Should We Light Candles? (Part 2)
Yesterday I broached the always-difficult subject of the Regulative Principle. As I should have expected, there was a good bit of discussion about it. I assume it was clear that I was not personally defending the Principle but merely attempting to explain it in a way that accurately represented those who hold to it. Today I will post a brief conclusion to the original thrust of the article which dealt with advent candles.
As you recall, yesterday I differentiated between elements and circumstances in worship. Elements are the “what” of worship and circumstances are the “how.” It seems to me that candles can fall into either grouping. If candles are used for lighting or atmosphere, as at a “Candles and Carols” Christmas Eve service, I believe they are circumstantial and can be left to the discretion of the church leadership. They are not being used as as an element of worship but are merely an alternative to light bulbs (which are also, of course, circumstantial). So there is nothing inherent in candles that make them unsuitable under the Regulative Principles.
However, if candles are to be used as an element within the service, as in the use of advent candles, I believe they fall under the purvey of the Regulative Principle. I will admit that I know little of advent traditions and have only once attended a church that used advent candles. I believe they followed church tradition in lighting a different candle for each of the four Sundays in advent. Each Sunday they would light the previous weeks’ candles and one new one. The final candle was lit on Christmas morning and each candle had a particular meaning and was meant to draw our thoughts to a different person or event. These candles were lit during the worship service and as an element of the service. Assuming this is typical, a church that holds to the Principle would have to reject these candles as being extra-biblical and thus unsuitable for corporate worship services.
So, to answer my friend’s question, yes, observance of advent and the lighting of advent candles violates the Regulative Principle.
I also mentioned yesterday that I would provide a very brief look at my beliefs about this Principle and its usefulness for churches today. I do so largely out of ignorance, never having felt the need to study this issue in great depth. I have been a member of churches that adhered to the Principle and a member of churches that did not. I consider it a secondary issue. Were I to become a pastor and to plant a new church I suppose I would have to formulate my thoughts to a greater extent. But to this point I have never had to reach a firm conclusion.
Having said that, I think it unlikely that I would adhere to the Regulative Principle. I do love the Principle for what it does well, and that is draw our attention to what the Bible mandates for corporate worship. The Principle is useful in drawing our attention to what God demands and what He rejects. I certainly agree that all of the elements modelled in Scripture should be present in our churches. But I do not find evidence stating that we must use only those elements.
Yesterday my pastor reminded me of an article on our church’s web site. Scroll down, if you wish, to the section titled “The Content of Corporate Worship: What Does the Lord Tell Us to Do in Worship?” He points out several of the shortcomings of the Regulative Principle with the predominant critique being the wide variety of application in the Principle. Every group seems to apply it differently, proving just how difficult it is to hold to it with any kind of consistency.
In short, I feel there is wisdom we can extrapolate from the Regulative Principle, but I am unconvinced that we must adhere to it. But do read this with the caveat I expressed earlier. This is not an issue over which I would be willing to take a firm stance.
Comments (22) »
1. David McCrory
November 30, 2006
10:00 AM
I’m of the opinion strict regulativist carry this principle beyond the mere elements of worship to include many “incidentals” of worship. Historically, the reformed view has recognized five essentail elements of worship, that we are not to add too or take from; preaching the Word, administration of the sacraments, prayer, singing, and bringing of tithes and offerings. Beyond this I feel we are pressing the matter to make the Regulative Principle binding on much more.
2. Peter R.
November 30, 2006
10:33 AM
As one who plans and leads worship on a weekly basis, I’ve spent a good deal of time wresting with the concept of the regulative principle. I found this part of Tim’s definition in yesterday’s post very illuminating:
It is important to note that this principle applies only to worship services and not to other elements of life.
It seems to me that this aspect of the RP (which is essential for any sort of practical application of it) is contradictory to the whole-life view of worship that we see throughout the Bible. Moreover, we don’t read any other part of the Bible this way. The RPW isn’t derived from the text, but applied to it. Like Tim, I appreciate the intent of the RP, but I think it’s secondary to ensuring that any activity we pursue in corporate worship is God-centered and God-glorifying. I don’t believe that adherence to the RP is essential for achieving that end.
3. Flawedcricket
November 30, 2006
10:56 AM
As the “friend” who asked the question, I appreciate Tim’s willingness to address the issue and all of the input that I hoped would be generated.
I grew up celebrating advent, including the hanging of the greens, chrismon tree, candles, etc. Now, as a pastor who does hold to the Regulative Principle (that I define as reading the Word, singing the Word, praying the Word, preaching the Word and seeing the Word), I found myself struggling between the sentimentality of the time of year as well as the memories of my childhood and the elements associated with the observance of advent and their place in corporate worship.
After several discussions as a staff and input from others, we have chosen to not include the candle lighting and other elements but use the hope, peace, joy and love in our thematic planning of the worship services on the Sunday’s leading up to Christmas Eve.
This has been a great exercise.
4. Brian at voiceofthesheep
November 30, 2006
10:58 AM
I think we should ask the question, “What is it that actually constitutes corporate worship?”, and the answers to that question will shed valuable light on whether or not anything and everything NOT specifically forbidden in Scripture should be permitted in a ‘worship’ service. Granted, there will probably be many different opinions about what is corporate worship and what is not.
For example, are the making of announcements prior to the singing of hymns & songs to be considered as corporate worship? How about a skit? What about a testimony? Does driving a Harley up onto the stage constitute worship? Is a message about how to manage your time and develop a budget worship?
In other words, if a church is not ‘regulated’ by something in its worship, then where is the line to be drawn as to what is considered corporate worship and what is not? Who/what is the final authority of what should make up corporate worship? At what point does a service stop being corporate worship? What is the litmus test, so to speak?
Without some sort of regulation, who’s to say what corporate worship really is?
5. Gregory Pittman
November 30, 2006
11:18 AM
Tim,
One slight correction, if I may. Technically, the observance of Advent itself is not in violation of the regulative principle. Your argument that lighting candles in an advent wreath violates the regulative principle is well-made (although I do not subscribe to the regulative principle). But simply the observance of the season of Advent could easily be carried out while strictly adhering to the regulative principle.
6. Peter R.
November 30, 2006
12:16 PM
Brian,
I think one regulation we can safely impose is common sense, which would certainly rule out the use of motorcycles. You don’t need the RP for that.
Your other examples fall into the “it depends” category. I think any leader with a good working knowledge of Scripture is capable of making decisions about them, whether they hold to the regulative principle or not. I think Paul’s numerous exhortations that we encourage one another might shed some light on the testimony. The command that elders teach and explain the Scriptures can give us some guidance on the skit. One of Jesus’ favorite topics was money, so it strikes me that He might have something to say about the family budget.
The point is, the Bible contains enough wisdom do discern what we should do about these things without applying the principle that everything not explicitly defined is out.
7. Jabbok
November 30, 2006
12:47 PM
Sitting in the Sanctuary does not constitute “worship”. I always appreciated the Elders of the Reformed Baptist Church I attended because they made the announcements, allowed the skits, drove the Harleys to the stage (Not really but by way of Brian’s example) and did all the rest BEFORE the worship services. When all the incidental/circumstantial preliminaries were taken care of they announced that we would “BEGIN” our worship services with the reading of God’s Word.
Thanks for the thought provoking posts, Tim. Nicely done.
8. Brian at voiceofthesheep
November 30, 2006
1:21 PM
I think one regulation we can safely impose is common sense, which would certainly rule out the use of motorcycles. You don’t need the RP for that.
Peter,
Thanks for the reply. “Common sense” is subjective. Who are you to say that motorcycles are out? What is your basis for making motorcycles outside the boundaries? In other words, what is regulating you to come to that conclusion?
My point is simple: without Scripture as the final authority with regards to corporate worship, anything and everything is fair game based upon man’s decision.
I appreciate your response to my other items, but you did not answer them in light of whether or not those things would constitute CORPORATE worship. I did not imply that the church cannot talk about things like money…my questions were in the context of what constitutes corporate worship, and how one is to define what those things are that are, in fact, true worship.
It appears that those who are against Scripture regulating what worship is have no foundation on which to base what is and is not true corporate worship.
9. Jim Basinger
November 30, 2006
1:36 PM
As a candle lighting reformed evangelical in the Episcopal Church, why do regulative types call the church meeting room a ‘sanctuary.’ Isn’t the sanctuary in heaven?
10. nakedpastor
November 30, 2006
1:43 PM
i don’t know. i think it is dangerous to separate worship from the rest of life, somehow. if it is not indigenous, then there is something inauthentic about it, no? regulative principles should give a guideline, perhaps, like a coloring book. but let the people color! i was taught to walk by watching and trying it. one foot in front of the other. but i walk with my own style. i think worship can’t be other than a congregation’s native expression of thanksgiving and praise. just a thought.
11. Peter R.
November 30, 2006
3:37 PM
Brian,
Other than announcements (I’m not aware of any church that considers these “worship”)I think the other items could constitute corporate worship, depending on how they were done. I don’t have any disagreement with the regulative principle’s “endorsed categories” of reading, teaching, and hearing Scripture, baptism, communion, singing, and offerings, but I don’t think the “canon” on how an individual church should carry out these functions closed after the first century. It’s up to each local church to choose Biblically qualified leaders who can test these things against Scripture and decide whether they bear inclusion or not.
I sense that where you and I differ is on the definition of “allowing Scripture to be the final authority”. My contention is that this can happen without adhering to the regulative principle. You seem to be saying that any room for interpretation or application is tantamount to relativism. As Tim pointed out, there is amusing variation among those who argue for the “absolute standard” of the regulative principle when it comes time to apply it to their own situation.
12. Steve
November 30, 2006
3:41 PM
In discussing worship with a friend and long time minister, he made a comment that has always stuck with me. He said…”It is unlikely that any first century christian would recognise what we call worship, today.”
I gave that a great deal of thought. What we call worship in today’s society is a conglomeration of things that are parts of what we see in scripture, but bear little resemblence to what our first century brothers and sisters did. In point of fact, when they came together to worship it was all focused on the Father. Songs, prayers, praise, partaking of the bread and wine, and so on. When it came to teaching, it was done seperate and apart from worship.
I suppose what bothered me most in all of this, was that we, (modern christians) had taken and reversed the focus. Teaching, or sermons, take up the majority of the time while some few songs are sung, a few prayers uttered, announcements are made, and so on….
As I have read the posts on this subject, I started to read scriptures dealing with worship, and was reminded, as Paul stated so eloquently in Romans 12, that our lives, and the life we live is our worship. Someone once said. “We don’t come together on Sundays to worship; we come on Sunday’s to worship together.”
As I considered this in light of the question, I feel that as long as the candles are not a focal point, detracting from God, or meant to represent Him in some form, then I am of the opinion that they are simply cool lighting, and up to the prefernces of the church leaders.
13. Anthony Martin
November 30, 2006
5:21 PM
If the Regulative Principle excludes candles like in advent ceremonies, wouldn’t it also exclude the advent ceremony itself? Wouldn’t it also exclude the name of Jesus I can’t find any hymns in my bible that use his name.
14. KS
November 30, 2006
5:28 PM
The RP can become just another form of popery or Pharisaical legalism. It can become a works - righteousness type of situation. Thus you have the ridiculous situation where one church considers itself more biblical because of how strictly they adhere to the principle…. some have male female separate prayer meetings so women keep silent amongst the men, some only sing psalms, some only use an instrument as a starting note, etc etc
Where is the gospel freedom in this? I fear that legalism has swallowed up the joy of salvation in many reformed churches and produced sons and daughters of the pharisees.
I’ve ministered in India and Africa as one teaching the doctrines of grace. I’ve met with indigenous churches in Africa where the singing and jumping up and down in dance would just blow your mind away - all because they culturally express their faith and joy of salvation to God and Christ Jesus. I’ve been in churches in India where the piano accordian and drums have belted out fine tunes for the congregation to lisp his praise. (I’ve also seen them abused too to engender a super ‘spirituality’ mystic type atmosphere).
Don’t get me started on other issues such as westernisation of church building material, seating, the types of clothes people wear etc etc etc or what is a ‘worship service’….. I think the posters above me have expressed the true nature of worship a lot clearer and have touched on the imbalances we now see in so many politically correct (or RP correct) reformed churches of today. (I say this with great sorrow having been brought up in traditions of men within a reformed church in a non north american country, but by God’s grace see that so much energy is consumed getting these things ‘right’.)
Thanks Mr Challies for bringing up this topic and to all who have graciously debated the pros and cons.
I look forward to more exchange.
15. Timothy J McNeely
November 30, 2006
6:03 PM
Well done Tim. I always enjoy reading your thoughts. However, in churches where they practice the Regulative Principle, there should be a lot more excitement and hand raising in the worship service.
Psalm 47:1 Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy!
Psalm 119:48 I will lift up my hands toward your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on your statute.
Psalm 134:2 Lift up your hands to the holy place and bless the LORD!
Psalm 143:6 I stretch out my hands to you;my soul thirsts for you like a parched land.
I just had to mess with you a little bit. Thanks again for your insight and good explanation. It’s been a long time since I have thought about these things. I glad we can still be friends even if I am a reformed, candle lighting, hand raising, Christian.
Cheers Tim!
16. KS
November 30, 2006
6:27 PM
Well said Timothy!
17. Pete
December 1, 2006
12:53 PM
I agree with the earlier posts describing some things as essential and part of a ‘worship service’; namely, reading of scripture, singing(essentially the scriptural references listed in the main article).
That said, while ‘candles’ are not specifically mentioned, that doesn’t mean they should be banned. These things are adiaphra(scripture is silent). As the Reformer’s said “we neither prohibit nor prescribe candles or incense. Let these things be free.” LW 53
What we should be most concerned about regarding worship in our PostModern, ‘felt-needs’, age is not what we choose to Exclude, but the lack of firm Inclusion of the regular reading of Scripture itself in modern evangelical services, and it’s relationship to the general biblical illiteracy rampant today(hmmm could these be related?). The fact many people don’t even understand why we gather together and worship in the first place is pretty telling…
-Pete
18. Patrick Kyle
December 1, 2006
1:32 PM
Fascinating Post. I have heard of churches that didn’t use candles or musical instruments, or that sing only psalms, and always wondered what that was about. This thread is an excellent introduction and overview of the subject. I am a Lutheran and in the Lutheran churches we operate on a principle that is almost the exact opposite of the RP. It states something like this- If something is not forbidden by scripture it is a free thing and can be used in service of the Gospel if and when appropriate. We don’t think that candles, pipe organs, and advent wreaths will lead people to worship falsely. On the contrary, candles, incense,(both used in the worship pictured in the Book of the Revelation) stained glass, lectionaries and the church year are great helps in proclaiming the gospel when explained to the congregation and used properly. Of course we pray, praise, give thanks,give attention to the public reading of scripture, proclaim the Word (preach) and administer the sacraments. We call this the Liturgy. It is literally scripture upon scripture in sight ,sound and even smell. Do we have to do things this way? No. Are we free to do them ?Yes. Are these things helpful? Verymuch so. It seems to me that the RP might be overly restrictive and prone to abuse. Admittedly, churches everywhere are abandoning appropriate worhip forms and neither the RP nor good liturgy has really stemmed this tide. Those in charge of worship need to excercise(biblical)wisdom, and many don’t seem up to the task.
19. William
December 2, 2006
6:29 AM
Interesting posts. I have been in one church that lit advent candles but (even with my high levels of cynicism) I didn’t see it as a substantial issue. In my case it all boils down to who is been worshipped - what is the state of the heart? I posted recently about this here and in a rare moment of foresight (non charsmatic) I referenced the same excellent article from Grace Fellowship discussing many of the issues raised in the comments for these posts. I’m sure the discussion / conversation / argument / correction / whatever will continue! Peace to you all. William.
20. William
December 2, 2006
6:30 AM
Whoops! Should read “who is being worshipped” Sorry for the error.
21. Luke
December 3, 2006
2:36 AM
TO: Tim Mckneely
I have always been bewildered at the RP pushers in regard of those texts! These are actual imperatives, yet I have never, ever, seen or heard of a Church propogating the RP engage in such worship practices. In fact, they would discourage it and call it distracting!
I brought this point up to a friend who was trying to get me to implement a strict usage of the RP in the Church I pastor. I reminded him of the imperatives to clap, raise hands, and even dance! He told me that those are for private worship, not public worship.
Even though it sounded ridiculous, I couldn’t argue it at the time. Then I read the passages you quoted, I’ll just mention one here though, Psalm 47.
If you look at verse one there is a note above it in the hebrew text that reads, “To the Choirmaster…”
Unless our RP friends have a choirmaster in their private worship sessions, or think that David employed a Chorimaster in his worhsip sessions there is a problem.
But, there is no problem here. David was referring to public worship. If you’ve ever seen the Jews worship they do bear these things out (even though accursed and cut off from Christ).
22. Steve
December 4, 2006
2:14 AM
As much as I hate to say it…the RP is a man made set of regulations…admittedly ones made with the intent to adhere to God’s laws in mind, but subject to the frailties of human flaws.
That they bear little or no resemblence to “First century” christian worship, seems to make no difference. They do seek to implement various aspects, and delete others….yet the implementation of such is structured on Western ideas of worship, and those ideas are founded on ancient Catholic ideologies, and structure….which mimic the Roman (secular) heirarchy.
Our worship, in today’s society is nothing like our first century brother’s and sisters…and I do not mean in Jewish influence. I mean that “worship” is an outward directed, praise and devotion to God, while teaching is directed towards us. When teaching (sermons) take up the majority of the time, can this be worship…? Even vaguely like what God expects from us?