Convenantal Worship
Gore Jr., R. J. Convenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle. New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2002.
Every once in a while I try to read a book that will help me think about hermeneutical issues. The Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) is one of those issues. While I believe that worship must be according to Scripture, all kinds of hermeneutical questions start popping into my head when I read what confessions like the Westminster Standards have to say about the regulation of worship, and how they use the bible to back it up. In his foreword to this book, John Frame, after pointing out a few areas where he differs from the author, says: “we both want to say that Scripture must direct our worship, but that Scripture must be read according to sound hermeneutics.” I couldn’t agree more.
Since some people may define the RPW differently, I think it is helpful for me to clarify that the author is referring specifically to the principle as it was understood by the Puritans. Frank J. Smith summarizes the Puritan RPW as a principle that “teaches that with regard to worship whatever is commanded in Scripture is required, and that whatever is not commanded is forbidden” (9).
Part of the strength of the book is the author’s appreciation of the Reformed tradition. In his doctoral studies at Westminster Theological Seminary he became fascinated with the simplicity of the Puritan Reformed thinking which included the RPW. Circumstances led him to research the Puritan RPW more closely and change his dissertation. This book is the fruit of his rethinking.
In chapter 1 “Doing Your Own Thing,” Gore talks about the current state of affairs in worship especially as it relates to the Presbyterian church. He then gives us an idea of where he is going in the book and its limitations. He lays out the historical background of the Westminster Confession and quotes the sections pertaining to worship in chapter 2 “Déjà Vu All Over Again.” This is important because it gives us the background needed to understand the Puritans and the Westminster Assembly on their own terms. It is very easy for some of us to pass judgment on the restrictive nature of their stances without realizing the battles they were fighting and what they were up against. It was enlightening to read what the confession had to say pertaining to worship and locate it in its proper context. He then talks about the Directory for the Public Worship of God written by the Westminster Assembly in chapter 3 “The Puritan Via Media.” This highlighted the difficult task of delineating what is essential and what is circumstantial. At the end, the Directory became a compromise document.
Chapter 4 “Regulating with Calvin” talks about John Calvin’s interpretive method. Basically “in regard to matters in the church – not necessary for salvation – Calvin asserts the principle of indifference” (62). It is very revealing to see the difference between how Calvin viewed the adiaphora (matters of indifference) in contradistinction to the Puritans. Gore concludes that the Puritans “interpreted the regulative principle far more rigorously than did Calvin” (89) and that their “application of the regulative principle differed from Calvin in its more rigorous requirements for circumstances and its restrictive understanding of the adiaphora. The Puritan position is related to Calvin’s position, but as an exaggeration, a more extreme rule that does not achieve the full biblical balance and catholicity of Calvin’s position” (89). Chapter 5 “Worship, Geneva Style” continues to talk about the differences in practice between Calvin and the Puritans, for example in the use of liturgy and ceremony.
Chapter 6 “Thy Will Be Done” starts to explore the question: what does the Bible require? He does this by looking at 1) the nature of Puritan biblical interpretation and 2) the integration of the practices of Jesus concerning the worship of God into our understanding of the regulation of worship. Before looking more closely at the way the Puritans interpreted scripture, he asserts that their “commitment to the absolute authority of the Scriptures does not protect them from errors of interpretation or methodology or make them immune to the historical limitations of their time” (92). The first aspect of their interpretation can be characterized by a tendency to rationalism, “the primacy of the intellect”. “For the Puritan, appeal to the senses of emotions through ceremony and rite was but an appeal to man’s carnal nature” (93). He then talks about their errors in hermeneutics which can be summarized in a “crass literalism.” There was often atomistic handling of individual texts failing to take into consideration the larger context of scripture. Individual texts were often maximized by logical extension so that “too much weight is given to necessary consequences” (97). Sometimes there was neglect of the redemptive-historical context and a failure to relate properly the NT to the OT. At this point some people may start to wonder if there was anything good about the Puritan’s interpretive method. But the author makes sure to point out that this does not represent all the Puritans but seemed to be prevalent enough to shape their overall understanding. Maybe part of the issue is that back then people did not think in terms of “biblical theology” and the author makes the point that “biblical theology, of course, is a relatively new discipline; so to accuse the Puritans of errors in biblical theology would be anachronistic” (98). I think this is important to keep in mind.
He then talks about Jesus’ teaching on the proper regulation of worship and highlights passages like Matthew 15:2-9, Mark 7:1-13 (commandments of men and commandments of God) and Luke 6:1-10 (controversy over the Sabbath observance).
One of the most stimulating sections of the book for me was about the synagogue. One of the reasons for this is that I often wondered about the role of the synagogue not only in Jesus’ ministry but also in early Christianity. His discussion focused on three issues: 1) The origin of the synagogue, 2) the worship of the synagogue and 3) the practice of Jesus relative to the synagogue. The conclusion is that Jesus “worshipped in the synagogue according to Jewish practice and followed liturgical forms, ceremonies and rites that were of human origin” (106). This section of the book is worth considering carefully including his discussion on the voluntary Jewish Festivals.
Chapter 7 “Reasonable Service” tries to show that although the Puritan RPW has been found wanting it “does not mean that Scriptures fail to give guidance concerning the regulation of worship” (111). He does that by suggesting that worship is all of life, and, in that sense, it is not different than David Peterson’s “Engaging With God: A Biblical Theology of Worship.” H talks about the words leitourgia and latreia using passages such as Romans 12:1-2, Acts 3:2, Romans 15:27 and 2 Corinthians 9:12. He does not ignore the sacral and cultic use of these terms in the OT, but observes that “the NT terminology has been desacralized” (116). He talks about the difference between apodictic and casuistic laws and that the latter is not exhaustive. That’s why “in wisdom, the Christian is to learn to think covenantally, responsibly, as a mature believer in the Lord” (120). There is some discussion about Van Til’s concept of Christian ethics which I did not find to be very helpful because it seemed to be a little “detached” from the biblical text. But I sensed that to fully appreciate Van Til’s arguments, I might just have to read what Van Til had to say (not something I am likely to do in the near future). He then moves on to talk about the adiaphora in the NT considering passages such as Acts 16, Acts 21, Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. He finishes the chapter with a discussion of the adiaphora and the Reformed Confessions.
In chapter 8 “In Light of the Covenant,” he suggests an approach to worship called “covenantal principle of worship.” The rest of the chapter gives the parameters for this principle which “are intended to be biblical in their basis and faithful to the Reformed tradition, particularly as expressed in the thought of John Calvin” (139). I get a sense that Gore wants to cling to Calvin in order to claim that his understanding of the RPW is thoroughly within the Reformed tradition. If Calvin was as level-minded about this subject as he says, it doesn’t sound like a bad thing. The parameters are: worship that is 1) Orderly, 2) Free (individual and ecclesial), 3) worship that glorifies and edifies, 4) catholic (considering other traditions), 5) culturally sensitive (to adapt and transform, but yet stay obedient to the Word of God), 6) balanced (between Word and symbol, and between Word and Sacrament), and 7) Christ-centered.
The book started by asking the question of whether or not the principle “whatever is commanded in Scripture is required, and that whatever is not commanded is forbidden” is biblical and hermeneutically sound. His answer is negative, for the RPW turns out to be more restrictive than the bible itself warrants. There is an element of wisdom in dealing with diaphora, and the parameters that he proposes seem to be a good beginning. After reading what some people think about this issue, I am sure that many will condemn this book as anti-Puritanism, emphatically denied by Gore, and against the Reformed Tradition which he tries to honor. I don’t think that the Puritan RPW as described by Gore really deals with how the bible itself portrays the worship practices of the people of God both in the OT and the NT. But the value of this book to me is that it highlights the importance of looking at our hermeneutical methods. Life is complex and will not bend to formulas even when those formulas are intended to honor God’s Word (as the Jews tried to honor God’s name by not even pronouncing it). Another thing this book shows is how conditioned our hermeneutics can be to culture, time and circumstances. The Puritans did not formulate this principle as an armchair theologian’s exercise in interpretation. They were up against a church that wanted to impose on the believers how they should worship and they protested that worship should be according to the Word of God and not the imagination of man. I heartily applaud them for that. That’s why I need to keep reminding myself that the way I understand how worship should be done is influenced by my tradition, my prejudices, lack of knowledge of the bible and its history and, above all, my sinful nature. But I am also called to exercise wisdom, search the scriptures, converse with other believers and look to people, at whatever stage they are, through the eyes of love. I still have many questions, but this book helped me think about some aspects of this issue a little more clearly. It also helped me appreciate even more the fact that we have a long history of interpretation whose goal was to glorify God above all things.
