The Proposed Statement of Identity for the Presbyterian Church in America begins the discussion on worship with some lofty comments, affirming that "[a]s Presbyterians, we are the grateful heirs of the Reformed tradition, which has clearly based its faith and practice on the Word of God alone. In particular, the Protestant reformers modified and sanctified the worship of God in their day to conform to the pattern of biblical, apostolic practice. In this respect, we believe our tradition still provides a model for true, spiritual worship. As we affirm our past, we are eager to live out these same principles in today’s world. In order to do this carefully and fruitfully, especially when there are differences of opinion in the Church, we would always return to the first principle of our Reformation forefathers: Sola Scriptura, the Word of God alone."1

What follows are three fairly good statements about the place of worship in the life of the believer. The fourth statement affirms "a broader sense of worship, which includes the whole of the Christian life offered as a living sacrifice to God"; and denies that "either ‘broad’ or ‘narrow’ worship without the other pleases God." While we would have preferred that the life of Christian service not be called ‘worship’ even in a broad sense, we are grateful that the distinction is being made.

The fifth statement affirms "that worship which honors God will also edify believers ... and challenge unbelievers." We wholeheartedly agree. There is an apologetic value to all of God’s Law, including the Second Commandment; and, when worship properly emphasizes His transcendence and glory, people are brought to their knees in adoration and worship. However, we are disturbed by the last portion of the statement: "We deny that seeking the glory of God in worship requires us to ignore ... our obligation to show the love of Christ to fellow worshippers (I Cor. 11:17-34; John 13:35; James 2:1-4)." While the words themselves may in a technical sense be true, the implication seems to be that washing one another’s feet, for example, may be appropriately a part of the worship itself. That, of course, would not be a warranted conclusion.

We would agree with the subsequent paragraphs that worship is "‘vertical’ in focus: God-centered and Christ-centered, in and through the Holy Spirit"; and that "there is also a ‘horizontal’ aspect of worship, for glorifying God does not forbid, but requires, us in worship to edify one another (I Cor. 14:26)." The only potential problem is that we need to make sure that the ‘horizontal’ aspect comes not for its own sake, but as a function of the ‘vertical’ - i.e., we must maintain that worship remains, principally, theocentric.

Statement six begins to get into where there are some fundamental disagreements. This thesis says that the elements of worship are to be "limited to those which God approves in Scripture, … in both the Old and New Testaments." Further, it denies "that human beings have liberty to devise elements of worship that God has not prescribed or to disallow others to perform elements He has clearly approved."

On the surface, it might appear that these sentiments are quite sound and orthodox. But there are at least a couple of subtle problems with the way in which they are phrased.

In the first place, although it is true that all of Scripture informs our worship, we need to be careful to affirm that the ceremonial worship of the Old Covenant has no place in the New Covenant. The abrogation of the ceremonial law, indeed, was set forth previously in the PSI. However, it is important to underscore the fact of the essential difference between the symbolical service, particularly as associated with the sacrificial system, and the streamlined, unadorned worship of the era in which we have been brought, as it were, into direct approach to our God. Part of the basic teaching of our Confession of Faith is that the New Covenant, in contrast to the Old, is administered with greater simplicity and less outward glory (WCF VII:vi). This radical covenantal distinction must be maintained. The problem is that statement six, taken by itself, might be used by some to justify such practices as burning incense.

Secondly, this implication seems more plausible when we look at the curious way in which the denial is framed. Put simply, the regulative principle of worship is this: whatever God has commanded is required, whatever is not commanded is forbidden. The proper opposite, then, of the first part of the denial - human beings having liberty to devise non-prescribed elements of worship - should not be "to disallow others to perform elements He has clearly approved," but rather, "not to perform elements He has clearly approved." While we certainly believe that mere mortals should not forbid the performance of commanded worship practices, there is at least the possibility that the awkward wording could be used by some to justify such things as liturgical dance, since some might believe that that was a worship practice and one which God has clearly approved. With regard to that example, please note that if liturgical dance is that which is divinely approved, then its use not only should not be forbidden, but it would also be mandated for use in all churches.

Statement seven deals with what we might term the adiaphora - those things which are indifferent. We have no particular problem with the first two sentences, which speak of the ‘circumstances’ of worship. But then a novel, a-historical term is used - ‘expressions’ of worship. We are not sure where exactly this term came from, although there is an attempt towards the close of the chapter to justify it bibliographically. The problem is that, in contrast to the paper’s contention,2 the "idea of a variety of ‘expressions’ of normative worship ‘elements"’ does not appear conceptually in Calvin’s Institutes, nor in this author’s chapter on "The Singing of Praise" in Worship in the Presence of God, nor in Samuel Miller’s Thoughts on Public Prayer. Nor do the "concept and the terminology" appear in the Westminster Assembly’s Directory for the Publick Worship of God. The late (and beloved) Robert G. Rayburn can hardly be considered an authority on Reformed worship, as he never once mentioned the regulative principle in his book. Furthermore, to refer to Charles Baird as an expert on Presbyterian worship is like regarding Hillary Clinton as an expert on ethics and public policy. And William D. Maxwell cannot be viewed as approaching the topic from the historic Presbyterian perspective. All of which means that the document is left pretty much with no support for its position.

Much better would have been to remain with the standard terminology of ‘circumstance,’ which is the Confessional language (WCF I:vi) and has a long history of definition and understanding. Circumstantial matters have to do with the time and place of worship, the order of the elements, the specific words of sermons, the tunes used, whether to have chairs or pews, and so forth. They are the ‘accidents’ of worship, without which the elements could not be performed.

The confusion engendered by use of the term ‘expressions’ of worship continues in statement eight, in which elements and expressions of worship are treated similarly. Of course, the elemental parts of worship and the circumstantial details of worship, by definition, are absolutely distinct - they may not be conjoined in any way. But here we see the attempt to deal with elements and expressions of worship as if they are of the same genus. This paragraph goes on to speak of "somewhat [!] controversial" practices of worship, "such as the use of drama, dance, musical instruments and vocalists, the lifting or clapping of hands, the use of women in liturgical leadership, and the use of various forms of art."

Trying to unpack this list of these practices would require several essays in order to do justice to them. Briefly, we would simply say the following. Drama (i.e., play acting) is nowhere commanded in Scripture as an element of worship; and, indeed, the rise of such in the church’s liturgy has always, historically, been a sign of the degeneration of preaching. Similarly, dance has always been accompanied by a decline in genuine piety.3 With regard to musical instruments and vocalists, the historic Presbyterian view is that of a capella congregational singing during worship.4 The clapping of hands is a form of instrumentation, and so, if we follow the Presbyterian faith on this point, would be forbidden along with the other instruments (other than the human voice).5 Raising hands, with palms upturned, during prayer seems to be perfectly Biblical and in accord with divinely-approved posture for that element of worship. Women are to keep silent in the church (I Cor. 14:34) - which certainly means that they are not to exercise leadership in worship. In contrast to the contemporary practice in some PCA churches to have women read Scripture, Answer 156 of the Larger Catechism tells us that not everyone is to read the Word of God during public worship: the clear implication being that only elders should do so (with the allowance for others, such as ministerial candidates, who are in training for office). Art for its own sake has no place in worship - indeed, if such were allowed, there would be no possible hedge against ‘false’ worship, for almost anything can be fit under the category of ‘art.’

This last item helps to highlight the problem with the next sentiment found in statement eight: "… we affirm that the use of these elements and expressions, although not specifically prohibited by the Scriptures or the Directory of Worship, ought always to be decided with full reverence to God alone, and under the guidance of biblical principles, and with humble respect for the unity of the Church." Now, we all can be grateful for the humble respect expressed for the Church’s unity. We trust that this desire may represent a change from what has occurred in the past, in which General Assembly Arrangements Committees have felt free to impose bizarre worship practices upon the entire Assembly while knowing full well that that imposition would engender resentment and cause heartache for many of the commissioners. We trust also that this represents a mature view of the Church as being an organic whole, in which things that happen in one congregation are seen as affecting all of us (and thus, potentially, causing concern throughout the entire denomination). And, we trust that this principle of charity would inform PCA worship practices from now on.

The concern we have, however, has to do with the fact that worship elements (and expressions) are being legitimized on the basis of the principle of their not being ‘specifically prohibited.’ This, of course, is essentially the Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican position; and, is a complete reversal from the fine statements found in the opening paragraphs of this chapter. We are, quite frankly, at a loss to comprehend how the author(s) could subscribe to the regulative principle of worship, and then two pages later in essence deny it. If someone were writing a parody of a ‘loose’ theological position (or of the state of theological and intellectual reflection in today’s church), he could hardly do better than simply to quote from the document under consideration.

The eighth statement ends with the denial "that the Reformed tradition of worship should never change or that it should change without careful reflection in the Church." This is, to say the least, very ambiguously worded. If what is being said is that the touchstone for determining the elements of worship is always Scripture, we have no problem with that. However, if it is saying that a subjective reverence to God alone, even under the guidance of (general) Biblical principles and even with humble respect for the unity of the Church, may change the substantive parts of worship, then we would be steadfastly opposed to this sentence.

Statement nine deals again with the adiaphoric aspects of worship (using the twin terminology again of circumstance and expression). We agree that circumstances are often determined by "the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed" (WCF I:vi) We agree that decisions regarding circumstances should not be made without consulting Scripture, and with the idea "that we [do not] need specific scriptural warrant for every circumstance." However, we would again point out that a circumstance is not just anything that anybody wants it to be - that it must be genuinely ‘circumstantial’ (i.e., that it must have no liturgical significance in and of itself, and that it must be something that has to occur in order for the performance of the element).

We agree with statement ten that the New Testament gives freedom "in arranging the elements ... of worship" and that that freedom "should be balanced with concerns for the unity of the worldwide church," which "unity extends horizontally across the current generation of Christians throughout the world and also vertically across every age (and therefore back into biblical times). Sensitivity towards unity of form and style will also lessen the difficulty that believers experience when visiting other congregations or in relocating and transferring membership." We concur with this thought, along with the denial "that churches are so free in developing their own styles that they should ignore the practice of other churches, losing sight of the unity of the church at worship." It is truly a principle of Reformed worship that unity implies uniformity, in terms of the parts of worship; and, even in terms of circumstantial matters, there does need to be sensitivity.

We affirm, with statement eleven, "that the regulative principle sets us free from the ‘traditions of men"’; and we agree with the denial "that the regulative principle should be used to promote an uncritical acceptance of tradition in worship, whether that tradition be Presbyterian or from some other branch of the Church."

However, there are some difficulties with the next two paragraphs. In passing, we would note that there is the confusion of circumstances and parts of worship: the time of service and whether to use pews or chairs are circumstantial, while the use of a piano or a guitar is not. And, there is the continuing use here of the term ‘expressions’ of the elements of worship, which, as we have pointed out, only causes confusion.

The final paragraph appears to be raising a straw man argument against the Reformed tradition. Again, let it be said that there are many circumstantial details regarding worship - including which tunes to use - that can, may, and do change throughout time. However, if our tradition, in terms of the elements/practices of worship, is thoroughly Biblical, then there is no reason to modify it. And, why should it be so hard to believe that the Westminster Assembly, representing the pinnacle of Reformation thought and working during a time when the subject of worship was intensely debated, actually may have known what it was talking about with respect to it?

In conclusion, we may say that there are many fine precepts to be found in this section on worship, and many things which we can all affirm in common. The conceptual problems, however, abound in this treatment of the topic, especially with regard to lack of clarity regarding the relationship of the Old Testament to New Covenant worship and with regard to total confusion over the difference between substantial and circumstantial matters in worship. If this document were to be given serious consideration by a church court, it would have to be significantly revised in order to clean up the terminology and the misconstrued concepts. However, instead of that, we would recommend the following. First, let there be a formal, public debate on the matter, preferably at General Assembly. We believe that that would help to clarify in many people’s minds what is at stake in terms of worship, and to enable them to come to a better understanding of this great subject. Second, perhaps there is a way of expressing consensus, constitutionally. For example, maybe next year or the year after there should be renewed consideration of the proposed Directory for Worship that came as Overture 10 to the 1988 General Assembly,6 which was designed specifically to state in positive terms what the church does believe regarding worship, while leaving controverted topics such as the content of worship song for future debate by means of using terminology that was deliberately nonspecific.

We believe that there can be significant agreement on many matters with regard to worship within the PCA, as evidenced by calls from Roy Taylor and Dr. John Wood for a rejection of entertainment during public worship.7 However, for all the reasons cited above, we do not believe that this series of theses from the Proposed Statement of Identity can possibly serve that purpose.

Footnotes

1 PCA CONSENSUS: A Proposed Statement of Identity for the Presbyterian Church in America (PSI), Chapter V, pp. 18-2 1.

2 PSI, P. 21.

3 The best treatment of these two liturgical practices is Brian Edwards, Shall We Dance? Dance and Drama in Worship (Welwyn, Herts, England: Evangelical Press, 1984). Such practices are essentially the same as those that were tolerated in the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS), and which served as partial grounds for the withdrawal from the PCUS by the Continuing Presbyterian Church movement in order to form what is now the PCA. It is surely hypocritical for the PCA now to tolerate the same kinds of practices that not a generation ago were grounds for the exercise of discipline in reverse. If we expect revival and genuine church growth to occur, we must not experiment in worship practice, but rather be faithful to what God has revealed in His Word, remembering the dire consequences to many of God’s people throughout Biblical history for their innovations.

4 The best treatment of the question of musical instrumentation remains John Lafayette Girardeau’s Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Richmond, Va.: Whittet & Shepperson, 1888; rpt. Havertown, Pa.: New Covenant Publication Society, 1983). Girardeau, of course, was one of the premier Southern Presbyterian theologians in the nineteenth century.

5 Of course, applause would be inappropriate, whether directed to God or man; for God has not authorized such, and, if directed to man in worship, would be tantamount to idolatry.

6 Minutes of the Sixteenth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (Atlanta GA: Office of the Stated Clerk, 1988), pp. 48-57.

7 "PCA Vision 2000 Meets," By Wayne Rogers, The Presbyterian Advocate, Vol. 4, #3&4, April & May 1994, p. 18.