclusive domain of the Christian) come in to consideration.
That doesn’t mean that a hard working, honest Christian worker in any field won’t have opportunities to testify to the gospel (off the clock). It just means that the same workplace rules apply regardless of religious beliefs. Trying to cram a secular domain into the smaller sphere of the sacred is an absolute power play, and your non-believing coworkers will sniff it out right away and will either write you off as a whack-job or resent you, or both.
LikeLike
Ah, now I understand where you’re coming from.
I’m in visceral agreement with you, but I need to think more. Which requires, at the moment, sleeping more.
JRC
LikeLike
Barth. Ack. He and Hegel are difficult in the same way: they threaten to overthrow the mind. I have great respect for him personally (as in, the Confessing Church), but man … hard to read. Much harder than “dense” writers like van Til or my math texts.
I wasn’t mocking natural law, BTW; I was parodying a certain approach (*stares at left corner of room*) that tries to tie the extremest of possible readings around the neck of one’s interlocutor.
But all in fun. 🙂
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
Yes, that was a bit of fun.
But, seriously, I don’t think my bit of sarcasm was so much reductio ad absurdum as it was to say that if the Bible, instead of natural law, applies to all of common life then it must apply to even the most mundane aspects of common life. That means that if there is a breakdown at the cash register the appeal must be not to general revelation but to special revelation. 2K agrees that Jesus is Lord over every square inch. But it seems that neocalvinists think “all of life†doesn’t include the trivial aspects of temporal life but mainly the more enduring aspects of it. And so when it is suggested that their all-of-life rules must apply to trivial life it is rendered absurd instead of consistent.
An absurd argument would be more like saying that natural law makes the world safe for insert-favorite-cultural-boogeyman-here (e.g. Nazi’s). It’s absurd because it assumes that sinners don’t sin because they are sinners but because they don’t have the right rulebook. That flies right in the face of Paul who says the law is weak not by any fault of its own but because it depends on sinners
LikeLike
I think that it can be taken a bit further, to me the 2k perspective by virtue of espousing the limited scope of redemptive revelation opens the door to see the marvel of general revelation, and man as an image bearer of God. There are many fields of knowledge that go into modern plumbing such as mining, metallurgy, mechanics, and more, each of these fields has taken thousands of years to develop into what they are now, and I am not sure anyone consulted the bible for any of this. To say that we need a “Christian view of plumbing” seems to be a bit presumptive, as if God’s general revelation is more than adequate for man to figure out how to plumb and plumb well. It is a passing vocation, but that does not diminish its goodness.
LikeLike
This is precisely the absurd exaggeration I have in mind. This absurdio keeps the whole conversation from coming to productive terms because it refuses to see the difference between “applying to all of life” (as in, “whole man”) and “exhaustively applying to all of life” (as in, Grand Unified Theory of Everything).
Everyone I’ve read (including the maligned Frame) repudiates the latter and accepts the former. Now maybe in your experience, someone wants the Bible to determine red sweater v. green sweater on Jan 6 (answer: green 😉 ). But I’ve never met such an individual.
And then, illogically, you say, “look! You’re secretly living a 2k life. Come join the Light Side.”
No-no-no. I’m just not living the life that you say that I ought to be living, if I held a view that I don’t actually hold.
Does this make sense? I’m saying that we could make some good progress if we don’t keep on coming back to the false claim above. I have a lot of hope for the tack that Jeb has taken below, in that it focuses on a real example in which the benefits of a 2k approach can be seen and qualified.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
Creational lord was your phrase. The Reformed tradition has maintained that Christ is lord in two ways, one as creator, one as redeemer. In his authorityas creator Christ is lord of Saddam Hussein. That doesn’t mean that Hussein is following Christ as lord, but Christ did delegate authority to Hussein. And so Christ rules over all his creatures in a creational way. They may not know it. But it’s there. What critics of the 2k seem to stumble over is the notion that Christ’s lordship must be explicit and acknowledged. 2k says Christ is lord even when people aren’t bending the knee.
I also think your language of all of life is frought with difficulties even no matter how much you qualify it. Why is it the case that the church, which has the power of the keys of the kingdom and mininsters the word of God, does not have power over all of life? You keep wanting to claim for Scripture application that leads to the church acting as the Taliban. The church leaves a lot of life to Christians. Protestants don’t have priests to tell them how to live their lives. Their consciences informed by Scripture and general revelation must determine a whole host of questions that churches do not have jurisdiction over. Is that because churches are timid? Maybe. But it could be that churches lack a thus,saieth the Lord for all of life.
If the church doesn’t have that “thus, saieth the lord,” why do you think individual Christians do? And if individual Christians do have it, why doesn’t the church?
Darn, that dualism keeps creeping in.
LikeLike
Jeff, it may be absurd. But it may be in keeping with people who talk about the regulative principle in ways that make juggling in worship a plausible element of Christian worship. There’s a lot of absurdity out there.
LikeLike
The better question may be, has anyone that has ever advocated Christian plumbing known how to spell hydrology?
LikeLike
Jeff,
This absurdio keeps the whole conversation from coming to productive terms because it refuses to see the difference between “applying to all of life†(as in, “whole manâ€) and “exhaustively applying to all of life†(as in, Grand Unified Theory of Everything).
That may be because that’s a difference without a distinction (as in inside-out transformationism and outside-in theonomy). What 2K wants address is how believers live in the common realm with both unbelievers and fellow believers. Again, it may be a matter of more precise language: the Spirit indwells the whole believing man, but that doesn’t clarify how the Bible speaks to all of common life.
LikeLike
No, actually, there is a quite clear distinction, and it’s one that you’ve already agreed to.
Namely: The commands of Scripture “apply to all of life” in the sense that “there is no area of life in which I may break or ignore the commands of Scripture.” That is to say, the commands of Scripture always apply.
The commands of Scripture do not “exhaustively apply” to all of life in the sense that “there is not a specific command of Scripture that dictates each possible action with precision.” That is, for every question I might ask, the Scripture might not give a clear answer.
So the difference is very clear, and I’m grumpily wondering over here if you’re not just toying with me. My four-year-old has a really good grumpy face, and I’ll borrow it for a moment. *Rrrrr*
—
In addition, I have not (yet) how your 2k theory deals with WLC 99ff. Even though the commands of Scripture do not exhaustively apply, neverless, WLC makes it clear that the commands of Scripture pervasively apply to all of life, in that it inteprets the 10 Commandments quite broadly to extend to a large number of areas in the common life.
For example:
Let’s see: we have clothing, our callings, our friends, our senses, our thoughts.
Confessionally speaking, the common realm appears to be significantly intruded (but not swallowed up) by the Scripture.
JRC
LikeLike
Your concern seems to be “how does a believer behave in the common realm.†Mine is “how does a believer interact with both un/believers in the common realm.†Yes, clearly, there are moral imperatives believers are bound to in whatever realm they inhabit, sacred or secular. But though the moral imperatives of special revelation mirror those found in general revelation the important difference is that are tied to certain indicatives pagans don’t have, as in “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt…do this.â€
So, given that I want to solve “how do believers interact with un/believers in the common realm,†when you say “the Bible applies to all of life†it sounds as if you think Yahweh is the covenant God of both the Israelites and the Egyptians. It’s easy for everyone to agree that we none of us may steal, but the more interesting question concerns the reasons for the respective groups. Some mayn’t because they’re created, others mayn’t because they are also created but more importantly redeemed. It’s possible to agree on something but for different reasons, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Jeff, but what about the proverbial plumber’s crack? What do we do about that?
LikeLike
Jeff, on a more serious note, I don’t see what your appeal to the WLC solves. For some Xians the 7th commandment will mean not watching The Wire. For others it won’t. So how does your appeal to Scripture in all of life avoid legalism and respect liberty of conscience? I know you affirm liberty and I believe you are sincere. But why don’t you see that by continuing to appeal to the Bible ruling all of life the way you do so publicly, you appear to be in favor of an argument that is the royal road to fundamentalism?
LikeLike
What to do about plumber’s crack? Duct tape, dear sir, duct tape! http://tinyurl.com/ybs3cdm Modesty requires it!
Sigh, so much temptation and so little self-control. 😛
LikeLike
Yes, I would agree to that summary of our different perspectives. Problem is, “behaving” is usually “interacting”, so that while mine is slightly less outwardly focused than yours, it’s pragmatically similar.
Interestingly, though, I think that my slightly more inward focus might accomplish some of the “bracketing” that Dr. Hart desires.
That is, the primary reason that I reject theonomy and similar ideas, is that I view myself as responsible only for my own obedience, not the obedience of others (with exceptions, such as my children, or students within the four walls).
Ah. I can see why that might sound so.
No, I would put it like this: Alice is a pagan, Bob a Christian. Bob now wants to know how to behave towards Alice. First question: does he have a responsibility to call her to account? Probably not. So Bob looks to his own affairs and lets Alice continue in hers. He, at least, must love her as a neighbor, even if she does not reciprocate.
God is the covenant Lord of Bob, which fact regulates his decisions. The end.
Now, what if he *does* have responsibility to call her to account? In that case, he is a magistrate who is a Christian … which brings me back to my annoying question of “what does the Christian magistrate do?”
But you can see now, I hope, that I’ve been asking this question not for the sake of posing an annoying puzzler, but because it’s the only case that we need to concern ourselves with. Bob the Christian magistrate actually has to worry about the intersection of Law and civil law. Charlie the Christian non-magistrate doesn’t.
Yes they can. The very curious feature of Natural Law theory, however, is that everyone “may not steal” for the same reason (God forbids it): It’s just that for some, the reason is written in stone, while for others, the reason is written on the conscience.
So it’s curious that the rules are ostensibly the same, but the form of communication is required to be different (in REPT).
JRC
LikeLike
You just said it. For some Christians, the 7th commandment means not watching The Wire. For others, not so.
Liberty is thereby established on two grounds:
(1) Because (as in my comment to Zrim) Christ’s Lordship over me is not license to judge Christ’s Lordship over another. Here I’m appealing to Rom 14, and correspondingly to WCoF 20.2.
That is to say, the phrase “the Bible rules all of life” does not mean that “people who quote the Bible get to rule over other people.”
There is an impermissible move from Christ’s Lordship of each individual (whether as creational Lord or covenantal Lord) to “the Lordship of some who speak for Christ over others.” To make this move confuses Scripture with our interpretation of it. And, I would argue, it also breaks the Law by using it for an unlawful purpose.
Put another way, I agree with you that the Church has a limited jurisdiction, and individual Christians, even more so.
(2) Because Bob may not even have enough information to know whether Alice is obeying a given command.
Not only does Bob lack jurisdiction over Alice, but he also in many cases has incomplete knowledge about the motives and situation that informed her decision. He may not even know whether Alice is lawfully watching the Wire or not, since there is not a specific command “Do not watch The Wire.”
As a result, unless he has jurisdiction over her, his demand that she obey the 7th commandment as he sees fit is not only arrogant but also ignorant.
Does the forgoing answer your question?
But coming back to my point about WLC: What I was saying was this — I see some value in talking about limited jurisdictions. But when we cut the cake into “sacred” and “common”, it turns out that the Confession (following Scripture) doesn’t quite divide things up according to those two categories. For some reason or another, the WLC significantly intrudes Scripture into areas that fall under the category of “common.”
This is an analogous argument to the one that I made about Calvin so long ago: for Calvin, the magistrate was obligated to the Scripture. In his view, Scripture intrudes into the common. (At least, in my reading). At the time, you told me that my reading of Calvin was incorrect, but I haven’t been able to see that just yet (still planning to read van Drunen, though, so there’s hope.)
That suggests that sacred and common might not be the best categories to use, IF we are going to annex to them a rule that Scripture belongs in the sacred, but not in the common. It appears that Christ’s citizens, even while operating in the common, carry the Scripture with them as the rule for faith and life.
Bottom line: I think the notion of separate jurisdictions is of great value. Every time I try to think it out along REPT lines, I end up with contradictions and confusions. I would like to see whether the idea could be developed along other lines.
I’m hopeful that thinking through Jeb’s specific example will generate some ideas.
JRC
LikeLike
Now, what if he *does* have responsibility to call her to account? In that case, he is a magistrate who is a Christian … which brings me back to my annoying question of “what does the Christian magistrate do?â€
But you can see now, I hope, that I’ve been asking this question not for the sake of posing an annoying puzzler, but because it’s the only case that we need to concern ourselves with.
Ok then. Well, I don’t know what Alice has done, but if she has broken a law the magistrate’s job is to punish her; and if she has done well he is to commend her (Romans 13). I don’t see how the magistrate’s faith is at all relevant, and neither does Paul. At least, in Romans 13 he seems to be absolutely uninterested in his redemptive status, rather his creational role. If Paul doesn’t care then why do you?
But let’s be evangelicals and get relevant. Let’s try a creational role you and I both share, parenting. A parent must provide for the bodily needs of his/her children. Like the magistrate’s creational mandate to punish evil and commend good, this creational mandate takes into account in no wise a parent’s redemptive status. Our pagan neighbors must carry out this mandate regardless of loving Christ or hating him, and I’m betting you know this right well. I am suggesting that your question posed about the magistrate is as odd as wondering what a pagan parent must do with his child’s material needs. Two and two are four, the sky is blue, magistrates must punish and commend, and parents must provide for their children. But I think this escapes you because you are fundamentally suspect of the sufficiency of general revelation, “that most elegant book.â€
LikeLike
Now let’s try it with correct italics…
Now, what if he *does* have responsibility to call her to account? In that case, he is a magistrate who is a Christian … which brings me back to my annoying question of “what does the Christian magistrate do?â€
But you can see now, I hope, that I’ve been asking this question not for the sake of posing an annoying puzzler, but because it’s the only case that we need to concern ourselves with.
Ok then. Well, I don’t know what Alice has done, but if she has broken a law the magistrate’s job is to punish her; and if she has done well he is to commend her (Romans 13). I don’t see how the magistrate’s faith is at all relevant, and neither does Paul. At least, in Romans 13 he seems to be absolutely uninterested in his redemptive status, rather his creational role. If Paul doesn’t care then why do you?
But let’s be evangelicals and get relevant. Let’s try a creational role you and I both share, parenting. A parent must provide for the bodily needs of his/her children. Like the magistrate’s creational mandate to punish evil and commend good, this creational mandate takes into account in no wise a parent’s redemptive status. Our pagan neighbors must carry out this mandate regardless of loving Christ or hating him, and I’m betting you know this right well. I am suggesting that your question posed about the magistrate is as odd as wondering what a pagan parent must do with his child’s material needs. Two and two are four, the sky is blue, magistrates must punish and commend, and parents must provide for their children. But I think this escapes you because you are fundamentally suspect of the sufficiency of general revelation, “that most elegant book.â€
LikeLike
Clearly, Rom 13 is written to subjects rather than rulers. Do you think that rulers can properly divine their responsibilities, or lack thereof, from this passage? I’ve not read commentaries that take this passage in that direction.
Instead, it may be the case that Paul does not address the issue here because it was not relevant to anyone in the Roman church. We recall, of course, that these letters were historically situated and not treatises into a vacuum. If no one in the Roman church was a magistrate, what cause would Paul have to address that question?
By way of comparison, 1 Peter 3.1-6 contains instructions to wives that hold regardless of the spiritual state of the husband. If we took your exegetical rule, we would have to conclude that Peter is not concerned about the spiritual state of the husband. And yet we see that Peter was not unconcerned about the husband (3.7)…
So it may well be that Paul was REPT-ish about the magistrate, but I don’t yet see how the silence in Rom 13 proves this one way or the other. To my mind, the more plausible reason for silence is that no-one in the Roman church was a magistrate.
Oh, good. I’ve been thinking about this one, also.
I wouldn’t dispute that all parents must provide materially for their children. I would also agree that even pagan parents get this (at least in this century; in first century Rome, not so much).
But this is not the sum total of parenting. There is also spiritual instruction, moral instruction, advice-and-consent. For Christian parents, there is discipleship and possibly evangelism.
For that reason, parenting by Christians should look remarkably different from parenting by non-Christians. There will be overlap, but there will also be difference.
Further, in this particular case, more than almost any other area in “the common”, the Scripture contains direct instructions to parents that deliberately inform parenting by Christians over against parenting by non-Christians.
Hence, in this example out of all of the ones we might have considered, there really is a partially worked-out “Christian theory of parenting.” I say partially, of course, because the Scripture may or may not be enough to decide between a Dobson theory, or a Tripp theory, or a Kloosterman theory. In the end, as always, we uphold the word of God as distinct from the word of man.
Yes, I am.
I am *not* suspicious of the goodness of the original Creation. Nor do I want to have tight tethers on general revelation. Quite the contrary, I view general revelation as a vast and exciting field of exploration.
But “sufficient” is (to this mathematical ear) 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.
At that point, I put on my four-year-old’s puzzled face (she has a recessive Standup Comic gene) and say, “Really?”
Oops, the four-year-old also needs out of the tub. More later.
JRC
LikeLike
A little more on contradictions and confusions:
If I understand correctly, SOTC/REPT holds that the (visible) Church is the kingdom of God (I guess in a redemptive sense? And the universe is His kingdom in a creational sense?).
Further, the church is the realm in which grace holds sway, whereas the kingdom of man, the common, is a kingdom of law.
Still further, in matters in the sacred kingdom, the regulative principle holds (or is that strictly for worship?). But in the common realm, liberty is the rule.
Scripture is canon within the Church, but it does not have legal jurisdiction in the common.
Correct me if I’ve misunderstood so far.
What puzzles me is the odd triad: The church is under the rule of Scripture, and is restricted by the RPW, but it is the kingdom of grace. The corresponding and equally odd triad: the common is not under the rule of Scripture, but it is the kingdom of law, but it is also the kingdom of liberty.
Can you see how this might be confusing?
Still further: it is alleged that liberty is the rule of the common. Yet the discussion of liberty in the Confession concerns liberty within the church. In fact, of all of the proof texts cited in support of ch. 20, *none* refer to liberty in the common realm; *all* refer to the freedom of conscience within a church setting over against the commands of men.
I’m not trying to poke a stick in the eye here, but rather to express the confusions that confront this observer of SOTC/REPT in hopes of greater clarity.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
Instead, it may be the case that Paul does not address the issue here because it was not relevant to anyone in the Roman church. We recall, of course, that these letters were historically situated and not treatises into a vacuum. If no one in the Roman church was a magistrate, what cause would Paul have to address that question?
So it may well be that Paul was REPT-ish about the magistrate, but I don’t yet see how the silence in Rom 13 proves this one way or the other. To my mind, the more plausible reason for silence is that no-one in the Roman church was a magistrate.
I appreciate some of this. But I don’t see how any of it diminishes the fact that the magistrate’s role is to punish evil and commend good. And that’s true whether he’s Constantine or Mao.
But this is not the sum total of parenting. There is also spiritual instruction, moral instruction, advice-and-consent. For Christian parents, there is discipleship and possibly evangelism.
For that reason, parenting by Christians should look remarkably different from parenting by non-Christians. There will be overlap, but there will also be difference.
Quite agreed that parental provision is more than material. But now you’re helping my case that the home alone is ordained to make human beings (not schools). Homes make, churches redeem and schools educate human beings.
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. What looks remarkably different is seventh-day or redemptive activity. Consider A Letter to Diognetus:
“Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. Their teaching is not based upon reveries inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign.
And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives.â€
In other words, when it comes to creation or common activity, we blend, we don’t stand out.
Yes, I am [fundamentally suspect of the sufficiency of general revelation, “that most elegant bookâ€].
I am *not* suspicious of the goodness of the original Creation. Nor do I want to have tight tethers on general revelation. Quite the contrary, I view general revelation as a vast and exciting field of exploration.
But “sufficient†is (to this mathematical ear) 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.
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. But when it comes to mining for what is right, true and good in eternal life special revelation is sufficient.
You seem to have a high opinion of creation (“vast and excitingâ€). But that’s not the same as a high view of creation. Yours seem to be a low view (“insufficientâ€).
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
(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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Hi Lily,
Thanks for the rec. Dr. Hart has likewise recommended it, and it’s in the queue. Somewhere. 🙂
JRC
LikeLike
That makes more sense. Thanks.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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€
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
If you’re saying that I don’t have it all worked out, then you’re right. Sorry to disappoint.
JRC
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Golly Lily,
His name is Ligon, not Lignon.
LikeLike
Too funny, Eliza. Tu Quoque? Is that the best you can do?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Lily,
I teach logic.
LikeLike
Please look past the spelling, grammar, and syntactical errors in my post. It was pretty late here, and I didn’t proof read. Sorry.
LikeLike
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)?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, I missed the direction of your statement. Are you suggesting creedal subscription provides a reductio argument? Or rather that we should not get hung up over creedal subscription?
LikeLike
How’s your back?
There are a lot of issues on the table at once. I’ll start with the foundational:
I was under the opposite impression: that we had agreed that the RPW applies to private worship also, excepting the elements that must be done publicly (preaching, sacraments). I can’t find the original exchange, but I referred to it at the bottom of this comment.
(Dr. Hart, it would lovely if oldlife.org had an “older posts” link. As it is, everything goes down the memory hole.)
Obviously, this will make a huge difference: if it can be shown that Eph 5.19 applies only to private worship, AND that the RPW applies only to public worship, then one plank of my argument disappears.
(I think the exchange took place in the thread about Christmas. Fire, neurons, fire! C’mon!)
So talk more about this. Is private worship regulated by Scripture?
The second issue is the meaning of “ψαλμοις και υμνοις και ωδαις πνευματικαις” (“psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs”). You’ve suggested the possibility that these might be appositive. Greek does allow for και to take an appositive function. A famous example is the “even the Israel of God” clause at the end of Galatians.
However, appositives strung together like this lead to a very unlikely construction, “Psalms, which are hymns, which are spiritual (i.e., inspired) songs.” To have repeated this awkward phrase verbatim to the Colossians (or to the Ephesians if you take a Colossians-first view) would have been downright idiosyncratic. Further, the appositive use of και is rare; it is a distant third behind the garden-variety “and” (very common) and its use as “also” (less common).
While I’ve not read up on the latest Ephesians commentaries, I can say that I’ve not ever read an argument in favor of the appositive reading. Calvin says this (Comm. Col. 3.16):
“Farther, under these three terms he includes all kinds of songs. They are commonly distinguished in this way — that a psalm is that, in the singing of which some musical instrument besides the tongue is made use of: a hymn is properly a song of praise, whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; while an ode contains not merely praises, but exhortations and other matters. He would have the songs of Christians, however, to be spiritual, not made up of frivolities and worthless trifles. For this has a connection with his argument.”
We notice that Calvin has a much more relaxed attitude about the particular definitions of each word.
To the next question:
Concerning doctrinal content, there are two arguments on the table. The absolute argument is yours, RL:
The comparative argument is yours, Dr. Hart: But why not simply sing psalms because hymns are inferior to psalms?
I think the absolute argument is too brittle to stand. Granted: we long to take hold of songs with reckless abandon. But if the standard for doing so is that it requires no level of circumspection, then we cannot meet that standard.
Even if we were to limit ourselves to psalms, they have been translated into English. Surely we must be circumspect about the efforts of the translators. Hebrew into English is not an automatic process; it requires significant intepretive effort (witness the various interesting “alternative readings” that show up at the bottom of the page in the NIV).
Having been circumspect about the translations, we now have to be circumspect about the psalm’s place in the historia salutis. Imprecative pslams, for example, have a different meaning in our time than in David’s, since we no longer “wrestle against flesh and blood.” Songs that command instrumental worship, on some interpretations, no longer apply.
So I think the absolute argument falters because it requires a perfection in worship not to be found.
This doesn’t mean I can’t take up songs with some degree of confidence. It just means that my standard cannot be perfection.
The comparative argument is stronger. We have 150 psalms, why not sing them?
I think this question gets to an admitted deficiency in our worship. If we think about worship as meeting with God, an over-resistance to singing psalms (and an over-fondness with hymns or praise songs) suggests that we aren’t really willing to enter into the full contact with God that He has made available.
So I think there’s a case to be made for *more* psalms and correspondingly less hymns and spiritual songs.
Honestly, I think the real answer to your question, Dr. Hart, is that psalms are hard to set to music that comports with current musical sensibilities. The Geneva psalter is great, but the tunes are sometimes awkward.
I’ve set psalms to music, and it’s hard work. It’s a whole lot easier to write a simple tune and then throw words around it.
(In case it’s not clear, I think this is a Bad Thing … If the pendulum must swing, let it swing towards psalms)
Continued…
JRC
LikeLike
The other reason that psalms may not be more popular has to do with the didactic function of music in worship.
As Psalms demonstrates, music in worship is partly God-directed and partly man-directed, didactically instructing man about God.
When we look at the better hymns today, their didactic function is Gospel-oriented, something that was hidden during David’s time and therefore does not shine forth as directly as it might.
I think therefore that hymn-singing is relatively popular because hymns speak more openly about the Gospel. Singing “And Can It Be” with relative abandon (mentally qualifying the “for Adam’s helpless race” and “emptied himself of all but love” clauses) is an experience of preaching the Gospel to oneself. And praising God for it. All at the same time.
—
Is this a good thing? I don’t know. Here, I speculate a bit: It seems to me that we could make a principled case that hymns are necessary in order to reflect the change taken place with Christ’s coming. The Gospel is no longer hidden; let our music reflect it. I think this would explain why the singing in Revelation is not psalms, but songs of praise to Christ.
Thinking further on this, does not exclusive psalmnody limit our songs to ones in which the Trinity is not fully revealed? Hm.
But now we come back to the question of doctrinal content. Psalms are a known good quantity (subject to the limits of translation and considerations of historia salutis). Hymns? Praise songs? They can come from anywhere … and they DO! … and a lot of them are junk. So aren’t we running the risk of allowing error in the door?
This argument has a lot of appeal, but it proves too much. The primary didactic function in worship is actually served by the preaching. And in preaching, we invite the possibility of error, even serious error, from the pulpit every single Sunday.
If the ministry of the Word were treated to the same standard we are asking the ministry of music to subscribe to, then the preacher would stand up, read his passage, and sit down.
There is no other way to prevent the preacher from possibly teaching error.
Why don’t we have this rule? After all, as far as I know, there is no public worship service in Scripture that contains a sermon, nor is there any command that explicitly requires teaching in the public service. Why then do we make public teaching about the Word the sine qua non of public worship?
Because we understand with the ministry of the Word that it is not enough to hear it only, but also to have it explained.
Why do we not have the same understanding with music? Should there not be a place for hymns that explain doctrine?
And then, should those hymns not be “vetted” by the church for their doctrinal content, much as, say, the Trinity hymnal has been?
JRC
LikeLike
Eliza,
Since you teach logic, it shouldn’t be difficult to figure out that you are still playing games and evading supporting your original comment. If you are interested in learning about 2k, there are some good resources available. Dr. Hart has written a book titled, A Secular Faith. Dr. VanDrunen has written a book titled, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. The Westminster Seminary California is also holding a conference this weekend titled, Christ, Kingdom, and Culture that available online. You can find the videos here: http://www.wscal.edu/conference2010
LikeLike
Found it. In the thread concerning Advent was this exchange:
JRC: DGH, do the Standards require the RPW in private worship?
DGH: I’m also with Andrew that private worship should not be purposefully different from corporate worship. Granted, no sacraments at home, no invocation, benediction, etc. But I’d hope for Scripture centered worship, teaching that conforms to the creed, songs that are sung at church, and similar reverence and awe (making allowances, of course, for children).
So I had misremembered you, RL, as the participant (sorry to both of you).
Anyways, we come back to the major question: if hymns are acceptable for private worship, then why not public?
JRC
LikeLike
I’m suggesting that folks don’t seem to object to subscription or church polity, but get buggy over having their liberty curtailed in worship. Presbyterians know they need to come to terms with the Standards and with Presbyterian polity to be ordained. Why not with specifics and constraint in Presbyterian worship?
LikeLike
But I’m not sure you answered my question about the superiority of psalms to hymns. Leaving aside the question of acceptableness, why sing an inferior expression whether in public or private worship? Do you really want to say that some hymns are superior to the inspired word of God?
That may not seem like an answer, but it does suggest a begged answer in your question, namely, that hymns and psalms are on an level playing field. If they are not, and I grant you may not agree, and if psalms are superior to hymns, how do you think I should answer your question?
LikeLike
Ah. Now I understand.
It’s a good question, and I’ll think on it. I can say that worship issues raise hackles in ways that make debates over active imputation look tame (except at the SJC level).
It might be that the RPW operates on a different functional principle than the other standards.
For the standards: “Here is the corpus of beliefs that are good and necessary inferences from Scripture. Love it or leave it. For everything else, you have freedom.”
For the RPW: “Here are the only elements that are proven by good and necessary inference to be commanded in worship. For everything else, just don’t.”
What I’m hinting at is that there is a certain paradox with the RPW: it preserves the liberty of the conscience, but it also binds the liberty of the conscience.
I think our three-way discussion of exclusive psalmnody illustrates the problem. If you and I disagree about, say, whether Samuel was saved prior to 1 Sam 3.7 (a reference to a long GB thread concerning this point), then we can argue for good and necessary inference and then walk away saying, “I lean this way, but I could see that way also.” That is, the principle of liberty articulated in WCoF 20.2 means that we need not be concerned that someone will dogmatically bind our conscience to one view or the other. And, we don’t feel pressure to come to the right view.
But with worship, it must be either approved or forbidden; there is no middle ground. So disagreements about exegesis (of say Col 3.16) take on a different character. (I don’t mean a different tone … the discussion is quite edifying. I just mean that there is much greater pressure to “come to the right view” because of the nature of the question at hand)
So for me, for example, there is a paradox: the same WCoF 20.2 that is used (rightly) to defend the conscience of the worshiper by upholding the RPW, normally serves to defend the conscience of the exegete. Yet it cannot do both at the same time.
That’s my intuitive take.
JRC
LikeLike
Yeah, I was being somewhat convoluted there.
Summary: As a matter of observation, I think psalms are not sung more because they don’t translate easily into our musical conventions.
As a matter of principle, it is possible but not certain that psalms and hymns serve different functions and are therefore not strictly comparable (is Barry Bonds superior to Nolan Ryan? Answer: Both are inferior to Chuck Norris).
That is, it may be that hymns serve a post-cross function that psalms cannot serve (except cryptically, as in Ps. 22).
But that’s really speculation. My bottom-line answer to the question is really, “Because God said to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” So coming up with reasons for it is kind of like coming up with reasons why women should not be pastors. We can speculate, but the command is the Real Reason.
Importantly, I don’t think that hymns are superior to the inspired word. The best hymns are either direct Scripture or close paraphrases of it, and the further they get from the word, the worse they get.
That’s the same attitude I take towards sermons. The need to stick to God’s word is real; bad sermons are real; but that’s not an argument for replacing the sermon with a reading of Scripture.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
Maybe our English translations of the Bible don’t have many “hymns” in the OT, but that wasn’t true for the Ephesians or the Colossians.
I’m willing to concede that both Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 both apply to public worship. After all, these two texts long with James 5:13 were cited to support “the singing of psalms with grace in the heart,†in WCF 21.6. Granting that the church is enjoined to sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, I still don’t find any support for the notion that any of these things refer to uninspired songs. The Septuagint was almost certainly the Bible for both the Colossian church and the Ephesian church, and the same three Greek words that Paul uses in these two versus are found throughout the Book of Psalms in the Septuagint. None of these uses implies a distinction between a psalm as an inspired song and a hymn as an uninspired song.
In the Septuagint, all but two of the chapters in the Book of Psalms had a title. Six of these chapters were dubbed hymns (hymnos) by their own titles: Psalms 6, 54, 55, 61, 67, and 76. Hymnos also appears within specific psalms and is used in very interesting ways. For example, a direct translation to English from the Greek would render the last verse of Psalm 72 as “The hymns of David the son of Jessae are ended.†Doesn’t every tradition view this verse as referring to all of the preceding chapters of the Book of Psalms? At this point, the language of the Septuagint seems to use these words hymnos and psalmos in at least a loosely interchangeable way.
Hymnos and its cognates appear in other books of the Septuagint. And many of these instances are references appear to reference the Book of the Psalms (or at least David’s contributions). One such example is Nehemiah 12:36, “and his brethren, Samaia, and Oziel, Gelol, Jama, Aia, Nathanael, and Juda, Anani, to praise with the hymns of David the man of God….â€
Though the meaning psalmos and hymnos may not be identical, the Septuagint recognizes plenty of overlap and clearly indicates that there are inspired versions of each found not only in the OT, but also within the Book of Psalms itself. When Paul repeatedly implores his readers to study Scripture, he knows that they will turn to the Septuagint. There they will find both hymns and psalms.
How can we read this to require new uninspired compositions?
Wouldn’t singing one of the “hymns of David†satisfy this command, or is it negated because those hymns happen also to be psalms? In the language of the Septuagint, there is no either/or distinction between psalms and hymns (let alone psalms, hymns, and songs!). This either/or distinction is of recent vintage.
If you continue to insist that a hymn is something sui generis, I must continue to insist on a definition. And though I am concerned with doctrinal accuracy, I am also concerned with what you called “genre.†The crux of your argument, is that hymns are something distinct from psalms in such a way that a psalm is not a hymn. This difference has nothing to do with doctrine. We would all, I hope, object to impure doctrine in whatever form.
Or else if a hymn is simply a praise song, haven’t we satisfied both the requirement that we sing a hymn and a psalm, if we sang Psalm 8? That’s a “praise song,†right? Everyone’s happy!
LikeLike
RL,
Thanks for the point concerning the Septuagint’s rendering of some psalm titles as “hymns.” I had overlooked that. I would agree with you that there is overlap between psalms and hymns.
But that wasn’t my point, that “psalms” and “hymns” had to be entirely distinct genres. Rather, my point is that for some reason, Paul did not say, “sing psalms.”
Had he intended the 150 Psalms only, he could have said “psalms” and had done. As it was, he went on to add, “and hymns and spiritual songs.”
So this fact does not prove *entire separation* between psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, but it does demonstrate the likelihood of non-synonymity among the three.
In my view, the fact that the worship depicted in Revelation involves singing songs *other than* one of the 150 Psalms completely falsifies the hypothesis that only the Psalms may be sung in worship. Whether this worship is symbolic or otherwise makes no difference: it is a model of accepted worship of God, and it involves singing, and it isn’t the psalms they’re singing. (and they have harps, but that’s another discussion)
But now you open the door to another possibility: that perhaps we could limit ourselves to *inspired texts*. So for example (as has been done) if Romans 11.33-36 is set to music, then you would find this acceptable?
LikeLike
You are probably right that the Westminster divines were mostly exclusive psalmnists, but that wasn’t my argument.
You recall that were discussing whether WCF 21 is meant as an exhaustive list or not. My point was that, given the contention over DPW, it is unlikely that WCF 21 is meant to provide an exhaustive list but rather a list of agreed-upon elements of worship.
That is, I’m arguing that it’s unlikely that the framers of the Confession were saying, “These are the only elements of worship that Scripture permits, end of story”, given that they did not actually agree among themselves about the proper elements of worship.
Rather, the Real Rule is placed up front in 21.1: “God is not to be worshiped in any way other than as prescribed in Scripture”, and then 21.5 affirms that all of the following are indeed commanded in Scripture.
So I ask, what evidence do you have that the list in 21.5 is intended to be exhaustive? It seems to me that you could only get there by construing the word “all” in a way that it is not normally used.
Consider:
“Algeria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Dominican Republic: these are all countries.”
Is this sentence saying in any way that these are the only four countries in existence? Certainly not! This construction “X, Y, Z are all P” is simply not used when one wishes to be exhaustive.
JRC
LikeLike
Why not chant the psalms? The Episcopals do and I think Presbyterians sing better than the CofE’s. Plus, how cool would chanting be to NYCer’s?
LikeLike
Ah, but this is another begged question (in my view) that song has a didactic or horizontal function. I believe, following Calvin, that song is a form of prayer (not a musical sermon). Another piece of the argument for psalms.
LikeLike
Jeff,
From GI Williamson’s Singing of Psalms:
“Just as the Holy Spirit speaks of His ‘commandments and his statutes and his judgments’ (Deut. 30:16, etc.), and of ‘miracles and wonders and signs’ (Acts 2:22), so He speaks of His ‘psalms, hymns and songs’. . .
. . . .It is sometimes said that in the singing of the psalms one is denied the privilege of singing of the Saviour who has now come. In other words, it is commonly alleged that there is not enough of Christ in the book of psalms. This is a really astonishing thing. For Christ Himself said that the book of psalms was written about Him. (Luke 24:44.) His own dying words were quoted from Psalm 22. The last fellowship with His disciples was in singing the great Hallel (Psalms 115-118) at the Last Supper. And then by the mouth of His servant Paul, He commanded the Churches to keep on singing the psalms. And why not? He Himself, by the Holy Spirit, was the author of them. And the truth is that there is more of Christ in every psalm written by Him before He came to the world, than in any hymn written by mere men after He came.”
While Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 were added to the WCF by the order of Parliament, they are the proof texts for “singing psalms with grace in the heart”.
Besides singing new songs and harps, we also have beasts, candles, thrones, white robes, crowns and incense in the Book of Revelation. IOW it’s all or nothing, if you insist on the Apocalypse being taken literally as a Directory for Worship; that what glorified saints are doing in heaven is an approved example for here and now, do not pass go,but proceed straight to the popish or prelatical church. Their worship though, is not presbyterian, confessional or reformed.
Preaching is the drawing out and applying the good and necessary consequences of the text. It is not the same thing as the reading of Scripture, which is another distinct element or part of worship.
Bushell’s Songs of Zion will be reprinted by CColdwell of Naphtali Press this year. Respectfully, if you are really interested in getting up to speed on the question, much more furthering the debate, you ought to get a copy. I’m not seeing much here that hasn’t already been addressed on this forum.
cordially
LikeLike
I remember interacting on this briefly before. Since that time, I started noticing how many statements in the Psalms are directed not at God but at the listeners.
Psalm 1 springs immediately to mind.
I think there’s a strong didactic function in song.
And actually, don’t you think so also, really? Isn’t that the underlying concern about bad doctrine in songs … it matters because songs have, well, doctrine. Teaching.
JRC
LikeLike
Bob,
Thanks for the Williamson link.
LikeLike
What’s the Calvin ref BTW?
LikeLike
Jeff,
It’s the context of the list that leads me to conclude that it was meant to be exhaustive. First, broadly speaking we know that that the Divines were concerned with limiting church power. Second, turning to the text of the Confession, we know that the Divines affirmed both the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture, as it pertains to matters of worship (WCF 1.6 & 1.7). Finally, the most immediate context is the Divine’s articulation of the RPW in 21.1.
Let’s add a similar context to your countries example. Suppose that you are a diplomat preparing for an international trade conference, and a trusted supervisor who will accompany you to the conference has given you a memo containing the following instructions: “The President has ordered us to negotiate with each and every country that has signed the trade treaty. He has also forbidden us from negotiating with any country that has not signed the treaty. All of the signatories are either expressly named or directly referenced in the treaty. We must negotiate with Algeria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, and the Dominican Republic.”
Wouldn’t you expect that list to be complete and exhaustive? Sure there’s some wiggle room there. But the meaning seems obvious to me. Do you agree?
LikeLike
I feel the force of your argument, but I don’t fully agree.
First, your analogy adds some language that WCoF 21 lacks: the “each and every” language is notably absent, and it is this language that is lacked to make the list exhaustive. The only place that the language in 21 comes close to being “each and every” is in 21.1, and there, it attaches to “each and every that is commanded in the Scripture.”
Clearly, you feel that the “each and every” is implied in subsequent sections, but I don’t … I’m not sure what would change to cause one of us to persuade the other.
Second, the spirit of the Confession is to provide a secondary, interpretive standard to Scripture. This is clear from ch. 1, 20, and 31. I know from our earlier exchange that you agree with this, and that it is not your desire to pit Confession against Scripture.
Nevertheless, the effect of the method you employ is to foreclose the possibility that Scripture might introduce an element of worship not found in 21, on the grounds that the Confession is interpreting the Scripture in this way. That is, if one brings forth a different possible element of worship, grounded in Scripture, this element is automatically wrong because it is not in the Confession,
This is simply contrary to the stated doctrine of Scripture in the Confession. And so the framers, being sagacious, would not have foreclosed on this issue without showing ground, lest the Real Rule of 21.1 end up conflicting the rest of 21.
In other words, my view is that the “any other way not prescribed in Holy Scripture” is in a separate section from the rest of the discussion because it sets apart the real rule from the particulars that follow; and the language in the sections that follow is carefully constructed so as not to conflate the opinion of the Westminster Assembly with the Scripture.
And Third, at the risk of being overly repetitious, the language of ch. 1 demonstrates what kind of language the Westminster divines used when they wished to be exhaustive. By contrast, the literal language of ch. 21 is clear if not exhaustive, but elliptical if exhaustive. It does not resemble the language of ch. 1.
Fourth, do you feel the weight of my argument concerning church courts? It is significant to me that the GA of the PCA has already ruled (in the BCO) on whether the language is exhaustive … and they say, it isn’t.
Clearly, synods can err, but I feel the weight of their decision as being somewhat normative on myself as an elder in the PCA.
JRC
LikeLike
Sorry, my second point above was written while under the influence of a four-year-old. Here’s a clearer version:
We agree that we do not wish to pit Confession against Scripture. Let’s suppose temporarily that 21.3 – 5 is exhaustive.
If therefore one found in Scripture a good and necessary inference that one must sing hymns that are not psalms, then 21.3 – 5 would have to be pitted against Scripture. This is precisely the situation that the writers of the Confession did not want: Scripture was always primary.
Therefore, my sense of 21.5 is that the language was deliberately constructed so as not to preempt or come into potential conflict with 21.1.
Hopefully, that makes more sense.
LikeLike
On further reflection, doesn’t your question provide more evidence that WCoF 21.3-5 is not exhaustive? We read creeds in the service, but they aren’t listed in 21.3-5.
(Well, maybe I’ve stepped on another landmine. Do you read creeds in your services?)
LikeLike
I was researching the nefarious Manhattan Declaration and found at the ACE website not only Ligon Duncan’s justification for his signing the MD, but also the well-reasoned 1997 note on “The Gift of Salvation” (w/ reference to ECT, of course).
See http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID560462_CIID1415576,00.html
Have you read it lately?
It stands in stark contrast to Rev Duncan’s 2009 declaration.
See http://www.reformation21.org/articles/the-manhattan-declaration-a-statement-from-ligon-duncan.php
I note that such ACE luminaries as Begg, Sproul, & MacArthur do not have their anti-MD articles at the Alliance website, though Duncan’s defense still stands.
The ACE of 2009-10 appears not to be the ACE of 1997.
One question more: Duncan mentions other ACErs who were invited to sit in on MD proceedings, as well as to sign the thing. Do you know of anyone else @ ACE who actually signed MD?
Hugh McCann
LikeLike