We are down to the final hours of the “Ask Anything” deal, and my question on the Regulative Principle is hanging tough (NKOTB style). I appreciate the interest level and thousands of votes that have come in over the past week.
Many of you know that I have been reading a lot of Finney this semester. I have written about some new “new measures” as well as Finney the controversialist. In this post, I want to share Finney’s view of methodology which is an out and out rejection of the Regulative Principle. Historically speaking, the regulative principle has been understood to mean that nothing must be required as essential to public worship except which is commanded by the word of God.[1] Derek Thomas argues that one of the reasons for holding to the RP is to understand that “what makes worship different is that is cultural ethos is determined by scriptural commands and principles rather than personal or collective tastes and mores.”[2] It is important to note that, historically, the RP was not to bind or impose upon worshipers regarding what they can or cannot do; rather, it was quite the contrary. For Luther, Calvin, and the Westminster Divines, it was about the liberty of conscience and freedom of the Christian.
Charles Finney grew up being taught the Westminster Confession of Faith, eventually publicly consenting to it when ordained in the Presbyterian Church. One would think, then, that Finney would be at least sympathetic towards a Scripture-governed view of the church. However, much like his soteriological departure, his view of the church manifested a clear rejection of the authority and priority of Scripture in worship and practice. For us, it is a lesson that theology indeed does drive methodology.
In an attempt to defend the legitimacy of his new methodology, Finney wrote, “The Bible lays down no specific series of events for promoting revivals, instead leaving it to ministers to adopt strategies wisely suited to secure the end.”[3] Finney believed it was necessary to continually be developed new methods of reaching people, and given that Scripture is silent on the issue, the minister is at liberty to develop and implement whatever method that accomplishes the greatest results. Finney argues, “The Gospel was now preached as God’s appointed means of furthering Christianity; and it was not left to the church’s discretion to decide from time to time what measures should be used in giving the Gospel its power.”[4] Notice carefully what Finney says. The power or efficacy of the Gospel is not in the Gospel itself (Rom. 1:16) but in the measures or methods adopted. Therefore, if there are not results, it is not the Gospel’s fault, but the method or more specifically, the minister using the methods. What we find in Finney’s methodology, then, is that the regulative principle was not the commands of Scripture but the dictates of pragmatism.
Obviously, the question of the regulative principle is intrinsically related to the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Should the church, in determining her worship, government, and mission, be shaped, guided, and regulated by Scripture? Has God spoken to these matters, or could be consider them all adiaphora (matters of indifference)? Not only is there the question of Scripture, but there is also the relationships of Christ as head of the Church. Can it be said that Christ has relegated the outworking of His body, the Church, to whatever seems best in the eyes of men? For Finney, “The fact is that God has established in no church any particular manner of worship for furthering Christianity. Scripture is silent on this subject, and during the time of the preaching of the Gospel, the church is left to exercise discretion about such matters.”[5] When it is argued that Scripture is silent, then Finney perhaps is right to advise ministers to “do it-the best way you can . . . to make the Gospel known in the most effective way, to make the truth stand out strikingly and secure the attention and obedience of the greatest number possible.”[6]
Contrary to Finney’s methodological freedom, Jonathan Edwards took a different route. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, speaking of Edwards methodology, wrote, “Whatever he might be tempted to think, the Bible was supreme: everything was subordinate to the Word of God.”[7] Whether it was distinguishing the works of the Spirit of God, counseling awakened sinners, or ministering through worship and the Word, Edwards was committed to a God-governed understanding of the church. Michael Haykin points out that, when Edwards sought to determine whether conversion or revival has occurred, he argued that “the Scriptures are ‘the great and standing rule which God has given to his church’ to discern spiritual authenticity. They and they alone are ‘infallible and sufficient.'”[8] Where Finney argued that Scripture is silent, Edwards argued that it was “the great and standing rule.” Where Finney appealed to the methods and ministers for sufficiency and efficacy, Edwards believed Scripture alone to be “infallible and sufficient.”
We are living in a day where there are many church practitioners, like Finney, who believe that neither Christ nor Scripture has any bearing on how we do church. Some may feel led to believe that the regulative principle is only for matters of worship. While this may be historically true, it is not total truth. For, everything we do in Christian life is penultimate to worship. As Piper has rightly argued, mission exists because worship doesn’t. If you are passionate about worship, then you will be passionate about mission, and if you are a Christian or church seeking to be missional, then it should matter why and how you practice the Christian faith as it finds its telos before the throne room of King Jesus.
I also believe that we are living in a day where the younger generation of ministers is looking more to the Edwardsean and Puritan tradition that is positively committed to the word of God and its implications in every area of our lives as well as churches. In the heart of God, I believe the Church is precious and a passionate interest. For those who are desirous to seek His heart, we should look nowhere else than His Word and His Son. Whether the issue is related to worship, government, or mission, I am convinced that it is most wise to submit not only our theology but also our methodology under that “great and standing rule” as a measure of both faithfulness and fruitfulness in God’s kingdom.
________________________________
[1]Derek W.H. Thomas, “The Regulative Principle: Responding to Recent Criticism” in Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship, ed. by Phillip Graham Ryken, Derek W.H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2003), 75.[2]Ibid.
[3]Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revival (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1988), 121.
[4]Ibid., 161. Emphasis mine.
[5]Ibid., 175.
[6]Ibid., 162.
[7]D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1987), 356.
[8]Michael A. G. Haykin, Jonathan Edwards: The Holy Spirit in Revival (Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2005), 92.
I know you just didn’t reference the New Kids!
C’mon Terry, you know you enjoyed that video. 😉
That is besides the point. (Don’t tell anyone I knew all the lyrics and was singing, too.)
You both know this admission is much, much worse than being Calvinist. Far worse. The kind where guilt-by-association is appropriate. I don’t know you anymore. 😉
Stephen,
I think you are just jealous of the NKOTB. 🙂
But I don’t blame you. I still remember trying to understand why my 5th grade “girlfriend” could not stop talking about them.
NEW KIDS?
You’re killing me Timmy.
“We are living in a day where there are many church practitioners, like Finney, who believe that neither Christ nor Scripture has any bearing on how we do church. ”
This quote alone causes me to distrust anything that you are saying. Do you really believe that Finney was saying that neither Christ nor Scripture has ANY bearing on how we do church? Have you read his book, “Power from on High”? Do you really believe that MANY church practitioners feel that NEITHER Christ NOR Scriptures have ANY bearing on how we do church? I don’t think that even the most radical in the emergent movement, if they truly follow Christ, would say this. Gross inacurate generalizations do not help further the discussion. Stop building straw men and have an honest dialogue.
And regarding the “method” of delivering the gospel having power. Yes, we all believe this to be true. Even you. This is why we cringe when we see the street preacher beating people down with the scripture. We have all seen people hurt of offended, not necessarily by the truth, but by how it was presented. This is why some people have a gift of evangelism that is more effective than others. The power is not in clever ideas or dynamic personality, as Paul would say, but in a sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, a pure vessel, operating in wisdom and prudence. The Word(logos) of God is always true. But the truth(logos) is not always the Word(rhema) of God. It IS sharper than a double edged sword, and should be handled with just as much caution.
Johnny,
Finney, as quoted above, said that Scripture is silent on the methods or measures ministers use. Yes, I do believe Finney subjugated Scripture and Christ’s headship over the church when it came to justifying his methodology.
I am not sure that you mean when you say that the truth (logos) is not always the Word (rhema) of God, so I will not venture to elaborate on that point.
An example I have heard, for instance, is that in one hand you have Scripture, and the other culture. We must exegete both, no doubt. But it is argued that we can be biblically faithful with a necessary connection to being culturally fruitful. It is said that there are multiple models of biblical faithful churches–emerging churches, house churches, traditional churches, seeker-sensitive churches, etc. But all are said to be “biblically faithful.” Yet, I have to wonder, then, if Scripture divorced from culture if all these churches can be said to be “biblically faithful” and yet function in their methodology in such various ways. I happen to believe that Scripture should not be divorced from methodology, that is should influence how you do church, and that there are models of churches that are not biblically faithful in their methodology. If the two hands (Scripture and culture) can operate independent of one another, then Scripture is silent from culture, and methodology is free to form without “Scripture having any bearing on how we do church.” Ergo, what is most relevant, practical, or effective is used as a “whatever it takes” means to accomplish the end.
You can believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, submit to it as the authority for the way you do church, and allocate cultural aspects that were not in the Bible. For instance, microphones, songs written by people in your church, musical styles, testimony (even those done with video)…
I have no problem giving assent to a “regulative principle” but the real question Timmy, that you have not even attempted to answer is in the real living and application of a regulative principle. The Puritan version? Sing only Psalms? What passages of Scripture teach this explicitly? Like any other theological construct, a version of the regulative principle must be lived. And I might add may actually go “beyond Scripture” in what it prohibits.
So, spell out for me how you see Scripture defining the way that all churches in all cultures should “do church” – for me it is “word and sacrament” – and then there will be lots of culturally contextual things abounding as well.
E-mail me if you decide to write on this.
Peace
“For Luther, Calvin, and the Westminster Divines, it was about the liberty of conscience and freedom of the Christian.”
I’m really glad you pointed that out. Having read through Calvin’s “Necessity of Reforming the Church” for Dr. Nettles this semester, I can whole heartedly agree with this statement. Too often, this fact is ignored in the contemporary debates. Whether or not a person agrees with the regulative principle, a Protestant has to admit that it beats the alternative of unrestrained human innovation. Case in point, the Roman Catholic Church of medieval Christendom.
Reid,
As stated above, I mentioned that the regulative principle has been understood to mean that nothing must be required as essential to public worship except which is commanded by the word of God. I think this is to be taken both positively and negatively. Positively, there are things which constitute being and doing that are essential to ecclesiology. They should be embraced and affirmed. Negatively, there are things which constitute being and doing that are accidential to ecclesiology. These are not required and sometimes must be rejected. I do not believe that those who affirm the RP are trying to going beyond Scripture; rather, they are seeking to affirm Scripture’s place in shaping one’s ecclesiology.
I am not saying that cultural aspects are not factors in determining one’s methodology. What I am saying is that culture ultimately is subject to Scripture, and where methodology is adapted from a cultural basis and is found contrary to scriptural principles, then Scripture must have final authority.
I have been thinking through the matrix of Scripture, culture, and tradition of late, and I am still working through these issues. I think this is important for those who find themselves among the ranks of being missional and Reformed. My hope is that this whole “ask anything” project will perhaps draw more attention to be ecclesial as well as being missional.
You cannot define ecclesia without the missio dei. This is a problem in my mind for many who think about “church” today. We are both a gathered and sent people.
Questions I would still have for you from your response:
– “sometimes” must be rejected – either Scripture speaks directly to which thing are “accidental/to be rejected” and “accidental/can be used in the worship of God
– “contrary to Scriptural principles” – I agree – but this is the reality – this is a decision for those who desire RP.
Now, from your description above, you may not really be advocating the RP but rather the primacy of Scripture as the final authority for the practice and methodology of the church. If I may sound Baptist for just a moment, Amen brother Tim!
However, my understanding (perhaps misunderstanding?) of the RP is that nothing which is not explicitly commanded in Scripture for the worship of God can be used in said matter. Normative principle (NP) would say nothing expressly forbidden by Scripture can be used in the worship of God. Or in other words – if it is not found contrary to Scripture, then it may be plundered and used in worship.
I find the RP as stated to be practiced nowhere as I do not see the precision that some do with the list of 5 things and only 5 things you can do in church. What I do find troubling is that those seeking such a principle will be on a long hair spliting journey arguing with “the new hymns” whatever they might be in each generation.
But of course, my concern is that those things we are commanded in Scripture to observe (word and sacrament) can become peripheral in church settings which give no thought at all to a robust biblical ecclesiology – I join you in that concern.
A quick question: can you remind me of whatever it is that is shorthanded as “NP” in relation to the RP? I can’t for the life of me remember what it is and none of my searches are turning it up, so I’m sure I’m looking in the wrong places.
Timmy,
Let me begin by saying that I happen to completely agree with you with regards to the vital need for the modern church to be guided by scripture in our methods and means. Where I believe we disagree is when it comes to what that looks like. I think that my point of contention is due to the vague generalizations that are being theoretically argued against. Could you please give me some examples of these many churches that believe that “neither Christ nor Scripture has any bearing on how we do church. ” and are doing “whatever it takes” to accomplish their end? Do you believe that THEY think that they are ignoring scripture and Christ, or do you think that you just have different views on what that looks like? I say all of this because, correct me if I’m wrong, but what I hear you saying here is that there are MANY ministers who do not care about Scripture or have concern for what Christ thinks about how they do church. In disagreements within the body, I believe that the greatest tragedy is when we begin to judge and slander someones love for God based on a differing opinion on theology or how things should be done.
Let me elaborate on this idea of, “The Word(logos) of God is always true. But the truth(logos) is not always the Word(rhema) of God. ”
I was referring to your statement insinuating that the method has no effect on the furthering of the Gospel.
I experienced this truth about the logos and the rhema in a very tangible way when a friend of mine was apprehended by Christ in a road to Damascus like experience. Stacy had lived a completely hedonistic life since she was a child. Her parents both smoked marijuana and moral guidelines were almost nonexistent in her upbringing. Drugs, alcohol and promiscuity were a normal part of life to her. I clearly remember the night that Stacy met Jesus. When we left the church, she was trembling and weeping tears of joy. I was in shock because although I had prayed for her for weeks, I never imagined that something like this would happen! As Stacy was standing there outside the doors of the church, she lit up a cigarette and began to curse as she explained what she was experiencing. “God, I’ve never felt so f#@king clean in my life!” she said. I watched in horror, not knowing what to do. People were walking by! She had just broken about 3 biblical mandates in a matter of seconds! She was supposed to be different now! As I stood there speechless Stacy put out the cigarette and said, “I don’t know why I lit that, I knew I didn’t want it.” Later she explained, “I now have a word for everything I have ever believed about love, it’s Jesus.” It would have been true to the logos to say that cursing, smoking and using God’s name in vain are not appropriate actions for a follower of Christ. However, God’s rhema for her that day was that He loved her, forgave her and she was His precious child. It was the miraculous power of God that kept me silent that day, but I learned much about the Holy Spirit’s power to convict people of what He wants to without my help. Over the following months God taught me more about grace and His patience through the life of Stacy than I had learned in years previously. Today she is married to a great man of God, has six kids and is a devoted follower of Christ.
But let me ask you, what if my method had been to respond to all of Stacy’s actions from the very beginning by pointing out her sin, lovingly of course, whenever I saw it? This would still be faithful to the logos truth, right? But she was blind to these things. When she was leaving the church, what if I had immediately rebuked her with Paul’s command from Ephesians that there should be no obscenity, or his charge to Timothy to set an example in speech? If she rejected Christianity because of my method, would it be the fault of her, the method or the Gospel? Let me make it clear that the Gospel is never weak, but can the very followers of Christ become the enemies of its’ advancement by their methods? I believe that we have all seen this. It’s called Christian TV. In the very same way, can they use methods that better further it?
Johnny,
I apologize for the late and perhaps incomplete reply. I have been busy with the Acts 29/MBC deal as well some stuff offline.
For an example of how I believe church leaders are develop an ecclesiology apart from Scriptural principles, check out this YouTube Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzZ14Sk9u9Y
While I do not believe that Scripture is intrinsically tied to modernism or any other form of philosophical construct, there is serious problems with eccelsiological convictions where postmodern epistemology is the grounding rule. Whether it is the quest for experiential mysticism in worship, the removal of biblical church leadership, the role of the pastor in preaching/proclamation of God’s Word, or the distrust for the certainty and truthfulness of Scripture–all this in part reflects a move today to embrace a view of church more reflective of culture and contemporary philosophical and epistemological convictions rather than Scripture.
NP = normative principle
see – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_principle_of_worship
As controversial as he was, an understanding of Finney is of paramount importance to understanding the contemporary nature of American Christianity, not to mention the Second Great Awakening, the history of revivalism, and more. I thought you all might be interested in a new electronic version of Finney’s works as part of the Charles Finney Collection, available from Logos Bible Software.