Photo by Ove Tøpfer; from Stock Xchange
Author/evangelist Mark Driscoll did a series of sermons on the topic of “Religion Saves and 9 Other Misconceptions.” The last sermon in that series had to do with the Regulative Principle, the hermeneutical approach that says that unless Scripture specifically authorizes something, that thing is prohibited.
Driscoll stated the theme of the sermon as a series of questions:
Do you believe that the Scripture not only regulates our theology but also our methodology? In other words, do you believe in the regulative principle? If so, to what degree? If not, why not?
He then went on to offer an evaluation of the Regulative Principle and its counterpart, the Normative Principle. Let me share his analysis of the two principles (some of this taken from this blog which summarizes the sermon):
- The Regulative Principle (Only do the things specifically warranted in Scripture)
- Strengths:
- Seeks to define worship by God and his Word
- Tries to honor the Bible and hold it in high esteem
- Draws a ditch between the world and the church keeping out syncretism, worldineess and paganism.
- Weaknesses:
- Separates worship in the assembly from worship in everyday life
- Insufficient. Doesn’t answer questions about things not mentioned in the Bible (service length, approved seating, order of worship)
- Legalistically applied making rules with extreme applications that are not in the Bible (Psalms-only worship)
- The Normative Principle (Things are allowed unless forbidden by Scripture)
- Strengths:
- Sees the bible as principles and gives flexibility for methods
- Allows cultural contextualization
- Treats gathered and scattered worship the same. When you live throughout the week you live by the normative principle
- Weaknesses:
- Opens the door to syncretism, the mixing of biblical principles with ungodly cultural principles
- Makes our enjoyment and not God’s pleasure the object of our worship
- Elevates unbiblical elements to the point where they squeeze out biblical elements
Driscoll goes on to say that he doesn’t fully follow either principle. He states his own view as
“All of Christian life is ceaseless worship of God the Father, through the mediatorship of God the Son by the indwelling power of God the Spirit, doing what God commands in Scripture, not doing what God forbids in Scripture, in culturally contextualized ways for the furtherance of the gospel when both gathered for adoration and scattered for action in joyous response to God’s glorious grace.”
Reactions?
That might be the best Driscoll quote I’ve ever encountered. I typically avoid him like I do most self-identifying neoCals, but quotes like that do help explain why his Mars Hill (as opposed to Rob Bell’s Mars Hill) is as popular as it is.
I especially appreciate the specificity of this line: “…doing what God commands in Scripture, not doing what God forbids in Scripture…”
We spend so much time squabbling over all the stuff symbolized by the comma in that sentence.
I too would agree with Driscoll. I am neither for the regulative principle nor the normative principle because both seem to have an assumption that scripture was written to function as a constitution. Don’t get me wrong, I believe scripture is given to us as God’s word for our formation as disciples of Jesus (cf. 2 Tim 3.16-17) but that does not mean it was meant to be read as solely as an eternally prescriptive text. Of course, that raises a question of when is scripture meant to be appropriated as prescriptive and when should it be descriptive? I don’t have all the answers I’d like to have on that last question.
What this shows is that, contrary to how many view the new-Reformed movement, they do not all walk in lock-step with one another regarding some things. John MacArthur, for one, has been highly critical of Driscoll’s methods, particularly when addressing the “culturally contextualized ways” of doing things. Historically, Calvin was a strict Regulative guy, from unaccompanied singing (acappella) and even so far as to not allowing crosses to be displayed in buildings (vs. 2nd commandment; and his general objection to anything that led to idolatry, ignorance, and superstition); and most conservative Reformed churches are the same today (even singing only the Psalms). That being said, Driscoll’s view is probably the most broad, yet restrictive one can be in regards to freedom and Scriptural attention. However, I don’t agree with his first weakness of the Regulative: that it separates worship from every day life. The same could be said for the Normative. That issue is across the spectrum. Nominalists abound.
The warning against syncretism is a big one for me. One thing Jesus and Paul really could not stand was syncretism. The Regulative helps protect from that.
[As a note: I notice there are a grand total of three comments (including mine) on this thread after almost two days. This is some interesting commentary, as one could imagine how many comments you would have on a thread that was critical of Driscoll; and that speaks volumes, and reveals much, of the "anti"-crowd. Come on Tim, don't you know how to drive traffic to your blog? Go find a 2 minute YouTube clip and do it right. Locusts unite!]
Grace be with you -
Jr
What Driscoll means, I believe, is that the Regulative Principle is all but impossible to apply to “daily life worship.” Otherwise, one would be driven to find specific Scriptural authorization for every breath they take & every choice they make.
A thoroughgoing application of either the regulative or the normative principle both suffer from the same defect, assuming that the various books which now constitute the Bible were ever intended to form an exaustive rule book for Christian practice. This shouldn’t be controversial: there are bad things which are not forbidden in Scripture; there are good things which are not enjoined in Scripture. Adherence to either the normative or regulative principles as overarching worldviews grossly errs in trying to make the Bible comprehensive rather than sufficient. Driscoll’s ‘doing what the Bible tells us; not doing what it forbids us’ more nearly approaches a responsible use of Scripture.
I guess I would fall more into the normative camp since I am Lutheran, and our liturgy, while much of it is drawn directly from scripture, does have elements (certainly the chants) that are not directly prescribed by scripture.
However, I don’t see this as an “either/or” dichotomy. All Christians make up the one holy catholic church. While the entirety of the one holy catholic church won’t be made manifest to all until the marriage feast of the lamb, I believe as Luther said in the Small Catechism: that we are all drawn to the church by the Holy Spirit that has enlightened us with his gifts as the Holy Spirit does for each and every believer.
I remember the first Sunday in 1989 when I walked into the local congregation of the ELCA. I grew up independent Baptist, I tried out an independent nondenominational church (and learned much about the New Testament, by the way), but when I walked into that ELCA church–I knew I was in the right place. I feel that to this day. Likewise, I believe that a person can *know* with the same certainty that their particular congregation or denomination, whether regulative, normative, or somewhere in-between.
Thanks Peter. Nice to have a different viewpoint on things. Lots of Church of Christ people here.
Thanks, Tim. I ran across your Web page using the program Zite on my iPad. I do believe that the Church would be better off if we all learn how to “do” theology. I found your articles right down the alley of things I love thinking & talking about.
My church background is varied, but I see Christ in it. I make it a point that while I am a devout & practicing Lutheran, I will visit as many different churches as I can. I am fortunate to live in a city that has many offerings. Regrettably, the churches in my own neighborhood seem to be the ones I neglect the most (there’s a Cooperative Baptist church, an American Baptist church, a PCUSA church, a Friends house, and a Church of Christ all within walking distance of where I live).
My own pastors like to remind us from time to time that while we are part of the holy catholic church, we are by no means the only members of it. Neither have much opportunity to worship among other Christians, so they do appreciate my reports back to them.
Thank you for the welcome.