MENU

culture
Tag Archive

close up of hands holding baby feet

On November 14, 2023 By In Culture

Where are the pro-life majorities?

Abortion is the deliberate ending of a pregnancy somewhere along the path between conception and birth, and it has been the subject of controversy for at least half a century, if not longer. In the United States, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade (1973) took the issue out of the hands of the several states and declared a constitutional right to abortion, the Court undoubtedly assuming that it had settled the issue for good. That proved to be a severe miscalculation because the ruling sparked an acrimonious division between those styling themselves pro-choice and pro-life. Pro-choicers argued that a woman has a right to her own bodily integrity and that this right includes the personal decision to end a pregnancy. Pro-lifers, to the contrary, argued that the foetus growing in the womb is a person who deserves to live and not merely a mass of tissue to be disposed of at will.

For a time, it seemed that the pro-life position had a demographic advantage. The argument went something like this:

Pro-lifers and pro-choicers represent two divergent subcultures. Pro-choicers are less likely to be religiously observant and generally have fewer children. They disproportionately inhabit the large urban centres where most abortion clinics are located. They are less persuaded by arguments that the unborn child is a human being worthy of protection and have a (religious!) belief in individual autonomy. Many pro-choicers do not even bother to marry and are content to live in childless relationships with members of the opposite sex.

(more…)

Read more

On November 1, 2023 By In Culture, Podcast

KC Podcast – Episode 118: Christians and Horror

Read more

On January 3, 2023 By In Church, Culture

The Death of Mainline Churches

One of my predictions in 2023 is a relatively certain one. It pertains to the continual decline and fragmentation of Mainline Protestant Churches.

In the late ’90s, Thomas Reeves warned the liberal, mainline churches against “smug denominationalism.” He used C.S. Lewis’ language as a cautionary tale about the direction of liberalism both in the political and religious spheres. His book was aptly entitled “The Suicide of Liberal Christianity.”

In 2020, mainline Protestants were bleeding numerically, shutting down their ornate buildings, which were ironically transformed into modern pubs all over Europe. They possessed one of the “lowest retention rates in any tradition” (Pew Research). From 2007-2017, they lost over five million members, and the children of these members were going farther and farther away from any religious manifestation. But even back in 1996, Reeves noted that the decline of mainline churches has “been eroding for better part of this century.”

The culprit in the 20th century is the same in the 21st. According to Reeves, “their defining theological doctrines have been largely forgotten.” While there is a modicum of hope in Reeves’ 26-year-old book, he concludes with profound pessimism. Should the mainline churches continue unchanged in their direction, they will proceed “on their steady slide toward complete irrelevance (211).”

The mainline consisting of PCUSA, ELCA, American Baptists in the USA, United Methodists, etc., have taken trajectories of death throughout. They have sought to bestow power on inclusivism and anointed corrupt priests to lead the way, and to hell, they led.

Conservative ecclesial bodies must invest in catechetical discipleship and build a reservoir of resistance against liberalizing forces without and battle locally and nationally against such forces that seek to crawl their way into the midst of the assembly.

Reeves was right that smug denominationalism is a temptation for many of us. Many of our conservative churches have grown during supposed crises created to ensure complacency among the populace and within the church. But, in God’s kindness, never was reading leaves such an easy task.

The task of the conservative corpus is to seek the good of the city by building on that eternal city. In the midst of the tranquility of growth and theological prosperity, may we not grow weary in well-doing. Smugness tickles our vanity, but humility steadies our march.

Read more

On October 31, 2022 By In Politics

Brazil’s Election and the Failure of the Evangelical Pastor

This is a sad day for my home country. Lula won a narrowly divisive runoff election this Sunday and will begin his third term as president at the age of 77. Convicted of corruption, he served 580 days in prison, and after his release, he became the symbol of victimhood.

He sought old partnerships and was able to reanimate a nation to the old causes of social transformation through the state. It didn’t matter the misery incurred by such policies in Venezuela, Cuba, or Argentina, Lula’s charm and political capital earned him overwhelming victory in the poorest part of my country, the Northeastern part (where I grew up). Lula functions in some ways like a Neo-Pentecostal leader who appeals to the poor through promises of prosperity, offering a Gospel as convoluted as a Marxian paradigm. And the people said, “Amen!”

Bolsonaro, on the other hand, was the Tropical Trump; if Trump could dance and recite the Lord’s Prayer, he would be the Orange Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is equally charismatic as Lula, and the oddity of the whole thing is that wherever he went in the Northeast, he was received with immense approval. But politics is a tricky business. The people may love a candidate, political inclinations, or moral declarations, but they are easily seduced by flattery and promises of statist charity. I’d also happily admit to Bolsonaro’s number of blunders throughout, but the options were so universally contrary to one another, leaving Brazilians with no excuse.

The tremendous benefit is that this entire thing has awakened a conservative resurgence in my home country. Conservative principles are now much more common than before Bolsonaro’s election. I suspect the various movements will only continue to grow. Certainly, the environment is ripe for a conservative nationalism that sees Brazil’s interests, morally and economically, as the heart of a prosperous nation.

(more…)

Read more

On October 11, 2022 By In Church, Culture

A Creational Apologetic for Mockery

Several recent essays have offered a rich description of what has happened to the winsome phenomenon. Evangelical writers and theologians once known for defending the good have sought to minimize Gospel realities by maximizing opportunities for ecumenical endeavors. These endeavors did not produce the fruit expected, and, instead, it has led inevitably to the prodigalness of the evangelical left.

The result is a Babylonian conundrum leaving these figures defending the other side instead of protecting the voices most closely aligned with the cause of the Gospel. The winsome project has led to the adulteration of the good by compromising the good. My premise is that these authors have failed to see the Church’s role as that of protecting the creational order and priorities at all costs. These priorities negate the winsome strategy and advocate for something more distinctly aggressive regarding our relationship with ungodliness in this world.

To provide a bit of a rationale for what I call “A creational apologetic for mockery,” let me begin by offering some propositions and then conclude with some observations about the state of things in the Church.

First, I argue that creational theology compels us to use mockery against evil. Creation, by its very nature, is an apologetic against principalities and powers. Sun, moon, and stars are not merely heavenly descriptors but symbolic ones which proclaim the heavenly reality as the mode of operation for all of history. This reality presents the dignity of man, the labor of man, the complementarity of woman, and the establishment of priestly categories as fundamental antagonists to the attempts of evil men and their institutions to reverse the created order. Thus, the creation account supplants other accounts with an ideal established order and decency for both private and public arenas.

(more…)

Read more

On September 28, 2022 By In Church, Culture

#NATCON and David French

The National Conservatism movement has received much attention from various media publications. I have detailed my experience and annotations in the latest Perspectivalist podcast, and don’t want to belabor the point too much. Much of the work is being done in the background, and conversations about the future are happening all around.

One of the latest pieces on #NatCon2022 comes from The Dispatch, written by Alec Dent, representing the leftist side of the Evangelical/Roman Catholic wing. David French, the founder of this national media company has articulated a vision of politics that opposes any state imposition of a moral code. He even argues favorably for the liberty for drag queen hour in public libraries:

“There are going to be Drag Queen Story Hours. They’re going to happen. And, by the way, the fact that a person can get a room in a library and hold a Drag Queen Story Hour and get people to come? That’s one of the blessings of liberty,” French said.

Suffice it to say, my body of writing opposes such absurdities. I affirm that the very essence of the Christian faith compels the body politic to legislate Christian morality. Further, that deacons of righteousness exist to pass righteous laws. In my estimation, that entails removing obscenities like drag queen hour from all public spaces and spheres. The spheres belong to Jesus, and opposition to it is opposition to Jesus as Lord.

When I was invited to be interviewed by the journalist from the Dispatch, I came prepared to answer several different questions, and should I have taken the Doug Wilson approach, I should have recorded the 15-minute interview. But I learned a valuable lesson, and thankfully the author quoted me briefly but accurately while overlooking the body of my main points.

The concern from the Dispatch is that we build a movement that minimizes liberties for unchristian groups and unchristian practices. The goal, according to them, is to provide a society where social liberties are accepted in the public square and that Christians should advocate for a virtuous and winsome approach in our engagement.

But the Statement of Principles from National Conservatism offers a stark alternative, which is that “where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision.” Even its main philosophical head, Yoram Hazony, a Jew, states that biblical Christianity should be the source of any society. He understands that America is a sea of Protestant, biblical faith, even though only 65% of the population identifies with Christianity.

When asked whether #NatCon favors the presence of atheists, the journalist quotes me:

Some national conservatives are still willing to work with the post-religious right—so long as everyone remembers who is running the show. “I wouldn’t mind them joining the cause, as long as they submitted to the general rules and principles thereof, which I think can be guided by sacred scriptures,” Rev. Uri Brito, who delivered one of NatCon 3’s benedictions, told The Dispatch. “I would not want to be a part of a movement where atheists are guiding that movement.”

The quotation is not inaccurate, though it misses my entire build-up to it. Fine and dandy. I reaffirm that there is no future in the United States where atheism is leading. I agree with R.R. Reno that atheists may find #NatCon appealing because of our defense of country and its priorities, but they will undoubtedly demur regarding faith and family.

In the interview, I delved further into other aspects of what a true nationalism should look like and proceed from, which is an ecclesial conservatism. I developed those in my ten theses over at Kuyperian and hope others may benefit from them as well. I argued with the Dispatch that fundamentally, any movement towards a Christian orientation must be ecclesially focused and that the first priority of any true Christian nationalist is that of worshipping the Triune God. I also spoke favorably about the resurgence of Christian, Classical education and how necessary it is to re-engage our Western tradition and train our children to see the West not as a curse but as a crucial piece of our history and that Christendom flourished through this history.

Overall, I am pleased to see intensified attention on #NatCon and the principles that undergird it, and hope to see these conversations even more prevalent in the days to come.

Read more

On September 10, 2022 By In Church

The Case for Weekly Communion

Evangelicals like myself rooted in the Reformation came very late to the beauty of weekly communion. I was a sophomore in college before I realized that the vast stream of the Protestant tradition celebrated communion weekly. For most of my life, I assumed the table was reserved for special occasions like Easter or Christmas. In fact, I attended a Brethren congregation that did communion once a year. But as I broadened my theological interests, I understood the Supper’s function in the liturgy and in the theology of the church and it became unbearable to contemplate the absence of it during a worship service.

Historically, our Reformed forefathers—including Luther and Calvin—desired communion to be weekly. In fact, the early centuries of the Church and the majority of Protestant Churches in the 16th century practiced weekly communion. It was only in the 19th century, and in particular, during the Prohibitionist movement, that weekly communion became mostly obsolete. Therefore, the infrequent practice of communion is rather new in the church. This does not mean it’s wrong, but it should raise questions and it should challenge our assumptions about what the Bible actually says concerning the frequency of such practices.

The Didache, one of the earliest records of the church after the Bible says the following:

“On the Lord’s own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.”

The Church believed that in celebrating the sacraments weekly, we become a purer people. This is not because there is something magical in the bread and wine but because God uses these means to communicate his presence and strength to us.

Additionally, the Early Church believed that the Lord’s Supper made us a more thankful people. We don’t often associate communion with thankfulness, but the very term “Eucharist” is not some invention of men. It is the word Paul uses to refer to the Lord’s Supper. The word means “thanksgiving.” The Lord’s Supper is a Thanksgiving meal; a Eucharistic meal.

The Bible makes a clear case that every time the people of God gathered for worship, the Lord’s Supper was a regular part of that gathering. Acts 2:42 says:

“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”

There is a definite article before bread, making the text read “the breaking of the bread” (τοῦ ἄρτου). This is not a generic reference to a household meal, but it is about a particular kind of bread, the eucharistic bread used at the Lord’s Table.

Acts 20:7 says: “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of the bread and the prayers.”

Again, when the Early Church met, they always had the Lord’s Supper. In a time when persecution was rampant, the people needed to be comforted and give thanks to God as they ate together with God’s people in worship.

I had mentioned earlier that the Early Church, up to the first thousand years and later the Reformation, firmly believed in weekly communion. But there came a time when the Church abandoned this practice. In fact, as Keith Mathison observes in his book “Given For You,” Infrequent communion practice became the practice of the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th century and continued until the Reformation period. In those days, members could only partake of the sacraments once a year. It was against this background that “such men as John Calvin and Martin Bucer called for a return to the Apostolic Christian practice of weekly communion.”

We might say that part of the motive of the Reformation was to undo the Church’s practice of infrequent communion and return to the Early Church practice of weekly communion. Calvin writes in response to the common practices of the day:

“The Lord’s Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually.”

Note Calvin’s use of the phrase “at least,” implying that there were other special occasions when the Supper was crucial in the formation of Church life besides the ordinariness of its practice on Sundays.

As Professor Michael Horton once observed, “Your view of the nature of the Lord’s Supper will determine the importance of it in the worship service.” It should come as no surprise then that those who view the Lord’s Supper primarily as a matter of subjective mental recollection would see no need to celebrate it frequently. But when we begin to view the Lord’s Supper as a meal of joy and a means of grace to sustain and nourish us, then we quickly begin to expect each Lord’s Day to conclude with a meal just as our day ends with Supper.

The Lord’s Supper is not a religious add-on to the regular worship service; it is an integral meal prepared for those who are called to minister to the world. The meal is a preparation for our tasks during the week.

Read more

On September 3, 2022 By In Culture, Family and Children

Dispelling Hospitality Excuses 

Guest Post by Randy Booth

“Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. 10 Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; 11 not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; 12 rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; 13 distributing to the needs of the saints, GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY.”

―Romans 12:9-13

It’s a common trait of humanity (even redeemed humanity) to sit in judgment of God’s word. It all started in the Garden of Eden, where our first parents wanted to decide what was and was not good for them. God has some pretty good suggestions, some of which we’re willing to follow, but in other matters, we’ll need to think about it a bit more. We do need to be pragmatic. God’s word might work out for a lot of people, but sometimes, my extenuating circumstances lead me to conclude that it’s not going to work for me. There are exceptions to the rules which can exempt me.

Now hospitality isn’t the only area where we’re tempted to think like this, but it is one of the common topics where excuses for not following the clear and simple command of Scripture are frequent. Like Adam and Eve, we think we know better than God what is good for us. Below are several commonplace excuses why we can’t be “GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY.” I hope to challenge them all.

1.       I’m Not Good at It.

We’re seldom good at the things we never do. Practice makes perfect. One of the reasons God wants us to be given to hospitality is so that we will get good at it. Less-than-perfect hospitality is still hospitality, and it is still obedience to God. Read a book (e.g., Face to Face, Steve Wilkins). Get some advice. Watch others who are good at it. Ask some questions. You can learn to do this. You can get better at it. But you can’t get better at it if you don’t do it. You know what to do (i.e., be “GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY”), now set out to learn how to do it. If needed, get some help doing it. If you do these things, the only reason left for not doing it is, “I don’t want to do it.” That would be a sin.

2.       My House is Too Small.

Your house can’t be that small. It might be crowded, but I’m pretty sure that many saints from the past, who were GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY, had houses smaller than yours. If you’re an American, your house is probably bigger than the houses of most Christians in the world. Moreover, you don’t even have to have a house to be hospitable; have a picnic!

3.       My House is Too Dirty.

If your house is dirty, there are two options: 1) clean your house; 2) swallow your pride and have people over to your dirty house. The command to be GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY is not a conditional command. God doesn’t say, “Be GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY if your house is clean.” Cleaning your house is an option; showing hospitality is not an option.

(more…)

Read more

On August 23, 2022 By In Church

Ten Theses for an Ecclesiastical Conservativism

At a very practical level, the Evangelical Church has been injected with counterfeit spiritualities. We are a people looking for a city whose builder may only be in office for four years. Our temptation to veer to the side of the temporal is striking in our day, especially as the modern evangelical church founded largely by the disciples of the Billy Graham crusades willingly imbibes a distant ecclesiology from our Reformed forefathers.

For whatever reason, many have simply given up on the Church as a means of salvation or as a motherly figure (Gal. 4;26). The result has been a radical shift into politics and pundits as deliverers of human woes while forgetting the Table and Sacred Time.

But we should not be overly critical of only the evangelical enterprise in this country. We should be quick also to overturn the tables of those who opine sophisticated about the Church and her principles regulated by the New Testament alone and who view the endeavors of earthly politics to conflict with a spiritual kingdom.

These evangelicals, however well they dress their theological discourse, offer little to combat the profound changes in the ethical standards of our country. I am a Reformed, Evangelical Christian with the bona fides to prove it and the letters of recommendation from a fine seminary. I do not affirm the hierarchical structures of Rome or Constantinople, nor do I fall into the two alternatives listed above.

What we have before us is a time to go back to basics, especially if ecclesiastical anarchism becomes the norm in our age. Therefore, it seems good and wise to provide some basic theses on the prospect of a new American evangelicalism that does not despise the church, and which sees her role as fundamental in the re-shaping of the current political experience.

Therefore, I offer ten theses on this relationship:

Thesis I: Ecclesiastical Conservatism begins thinking about politics first as a churchman and then as a citizen of the body politic. His loyalty is first as a worshiper and then to his responsibilities to think about the politics of the day. The first must flow into the other and not the reverse. Our temptation to view government as the answer is a sign that we are eager to give up the role of the Church in society.

Conservatism observes the expansion of the state and the overreach of the government in areas where the Church should be independent. We, therefore, oppose such actions and accept that our fundamental duty is to obey God rather than man.

Thesis II: Ecclesiastical Conservatism affirms that the Church is central to the purposes of God in the kingdom and that from her flows the wisdom of God to the world (Eph. 3:10). Wisdom comes from above through the lips of ministers and the gifts of bread and wine. The lessons or rituals from D.C. should never take precedence over the Church.

Thesis III: Ecclesiastical Conservatism does not embrace the civic calendar as her first order of business. It does not embrace the flag over the cross nor the pledge of allegiance over our pledge to the Christian Creeds. We do not substitute the worship of heaven for the worship of political victors. For this reason, candidates for local and national offices must have as one of their central priorities the freedom of the Church to be who God called her to be on earth (Mat. 28:18-20).

Thesis IV: Ecclesiastical Conservatism prays for her leaders every Sunday (I Tim. 2:1-3). If a Church’s political orientation does not acknowledge the Pauline necessity to pray for the good of the country through whatever leader sits in the White House, she is violating the primary focus of Ecclesiastical Conservatism, which is to be faithful to the commands of the Bible whether the Left or the Right is in power.

Thesis V: Ecclesiastical Conservatism cannot abide by the murder of the unborn, even if it becomes “the law of the land” or if it has the word “precedent” behind its laws. Further, there is no justification to vote for leaders who violate this fundamental assertion outright and whose trajectory contradicts this basic thesis. This thesis should be the starting point of any ethical understanding of politics. We rejoice with the overturn of Roe and Casey and diligently pursue to see that all 50 states abolish abortion laws within their constitutions.

Thesis VI: Ecclesiastical Conservatism understands the difficult decisions of parishioners in dealing with flawed candidates. Yet, we are not called to abdicate our role as citizens placed in a particular place in history (Acts 17:26). We believe Christians are called to make difficult decisions based on the body of information available and carefully contemplating the wisdom of their elders in the Church and people of good reputation in the community.

Thesis VII: Ecclesiastical Conservatism does not escape politics but embraces it as an expression of his faith in the world. We do not embrace a Gnostic view of history, nor do we embrace the ideology that says our disposition towards cultural and political things is divorced from our faith expressed amidst the congregation. Our faith as churchmen and churchwomen is carried out in the voting booth.

Thesis VIII: Ecclesiastical Conservatism does not put its trust in horses and chariots, but neither does it abdicate its trust that God rules over horses and chariots. God uses the power structure of Government to bring about his purpose of justice on earth (Rom. 13), and he acts by his divine providence according to the history of that body politic, whether they obey God or forsake his commandments.

Thesis IX: Ecclesiastical Conservatism is not a call to revolution through arms but revolution through the armor of God (Gal. 5). We put on the faith through song and sober living (I Thes. 5), which means that our primary tasks are more local among the body of people we call Church.

Thesis X: Ecclesiastical Conservatism views the first day of the week as the central day for the formation of his political thinking and doing. If his concerns display a greater interest in the things of the world over the things of the Church, he has committed idolatry and embraced a lie. He is, above all, a servant and worshiper of the Most High God to whom all praise and glory belong now and forever. Amen.

Read more

Is the Regulative Principle Scriptural?

On July 28, 2022 By In Culture, Music, Worship

The Human Body and the Regulative Principle of Worship

John Calvin’s convictions against instruments in worship developed into distinct forms of worship across the various Reformation churches. Calvin inspired a capella psalmody among the Scots via John Knox and the use of metrical psalms in the Church of England and its descendents. As Karin Maag writes a,

“John Calvin begun the project of versifying the Psalms in French during his three-year stay in Strasbourg from 1539 to 1541. But although Calvin had talents in many fields, this was not one of them. His attempts at putting the psalms into poetic meter were clunky at best, and were quickly abandoned.”

The task of Calvin’s metrical psalter was completed by his successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, and then the first English metrical psalter was printed by Robert Crowley, who was ordained by Nicholas Ridley – whom Beza called, “the English Calvin.”

Reformation Issues with Instruments

Calvin cites several issues with instruments but his concerns could be summarized by the “Regulative Principle of Worship” which teaches that, “…God sets the bounds and gives the basic patterns for worship. We are to do what God commands, since he is the one who alone can determine how he is to be worshiped.” b Under similar convictions, Calvin concludes that the Bible did not command the use of instruments in worship and thus to use them would be prohibited. 

Some have objected to this view by citing the use of instruments in the Old Testament and for worship in the Hebrew temple. In a sermon on 2 Samuel, Calvin writes: “the musical instruments were in the same class as sacrifices…” meaning to imply that they filled a ceremonial role and had been abolished with the advent of Christ’s perfect sacrifice. It is worth noting that Roman Catholic apologists of the medieval period looked to the Old Testament patterns of worship to justify the various doctrines of a sacrificial priesthood. Calvin’s view may have been formed partly in reaction to the severity of the idolatry he saw in the medieval Roman mass. 

Did the Early Church use instruments in Worship?

Calvin’s view against instruments was not new and could find precedence in the patristic church. In his article on Church music, Paul James-Griffiths writes: “Some of the Church Fathers, like Basil the Great, thought that cithara (like a guitar) players should be excommunicated from the church, and Ambrose was concerned that if Christians turned from psalm singing to playing instruments they might lose their salvation…” 

Strangely enough, it was a Roman Pope that was most successful in curbing the influence of instrumental music in the church. As Pope Gregory I reformed the 6th century Roman church and its rite for worship, the chanting (sometimes called “Gregorian Chant” anachronistically) that would develop over the next several centuries would emphasize the “word” over its accompaniment. It was the church fathers that first brought in the idea of a capella singing of psalms via the introits, graduals, and various antiphons of the communion liturgy. John Calvin admired Pope Gregory and frequently cites his example in his Institutes — noting Gregory’s emphasis on the word was not only limited to music, but also in his emphasis on pastors as preachers and as men bound by the limits of Scripture. Calvin’s appreciation is often noted in his calling Gregory the last good pope. c

So perhaps, one might imagine that Pope Gregory would’ve joined John Knox’s “Rascal Multitude” d as they reformed the Scottish Church. Unlikely. While the Scottish reforms removed organs, they also disbanded the church choirs, destroyed noted manuscripts, and aimed to destroy Gregory’s liturgical heritage developed in the Roman Rite and Western Christendom. There is a bit of irony in Calvin and the Scots removing instruments as “too catholic” when it was the Pope himself who removed instruments first. As the phrase goes, “Is the Pope Catholic?”

Is the Regulative Principle Scriptural?

The regulative principle is further expounded upon in Chapter 21 of the Westminster Confession, “As it is the law of nature” is used to describe how the example of sabbath history forms the pattern for Sunday worship. Appealing to the “law of nature” (or natural revelation) is not foreign to our theology of worship, as St. Paul points out in Romans (1:20-21) natural revelation proclaims God’s power and that we owe Him honor, thanks, and worship. For those attempting to see how instruments may conform to the regulative principle a similar deduction may be made as the Westminster Divines approbation of a “law of nature.”

If man is a worshipping being “without excuse” how is he to offer and return back praise? Some say in psalms, some say hymns, some say with instruments. All demand man to offer himself in worship.

In an article for Banner of Truth, Terry Johnson writes:

“Circumstances of worship are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence. An example of a circumstance would be the question of illumination at an evening service or the need for amplification of voices to be heard by all.”

If a man using his voice to sing conforms to the regulative principle, then the amplification of this same voice also conforms to the regulative principle. Thus the voice through the tool (or instrument) of the speaker remains commanded by God for worship, despite the lack of chapter and verse for microphones, speakers, and all their various snake-like wires.

Man as the model for Instruments

Many years ago, I sat under a lecture from James B. Jordan that made the case that all human instruments are modeled after the pattern of worshipping man. He made the argument that what St. John’s describes in Revelation 4-5 is heavenly worship accompanied by instruments. e And that string, wind, and percussive instruments are, according to Jordan, derivative of the human capacity to worship.

The various instruments are certainly analogous to human anatomy:

  1. We have string-like vocal cords that compare to harp, guitars, and other plucked instruments.
  2. We have wind-filled lungs that produce pitch through the throat to the lips–not unlike flutes or trumpets.
  3. We have hands to clap, feet that stomp, and flesh to drum.

Instruments and the Image of God

One could see then that the development of instrumentation in the temple is not some reflection of sacrificial identity, but rather the image of God taking dominion over nature. Just as the Angels sing “glory” at the Nativity when God became flesh–the people of the incarnation sing as they transform the gifts of creation into tools of worship. The pseudo-spirituality of denying instruments rejects our human identity as a worshipping body of flesh and bone. We don’t “gnostically” think praise with our brains, Psalm 95 teaches us to “worship and bow down” and to “kneel before the LORD our Maker.” We worship with our bodies.

These bodies were put in creation to take dominion through tools. In Exodus, Moses describes all skilled workmanship as the work of one “filled” with the “spirit of God.” f Natural labor’s role in dominion by erecting homes and learning trades is no less spiritual than the liturgical arts in God’s world. Therefore, the acts of worshiping God deserve not a truncated vision of human dominion, but the first and fullest since the worship of God as the chief end of dominion. Israel understood this and reserved its most beautiful and precious manners of workmanship for the Temple. Solomon’s extravagant use of timbers overlaid with gold, bronze altars, precious stones, and colored curtains amplified the God of creation. In the same way, instruments of worship elevate the human gifts of lungs, lips, and limbs to proclaim loudly the glory of God. Even more, did not St. Paul’s say that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit? Does He not now deserve the beauty and splendor of instrumental Temple worship? A step further might be to consider how the incarnation and our union with Christ transforms our notion of Temple. Does not Scripture say, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up…But He was speaking of the temple of His body.” (John 2:19,21) Christians who worship Christ this Temple, also have Christ the great High Priest – let us bring him the greater and more glorious worship!

Beyond the Temple’s beauty, worship with instruments was to have the power of dominion. The walls of Jericho fall to the final blow of the trumpets and David’s harp bound the King’s demons. If Worship is warfare, to go unarmed in a capella singing is to ignore the clear scripture example of so many of the Bible’s sainted accompanists.

Tools for Worship-based Warfare

Even Christ’s recasting of the dominion mandate as the Great Commission in Matthew 28 is prefaced with dominion by worship. In v. 17, we read “And when they saw him they worshiped him.” The language St. Matthew uses for worship is in the greek etymologically related to “proskynesis” as in bowing down before him (or literally to kiss toward, reminding me of the end of Psalm 2.) In response, Jesus claims “all authority in heaven and on earth.” Christians ought to recognize that Christ’s pathway to “discipling the nations” (v.19) and “teaching them” begins with worshipping. Don’t go into battle unarmed.

  1. Karin Maag is the Director of the H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies (in Hekman Library), one of the world’s foremost collections of works on or by John Calvin.  (back)
  2. Orthodox Presbyterian Church. (2017, May 27). Q&A: Regulative Principle vs. Normative Principle. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Retrieved June 15, 2022, from https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=567  (back)
  3. In Book 4, Chapter 17: “Gregory, whom you may with justice call the last Bishop of Rome…”   (back)
  4. Knox’s Iconoclasm sermon instigated a 2-day riot against St. John’s on May 11, 1559  (back)
  5. e.g. “the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp”  (back)
  6. see context of Exodus 31:1-6, e.g. “And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass…”  (back)

Read more