Yes, it has been since before my vacation that I’ve read any of Recovering the Reformed Confession. I’ve been quite busy since I’ve been back. But I’m picking up with Recovering Reformed Worship.
Immediately he is lamenting the changes to worship liturgy in the last 30 years, including the loss of the Psalter. He quotes D.G. Hart:
“… more congregations in the PCUSA are likely to follow the Genevan order of service than those in the OPC or PCA.”
My initial response is that the Genevan order of service isn’t getting them too far. I’d rather keep Calvin’s theology than his order of service.
We actually utilize a fairly traditional liturgy or structure to our worship (Call to Worship, Invocation, Confession of Sin, Confession of Faith, Pastoral Prayer, Scripture Reading & Sermon, Benediction). We want the heritage to inform us, but not enslave us. Clark is alarmed that Calvin, the Heidelberg Reformers and others would not recognize our worship services. Neither would the Apostles. For that matter, they wouldn’t recognize the services of Calvin and the others either.
Clark argues for the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) which says that God sets the bounds for proper worship. What Clark doesn’t seem to see is that the Reformers and Puritans contextualized their worship. They did not worship as the early church did. But used the same elements of worship, as should we, but in a way fitting their time and culture. This doesn’t mean anything goes, but it means we should worship like we are in 17th century England, 16th century Geneva or even 1950’s New York. So, the issue between Clark and (say) Frame and many other Reformed pastors today (like myself) is not the RPW, but rather the interpretation of the RPW. Of course, R.J. Gore (Covenantal Worship) would say that Calvin didn’t hold to the RPW.
The Westminster Confession of Faith mentions prayer, reading of the Scriptures, sound preaching, singing of Psalms (not quite biblical since in the NT we see songs that aren’t Psalms sung by the redeemed), & the sacraments as ordinary parts of worship. Special occasions permit oaths, fasts and thanksgiving (WCF, XXI). He tries to sum all this up as prayer and the Word (the sacraments are the Word in picture form). But he doesn’t mention Psalms (yet), nor the connection that should exist between Word and Prayer when saying what the WCF teaches.
As is to be expected in this book, he sets up Frame as departing from Reformed orthodoxy. You can read Frame‘s response near the end of his lengthy review. He also takes Gore to task for his ‘covenantal worship’. If you start to think that no one measures up (including H.O. Old and Robert Rayburn), have no fear. D.G. Hart and John Muether meet his approval, as do Michael Horton and Terry Johnson.
He seems to take on Webber’s Ancient-Future Worship in his brief discussion about temple worship. Webber (and Bryan Chapell) see worship as centering on the act of redemption. The temple worship pointed toward this in typological fashion. We point back to it, particularly in the Lord’s Table (which also looks ahead). He doesn’t really offer anything to structure the liturgy, only the elements of liturgy as expressed in synagogue worship. This is key in that the temple worship included musical instruments but the synagogue did not. He sees instruments returning with the sacerdotal categories for ministers (not a good thing).
He quotes people like Tertullian and Chrysostom who viewed instruments as ‘pagan’. Apparently they thought the Old Testament worship of YHWH to be pagan. But Clark views them as aspects of the Mosaic ceremonial cultus, which should be rejected (but not the Psalms which were part of the ceremonial cultus and advocate the use of instruments) as an intrusion of sacerdotalism (salvation thru the sacraments).
This pattern, under the guise of sola scriptura, continued in the Reformation. Geneva utilized acapella psalmody. This is amusing to me for the above reason- the Word of God commands the use of instruments in worship. To reject them is “will worship”, the very thing many early Reformers sought to reject.
This pattern also rejects 2 Timothy 3, in which Paul says the Scriptures Timothy had read as a child (the Old Testament) were useful for training him in righteousness. That would include worship. Instruments were not a type fulfilled in Christ like the sacrifices were. So such thinking is quite non-sensical.
It was the influence of revivalism that brought instruments and uninspired songs into Reformed churches in the late 18th century. This begs the question, in my mind. Were the Reformers correct in their views on instruments and songs, or in error? Revivalism created many problems, but no movement is 100% wrong. We are not just talking about Finney and his measures, but Whitfield, Charles Wesley and John Newton. The term revivalism is meant to taint the practices in our eyes since we Reformed people look with disdain on Finney and the emotional manipulation of revivalists. Sometimes there is a Reformed hubris that thinks we can learn nothing from people outside of our tradition, as though we have a monopoly on the proper understanding of Scripture.
“I propose that those who presently sin uninspired songs should be willing to give them up in favor of inspired, canonical songs only. … Where in Scripture are new covenant believers commanded to employ instruments in public worship? It is true that the Psalms and other typological place in Scripture frequently speak of using instruments … all the language of the Psalter belongs to the old covenant; …”
This does not sound like a Reformed hermeneutic to me. It sounds like a dispensational hermeneutic. But he argues that instruments are not an element of worship (and they are not). If to be admitted, they must be a circumstance of worship which people like Edmund Clowney have argued. Here is where the classic Reformed distinction breaks down. But Clark fears that if we permit instruments as “circumstance” of worship, we will being to permit sacrifice as a circumstance of worship. This is because he views instruments as typological, as the sacrifices were. I don’t follow the argument since I don’t see the instruments as pointing to something else. They are only what they are, instruments used to lead the people of God in the worship of God.
I could carry this on for much longer, but it would appear to be a waste of time, mine and yours. R. Scott Clark would appear to be involved in the Illegitimate Quest for Monolithic Worship. I don’t find his arguments compelling or consistent.
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply