<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: RJ Gore Gores the Reformed Doctrine of Worship
Review:
RJ Gore's Covenantal Worship is but the latest salvo in the ongoing assault upon historic reformed presbyterian worship - and one of the most sophisticated, although that is not saying much - conducted by those purportedly within the camp of the reformed faith. As such, it is a disappointment. As per the standard modus operandi by this time of Jordan, Frame, Schlissel and Leithart, Gore mischaracterizes the regulative principle of worship, ie. the good and necessary consequences of the Second Commandment: "Whatsoever is not commanded, - explicitly or implicitly - in Scripture, is forbidden in the worship of God," before he proposes his substitute for it. While Gore to his credit attempts to examine some of the primary sources of classic presbyterianism; not only the Confession of Faith but also the Directory for Public Worship of the Westminster Assembly of 1643-48 in London, ultimately, Cov. Worship is a confused and superficial analysis that fails primarily on four counts.
One, Gore is confused about what is "common to human actions and societies" of Westminster Confession Chapt. 1:6 regarding the indifferency of circumstances in worship as opposed to an commanded element in worship (see also Chapt. 21:1,5). From there he will quibble that the RPW is unworkable ecause of this confusion.
Two, Gore is confused about the substance of the difference between Anglicanism and Puritanism. Contra the repeated comments of Davies in his Worship of the English Puritans (rpt. 1997) which Gore only selectively quotes from (p.84), Gore claims that the Anglicans were closer to Calvin than the Puritan Presbyterians who wrote the Confession. Rather, the Puritans were closer to Calvin in principle than the Anglicans. Both saw the Bible as normative - not only for doctrine, as per Luther/Anglicanism - but also the worship and government of the church. Gore fails to note the distinction, if not turns it upside down.
Three, Gore is confused about the existence of the synagogue because there is no explicit scriptural command for it. And since Christ worshiped at the synagogue, he "violated the Puritan formulation of the Regulative principle of worship (p.106)." Therefore the same principle is obviously unBiblical. Yet he ignores the testimony of the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly (rpt. SWRB, 1991). Just as there is no explicit command regarding the the change from the last to the first day of the week vis a vis the Fourth Commandment but only the example of Christ and the apostles, so too, the Assembly divines said there was cause to believe that the patriarchs had a command from God for those things like the synagogue in Scripture where no command is explicitly mentioned, but which posterity afterward practiced.
Again, though Puritanism at times went too far in restricting the RPW to explicit commands only, this was not the real position of the Assembly or the Westminster Standards, not to mention if Christ can fault the Pharisees for teaching for God's doctrine, "the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:13) and the synagogue was uncommanded and instituted by men as per Gore, it too would have fallen under Christ's condemnation. Yet it did not.
Four, Gore is confused about Purim and the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22 ). He wants to say both are uncommanded as well as approved, with Christ attending on the last. Yet as McCrie notes in his commentary on Esther, if Mordecai was a prophet, he could lawfully institute a day such as Purim. As for the Feast of Dedication, Thomas Cartwright, the great Elizabethan Puritan, a generation or two prior to the Westminster Assembly, answered the Roman glosses of the Rhemist translation of the New Testament. He noted the claims of the papacy to find justification for their own uncommanded inventions in worship, such as praying for the dead, in the passage, in that Rome believed that something may be instituted in the worship of God without any commandment at all in Scripture.
Granted, Gore doesn't want to go as far as Rome on the question, but he opens the door in principle if what is uncommanded is lawful in the worship of God. Yet all Scripture tells us is that Jesus was present in Jerusalem at the time of the feast, not that he participated. Consequently it is a non sequitur for Gore to claim that Christ having previously approved by his presence an uncommanded institution in the synagogue, now approves by his presence an uncommanded feast and thereby the RPW is assumed to be overturned. Rather Mr. Gore's fundamental assumptions about the Feast of Dedication are confused. Likewise what flows from them regarding the RPW.
As opposed to his concluding vague generalities about "Biblical, covenantal worship (pp.137-62)" which Gore would substitute for the historic presbyterian worship, the Confession in 21:5 acknowledges the reading and preaching of Scripture, the singing of the O.T. Psalms of Scripture, prayer and the visible word of the two sacraments, baptism and communion, as the ordinary commanded elements of worship according to the RPW of 21:1. Gore's Covenantal Confusion in Worship is not an improvement on this same classic reformed presbyterian worship and doctrine, however much he may think or say so. Rather it again confuses, much less assaults, the historic confessional view of what is lawful/required in the public worship of God. Therefore it is not to be recommended, however much of an innovation and an insight it might appear to be to those who bring nothing to the discussion other that what Gore presents/asserts.
Even further, let the reader beware. If John Owen, a Puritan who helped pen the congregationalist version of the Westminster Assembly's Confession of Faith ten years later in 1658, could say that all occasions of false worship follows upon the ignorance, neglect or weariness in the exercise of true faith in divine worship (Works 5:437), it ought to be no surprise that some of those who have attacked the reformed doctrine of worship these days on various trumped up and supposedly "covenantal" grounds, are now also attacking the doctrine of justification by faith based on the same type of shallow and superficial arguments and misrepresentations. Gore at least, still belongs to the first part of the trend and as poor as his book is, let us hope he goes no further.
Rating: 
Summary: A MUST READ
Review: Gore achieves commendable balance in being both ecumenical and distinctively Reformed in his critical look at the Puritan regulative principle and how it has shaped Presbyterian worship for centuries. While giving the Puritans their due credit with ample acknowledgement of their considerable contributions to the Christian faith, Gore does not shy away from respectful criticism of their regulation of worship. He finds common ground with the Puritans in their belief that Scripture must direct our worship, but builds upon it towards the goal of covenant faithfulness, rather than toward the Puritan adherence to a strict set of prohibitions. The examples provided are clear and irrefutable. This book should help stimulate much-needed discussion of the proper bounds of Christian worship in the Reformed tradition, and hopefully outside it as well. As churches continue to face the increasingly complex task of achieving cultural relevance while remaining faithful to the Bible, they can only benefit by considering the principles Gore expounds. Highly recommended, especially for Presbyterians.
Also, kudos for the eye-catching and colorful cover art.
Rating: 
Summary: Confused & Bitter
Review: Gore does an absolutely horrible job with his treatment of the Regulative Principle of Worship. He tried to find this so called "balance" between legalism and the regulative principle and fails. He is very inconsistent from chapter to chapter, page to page, and even paragraph to paragraph! For instance, at one point in the book he claims the Puritans were sound in their exegesis of key texts, then on the very next page he states they were incorrect and didn't apply them properly. That is disturbing enough, not to mention the fact he refuses to look at the key texts concering the principle in the first place. He admits they are important, but are to vast for this seemingly pointed study. As one who claims to be reformed, shouldn't this be Gore's number one priority? It seems to me he's picking on the most extreme cases he could find of Puritanism, and calling the regulative principle worthless. Gore is another supposedly reformed author attempting to make a name for himself by ripping on the Puritans in hopes to "go against the grain" so to speak to prove that he doesn't worship the reformers. I'm reformed myself, and am tired of people who claim to be reformed attempting to prove to others that they don't worship the reformers themselves. If it's biblical, it's biblical, period. Gore's examples hardly demonstrate his point, and as I said before, he contradicts himself too often to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Rating:
Summary: Confused & Bitter
Review: Gore does an absolutely horrible job with his treatment of the Regulative Principle of Worship. He tried to find this so called "balance" between legalism and the regulative principle and fails. He is very inconsistent from chapter to chapter, page to page, and even paragraph to paragraph! For instance, at one point in the book he claims the Puritans were sound in their exegesis of key texts, then on the very next page he states they were incorrect and didn't apply them properly. That is disturbing enough, not to mention the fact he refuses to look at the key texts concering the principle in the first place. He admits they are important, but are to vast for this seemingly pointed study. As one who claims to be reformed, shouldn't this be Gore's number one priority? It seems to me he's picking on the most extreme cases he could find of Puritanism, and calling the regulative principle worthless. Gore is another supposedly reformed author attempting to make a name for himself by ripping on the Puritans in hopes to "go against the grain" so to speak to prove that he doesn't worship the reformers. I'm reformed myself, and am tired of people who claim to be reformed attempting to prove to others that they don't worship the reformers themselves. If it's biblical, it's biblical, period. Gore's examples hardly demonstrate his point, and as I said before, he contradicts himself too often to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Rating:
Summary: A Strong Step Forward in Ending the Worship Wars!
Review: Gore's work is insightful, challenging, and well-researched. This is a must read for anyone struggling in the chaotic no-man's-land between the various factions in the worship wars. Whether a strict adherent to the regulative principle, or a staunch defendant of free worship, Gore has provided you with a fresh perspective that should not be overlooked.
As a Presbyterian minister over a multi-generational flock, I found Gore's insights immensely helpful in placing our church's worship within a broader context of charity and harmony in today's fast changing cultural dynamic. Gore has proven for us that the preponderance of evidence stands against a slavish adherence to the Puritan regulative principle. Rather, it is time for us to move towards a more biblical, covenantal understanding of corporate worship in the Reformed denominations, and to embrace all those methods which are Christ-centered, glorifying, edifying, culturally relevant, orderly, and free. I agree with John Frame when he says that Gore's work should move us a strong step forward in ending the worship wars in our churches.
Rating:
Summary: A Strong Step Forward in Ending the Worship Wars!
Review: Gore's work is insightful, challenging, and well-researched. This is a must read for anyone struggling in the chaotic no-man's-land between the various factions in the worship wars. Whether a strict adherent to the regulative principle, or a staunch defendant of free worship, Gore has provided you with a fresh perspective that should not be overlooked.
As a Presbyterian minister over a multi-generational flock, I found Gore's insights immensely helpful in placing our church's worship within a broader context of charity and harmony in today's fast changing cultural dynamic. Gore has proven for us that the preponderance of evidence stands against a slavish adherence to the Puritan regulative principle. Rather, it is time for us to move towards a more biblical, covenantal understanding of corporate worship in the Reformed denominations, and to embrace all those methods which are Christ-centered, glorifying, edifying, culturally relevant, orderly, and free. I agree with John Frame when he says that Gore's work should move us a strong step forward in ending the worship wars in our churches.
Rating:
Summary: Eating bread when you have tortillas
Review: I can honestly say that I did not like this books. See, is one of those books which makes you think and I don't like to think. After all, why waste your time with Gore's dry,shallow, boring, treatment of the regulative principle, when you can read Max Lucado? I say, let us use our money in something worthy!!!
<< 1 >>
|
