Pretending about male and female

We all remember times when we were kids, playing with friends, when someone would propose a race: “First one to the _____ (tree, driveway, end of the block, etc.) wins!”  Then everyone would take off running.  Sometimes the guy in last place would say, “Last one to the tree wins!”  Similarly, you might remember that kid who was always changing the rules mid-game, ruling this or that fair or foul, pretending that his new rules were accepted and right all along.  We all knew that he was really just attempting to benefit himself and nullify the good play of his opponents, but there was no way to talk sense into him.  We also all knew what he was doing was selfish and wrong.

There are people today doing the very same thing, only now they’re called heroes and put on the cover of Vanity Fair.  The whole culture is allowing these grown-up children to selfishly change the rules, but this time there is much more at stake than winning the race to the tree.  Bruce Jenner is a man.  He was created a man.  Blood tests would confirm he is a man.  A thousand years from now, if some scientist digs up his bones, he will conclude Bruce was a man.  To even make the pretense of femininity, Bruce would need major surgery and lots of artificially injected hormones.  Even then, he won’t be a woman.

Genesis 1:27 reads, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”  Bruce Jenner is denying this verse, among others.  He says God did not create him rightly.  Bruce believes God made a mistake and that he knows better than God whether he is male or female.  Bruce thinks he can re-create himself as a herself.  Bruce thinks he is God.  Or better than God.  One of those two.  Asking the church to accept such transgender behavior is nothing less than asking us to abandon the Bible and to quit being Christians.  It is a call to cease living according to the real world that God created and to start pretending with Bruce and everyone else.

And yet it is not enough for Christians to merely live according to the real world.  We have to speak out.  Yes, the world is hostile toward those who do not play along with their fantasies.  But this fantasy is dangerous; it undermines the whole idea of male and female and all that is built upon it.  Gender distinctions are foundational, and losing them would bring chaos.  For example, should transgender men be able to play women’s sports?  Does a school fulfill Title IX if their women’s basketball team is comprised of men pretending to be women?  Maybe more importantly, do you feel safe sending your little girl into a public women’s restroom that’s accessible to men pretending to be women?  It certainly doesn’t seem like public schools are going to recognize gender distinctions
much longer.  They are already starting to teach that gender is a state of mind; they are already “pretending.”

Bruce Jenner needs us to speak out with the truth.  Transgendered people everywhere need to hear the truth.  They need to know where healing really is found, and that’s in Jesus Christ.  Bruce Jenner is not going to be happier or better off as a woman.  He may pretend, but he won’t be.  Bruce knows there is something broken inside of him.  But instead of getting it fixed, he chose to break his body to match his broken soul.  Now the outside and inside match, but he is still broken.  Only Jesus Christ can make the crooked straight.  In Jesus our sinful brokenness can be forgiven and fixed, redeemed and repaired, saved and sanctified.  Bruce, and any others falsifying their gender, don’t need people lauding their sinful brokenness.  They need to be directed to the One who actually can save them.  They need the truth.  And Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. 

Why do we praise George Whitefield?

I have to admit I am constantly amazed at how high we hold George Whitefield in Reformed circles.  Thomas Kidd has published a series extoling Whitefield as a goodCalvinist and a defender of the faith.  Kidd even goes so far as to say Whitefield's message was "traditional and Calvinist".  This of course is taken for truth without a moments thought by most as Whitefield did attack John Wesley over predestination.  Thus, the article is reprinted at the Aquila Report and linked on Challies.com.  But, why is it that we ignore and overlook all the Reformed reaction against Whitefield?  Yes, he had Presbtyerian allies, especially among those who favored the revival, but he had his fair share of critics who never seem to get a voice.

The Erskines for one broke with Whitefield.  Ebeneezer and Ralph both corresponded with Whitefield in the early 1740’s, but both would later be against Whitefield.  The Erskines and their allies in the Associate Presbytery worried about Whitefield’s poor ecclesiology for starters.  The group would later rescind all invitations to Whitefield to preach in their pulpits.  This led Whitefield into his usual denunciation of all who disagree with him as unbelievers.  Whitefield in a letter declared Rev. James Fisher and the rest of the Associate Presbytery a modern day Babel, doomed to be destroyed.  Not exactly friendly comments.  Ebeneezer Erskine would refuse to stay and hear Whitefield preach, and the Cambuslang Revival in 1742 was condemned by the men of the Associate Presbytery including Ralph Erskine.  They criticized the excesses at the revival and used those to oppose the entire event and Whitefield.  The Associate Presbytery declared a day of fasting to pray against the delusion that was on going.  Rev. Gib declared the whole thing a Satanic delusion and declared Whitefield a false Christ, though years later he seems to have felt he may have been too harsh.  Even with that later sorrow, it seems clear that the Erskines and the other Marrow Men of the Associate Presbytery of the Church of Scotland believed Whitefield to be anything other than Reformed. (a fuller discussion of this can be found in The Marrow Controversy and the Seceder Tradition by William Vandoodewaard chapter 8).  

If that is not enough, let us not forget that in America he had opponents as well.  We do often dismiss them as Pharisees following Gilbert Tennent’s lead, but we usually don’t look at their actual objections at all.  The New Castle Presbytery helped publish a pamphlet entitled “The Querists” that asked questions of Rev. Whitefield’s public teaching in published letters and sermons.  They claim up front that Whitefield’s teachings “savor of Popery and Arminianism” (Querists intro pg. iii).  They challenge statements in Whitefield’s sermons that join repentance with faith in the blood of Christ as to what washes away our sins.  They attack statements where Whitefield denies in his letters that Genesis 3:15 is the beginning of the Covenant of Grace, and in fact denies that God made a covenant of Grace with Adam at all.  They fear this goes into Antinomianism, which they also question in Whitfield especially as he often applauded Wesley’s works.  They question his statements that said man was created with all the perfections of deity and that they are baptized into the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  Of course they too take issue with Whitefield’s weak ecclesiology.  And they also question Whitefield’s statements in his journal that make it sound as if God himself speaks to Whitefield’s soul as if he were a modern day prophet. 

It may be that Whitefield can be cheerfully cleared of such charges; however, we seem to only get pieces that hold Whitefield up as a man who is a brave champion of Calvinism or even the Reformed faith.  Yet, so many Presbyterians of the day on both sides of the Atlantic found his theology wanting, confusing, and weak in many areas.  Seldom does anyone actually interact with his theology.  Seldom do we see people discusses his harsh condemnation of people usually on the basis of opposition to himself or mere rumor.  I know that many hold Whitefield up as a great example of a preacher.  I think he probably ought to be held up as a cautionary tale of what not to do. 

Conscience a Foundational Point of the Reformation

When you think of the major doctrines of the Reformation many things may come to mind.  Justification by faith alone, Regulative Principle of worship, the authority of the Scriptures, these are probably the ones that pop to mind.  I want to suggest that there is another doctrine that was very important to the Reformation was the conscience of man.  It is related to the authority of Scripture, but protecting the right of conscience for the believer was fundamental for the Reformation.  Sadly today the Reformed/Presbyterian church has lost sight of this and often speaks of submission or misapplies “mutual submission” in such a way that destroys the conscience.  I would like to take a few posts to discuss this idea of conscience.  Let me start showing that it is a major point of the Protestant Reformation.

Think back to the first major act in the Swiss Reformation: the Affair of Sausages.  The Affair of Sausages began because many of those who heard and followed Zwingli and his teaching broke the Lenten fast and they sold and ate sausages.  The ultimate justification for breaking this rule of the church was that the church had no right to bind the conscience of any man where Scripture is silent.  Think also about how the monastic vows were tossed out everywhere the Reformation went because it was a binding of the conscience in a place where Scripture did not speak nor bind.  Many of the Earlier Confessions stated it plainly.

The Tetrapolitan Confession of 1530, signed by the reformed churches of four different cities and written by Wolfgang Capito and Martin Bucer, devotes chapter 8 to rejecting the idea that the church had the right to bind men’s consciences: “When, therefore, we saw very evidently that the chief men in the Church beyond the authority of Scripture assumed this authority so to enjoin fasts as to bind men’s consciences, we allowed consciences to be freed from these snares, but by the Scriptures, and especially Paul’s writings, which with singular earnestness remove these rudiments of the world from the necks of Christians.” 

The First Basel Confession written in 1531 by John Oecolampadius and perfected after his death by his successors and was adopted in 1534 includes an article on conscience.  Article 11 simply states, “We confess that no one ought to command in any manner that which Christ has not commanded; also, therefore, no one ought to prohibit that which he has not forbidden.”

The Belgic Confession of Guy DeBres too can be seen to include a mention of the evils of binding a man’s conscience without the word of God.  In Article 29 in the marks of the false church it states, “As for the false church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ.”  The Belgic is condemning churches that require submission to manmade rules and such a usurpation of authority from Christ is a sign of a false church. -- They were shortly afterward removed of their jobs and sent packing from the city.  It is clear from the historical evidence that the reformers stressed the idea that only the Word of God could bind a man’s conscience.  They would not bend their consciences simply for the sake of a job or safety.  Instead they held fast to the idea that God alone could command the conscience.

 

These early confessions held the power of the church was restricted by the Scriptures.  And the church could not bind a man’s conscience, instead only the Word of God could do such things.  If the church went beyond the Bible, then a man’s conscience did not need to submit.  And more than that if the church attempted to bind a man’s conscience, the church was in the wrong.  A church that put more power in its own ordinances that are from outside of the word of God is a church that has missed an important point of the Reformation.  It has missed the authority and headship of Jesus Christ, and it is dangerously usurping a power that does not belong to it.

Hopefully this is enough of a historical proof for now.  Next I would like to go to the Bible and see if these confession agree with the Word.

Mars Hill Closing is what we ought to expect

So Mars Hill is closing.  Closing all of its multi-site campuses.  The move is described as "unexpected".  But really this is the single thing that we ought to expect.  This is what churches built upon personalities do. 
Remember Vision Forum?  Doug Phillips turns out to be . . . well, unqualified biblically.  What did Vision Forum do?  Exactly the same thing as Mars Hill.  Suspension and then close the doors. 
Remember what happened when R.C. Sproul Jr., got defrocked for tax fraud and breaking his vows?  The church just pulled out of the denomination, reinstated the man, and then got another group/denomination to make his work official again.
In fact, I bet you can count on this happening more and more. 
Why?
Because for these people no message is bigger than the man.  The man is the message.  And sadly that man is not Jesus Christ.  It really comes back down to who is the head of the church.  Is it Jesus or is it just the guy up front doing the preaching.  If it is Jesus, then he sets the rules.  And if the guy up front crosses the line that Jesus sets and becomes no longer qualified for ministry, then he is removed, and someone else proclaims the same message: the gospel of Jesus.  But if the man up front is bigger than the message, if the guy preaching is head of the church, then when something happens to him, then it is time to close up shop. 

Sadly this is not just the problem of the people up front.  Many in the pew have the same misguided idea.  They attend church not because of the faithful message of Jesus Christ, but because they like the guy up front.  Take a look at the history of Mega Churches.  The Crystal Cathedral was going strong until the man up front retired, now it is gone because the people quit coming.  The were followers of the man up front.  Bill Hybels was once a guru, he steps out of the pulpit to focus on other things, and now his church is in free fall.  People attended because of the man up front. 

It is not unexpected that man centered things fold when the man leaves.  Sadly this is the new normal for the church.

Making the Same Mistake Courtship Makes

                There is an article that is making the rounds on the internet that is against the Courtship Model propounded in “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” and several other books.  The author, Thomas Umstattd Jr., instead promoted Old Fashion Dating, for lack of a better term.  He uses his grandparents as an example, and advocates a return to differentiating “dating” from “going steady”.  Courtship advocate Doug Wilson  has responded, but spends most of his time pointing out a few logical errors or at least assumptions Umstattd makes. 

                Umstattd’s primary complaint about Courtship is that you don’t get to see how you fit with different personalities and people because you have to get permission with a plan on marrying to girl before any real social contact has occurred.  He proposes rules such as not going out with the same guy twice in a row, more matchmaking, and earlier marriage.  The claimed benefits are less sexual temptation because of decreased exclusivity leading, less heartbreak thanks to no emotional involvement in non-exclusive relationships, and less divorce (although he sort of admits all his evidence for this is circumstantial, and Wilson jumps all over this assumption). 

                Now, let me say up front, I never really bought into courtship.  I still remember reading a courtship book very early in my Reformed days and thinking that Isaac and Rebecca was a pretty poor biblical foundation for courtship.  That said, I do think Courtship saw the incredible sexual sin rate and rightly saw that an over-sexualized culture should be avoided.  They also correctly identified one of the problems as out of touch parents who have no control or idea what their kids are doing while they are dating.  However, their answer was never practically going to work because too few would be participating.  This new Old Fashion Dating model of Umstattd will suffer from the same problem.

                And this leads me to my point.  Both Courtship and the Old Fashion Dating of Umstattd suffer from the same fatal flaw.  Both see a problem in the culture, and both try to flee into the past for an answer.  Courtship flees to Victorian England and goes back to the days of paying ladies a visit and seeking approval from disapproving fathers.  Old Fashion Dating would rather just go back in time to the 1950’s with James Dean and Elvis and corner malt shops and letting a girl have your letter jacket as sign of “going steady”.  The world has moved on from both these things.  Both are never coming back.  Never.  Christianity cannot go back in time.  It has to live in the culture the Lord has placed it and live in that culture with Christian values. 

                I could sit here and poke holes in the Old Fashion Dating model.  I could point out that today most guys and girls have lusted so much after one another before they ever ask for a date that it is not decreasing temptation at all.  You could try to use dating to mean just something unimportant so that it would not be sexually charged term, but I think you would have better luck reintroducing Thee and Thou into your teenagers speech patterns.  And maybe it is just because I am below average guy with below average intelligence, below average looks, and below average carpentry skills, but getting multiple ladies lined up to date so I don’t end up dating the girl I want to go steady with twice in a row is going to be hard.  And going to church for its single scene is missing the point of church.  Not to mention the obvious fact that for Old Fashion Dating to work one would need an increase in dating time and exposure to the opposite sex, not a decrease in it (not a recipe for less temptation).  I could sit here and poke holes, but I would rather just mention that this method failed already.  The 50’s became the super sexual 60’s and 70’s, and that became the hook up culture of the 80’s and 90’s and friends with benefits culture of the 2000’s.  Just like courtship failed.  People replaced it because it did not work anymore.  Courtship was perfect for a world of manners, social classes, and dowries.  When that system broke down so too did Courtship.  Old Fashion Dating was fine for a world of sock hops, small towns, and walking people home from school.  But the world became much more urbanized, less personal, and less accountable.  To think that the small rural town model or the Victorian England model would work today is to live in a dream world. 

                I wish there was a magic answer.  Sadly, there is not.  It means parents have to pray for wisdom, be involved, and pass on the Christian faith, and if I might add a love of the church.    We have to develop a new way for young people to meet and decide they want to marry in the Lord, one that acknowledges the temptations that exist in our day and our culture.  We need to help our children as they try to figure this problem out as well.  But pushing them into out dated models from by gone eras is not the answer.

Mark Driscoll and New Calvinism

I want to follow up on some recent events.  Yes, I mean Mark Driscoll and his horrible behavior and his removal from Acts 29 Network, which by the way is far too late and just a political move in my opinion.  But I want to follow the example of Tim Challies and ask what this means about New Calvinism.

Challies wants us to see the truth that character matters in preachers and hopes the New Calvinism becomes a little less restless and a little more mature on this point.  Good points for sure, but I think it still does not quite hit the mark.  Character did not matter for Driscoll because New Calvinism is against denominations.  Going through ordinations processes with legitimate denominations is how we help weed out bad characters.  Obviously no one gets them all, but it is a check and balance.  New Calvinism is mostly independent minded and frankly you should expect abusive leaders in an environment where there is no one checking on the pastor.  There was no place for appeal for the members at Mars Hill.  There was no one to complain to about Driscoll except the people who had their jobs because they stayed in good graces with Driscoll. 

Perhaps now we ought to all go back and look at Piper’s points about New Calvinism and see how they helped create this mess.  The emphasis on the “local” church (point 5), personal networks (point 6), and interdenominational with a strong baptistic element (point 7) are other ways to see “breeding ground for tyranny and spiritual abuse”.  The Driscoll episode has exposed a flaw in the entire system.  Driscoll has been accused of many things over the past few years, but especially this past year.  Yet only now does Acts 29 do anything.  Only when Acts 29 itself is starting to look bad did disassociation occur.  And let us not mistake disassociation with discipline.  No discipline has taken place.  Yet, let us not forget that Acts 29 did not disassociate when Driscoll plagiarized and then abused the reporter who discovered it.  They did not disassociate when massive church funds were used to make Driscoll’s book a best seller.  Disassociation did not occur when Driscoll tried to crash MacArthur’s event.    They did not disassociate when his lack of humility led to several Twitter incidents and his temporary ban on himself from Twitter.  They did not disassociate for massive “staff turnovers”, which would have all had to be approved by a presbytery if the church were part of a denomination.  The disassociation came when many private emails were made public.  Now disassociation occurs. 

The Young Restless and Reformed - New Calvinism crowd all has to answer for this, in my opinion.  They helped give him a national stage.  They brought him into the lime light and crowned him.  John Piper and others welcomed him with open arms.  The inability of New Calvinism to denounce anything has come back to bite it.  It turns out we need the “Old” Calvinism structures of denominations, discipline, creeds, and rules.  It turns out they help protect the people in the pews, the integrity of the ministry, and promote the glory of Christ.

Seeking a Better Country - book review

Seeking a Better Country by DG Hart and John Muether is overall a good book that looks critically at the history of Presbyterianism in America.  If you are worried that Hart carries over some of his usual tone from his blog, do not worry.  This book is even handed and avoided scorn and condemnation.  It does point out places that the church may have gone wrong, but even then it is done with a gentleness that will surprise many.  It is a well-researched book and many will learn from it.  It comes up to the modern day and thus it does not have the opportunity to dive too deeply into any one period of history, yet applies the broad sweep of history to today.  I appreciated the book a great deal.

That said, I have one large fundamental disagreement with this book that I think throws both Hart and Muether off in their historical application and point.  This fundamental disagreement colors their understanding of all subsequent Presbyterian history differently than I color it. 

Before I get into that point, I do want to point out one other small weakness.  Hart and Muether are OPC guys and thus the Southern Church gets a bit of a short stick in this book.  And some PCA guys might get heartburn when they read the conclusion that the PCA was not really unified in its formation (pg.236), and that the OPC is more confessional and the PCA more evangelical (pg.257).  Those are really minor complaints, but maybe worth mentioning.

 My fundamental disagreement with the book is this statement: “For confessional Presbyterians, including the authors, who tend to put a premium on the teachings of the Westminster Standards, highly prize the Presbyterian form of church government, and esteem the reverence and simplicity of historic Presbyterian worship, the era of the Old School Presbyterianism is the most appealing” (pg.257).  I applaud the honest expression of their own bias in this history, however, it means they have seriously misunderstood the Great Awakening and the Old Side – New Side Controversy.

Overall the section in the book about the Great Awakening is better than most books.  They don’t go overboard trying to smear the Old Side, and they are willing to admit some excess on the part of Gilbert Tennent.  However, in the conclusion to the discussion they state this: “Many of the Old Side objections had already been removed with the formation in 1745 of the Synod of New York and its affirmation of creedal subscription and insistence that members submit to synodical decisions” (pg.66). 

I think that is simply historically wrong.  Creedal subscription never seems to have been a debate between the two groups.  So, I am not sure why that is in there.  The submission to synodical decisions was indeed an issue, but because the Tennent’s were willing to submit to synodical decision of fellow New Siders did not mean they were willing to do so with Old Siders.  Any honest evaluation of the New Side behavior leading up to the split has to come to the conclusion that the New Siders were a disorderly group that viewed the Old Siders as unconverted wretches.  Go read “Dangers of the Unconverted Ministry” again and remember Gilbert is preaching in a church that is not his own, in the bounds of an Old Side Presbytery, and had vacant pulpit.  The sermon is a warning not to call an Old Sider because they are Pharisees.  Not surprisingly within a year that church split with the New Side minority faction erecting a church literally across the highway from the original church.  One of the first actions of the Conjunct Presbytery (the first New Side Presbytery after the split) was to order men to go on a preaching tour that included churches that were part of the Old Side Synod of Philadelphia several of which were not even vacant!  This group actively tried to split churches. 

And therein lies the rub.  Seeking a Better Country laments the trend in Presbyterianism to go with so-called progress and innovate in an attempt to nab the culture or more members, yet the New Side is the group that did just that during the Great Awakening.  It was the New Side that focused on individualism and had no problem throwing out church regulations and authority.  It was the New Side that fostered a spirit of celebrity pastors, lower ministerial standards, and the “world is my parish” ideas.  It was the New Side that fostered innovation in preaching styles and added “conversion narratives” as a requirement for membership not to mention ordination.  This tension then between accepting the New Side conduct and desiring to remain a confessional, orderly church is still inherent in Old School Presbyterianism.  The Old School is the New Side.  The New School is the New Side taken to the next logical step. 

This acceptance of the New Side as heroes of the faith leads Hart and Meuther to look uncritically upon the post-reunion phase of the church.  An agreement was reached in 1758 that was to be a Plan of Union, yet this plan of Union was violated in almost every point as early as the year 1762.  In that year the New Side majority Synod violated Point 6, which was the only doctrinal point in the Plan of Union.  They broke point 7 often through their refusal to do things, but clearly in 1766 when they disbanded on Old Side majority presbytery without the presbyteries consent.  They also earlier had refused to create a Presbytery west of the Appalachia Mountains claiming 5 churches were not enough to start a Presbytery, but the next year created a Presbytery with 5 churches.  The only difference . . . the presbytery west of the Appalachia Mountains would have had an Old Side majority, and the other had a New Side majority.  The New Side systematically destroyed their Old Side opponents with the majority power (which violated article 2).  This unconditional acceptance also leads to praise of John Witherspoon ignoring the shadier parts of his character and his transformation of Princeton from a training ground for ministers to a training ground for lawyers and politicians. 

In the end the book is worth a read.  However, the problems pointed out by Hart and Muether seem to have an earlier origin that is not addressed.  Using the Old School as the high point requires an acceptance of the New Side.  So go read the book, just make sure you take a hard look at the Great Awakening.  It is not all it’s cracked up to be. 

Time to reconsider the Seminary

Perhaps the time has come for us to completely abandon the seminary model.  Don't quit reading just because of the radical nature of that comment.  Remind yourself the church existed for 1800 years without it.  Let us just look for a moment at the fruit of the seminary.

Most Reformed and Presbyterians would agree the high point of the seminary was Old Princeton.  It gave us B.B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, Archibald Alexander, and J. Gresham Machen just to name a few.  It was faithful for 100 years.  And we can be thankful for those great men. 

Yet, during this 100 years of faithfulness the Presbyterian Church split multiple times.  It had the Old School - New School split.  It had the Northern church and Southern Church split as even the Old School guys could not manage to stay together.  And the 100 years ended when the Liberals took over and the OPC split occurred.  Prior to the creation of Princeton Seminary the denomination split 1 time for a total of 17 years before it reunited.  And that split revolved around the proto-seminary of the "Log College" under the Tennent family. 

The RCUS had a similar experience splitting for the first time when they created a seminary and required men to go there.  What would become Mercersburg Theological Seminary started off an entire generation of warfare in the RCUS ending with liberalism in control.

And let us not forget that these seminaries feuded with each other.  Princeton feuded with Union Theological Seminary over Scripture.  Princeton and Mercersburg feuded over the Lord's Supper.  And we could go on and on.

Today the situation is even worse.  Westminster Seminary California feuds with Mid America Reformed Seminary over Two Kingdoms.  Reformed Theological Seminary fires a professor for his creation views, and Knox is right there to hire him.  Covenant Seminary is in the middle of fights for the PCA putting it occasionally at odds with Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.  Westminster Theological Seminary cut ties with Westminster Seminary California because they are not the same, and Knox cut ties with its western campus, which becomes New Geneva Theological Seminary, because they are not compatible.  And these debates/arguments do not stay at seminary, they are brought into the church.  If you disagree, go tell a recent MARS graduate you are Two Kingdoms and just see how the conversation goes. 

And should I even get started on the "Academic Freedom" issues?  This issue comes up any time we get a Norman Shepherd or Peter Enns, and it is brought up because the seminary is modeled after academia where academic freedom is deemed an important thing.  The seminary model is the academic graduate school model.  You go to class, pass class, and get your higher degree.  Professors are encouraged to publish, and need to be a drawing point for the seminary. 

The problem with this is of course ministry is not an academic pursuit.  I am not saying people should not be educated or smart.  By no means!  But there are other ways to get an educated ministry.  And one is the old mentorship model or even the Oxford model that is mostly reading based.  Even a return to the Log College or Swamp College days would be preferred.  The academic model has been tried now for 200 years, and it seems to be failing. 

The academic model has brought us the "celebrity" pastor culture.  It has brought on a multiplication of independent seminaries, which are not the church.  The very nature of the independent seminary beast seems to require a quarreling about words in order to draw out a niche group of students so that the seminary can make money, which will also lead those seminaries to give degrees to men who are not gifted nor qualified for ministerial office.  Telling a passing student "you are not cut out for this job" is something that probably never happens at seminaries because 1) its the church's job and 2) they need the tuition.  Does this cross the line of I Timothy concerning "godliness for gain" and needless "quarreling about words"?  It is worth thinking about. 

At the very least it is time to stop and give honest assessment to how we are training men for the ministry.  The seminary model has serious problems that the church cannot afford to ignore. 

Frozen as a picture of what is wrong with our culture

Frozen is an amazing cultural phenomena.  And people are going to be trying to figure it out forever.  And since people hate formulas, all these attempts are going to fall short.  

But I am more interested in what culturally popular things say about us than how to reproduce it.  Yes, I believe good story telling is a dying art and people still love a good story.  Frozen is a good story.  But what worries me as a pastor is the fact that Elsa is the one everyone likes.  Elsa is the name jumping in popularity not Anna.  Elsa's song is the one that won the awards despite the fact that the movie itself is trying to tell you everything Elsa is saying is a lie and wrong.  The movie has great themes.  Being alone is not the answer.  True love is self sacrificial and should be found in places other than romantic love.  It is foolish to jump to romantic love.  And you can even see the dire consequences of parenting as the parents pathetic and awful advice to their daughter ruins her and her relationship with her sister.  

Yet, the song everyone loves is the song that is being sung while Elsa endangers everyone with her self centered behavior.  It is the song that ultimately has to be undone to save everyone.  And people seem to be identifying with Elsa rather than with Anna, who is the actual hero of the movie.  

This is not a one time thing either.  Take a look at the popularity of the Hunger Games.  Katniss is not a good person, and in the books at least, she knows it.  Yet, she is loved by millions.  Or the popularity of Twilight where a Vampire is the main love interest and people are supposed to be cheering for a young girl to become a vampire.  

Don't just stick with movies.  You name it, our culture gets it backward and wrong.  Take wrestling as an example.  John Cena is good guy on WWE wrestling.  Never does anything wrong, does not break the rules and gives fans gifts.  Yet, he is often booed, and the bad guys who break the rules are cheered.  This is not the way it was when I was growing up.  

Take Lebron James.  People love to cheer against this guy.  They don't like him and maybe his live decision to go to Miami was in bad taste, but the money from that went to the Boy's Club of Cleveland.  And it is not like Lebron has been accused of rape (Kobe Bryant) or has a massive gambling problem (Michael Jordan) or has committed adultery with thousands of women (Magic Johnson).  And no one even cares about Tim Duncan who just seems to be a good guy who does not get in anyone's way.  

Look at the world of superheroes.  People hate Superman and Batman is beloved.  Why?  Because Batman is dark and almost over the edge to being a bad guy.  Superman is a boy scout who does what is right and that is that.   He stands for truth, justice, and the American way.  People hate that now days.  Or just looking broader DC Comic Superheroes (other than Batman) do not do so well while Marvel Super Heroes (like the Avengers) do great.  Why?  Because Marvel's superheroes were always flawed and broken while DC usually had heroes that were morally upright and motivated by right.  The DC Comics sold much better than Marvel in the 50's and early 60's.  Now not so much.  You can probably look at any industry and see this very thing.  

I believe we have gone beyond a society that just does not know the difference between right and wrong.  We live in a world that can tell the difference between right and wrong, but has decided to idolize the wrong, and despise the right.  Even when a movie like Frozen hits us right between the eyes and tries to tell us right is right and wrong is wrong, we still screw it up and attach ourselves to the wrong.  And since it is a kids' movie, it makes it all the more worrisome.  The message that we should love the wrong is getting to us early and often.  

The answer of course is the gospel.  However, we need to make sure we are administering the gospel early and helping even our young children begin to discern right from wrong and love the right and hate the wrong at a very early age.  This I believe is one of the reasons that we lose so many young people.  As studies have shown, we have often lost them while they are still attending.  We have not helped them see through the lies of the culture about evil being a lovable thing.  This is one place where the culture is way ahead of us.  They want kids to love evil.  They get kids emotionally involved.  They go to their heart strings and attach them to the wrong places.  We as the church too often are still telling our kids "No don't hate.  It is not nice to hate."  While that may be true if we are talking about people, we need to be teaching our kids a heartfelt hatred of sin that makes them turn from it, and a heartfelt love of God that makes them run toward Him.  It is never too early to start.  

Three Forms vs. WCF Sabbath - Final Quote

As a nice summary of the difference between the Continental View and the Westminster view, I found a good quote from Dr. Lewis Mayer.  Since some have also thought the difference went away in the 16th century as the view evolved, Mayer should serve as good proof that is not true.  Mayer was born late 18th century and did most of his work in the early 19th century.  He was a professor at Mercersburg Theological Seminary and a member of the German Reformed church, the early RCUS.

"The German Reformed Church, like the Lutheran, considers the Lord's Day a sacred season, set apart for the performance of the ordinary public worship of God, and deriving all its sacredness from the service to which it is appointed; the Presbyterian regards the day as intrinsically holy.  Presbyterians consider it the sabbath linked to the Fourth commandment, but modified by our Lord as to the day and the penalty of its violation and derive its sanctity from the fact that the seventh day is the day of God's resting from all His work."  -pg.20-21 the History of the German Reformed Church

In fairness Mayer has a list of ways the German Church is different than the Presbyterians and this is but one.  I agree with most of them, but one of them does show the beginnings of Mercersburg Theology.  But it is a late German Reformed theologian writing about why it is wrong to consider Reformed Continental Theology the same as English Presbyterian Theology.

WCF vs. 3FU Holiness (Sabbath part 3)

WCF vs. 3FU Sabbath – Part 3

So what is the practical difference between the Continental View of the Sabbath and the Westminster view?  First should be obvious.  The Continental view of the 4^th commandment means the 4^th commandment applies every day of your life, and the Westminster applies only 52 times a year (once a week). 

Second, I do think that there is a disagreement here that goes much deeper.  The Westminster holds to “keeping holy to God such express times as appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven” (WLC #116).  The logical question is how do you keep a day holy.  That is answered in the Larger Catechism 117.  “The Sabbath or Lord’s Day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day . . .” (WLC 117).  The question goes on to list not only avoiding sin, but also recreation, worldly business, and everything that is not public or private worship or a work of necessity or mercy.  In other words the day is kept holy by avoiding work and attending to worship or mercy.  This is a “holy resting”.  This holy resting is a work we do.  We do it by avoiding most things and worshiping all the day long. 

The Three Forms of Unity has a different concept of keeping the Sabbath Holy.  The concept found in the Heidelberg Catechism is one of “all the day of my life rest from my evil works and allow the Lord to work in me by His Spirit and thus in this life begin the everlasting Sabbath” (HC 103).  Notice the different emphasis.  The Westminster is saying that we make the day itself holy by our “holy rest” or our righteous keeping of the commandment.  The Heidelberg is equating holiness more with allowing the Holy Spirit to work in us.  The Westminster is again focused on our works and our righteousness and the Heidelberg is focused on the Spirit working in us. 

This is the same disagreement we found in the Westminster’s doctrine of assurance.  Assurance in the Heidelberg is found mainly in the Spirit working in us through the sacraments and preaching.  Our assurance was mainly in looking to Christ via the Spirit.  The Westminster’s focus for assurance was our walk in good conscience before the Lord.  So then we should not be all that surprised at the difference on the 4^th Commandment.  The Westminster has work that can be measured and pointed to so that when you look at your walk in a good conscience, you have something to look upon.  The Heidleberg does not put works as a very high priority for assurance, and the 4^th Commandment view is in line with that.  Rather the Heidelberg makes assurance directly related to looking upon Christ, and this is exactly what the 4^th Commandment is about.  Letting God work in us as we acknowledge what is good in this world.  On the seventh day the Lord acknowledge as he had made was very good.  This is what we are to be doing.  Acknowledging it is God who is very good and His work is very good, and our sanctification and holiness is from His work in us. 

This points to a possible disagreement about holiness or at least a different emphasis.  The Westminster holds that one day is more holy than others (or at least we are to keep it holy).  It also emphasizes our work in holiness.  It our holy rest, our keeping.  The Three Forms are different.  It emphasizes God’s work in holiness and holds all days the same.  All the days of our life are to be kept holy, and that is by the Spirit working in us.  The need for the holiness of Christ is repeated in questions 36, 60, and 61 and our holiness is only mentioned in what was lost in the fall of Adam.  The Westminster usually uses it in reference to our holiness.  They mention it as what was lost by Adam (4.2), that we are sanctified to works of holiness without which we will not see the Lord (13.1), our spiritual war leads to our perfecting holiness thanks to the strength of the Spirit (13.3), in the chapter on good works about our fruit unto holiness (16.2), serving the Lord in holiness and righteousness is the goal of Christian Liberty (20.3), and being made perfect in holiness at the Second Coming (32.1). 

Thus the Heidelberg speaks of Christ’s holiness and our need for it and Christ giving it to us.  The Westminster speaks of Holiness as a result of our sanctification and what we grow in and work on during this life.  This is a difference between the Westminster and the Three Forms that is all throughout and finds its clearest difference in the 4^th Commandment. 

Why I think Youth Groups fit in the Reformed Tradition

Youth groups are a hot topic; people love them or hate them.  There is an article that is getting a lot of attention that points to Youth Groups as the reason so many young people leave church in their twenties.  

I pastor a church in the RCUS, and I would bet that our church is in the minority in the denomination in having a youth group.  I agree that this is a very flawed survey, and is sponsored by the Family Integrated Church movement, which is probably leaning toward Patriarchy.  But put all of that aside and we are still faced with the question, are youth groups bad?  

It is hard to read responses from many youth pastors and not think, "Youth groups are indeed the problem".  Any defense of youth groups that includes blaming parents, blaming boring church services, and quotes YoungLife as a positive is more likely part of the problem than part of the solution.  In fact I am willing to say if your church's youth group is creating worship services for the youth, then it is clearly part of the problem.  Yet, I still think there is a place for Youth groups.

I know there are many who think that segregation of the church by age is dividing the church.  I agree and disagree at the same time.  Whether we like it or not, the world around us is age divided.  Unless your kid spends all his or her time at home and never goes outside to play with friends, your child is age divided.  My 11 year old plays baseball in a different league than my 9 year old.  And have you ever tried to make a Sunday School class that teaches both the 3 year olds and 65 year olds?  Age division makes some logical sense.  

I think Youth Groups can be a great positive for the youth.  I think it can actually bind them to the local church rather than divide them.  But several things have to be present.  First, you can't have a worship service for them.  Worship is not age divided.  And if it is, then you are sending a message of separation rather than unity.  It will also train youth to grow up and expect church to be like it was during youth.  This generation's church service is last generation's youth group.  Second, the whole idea of Youth Pastor has to go.  This is another message of separation.  Your youth pastor is not the head pastor.  Your youth pastor is a special guy who just does one thing.  Oh and your youth pastor does not really participate in worship either, except maybe on one or two Sundays a year.  It is another separation.  However, if the actual pastor spends time with the youth, would it not help bind them to the church?  

This is how I currently envision youth ministry.  The pastor sitting down with the youth and leading a bible study.  Yes, in my church this often involves pizza or candy, but you will have a hard time convincing me that anything cannot be improved with food.  But the pastor sitting down with the youth and having Bible studies that help them with the particular trials they are facing is a good thing.  Probably most of the adults in your church are not struggling with dating or how to choose a spouse.  And thus, your church is probably not teaching on it very often.  But this is something the college students are facing.  And can't high school students get a head start on knowing what to look for in a potential mate?  Having a time and place for the pastor to lead a bible study on this with those who are facing it can be a valuable thing.  

If we believe Bible study is good, why would be against bible study for a particular age group that faces particular challenges?  And is there a better way for a pastor to get to know the needs of people who are valued members of his church than to sit down with them and talk to them over a pizza?  Maybe your youth group needs to have a lesson about why age divided worship services are bad.  Maybe you need to explain how wonderful it is to be in worship with people of all ages.  It is a timely topic for college students who are often being invited to church services geared for the young.  Explain to them why they should not abandon your church that sings hymns and has 80 year olds in the service.  Our youth group talked about it, and I think it was a discussion they needed to have.  

I know that Youth groups are a hot button issue.  I understand the desire to not be replacing parents, and on the other hand, I understand the desire to draw in young people.  There are always ditches on both sides of the road.  But for me the issue comes down to the call of the Lord: "Feed my sheep."  Each church needs to ask that very question.  Are the youth getting fed, and are they being equipped with the word to face the challenges they face?  I think the youth group is one way a church can try and feed the sheep.  It is not the only way at all, but I think it can be a possible way.  

Three Forms vs. Westminster - Fourth Commandment Part 2

A commenter in the previous post made the point that the change from the “Continental” view of the 4^th commandment to the “Puritan” view was simply a development of doctrine, and thus the Puritan view is the Reformed view.  A quick look at my labels of blog posts and you will see how I really detest the idea of Doctrinal Development.  It is a sword often wielded to help shield people from the fact of what they are really saying is “The first 1700 years of the church knew nothing of this, but thankfully we invented it”.  But I shall put that aside a moment and try to continue to show that it is truly two separate traditions or streams within the broader Reformed river.

The challenge has been made to show someone from the 17^th century that held to the Continental View of the Sabbath as expressed in the Second Helvetic Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism.  It is true that in the 17^th century we begin to see in the Netherlands the Nadere Reformation that brings the Puritan thinking into the Netherlands.  One could turn the challenge around and tell others to find someone not related to the Nadere Reformation who supported the Puritan view of the Sabbath, but I shall simply answer their challenge.

Let me start with the Dutch.  Here you had a large group who followed Johannes Cocceius.  Cocceius is a bit of a controversial figure, but nonetheless, he held to a Continental View of the Sabbath as did the vast majority of his followers.  The number of his followers should not be considered small either.  This is a large group of men since he taught at Frankener and Leiden, two major universities.  Now to go to the other end of the spectrum, we can grab Franciscus Gromarus.  Gromarus, most famous for his staunch opposition to Arminius, also held to the Continental view of the Sabbath.    Both of these Dutch Theologians were professors and taught a Continental view of the Sabbath.  

The commenter mentioned the French Reformed were represented at Westminster.  While I am unaware of who would have been there, it should be mentioned that by the time of the Westminster Amyraldianism was everywhere in the French church to the degree that the French church would soon be effectively split from at least the Swiss Reformed Churches.  It should also be noted that just because some French Reformed were there does not mean they agreed.  Earlier in the 17th century men like Antoine de la Faye, head pastor at Geneva, held to a Continental view.  

It is hard to find a lot of German 17^th century people writing on the Sabbath, so it is hard one way or another to say for sure on many of them.  But David Pareus would be a Continental view pastor.  He died in Heidelberg where his career began, but also pastored in a few other places in Germany.  Johann Alsted taught at the University of Heborn and held to a Continental view.  It is more than likely that the majority of German Reformed churches held to the Continental view.  However, the German Reformed were busy fighting for their right to be reformed for a full third of the century while those in England did little to help the cause.  Thus, they were much more free to write and debate the new doctrine advocated by Bound (the Puritan view of the Sabbath).  

Lest we forget too much that many in England held a Continental view of the Sabbath or at least a non-Westminster view.  Archbishop Whitgift and Laud and Bishop Thomas Morton all appeared to have supported King James’s Book of Sports.  And James was raised a Scottish Presbyterian himself.  It is wrong to look back on the 17^th Century England and assume that everyone agreed with the Westminster view of the 4^th Commandment.  It was highly debated until the debate was settled when they cut off King Charles’s head.  

Let us also note that the idea that there is really only one position on the Sabbath is completely new.  Just listen to Herman Hoeksema.  "One cannot fail to observe a different conception of the sabbath in this Westminster Confession from that of the Second Helvetic".  He states one cannot fail.  It should be impossible to think they are the same.  

Hopefully this brief summary shows that there were plenty of 17th century who held to a Continental view.  And that Reformed theologians on both sides of the debate for literally centuries have agreed there were two different views on the Fourth Commandment.

WCF vs. Three Forms - Fourth Commandment Part 1

I guess what everyone is waiting on in this Three Forms vs. Westminster is the difference with regards to the Sabbath or the Fourth Commandment.  It is the most recognized difference, although many people believe that there is really not a big difference.  Dr. Clark argues that there might be some difference, but fundamentally the Westminster and the Heidelberg are the same and thus the idea of a “Continental” and a “Westminster” or “Puritan” view of the Sabbath is wrong. 

So, I should begin by arguing that there is indeed a “Continental” view of the Sabbath and it finds expression in the Heidelberg Catechism Question 103. 

“In the first place, God wills that the ministry of the Gospel and schools be maintained, and that I, especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church to learn the Word of God, to use the Holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms.  In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by His Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath.” 

And now the Westminster 21.7

“As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the worlds, as the Christian Sabbath.” 

And Westminster Larger Catechism #116

“The fourth commandment requireth of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian Sabbath, and in the New Testament called The Lord’s Day.” 

Dr. Clark (and others I am just using his blog because it isthe best), argue that there is a Reformed view of the Sabbath and it states a one day in seven pattern, grounded in creation, continues in the NT, and changed with the resurrection of Jesus from the last day to the first day. 

The question is do you see those things in both the Heidelberg and the Westminster?  Clark points to lectures given by Ursinus that explain the perpetual part of the commandment being the worship of God.  However, in his commentary he seems to indicate that the Sabbath day was a sign and sacrament of the OT that is done away with.  He describes the moral and perpetural nature of the 4^th Commandment as “a careful shunning of sin, and a worship of God by confession and obedience” (pg.992).  He also calls it a “spiritual Sabbath” and contrasts that with the ceremonial portion or the “external Sabbath”.  He divides that “external sabbath” into the immediate and mediate.  The immediate was the Old Testament Sabbath of worshipping on Saturday, and it is fulfilled and gone.  The mediate is the New testament.  He describes it, “the old was restricted to the seventh day: its observance was necessary and constituted the worship of God.  The new depends upon the decision and appointment of the church, which for certain reasons has made the choice of the first day of the week, which is to be observed for the sake of order, and not from any idea of necessity, as if this and no other were to be observed by the church” (pg.994).  Perhaps it should be added that this internal-external division is not new as it can be seen in places like the Large Emden Catechism of John A’Lasko. 

Now does that sound like what is written in the Westminster?  I think the answer is no.  The Westminster is saying that the day remains a necessity and was changed by the resurrection of Jesus Christ into the first day.  The Heidelberg says nothing about a specific day.  In fact, we now have seen that the idea of a specific day was rejected by at least one of the authors of the Catechism. 

Just to show that the Heidelberg is not alone take a look at the Second Helvetic Confession of Henry Bullinger.  The Second Helvetic was given to the Elector Frederick III to use in his defense at the Diet of Augsburg in 1566, so it has some connection to Heidelberg.  Chapter 24 of Holy Days, Fasts, and Choice Meats:

“Every church, therefore, chooses unto itself a certain time for public prayers and for preaching of the gospel . . . .  Yet herein we give no place unto the Jewish observation of the day or to any superstitions.  For we do not account one day to be holier than another, nor think that mere rest is of itself liked of God.  Besides we do celebrate and keep the Lord’s Day, and not the Sabbath, and that with a free observation.” 

Bullinger here draws a line of separation between the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath.  They are distinct not one changing into the other as the Westminster puts it.  And the Heidelberg does not use the title Lord’s Day at all.  The Heidelberg Catechism does not speak of one day in seven.  The Heidelberg does not speak of Sunday at all.  The Heidelberg does not speak of rest from labor at all, only resting from evil works or sin, which seems to put it more in line with the Second Helvetic thinking that rest from work is not part of the commandment for us today.  Or at least not a necessary part.  Westminster Larger Catechism 117 states specifically that rest is not just from sinful work, but from all work and even recreation and Westminster 21.8 expands that to thoughts and words about regular work and worldly employment. 

It seems to me then that a clear “Continental tradition” and “Puritan Tradition” can be seen.  It is difficult to see the principles of agreement named by Dr. Clark that would unify these different understandings of the 4^th Commandment.  Exactly how the disagreement plays out will be the subject of the next post.      

3FU vs. WCF Worship

                Let me start by simply saying I believe both documents teach the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW).  For those who may be unfamiliar with the RPW it simply states that whatever is not commanded in worship is thus forbidden.  It has some important caveats: 1. You are to use good and necessary consequences and 2. This applies to elements of worship, not circumstances of worship.  An element would be an essential part while circumstances are simply the accidents of those essential parts such as what time worship meets?  What time is not essential, but does have to be answered.  If one is having worship, then it happens at a time; thus, it is an accident of worship.  Other examples include such things as chairs or pews, or whether you stand or sit or kneel for prayer.  Prayer is the element, the body position then has to be answered, but is merely a circumstance of prayer.  Again both documents seems to agree on this point, so let us dive into the differences.

                The Westminster lays out the elements of worship in Chapter 21.  Specifically prayer is discussed as part of religious worship in 21.3, and then reading and hearing Scripture, preaching, administration of the sacraments, and singing psalms are listed in 21.5 as the other elements of worship.  Special things can be added apparently such as oaths and vows, solemn fasting, and thanksgiving.  So we have a regular list of worship elements found in this chapter of the WCF.  The Larger Catechism Q108 also provides a list: prayer and thanksgiving, reading of the word, preaching of the word, hearing of the word, administering and receiving the sacraments, church government and discipline, ministry and its maintenance, fasting, swearing by God’s name, and vowing to Him.  The main addition here seems to be the gathering in of the offering as an acceptable part of worship and performing discipline allowing for sentences passed to be read in worship.  Interestingly enough however WLC 108 does not mention singing by name nor does it mention psalms.   

                The best list found in the Three Forms of Unity comes from the Heidelberg Catechism Q.103.  Here the Catechism lists learning the Word of God, use the holy sacraments, call publicly upon the Lord, and give Christian alms.  This list is much shorter and much broader than the specific list of the Westminster.  Clearly we can agree that learning the word of God means preaching and reading it.  The interesting section is “call publicly upon the Lord”.  What is included here?  Singing is not in the list, nor is prayer, nor confession of faith?  Can one rightly assume they all belong under this heading?  Ursinus in his commentary includes “confession, thanksgiving, and prayer” which is done corporately and publicly (pg. 1005).  Otto Thelemann includes prayer and singing (pg.505) in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.  It seems then we can include all of those in this section.

                The question becomes does it make a difference?  Does the stricter, longer list of the Westminster differ at all from the Heidelberg’s list?  I think it does.  If the element is call publicly upon the Lord, rather than prayer or singing, then it does change things.  If the element is calling upon the Lord, then the circumstance of how I do that is more flexible.  I can call publicly upon the Lord through confessing the Apostles’ Creed together, by taking vows, or by singing.  In fact, my prayer could very well be sung.  It is simply a circumstance of how I pray.  And it is very traditional for churches to sing the Lord’s Prayer.  That does not make it no longer a prayer, it is now just a prayer that I sing.  The manner of my prayer, or my calling upon the Lord, is simply a circumstance.  Instead the Westminster Confession indicates singing is to be done with the psalms.  Singing is a separate element from prayer.  Thus, it is reasonable to conclude from WCF 21 that singing cannot be done as a prayer unless it is a prayer found in the Psalms.  After all it specifically states, singing psalms.  The Lord’s Prayer is not a psalm.  Not surprisingly we can see this difference play out in history as Continental Reformed Churches much more often sang hymns than the Puritan and Scottish Presbyterians. 

                Another little wrinkle is confessing faith in the Westminster service.  I have been in Westminster churches that use the Apostles’ Creed and even the Westminster in their service.  But where does this fit into the list given in WCF 21?  If it is not a section of scripture, is it considered allowable?  I am sure there is a defense out there, but the easy to see category is not readily apparent.  It is my understanding that post-Westminster Assembly Scottish churches stopped using the Apostles’ Creed in worship as did those churches in England and New England who followed it. 

                So I think then that the Westminster is far stricter on what is and what is not an element of worship, and seems to have a different understanding of the role of singing in church than does the Heidelberg.  The Heidelberg avoids the difficulties of exclusive psalmody completely through its different take on singing and elements in worship.  The Westminster's stricter categories also seem to create problems with such activities as confessing faith using something other than Scripture.  Perhaps it is time we start coming the realization that the Regulative Principle can be agreed upon, but there is vast difference on how to apply this Regulative Principle even within the Reformed Tradition.