My Message to Marshill Church about the Worship Sermon.
On March 2nd Mark Driscoll preached the last sermon in his Ask Anything series.
After listening to the sermon and reading the blog post found here, I decided to send the church a message, via their Mission and Vision blog. I’ve posted the whole message below. If you’ve listen to or read the post on voxpop and agree or disagree I’d love to hear some feedback on what I said.
I know this comment is worth as much as one of those 90′s camel bucks, but I was disappointed in lasts week sermon. I felt that you didn’t give most regulative principle guys much credit.
I’ve been listening to Pastor Driscoll for the last three years. In fact at one point the only thing stopping us from moving out to Seattle just so we could join Marshill was my wife’s work contract.
I guess you could say I’m a red light guy so here is my beef: I found the sermon slightly confusing.
The heart of the Regulative Principle is not what you can or can’t do, but the reality, and uniqueness of corporate worship.
If something unique happens when we come together as a body, then maybe it can have a different set of guidelines for how we should behave. If God says there is such a thing as corporate worship which is different than private or other types of worship, why can’t they be different. But if there no Biblical ground for a Corporate Gathering aren’t you just following a cultural norm? Maybe corporate worship is the same category as pews are?
I’ve read 4 out of the 6 resources mentioned above and found them very helpful.[Found on the blog]
If the hangup is with nature of worship, could it be that there a regulative principle that governs corporate gatherings? Even if you want to say that those gatherings are more for edification.[From Carson's Worship by the Book]
Pastor Mark’s sentiment that Marshill pretty much follows the regulative principle in the way they do things, but keeps the normative card in their pocket, just sounded like a cop out. Why spend time examining what the Scripture prescribes in worship when you say all you are supposed to do is make sure that you aren’t breaking any of God’s commandments.
One last thing to note. I grew up in the Reformed Presbyterian denomination, which still only sings Psalms unaccompanied. I agreed with you that they are wrong. But, I think it was a mistake to say they are just your run of the mill Presbyterians. That denomination is smaller than Marshill, and in fact Pastor Mark’s sermon was probably the widest exposure the Accapella Psalm argument has received in a few decades. If we are profiling micro-norities, maybe there should be a sermon on the Polygamist-arson-cult as well?
The PCA holds to the regulative principle.
Why not spend more time wrestling with how guys like Tim Keller hold to it. And how Acts 29 churches like Liberti can hold to it.
This is probably the third sermon in the 120ish Ive listen to that I’ve been unhappy with. Im kind of wondering who will even read this. Whoever you are please know that I love Marshill, because you guys love Jesus, and I fairly confident are loved by Jesus. I love to talk more with someone at MH who might have some insight or correction for me. You guys are like Paul seeking the expansion of Grace to more and more people all for the Glory of God.
In Christ your Bro,
Sam DeSocio
Pastoral Intern
City Reformed Church
No – Mark got it right. Psalms-only and no instruments is a key issue. Although it may only be a ‘micro-nority’ position today (although you make it sound as if it was just an RP position – there are 5 denominations in Scotland that hold to it, and a few others throughout the world), a cappella psalmody is how the church has worshipped for the majority of its history. Hymns really only came to prominence through Isaac Watts. You talk about ‘run of the mill Presbyterians’ – hymns were only officially sanctioned by Presbyterians in America in 1788 (when the American revision of the Westminster Directory for Public Worship was modified accordingly). The first official Presbyterian hymnbook in America wasn’t sanctioned until 1831. And in Europe, the dates tended to be later – up until 1896 when hymns were sanctioned by the mainstream Presbyterian Church in Ireland. Instruments came in about the same time, if not later.
In the grand stream of church history, uninspired songs and musical instruments are the micro-nority position. Driscoll recognised that he was arguing against the Reformers (except Luther), the Puritans and Spurgeon. But at least it’s more honest for him to come out and say he thinks they were wrong than for Presbyterian churches today to claim that their position on worship is consistent with the WCF.
To say that “a cappella psalmody is how the church has worshipped for the majority of its history” is incorrect. I will agree that the Psalms held a higher role in the church over the centuries than they do today. It is incorrect to say that Hymns only really showed up after Watts. Hughes Old points out that as early as Pliny’s letter to Trajan there is information regarding the singing Hymns to Christ. we also know that Ambrose was a great composer of Hymns. Additionally you really cannot go to most of the Reformers because they did not limit themselves to the songs found in the Old Testament book of Psalms. So the argument is different. Exclusive Psalmody which excludes the rest of the canon was not the historical pattern.
Even the Psalters of the Reformation contained a number of man-made hymns, including the Strasbourg Psalter of 1537 and the Genevan Psalter of 1542. It must also be noted that Old argues that in his defense of the predominance of Psalms, Calvin site the Bible but, Chrysostom, and Augustine.
Sam is right, church historians have revealed that psalms have not enjoyed the central spotlight in the history of the church. Old refers to Pliny’s letter, heavily debated and rather insignificant as it is two pagans writing to another on the happenings of Christians in the country. Did hymns mean psalms? or did hymn mean an unbiblical song? Pliny cared not to comment, so we cannot speculate. Ambrose first initiated the use of the hymns he wrote while under seige from Empress Justinia, though there are some scattered hymns composed earlier. (the Ante-Nicean Fathers by Philip Schaff include the only surviving hymn from Pre Ambrose)
And Sam again is right – the 16th century reformers included other portions of Scripture to sing (the 10 commandments for Calvin, Luther wrote his own, and others did the same.. saying this, the Psalms enjoyed wide use and played a major role in worship.) It must be a biblical argument, not a historical one.
I find those who subscribe to the WCF who sing hymns and say that it is biblical, to be men of more integrity than psalm singers who subscribe to the WCf, yet sing hymns in churches. Who is more consistent?
Which Hughes Old book are you quoting from?
Looking for some bedtime reading