.JPG)
It seems to me that a good deal of our inherited practice of the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) is based on patternistic observations in the New Testament. There are a lot of patterns that can be discerned in connection with worship practices, and a good deal of difference of opinion, and sometimes schism, can originate over varying conceptions of the relative importance of different aspects of the patterns seen.
I would suggest is that it's better to look at the theological reasons for any patterns. The theology behind a pattern is the cause of the visible practice. If we would stop looking at the "outside" of liturgical behavior observed in the Scriptures, and start looking at the "inside" -- the reasons for things being done the way they are -- we would tend to make more valid progress.
Example: Musical Instruments
In the Temple they used musical instruments. In the Apocalyse they are seen using musical instruments. In the earthly teaching of Christ and his apostles, and in the historical records of Acts and the Epistles, no instruments are seen. There were no (known) instruments in the synagogue. Does this mean there should be no instruments used in the worship of the church on earth?
The patternistic response to outward forms is to say that there should be no instruments. The response that makes sense, however, is to say that God has ordained the existence of musical instruments, and they are permitted in worship. It is our job as mature sons to use them wisely.
The same logic can be used for church choirs, for creating "new songs" (instead of singing only psalms), and for using a patterned worship with lots of sung and verbal interactions, etc.
Sometimes, in the RPW discussion, it is asserted that the Temple worship was precisely specified to the smallest detail, and so we should take the same approach to the New Testament worship. However, a real study of actual material (such as from Edersheim, The Temple - Its Ministry and Services), will show that the Mosaic institutes prescribed certain portions of the Temple liturgy in precise detail, but that a very considerable part of it had to be instituted by well-instructed elders and priests. There's just not enough Mosaic instruction to prescribe every aspect of the liturgy of the Tabernacle or the Temple in real life.
And, too, what did the Temple priests do when they made a mistake? It's easily verified that there is little in the inspired Scripture to cover all kinds of liturgical mistakes in detail. Recovering the integrity of broken ceremonies was necessary, and also had to be instituted by authority (see the Mishnah for samples).
Concerning liturgical rigidity, the Lord himself was prone to allow such things as celebrating the Passover in the wrong month, or letting unclean people eat the Passover, or letting the show-bread be eaten by non-priests -- for good reasons at the time. I'm sure there are other instances of this. Therefore, the idea that we deal with a God who is absolutely so rigid in his liturgical requirements as to strike people down for merely formal or patternistic discrepancies is just not in accord with his character. There is almost always a discernable moral component of sin in such cases. It is true that there are a very few instances of the Lord appearing to be rigid -- but he is mostly not. A close inspection of the lapses and irregularies in Tabernacle and Temple worship throughout the Old Testament shows considerable misbehavior that little is said about by the Lord. He's infinitely more concerned about their idolatry than he is their formal worship.
This is no excuse to cavalierly disobey him in the liturgy of that worship that he specifies for us in the Scripture, but let us honor him for who he really is, and obey him for the right reasons. Especially in the New Covenant, we are freed from the servility that was intentionally inculcated by the Law in this respect. We should have the maturity to make mature use of the Scripture in discerning what worship must be.
Example: Musical Instruments
In the Temple they used musical instruments. In the Apocalyse they are seen using musical instruments. In the earthly teaching of Christ and his apostles, and in the historical records of Acts and the Epistles, no instruments are seen. There were no (known) instruments in the synagogue. Does this mean there should be no instruments used in the worship of the church on earth?
The patternistic response to outward forms is to say that there should be no instruments. The response that makes sense, however, is to say that God has ordained the existence of musical instruments, and they are permitted in worship. It is our job as mature sons to use them wisely.
The same logic can be used for church choirs, for creating "new songs" (instead of singing only psalms), and for using a patterned worship with lots of sung and verbal interactions, etc.
Sometimes, in the RPW discussion, it is asserted that the Temple worship was precisely specified to the smallest detail, and so we should take the same approach to the New Testament worship. However, a real study of actual material (such as from Edersheim, The Temple - Its Ministry and Services), will show that the Mosaic institutes prescribed certain portions of the Temple liturgy in precise detail, but that a very considerable part of it had to be instituted by well-instructed elders and priests. There's just not enough Mosaic instruction to prescribe every aspect of the liturgy of the Tabernacle or the Temple in real life.
And, too, what did the Temple priests do when they made a mistake? It's easily verified that there is little in the inspired Scripture to cover all kinds of liturgical mistakes in detail. Recovering the integrity of broken ceremonies was necessary, and also had to be instituted by authority (see the Mishnah for samples).
Concerning liturgical rigidity, the Lord himself was prone to allow such things as celebrating the Passover in the wrong month, or letting unclean people eat the Passover, or letting the show-bread be eaten by non-priests -- for good reasons at the time. I'm sure there are other instances of this. Therefore, the idea that we deal with a God who is absolutely so rigid in his liturgical requirements as to strike people down for merely formal or patternistic discrepancies is just not in accord with his character. There is almost always a discernable moral component of sin in such cases. It is true that there are a very few instances of the Lord appearing to be rigid -- but he is mostly not. A close inspection of the lapses and irregularies in Tabernacle and Temple worship throughout the Old Testament shows considerable misbehavior that little is said about by the Lord. He's infinitely more concerned about their idolatry than he is their formal worship.
This is no excuse to cavalierly disobey him in the liturgy of that worship that he specifies for us in the Scripture, but let us honor him for who he really is, and obey him for the right reasons. Especially in the New Covenant, we are freed from the servility that was intentionally inculcated by the Law in this respect. We should have the maturity to make mature use of the Scripture in discerning what worship must be.
Reviewed and retained.
ReplyDelete