This is a good one.
D. G. Hart and John R. Muether have this to say near the end of their book, With Reverence and Awe,
Frequently, variety in worship is described as the difference in style, whether contemporary or traditional, seeker-sensitive or liturgical. These styles do not affect content, supposedly, but are interchangeable according to the needs and preferences of the congregation. But from a biblical perspective this is the wrong way to think about worship style. In Scripture there are ultimately only two styles of worship: true and false.
In his book The Southern Tradition, historian Eugene Genovese contrasts religious practices on the competing sides of the Mason-Dixon line in this way:
In the North people are wont to say, ‘You worship God in your way, and we’ll worship Him in ours.’ This delightful formulation says, in effect, that since religion is of little consequence anyway, why argue? In contrast, the Southern version . . . says: ‘You worship God in your way, and we’ll worship him in His.’ (Eugene D. Genovese, The Southern Tradition: The Achievement and Limitations of an American Conservatism [Cambridge: Harvard University, 1994], p. 25).
Immoderate 
So Genovese thinks that what takes place in Southern churches is worship? Nonsense! It’s just a different set of “needs and preferences.”
I had the same initial reaction when I first heard of this kind of “southern conservatism” a while back.
I think Genovese is talking about, at very least, a different era of southern culture (the culture of the antibellum South was one far different from today), and in contrast with the urban north.
And Joel says – Read Weaver’s Southern Essays – he has one on Religion in the South that you will find illuminating
Ben,
You might find these lectures at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute helpful:
Southern Agrarians and Modern American Conservatism (I’m actually listening to this now, but I have high hopes), or
Ted Smith’s lecture on Richard Weaver.
I do not think either of these lectures address the religious aspects of Souther conservatism in detail, but it was out of this agrarian culture that such conservative sentiments sprung before the South descended to the state you are familiar with now.
You worship God in your way, and we’ll worship him in His.
The statement rests on two planks:
1. There is a way to worship God that He prefers.
2. We can know what this way amounts to.
What is not clear in the statement, of course, is how much “wiggle room” exists in the way that God prefers (or commands). And I suppose this leads to the well-exercised debates on the regulative principle in worship.
I haven’t followed this debate among Baptists, but have listened to some of the Reformed people bat it around. I’m curious about the discussion among Baptists: does it track fairly closely to the same debate among Presbyterians?
A second question: is the debate among Baptists about what is permissible? Or, about what is required? The debates I’ve read among Presbies seems to be all about what might be done, not what must be done.
BQ
BQ,
To begin with, Baptists have always held to a certain kind of regulative principle. After all, Baptists, being the radical Reformers that they were, have always pleaded to the Scriptures to govern their worship. From their earliest days, the Scriptures alone guided their practice.
The Second London Confession of 1677, for example, deliberately espoused the Regulative Principle.
It says, “The light of Nature shews that there is a God, who hath Lordship, and Soveraigntye over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the Heart, and all the Soul, and with all the Might. 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 representations, or any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures” (XXII.1).
This Reformed Confession became greatly influential in America as well, as a slightly altered version of it became the Philadelphia Confession, which was in great use even up into the early 19th century. Even in circles where this confession was not intentionally embraced, Baptists, by ordering all of their life by the Word of God (and their close connection to the Puritan tradition), were early on a body of believers who by and large embraced the Regulative Principle.
Unfortunately, the Regulative Principle is not quite so universally embraced by Baptists today. Because we do not have a governing “Westminster-like” confession (like the Presbyterians), many have openly embraced the “normative principle” instead. I am sure there are some who are the “John Frame”s of Baptist life, though–which I mean they say they hold to the Regulative Principle but really deny it. Add to this some of the dispensational tendencies of discontinuity between the testments, the deliberately non-Reformed element in some Baptists circles, and the lack of a universal Baptist version of the “Westminster Confession,” and you have less of a debate (that I am aware of, at least) over what the Regulative Principle means. All of this is to say that the debate seems to me to be much different than the one going on between Presbyterians.
Nevertheless, the question for Baptists does seem to be about What is permissible. I think this in part has to do with the fact that our roots still go back to the Second London Confession. One time I heard a sermon on how the New Testament warrants a para-church type organization. Alexander Campbell created quite a stir when he criticized the use of creeds because they were not authorized in Scripture.
Still (and finally), let me add that at times this discussion (over what is permissible) is not present and, if I may say so, sorely missed. I think some segments of Baptists (incluing fundamentalists) have added as much (and much worse things in some cases) as the Vatican itself (pardon my hyperbole for emphasis). We have had juggling in worship services, and watermelons sliced open on people’s stomachs. We have had clowns in worship services. We have had drama in worship services. We have had baby dedications in worship services. We have had movies in religious services (do I need to go on?). And we are much the worse for it.
I believe that both questions need to be governing the worship of the church Jesus Christ.
Thank you, Ryan, for that overview. May I ask another question by way of comparing/contrasting Baptist renditions of the regulative principle over against the Presbyterian rendition? It’s a tad difficult to formulate … for this reason:
When I run across people advocating something along the lines of the regulative principle, it’s often cast in terms of divine command. For example, the Second London Confession you just cited contains these words …
… He may not be worshipped according to … any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures …
Perhaps “prescribed” in those days had a different flavor than now, when it means something that is affirmatively commanded (e.g. a “prescription” which the doctor issues: ‘take this medicine in this amount at this schedule’). That’s why I asked about “permissible” vs. “commanded.”
In its most narrow sense, a regulative principle would mean that nothing is to be done in worship that is not expressly commanded in Scripture to be done. By this rule, many things are outlawed – some of them not unreasonably (cutting watermelons on worshipers’ stomachs, surely), but others seem odd indeed (use of musical accompaniment such as pianos or organs, singing texts not contained in the Bible). I have even run across mention of a prohibition of singing in unison – when it came time to sing, everyone would sing individually. I suppose it must have sounded something like the choral equivalent of an orchestra tuning up when it first comes on stage.
One variation on this narrowness has been the scope of Scripture to which appeal may be made for prescription (or, even, precedent) for doing something in worship. The very narrowest of narrow Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) restricts the appeal to the New Testament alone, and one does not need to be any kind of dispensationalist to mandate so narrow an RPW.
Do Baptists have any consisten patterns here?
And, as long as you’re so forthcoming on this (so far!), is it fair to speak of an RPW which appeals not to divine commandment, but rather to precedent in the entirety of Scripture? On the latter construction of the RPW, for example, musical instruments are legit insofar as they not only appear in OT worship, but are arguably commaded.
In the interests of full disclosure here, I’d report that a smells and bells sort of Anglican like myself is sometimes accused (by Baptist and Presbyterian proponents of the RPW) to include a host of things in worship which are out of bounds. But, the charges have never seemed to have sticking power (except in the minds of the accusers) because they outlaw things which God has either permitted or expressly endorsed in His worship. The “problem” seems to be that He did so in the OT rather than the NT. Yet, in the NT there is almost nothing expressly commanded concerning worship, and much that appears to be assumed from the OT context.
Anyway, how do fundamentalist Baptists sort through this?
BQ
As a kind of PS from Aniol’s Birthday thread, since it’s more on-topic in this thread …
“Anglican” is the old-timey British adjective for members of the Church of England. After that unpleasantness with King George about 230 years ago, the American Anglicans decided that “Anglican” was not all that politically correct, and so they came to call themselves “Episcopals” or “Episcopalians.”
Flash forward 200 years, and now the orthodox (or, at least, the conservative) among the Episcopals begin to reach the point where they do not wish (for good reasons) to abandon their heritage in the English Reformation,
BUT “Episcopal” is now the proper term for an American body that abandons that very heritage, and its heritage in Western Christendom as well. In conscience, these orthodox Episcopalians break fellowship with their increasingly heterodox and heretical bishops.
But, what do they call themselves now? Well, two centuries is enough time for people to forget the meaning of words. So many of them adopt the term “Anglicans” again. Except, now it serves to distinguish them from the apostate American branch of the English Reformation.
As to an offering, the old-timey Anglican term for that is “alms” which are gathered during “the offertory,” which is the section of the worship liturgy when gifts are made. These gifts are of two types: the alms (which in Baptist parlance is “the offering” given by the congregants to the work of the ministry), and the offering of the bread and wine to be used in the Eucharist which immediately follows. The very ancient practice is for the bread and wine to be brought to the priest from out of the congregation (usually a different family each service would present the wine and bread to the priest), and then the priest would offer these to be consecreated for the Eucharist.
Now, there’s something which I suspect would run afoul of the RPW as it is construed in most places that make a big deal out of the RPW. Yet, this action in worship (the offering of the bread and wine directly out of the congregation) is heavily freighted with New Testament doctrinal significance, insofar as it is a “liturgical picture” of a theological truth, viz. that the humanity of our Lord which was offered at Calvary came from the congregation of the saved. In othe words, his body and his blod are truly human, originating within the humanity which, united to him, was offered as a sacrifice for sins. The presentation of “these gifts of bread and wine” (the terms in the prayer of consecration) to the priest, who then offers them to God the Father is, again, a liturgical picture of a very large doctrinal truth in Scripture, summing up the centuries of OT precursors of the atonement, when a sinless sacrifice was offered in the place of sinners to atone for their sin.
BQ
Well, it looks like I completely misunderstood the permissible vs commanded question. Perhaps I should not have written so late. I thought you meant within the Regulative Principle, which would be all be couched under what already has a Scriptural basis behind it (i.e., what is commanded). I should also add that you are not going to get a better response from me than what you did from Kevin Bauder when you asked him similar questions.
You said, One variation on this narrowness has been the scope of Scripture to which appeal may be made for prescription (or, even, precedent) for doing something in worship. The very narrowest of narrow Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) restricts the appeal to the New Testament alone, and one does not need to be any kind of dispensationalist to mandate so narrow an RPW.
I think that last sentence is spot on, but I do think that Church Age (or New Covenant) worship does rest on the New Testament over the Old. In many ways, I appreciate the conservatism that would outlaw musical instruments.
You ask, Do Baptists have any consisten[t] patterns here?
I don’t know (I’m just getting into the discussion . . . which also means you should take everything I say as a grain of salt). I do not think so. The Baptist church is so “free,” that we come in all shapes and sizes.
You ask, And, as long as you’re so forthcoming on this (so far!), is it fair to speak of an RPW which appeals not to divine commandment, but rather to precedent in the entirety of Scripture? On the latter construction of the RPW, for example, musical instruments are legit insofar as they not only appear in OT worship, but are arguably commaded.
I think so, but only in a certain way. I am going to speak from a dispensational perspective (as I am one). Psalm 150 (and others) commands all people to use all kinds of musical instrument to worship God. I believe that this can inform our New Testament command to sing in our hearts to God with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. It is a prudential way of working out the command to sing.
I believe that the use of instruments in worship is different than the command to the children of Israel or the Levitic Priesthood, or even the people in the Kingdom (is there a reference to bells in the Kingdom?), to use bells or smells in worship.
I know, BQ, that you have done quite a bit of thought about this. And you, I am sure, are aware at how green I am concerning this whole discussion. I am young, and have much thought yet to devote to this topic. I do believe that the Great Commission (and Col 2, and other passages) tell us to be followers of “all things” that he has “commanded” us. I think, particularly when we are worshipping the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we ought to do in a way that he has commanded. I think we do have express commands for preaching, the reading of Scripture, prayer, song (which could be considered a kind of prayer), baptism, and the Eucharist.
With respect for your tradition (if I may so, I have more respect for your tradition than that of some corners of the fundyentertainment anti-traditionalism), I think that I would rather not introduce elements for which I had no warrant to the worship of the Holy Lord Jehovah.
To answer your last question, I am not sure many fundamentalist Baptists are concerned to sort through this (though there are certainly some). I think most are more concerned with making their worship “meaningful” or some other vague adjective to the congregants. I hope that is not the case, but I fear that it may be so. I was a sacred music major at a “main-line” fundamentalist Baptist Bible college. I do not remember the Regulative Principle ever even being mentioned (though I may be wrong. I was not a very good student).
I appreciate interacting with you. Please continue to take it easy on me!
Quickly, on your last point concerning the “offering” or “almsgiving” of the Eucharist, I would need to give it more thought. I would say that I am not immediately offset against it, nor view it as a violation of the RP per se. The bread and the wine have to come from somewhere, and the Scriptures offer no command for our getting them into the room (unless, off the top of my head, you get something from 1 Cor 11, which still would probably not address this situation). All this is to say that I think this sort of thing would fall under what some call “circumstances” and should be regulated by Christian light and prudence.
Again, to cite the 2nd London Confession: “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.”
I know, BQ, that you have done quite a bit of thought about this. And you, I am sure, are aware at how green I am concerning this whole discussion. I am young, and have much thought yet to devote to this topic.
Thank you for the implied compliment. I’ll acknowledge questing (as well as questioning) about this ever since I wandered into a Prayer Book service 16 years ago. But I rarely find serious, comprehensive answers to them. I am mostly frustsrated these days, because:
1. RP minded Protestants seem always to be restricting, forbiding, or condeming what God has obviously been pleased to receive, or expressly to command. Does it not make Him out to be capricious to direct by His Spirit the author of Psalm 150 to write those words in a collection of worship music, and then to deny the use of instruments after the time the Son become incarnate? Of course, there is no such prohibition in the NT; the absence of an express affirmation is put by some RPers on the same level as a prohibition! Why not, rather, acknolwedge that in this area (as with so much else about worship) the NT is silent because it assumes the OT patterns and precedents are still relevant to this question?
2. Liturgical worship is so often condemned by RP fans as “traditions of men” when they are riddled through and through by mimickry of previous Biblical patterns and precedents. On the other hand, I look (mostly in vain) for Anglican or Lutherans to expound the weight of doctrine that is embedded in a host of ritual acts and liturgical events.
In that connection, can you specify precisely something to which you refer when you write concerning Anglican worship that “I think that I would rather not introduce elements for which I had no warrant to the worship of the Holy Lord Jehovah.”
Otherwise, please don’t think I’m trying to line up a “gotcha moment.” If we can continue this conversation a bit further (I must end this and finish preparations for today’s worship service), I’d like to take some specific practices/elements and compare/contrast why I would find Biblical endorsement for them while you would not.
BQ
In that connection, can you specify precisely something to which you refer when you write concerning Anglican worship that “I think that I would rather not introduce elements for which I had no warrant to the worship of the Holy Lord Jehovah.”
I am not that familiar with the particulars of Anglican worship. Earlier (I think) you mentioned “smells and bells.” I would be very reluctant to introduce such elements into New Testament worship.
“smells and bells.” I would be very reluctant to introduce such elements into New Testament worship.
That's as good a place to start as any, I suppose. The phrase "smells and bells" short-hand for a not precisely defined "philosophy" of worship one finds not only among Anglicans, but also Lutherans, and even Romans. It's a useful term (even if used as a mild perjorative) because it names two concrete characteristics of this worship, but these are not the only characteristics by a long shot. So "bells and smells" is a kind of synechdoche for the whole enchilada.
What is the whole enchilada? It's challenging to answer this, because "smells and bells" worship is not a discrete "thing" but a spectrum. It's a complex of ceremonial actions, forms of speech, and ritual, containing (in principle) a range of detail or complexity. The terms "high mass" or "low mass" used commonly by Romans, and also by smells and bells Anglicans or Lutherans already signals that for the smells and bells crowd there is a range being referred to. And within that range are things like smells (i.e. the use of incense) and bells (i.e. ringing them at specified points in the liturgy.
It's also important to acknolwedge at the outset that smells and bells worship can happen (and often does!) without any smells or bells! This is further evidence that "smells and bells" are simply synechdoches for the larger context in which they customarily appear. And, that context is liturgy. The conception of worship as liturgy is what's really governing all the particulars one encounters.
Now, all this is something I'd want to say prior to discussing smells and bells as particulars. Let's assume, for the sake of a point I wish to make, that I lay out a case for smells in New Testament worship. Let's further assume that you (or some other Christian in the Anabaptist/Zwinglian tradition) finds the case compelling. What then?
Well, it's a mess, that's what. Why? Because the use of incense in worship is like the use of curry in cooking. If one's diet is composed of plain German food (lots boiled things, and not too many of those beyond sausage, dumplings, cabbage, and potatoes) and then you convince the cook that curry is really what he must add to the diet … well, you see, curry doesn't "fit" very well within the plain-German kitchen repetoire. It "fits" in the Indian repetoire, which is full of things that are alien to a working man's Elbe River Eatery. To use curry as one ought to use it requires more than just sprinkling a little here or a little there. You really need a whole 'nuther cuisine.
So, I understand that if I were to successfully make case that incense should be used (or, minimally, could be used) in NT worship, I have no expectation at all that you would deploy it in your own church, assuming you were a pastor. The best I can hope for here is that the Anglican use of incense will be seen by you (or others looking on) as permissible on Biblical grounds.
Do you really want me to attempt this? Here, I mean? Is it too arcane a topic for this venue? Or, perhaps, for you? I'm happy to take this off-blog, or even to drop it it is seems too tedious.
BQ
Sorry 'bout the missed bold tag. Is there, perhaps, a "preview" option you can activate?
bq
Bold away!
How’s that. I’ll try to respond later.
BQ,
Your points are well-taken. Go for it. I would find it interesting. I may or may not interact (for fear of showing myself to be the ignoramus I know myself to be), and, if I do so, hopefully you won’t make mincemeat out of me and my understanding of the RP.
Perhaps the Baptists (and others) out there who do not embrace the RP would be so bold as to interact with BQ on this too. That is, Why don’t you have incense and bells, or, on what ground would you not have them?