BIBLICAL WORSHIP

We have been on a series of articles dealing with the marks of true churches.We noted that the Westminster Confession of Faith suggestspurity of worship as one of the four criteria: WCF 25.4b—“ParticularChurches… are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel istaught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed moreor less purely in them.” It would do well for us to notice the magnanimous toneof this statement so that we may not be tempted to have a judgmental spirit andlabel any church that is not worshipping according to the recommendations ofour Confession as being therefore false churches. Purity of worship may,according to our Confession, be a criterion to judge the purity of a church. Butwe must be careful not to summarily dismiss a church of the Lord which worshipsin other ways as being “synagogues of Satan”; or even to give the impressionthat believers who do not worship in the same way as we do as beingsecond-class Christians.

Having given this cautionary introduction, it is now necessary for us toexamine what is the manner of worship recommended by our Confession, to seewhether there is a biblical basis for it. The manner of worship recommended byour Confession may be known as regulated worship, or worship according to theRegulative Principle (RP). WCF 21.1b makes it clear:“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 accordingto the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under anyvisible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the HolyScripture.” This principle must be distinguished from the Lutheran andRomish principles of worship, which may be simplified as: “Whatever is notforbidden is allowed,” or “Whatever is not prescribed in Scripture is notnecessarily forbidden.” The Reformed principle of worship, which is given inour Confession, is “Whatever is not sanctioned in the Word of God isforbidden.”

John Calvin, the theologian par excellence of the Reformation,was firmly persuaded that this is a biblical principle. He taught: “The rightrule then as to worship of God is, to adopt nothing but what He prescribes” (Comm.on Jeremiah, 4.543). Commenting on Ezekiel 6:6, he expands his assertion:

There is no need of a longdiscussion if we desire to know how God is to be worshipped. For he rejects andexcludes our works. If, therefore, we do not obtrude our works, but only followwhat God demands, our worship will be pure, but if we add anything of our own,it is an abomination. We see, therefore, that useful instruction can becollected from one word, namely, that all worship is perverse and disapprovedby God when men bring anything forward of themselves (Comm. on Ezekiel,1.226).

The fact that Calvin subscribes to it does not make it right. The question is:Is it a biblical principle? I believe that it is. Let us examine both the Oldand New Testaments. It is clear that in the Old Testament, the covenant peopleof God were required to worship according to such a principle.

Firstly, in Genesis 4, we read about the first acts of formal worship of God.Abel offered of his flocks, and his offering was accepted, but Cain offered ofthe ground, but his offering was rejected. Why? It must be because God musthave instructed Adam and Eve that they must always worship with a bloodysacrifice to foreshadow the coming Messiah. Perhaps, God gave them thisinstruction when He made a coat of skin for them (Gen 3:21). It is clear thatthis instruction was passed down, for we find that years later Noah would knowthat exactly what to offer unto the Lord (Gen 8:20) although we do not read ofGod giving him any instruction on how to worship. Cain had offered of theground voluntarily and sincerely, but his offerings were rejected as they werenot sanctioned by God.

Secondly, in Leviticus 10, we read about how Nadab and Abihu took theircensers, put fire into them and then put incense into them to offer unto theLord. This appeared pious and reverential, but what they did was displeasing toGod, for in a moment they were struck dead because they “offered strange firebefore the LORD, which He commanded them not” (Lev 10:1–3). What was their sin?Jeremiah Burroughs, a member of the Westminster Assembly, answers:

Their sin was offering strange fire,for the text says that they offered strange fire which God had not commandedthem. But had God ever forbidden them to offer strange fire or appointed thatthey should offer only one kind of fire? There is no text of Scripture that youcan find from the beginning of Genesis to this place where God had said in somany words expressly, “You shall offer no fire but one kind of fire.” And yethere they are consumed by fire from God for offering strange fire. I find inExodus 30:9 that they were forbidden to offer strange incense, but I do notfind that they were forbidden to offer strange fire (Gospel Worship [SDG],3).

What is strange fire? We are not told the details, but it is either fire takenfrom the wrong source or they had offered it at the wrong place or wrong time—atime, place or source not expressly sanctioned by God. In other words, they hadnot acted according to the prescription of the Law and as a result they werestruck dead. This passage very dramatically demonstrates God’s zeal for thepurity of His own worship, that they must be strictly according to His ownprescription. It also shows that the Lutheran / Romish principle: “what is notforbidden is allowed” is false. Rather, God must be worshipped exactly as Hehas appointed, nothing more, nothing less.

Thirdly, Moses gave specific instructions pertaining to the manner of worship,and he warned the Jews against adopting the manner of worship of the people ofthe land (Deut 12:31). And he concludes: “What thing soever I command you,observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deut12:32). Someone may object to our using Cain and Abel, and Nadab and Abihu, bysaying that “in those cases, something was commanded, therefore, it must bedone precisely, but what if there is no instruction on it? Wouldn’t the actthen be allowed? Since there is no instructions regulating or forbidding thelighting of candles, or for the use of a choir in the New Testament Church,shouldn’t they be allowed?” This argument falls flat since Moses, underinspiration, tells us that we are not to add or diminish from God’s commandsconcerning worship.

Many who do not believe in the RP assert that we must not usethe Old Testament to derive the principle because the Old Testament was a timeof shadows and types, and acts and elements of worship were minutely detailed;whereas in the New Testament no such detail is found. We grant that there isindeed a much greater degree of details and minuteness in the acts of worshipcommanded in the Old Testament. However, we must assert that the principle ofworship on which those commands were based is not changed. How can theprinciple be changed since it is founded upon God’s character andself-revelation, and God does not change (Mal 3:6)? Indeed, how can it bechanged when the principle is encapsulated in the Second Command-ment of theperpetual Moral Law of God? The Second Commandment, properly understood,for-bids the use of any images in our worship of the living and true God (Ex20:4–6). But just as the Sixth Commandment forbids unjustified anger and theSeventh Commandment forbids lustful looks, we can be quite sure that the SecondCommandment is not just about the use of images, but about the manner in whichwe should worship God. We may call this principle of interpreting the Moral Lawof God, the Classification Principle. We can be very sure that thisis how the Second Commandment should be interpreted because, immediately aftergiving the Ten Commandments, the LORD Himself applied the Second Commandment!We read:

Ye shall not make with me gods ofsilver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. An altar of earth thoushalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thypeace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record myname I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. And if thou wilt make me analtar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thytool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps untomine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon (Ex 20:23–26).

What has making of an altar to do with the Second Commandment that the LORDrestated the Second Commandment, and then gave directions about how to buildthe altar? Surely, it shows us that the Second Commandment has to do with,—notjust images,—but the manner of worship: that it must be according to God’s ownprescription.

Thus, the principle of worship which may be derived from the Old Testament mustbe a perpetual one still applicable today. Christ did not abrogate the MoralLaw of God, though He set us free from the curse due to our failure to keepthem. No one who believes that God is immutable and holy will assert that Godhas lowered the standard of behaviour that He requires of His children. Ourunderstanding is confirmed when we look at the New Testament and see that theNew Testament does indeed indicate that the Regulative Principle is still inforce, and that there are also prescriptions for worship, though admittedly notas detailed as in the Old Testament.

The Lord, condemning the scribes and Pharisees for their extraneous acts ofworship, quoted Isaiah 29:13 to show the vanity of their deeds: “But in vainthey do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt 15:9).Notice how the Lord Jesus considered worship invented by men as vain ormeaningless. Someone may object that the Lord had not yet usher in the NewCovenant. But consider the Lord’s words to the Samaritan woman: “But the hourcometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father inspirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is aSpirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (Jn4:23–24). What does He mean by “in truth”? The only objective truth that Godhas given to man is His revealed Word, therefore to worship in truth isto worship according to the prescription of His Word. It is not by coincidencethat when the Lord gave His disciples the Great Commission, He instructed themto teach the people “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mt28:20). Thus the Apostle Paul warned the Colossians against will-worship:“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, asthough living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances… after thecommandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdomin will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not inany honour to the satisfying of the flesh” (Col 2:20–23; italics mine). What is“will worship”? It translates the Greekethelothrêskia, which refers toarbitrary and unwarranted invention pertaining to worship. Calvin defines itas: “fictitious modes of worship that men themselves device or receive fromothers, and all precepts whatsoever that they presume to deliver at their ownhand concerning the worship of God” (ICR 4.10.8). Lighting ofcandles, dances, processions, dramas, choir presentations, puppet shows, etc.,would all be regarded as will worship by Calvin and, Ibelieve, by the Apostle Paul.

The evidence is, I believe, compelling. This explains why from the time of theReformation every genuine Presbyterian and Reformed church has acknowledged itas true (more or less), though sometimes in practice these churches violate theprinciples. We are compelled to agree with Calvin in his treatise on the TrueMethod of Reforming the Church: “All modes of worship devised contrary tohis command, he not only repudiates as void, but distinctly condemns. Why needI adduce proofs in so clear a matter? Passages to this effect should beproverbial among Christians” (Tracts, 3.261).

The New Testament, moreover, does give warrants or prescriptions pertaining tothe ordinances or elements of New Testament worship. We should note carefullythat divine warrant needs not necessarily require an explicit command in theScriptures. Michael Bushell has well stated:

When we say that each element ofworship requires a divine warrant, we do not mean that an explicit command in asingle text is required in every instance. Commandment in the narrow sense ofthe term is not necessary to establish divine prescription. Approved example orinference from relevant scriptural data is sufficient to determine the propermanner of worship (Songs of Zion,122).

This means, for example, that there is warrant to pattern our worship on thesynagogue worship of the Jews during the days of the Lord, for the Lord and theApostles sanctioned such manner of worship by attending them.

We should also not confuse “worship ordinances” and “worship circumstances.”Many anti-RP preachers have spoken out against the RP bysaying that the RP is impractical since it does not sanctionpews or even printed Bibles. Worship circumstances are things that attend toour worship which do not have spiritual significance, such as pews, etc. Thefollowing table, edited from a compilation by Rev Brian Schwertley, is helpful:
 

Everything in the left column must be learned from Scripture. Everything in theright column is circumstance. But note how something that may be circumstantialmay become illegal in worship. James Bannerman explains:

So soon as you attach a spiritualmeaning, a sacred significance, to anything connected with worship, itbecomes eo ipso a part of worship. It stands forthwith on alike footing with the typical ceremonies of the Old Testament, many of whichwere quite as insignificant in themselves as white surplice or a lighted candle(James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 355, n. 2).

In other words, if there is a blackout and the minister lights a candle, thatcandle has no spiritual significance, and is circumstantial. But if theminister symbolically lights a candle when he comes on the pulpit (perhaps torepresent the illumination of the Holy Spirit), then it takes a spiritualsignificance and is forbidden. In the same way, the printed Bibles and Psaltershave no spiritual significance, but suppose each member of the congregation isrequired to lift up the Bible in the air, and then kiss it before reading it,then it becomes an element of worship, and becomes forbidden.

Note that the context of each element of worship, viz.: preaching,reading, prayer and singing, is either given in the Word or left to the freedomof the minister, apart from general guidelines. In so far as the WCF isconcerned, the content for Scripture reading and psalm singing is provided inthe Word of God and so nothing else should be read or sung (apart from what maybe read as sermons). The content of preaching and prayer is left to theminister, though there are biblical guidelines, such as the Lord’s Prayer.However, the minister may read his sermon and prayer since it is left to hisdiscretion.

Brethren, I am aware that this short article cannot address all the questionsthat may be posed with regards to the Principle of Worship, but I believe thatthe evidence is clear that the Regulative Principle of Worship taught in ourConfession is a biblical and feasible principle. Believing that there is such aprinciple, how should we respond? There are two common ways in which many willrespond. The first is to say: “I believe in the Regulative Principle, BUT wecan also glorify God with….” Such a position actually betrays a failure tounderstand the RP, for the RP is precisely sayingthat the way to glorify God is to worship Him according to His prescription. Itis the Lutheran / Romish principle that seeks to subjectively gauge ifsomething glorifies God. The second common response is to say: “I believe inregulated worship, but I would not insist on the Regulative Principle.” Theproblem with such an approach is that the regulation of worship then becomearbitrary and subjective. What standard are we to use to say that a certain approachis better than another, or is more edifying than another, or is more glorifyingthan another. Today a group may say that praise item presentation glorifies Godand is very edifying. Tomorrow, another generation will say that adding somedramatic gestures enhances the edification value and so glorifies God. And yetanother generation will say that drama and dance heighten the worshipexperience. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (1 Cor 5:6). This is thestory of worship in the Reformed Church from Isaac Watts to John Frame. It maybe well summarised with that indictment of the last verse of the book ofJudges: “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” I believe ourresponse ought to be: “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6). “Teachme thy way, O LORD; I will walk in thy truth: unite my heart to fear thy name”(Ps 86:11). Let us in this way seek to worship Him with sincere hearts filledwith love for Him.

—J.J. Lim