Written by Samuel G. Parkison |
Tuesday, January 31, 2023
The apostle Paul instructs the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). God’s affirmation of man-wrought traditional formulations is made even more clear when the Scripture on occasion picks up such formulations and codifies them as inerrant, inspired, and authoritative divine revelation.

Recently I was paid one of the best compliments I could hope to receive. A colleague told me, “Sam, I know that you are a systematic theologian, but when I think of you, I think: historical theology guy.” This interaction summarizes in a nutshell the kind of systematic theologian I hope to be: one who is richly historical. Commendable, I think, is a deep and abiding suspicion of theological novelty. This disposition of mine translates, in part, into a love of—and vocal self-conscious identification with—creeds and confessions. Probably the most important (and needed) of my creedal commitments is my adherence to the Nicene Creed. My students will not be surprised to know this about me, since we open all of our classes by corporately confessing the creed aloud. So deep is my appreciation for this creed that I commend its vocal and consistent corporate confession not only in the classroom, but in the weekly worship assembly of the local church. I did not always give this commendation, however, on account of a difficulty I had with squaring the practice with another deep conviction I have regarding the Regulative Principle of corporate worship. It took me a while to wrestle with this issue, and while I did, I searched to little avail for resources that addressed the specific question: is the corporate recitation of creeds in weekly worship at odds with the regulative principle? Having arrived at an answer I am satisfied with at the personal level, I have decided to summarize the answer for others who may be in a similar place to the one in which I found myself—this is the article I wish I had read.
What is the Regulative Principle?
We begin with definitions. What exactly is the regulative principle? The first thing we have to say about the regulative principle is that it is, in fact, a principle. Therefore, I do not take it to be a strict prescription in a thoroughly fine-tuned sense. While many may argue for exclusive psalm-singing or a capella or a specific order of service, I do not think you can get that much specificity out of this idea. The regulative principle is the idea that in principle, our corporate worship is regulated by the word of God. This regulative principle is often contrasted with what we might call the normative principle, which also looks to God’s word for instruction, but in a manner that differs from the regulative principle. Where the regulative principle looks to God’s word to receive instructions on the only things to include in corporate worship, the normative principle looks to God’s word to see if a worship practice is consistent or at odds with the Scriptures. The regulative principle uses Scripture in a more prescriptive manner, whereas the normative principle uses Scripture in a more prohibitive manner (whatever Scripture prohibits, normative principle churches stay away from). Underneath the regulative principle is the conviction that God has never left his people without instruction for how they ought to worship him. The people of God have never had to guess what God wants in worship. So, what does this mean for local church weekly worship?
When it comes to the New Testament Church, his word commands Christians to (1) read the Scriptures publicly (1 Timothy 4:13), (2) teach/preach the Scriptures (1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 4:1-2), (3) pray (1 Timothy 2:1; Acts 2:42; 4:23-31), (4) sing (Colossians 3:12-17), and (5) practice the ordinances of baptism and communion (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38; 1 Corinthians 11:23-34). The regulative principle is the commitment to build the corporate worship service around—and only around—those five elements. This rationale assumes that if God desired for our corporate worship to include anything else, he would have said as much in his word. Theologically, the regulative principle seems to follow directly from Christ’s lordship of his Church (he sets the agenda), the sufficiency of Scripture (the word of God is capable to do the work of God among the people of God—an innovative posture seems to imply that we could improve upon what God has expressly told us to do), and the fact that God is not indifferent about how he is worshipped (as Nadab and Abihu can testify [Leviticus 10]). So, when asked the question, “Can we go beyond what Scripture commands in our corporate worship?” I respond with, “Why on earth would we want to?”
Additionally, the regulative principle strikes an important chord in the heart of pastoral ministry. Whatever a local church does in worship that local church’s pastors bind the consciences of her members to practice. That is no small thing. When a church gathers, she gathers as a single body to worship her King. The weekly gathering is not an expression of individual and autonomous self-expression, which means if a church includes an element in its corporate worship that is not expressed in Scripture (i.e., baby dedications, movie clips in the sermon, interpretive dance routines, special songs, etc.), the conscientious member who objects cannot simply opt out on the personal level. He is there as a participant of what the church is doing. The pastors have essentially already declared, “This is our corporate expression of worship.” This is a weighty reality, and so the regulative principle is a way of protecting not only the theological integrity of a church’s worship, but also the consciences of a church’s members and pastors. Pastors should not be afraid to bind the conscience of their members (to say, “you must do this thing”), but they should be downright terrified to go beyond the bounds of Scripture in their conscience-binding prescriptions.
You are, I trust, beginning to see the potential tension this principle creates with the notion of corporately confessing an extra-biblical statement like the Nicene Creed. Is this something pastors really have the jurisdiction to do? Can they bind the conscience of their members to say, “This is how our church will worship—by confessing our faith in the God expressed in these doctrinal formulations?” I think the answer is yes, but it is an answer that will require a bit of work.
At the very least there is a historical and circumstantial argument to be made here. The regulative principle was first articulated and defended formally by the reformers and their subsequent heirs, which is why it is a staple in the Reformed tradition. Yet, these articulators and defenders of the regulative principle almost uniformly endorsed and practiced the corporate confession of creeds in their worship gatherings. By all appearances, they simply took for granted that confessing the creeds in worship is consonant with the regulative principle. It does not seem as though they even agonized over the question. So, historically, and circumstantially, I think we are safe to conclude that corporate confession of creeds is not at odds with the regulative principle; but how and why this is the case needs some elaboration.
Read More
Related Posts:

Shunning is more akin to the leadership of Diotrephes, exposed by the apostle John, than faithful church discipline.  “So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church” (3 John 10).  The counterfeit stands in sharp contrast to the true principle.

A man who has left a church finds himself cut off from life-long friends.  An older couple is forced out by church leadership and is reduced to a surface level relationship with their adult children who remain.  A former member discovers that anytime she encounters people from the church, they act as if she does not exist.  What is going on?
Much has been written lately on the topic of abusive spiritual leadership.  In a series of blogposts, Michael Kruger provides a helpful definition in What Is Spiritual Abuse?, stating, “Spiritual abuse, then, is when a spiritual leader—such as a pastor, elder, or head of a Christian organization—wields his position of spiritual authority in such a way that he manipulates, domineers, bullies, and intimidates those under him, as a means of accomplishing what he takes to be biblical and/or spiritual goals.”  He unfolds key signs of an abusive pastor:  A Long Track Record of Broken Relationships, Hyper Defensive About their Own Authority, Overly Critical and Harsh with Others.1
The goal of this series is to further unmask spiritual abuse. As Chuck DeGroat writes, Congregants do not always have categories for what they may perceive from the outside to be occasional inconsistencies, frustrating drama, troubling rumors, or arrogant behaviors.  They’ll forgive these things for powerful sermons, persistent success, and perceived authority….And because narcissistic leaders appear so confident and certain, they tend to be believed.2  It is therefore important to be alert to the signs.
This post addresses the topic of shunning.  Shunning is present not only among cults but is prevalent among seemingly biblically orthodox groups with spiritually abusive leadership.  The popular podcast The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill brought this reality to light.  Often the congregation that is under such leadership will practice shunning to some extent under the guidance of the leadership, thinking they are being biblical and would not even know to name their actions with this word.
A Distorted Biblical Principle
Shunning is a counterfeit of a biblical principle.  Matthew 18:17 describes the culmination of church discipline.  “And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”  There is such a thing as rightly distancing oneself from an unrepentant person in the context of church discipline.  But in an abusive church, the principle is distorted and believers need to be on guard to recognize this.  Shunning goes beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6) and does not align with biblical church discipline in at least four ways.
First, right church discipline occurs in the context of grave sin.  The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Book of Church Order, summarizing the requirements for excommunication states, “This censure is to be inflicted only on account of gross crime or heresy…”  A clear indicator of shunning is that the evidence of the “sins” of the shunned person will be thin.  Instead, insinuations will be made about a person’s character and rarely will there be something concrete. If there is, it won’t rise to the level of a chargeable offense, although the leadership may greatly exaggerate it.  The “sin” actually consists of disagreement with the leadership, but this fact is shuffled behind the other accusations that are brought forth.
Second, shunning does not have the redemptive quality that is requisite in church discipline.  Even at the final stage of church discipline in cases of unrepentance, treating someone as a “Gentile and a tax collector” nonetheless has at its heart, “I love you and I want your good.”  Shunning at its root is a “good riddance.”  It is to discard someone.  The coldness of it will be evident over time with repetition of occurrences.  Rather than the love which “always hopes” there is a sentiment more like, “you have to be willing to pull the trigger.”
Third, shunning will be recognizable by its high frequency in contrast to the general infrequency of loving and rightful church discipline.  Abusive spiritual leadership will shun people time and time again, whereas faithful church discipline by its very nature will be relatively rare.  Among the shunned will be saints known for their faithfulness, gray-headed servants of the church, kind-hearted and generous persons who have washed the feet of the saints, and many others.
Fourth, with shunning, often there will be no church discipline involved; a process demanding the rigor of due process, true shepherding, time, and layers of accountability due to the gravity of what is at stake.  This is not always the case, however.   In cases where excommunication is abusively applied, the damage is even worse as the keys of the kingdom are misused to bring terrible confusion and distortion upon victims.  Perhaps more often though, the leadership simply communicates to the church in various ways that certain people are to be totally avoided because they pose a “danger” to the church.  People disappear with little discussion or invitation for questions, except for insinuation about them.
Shunning is more akin to the leadership of Diotrephes, exposed by the apostle John, than faithful church discipline.  “So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church” (3 John 10).  The counterfeit stands in sharp contrast to the true principle.
How It Works
How does the leadership accomplish this tactic in a congregation, particularly in a biblically orthodox setting?  Obviously in cult settings or false religions like Islam, it is built into the doctrine explicitly, but since this is not intrinsic to Christianity, the leadership must incrementally instill it.  This happens through a process something like the following:
Identifying “Threats”:  First, those who are perceived as a “threat” to power and control of the spiritually abusive leadership are marked.  This can happen in a few different ways.  Some individuals, by simply asking questions or raising concerns in the church in good faith are labeled a threat. This is due to the underlying control issues of the narcissistic leader. It may take place in the context of a controversy where leadership is domineering and anyone who questions is therefore marked.  It may also occur in the context of a counseling situation where a person disagrees with the leadership on some assessment of sin in themselves or others.  Simply leaving an abusive church may result in someone being thus marked.  The perceived threat to power or control is the key driving factor.
Exclusion: Second, the abusive leadership moves to push out the perceived threat.  There are multiple ways in which this happens.  It can be as simple as a cold shoulder: the person receives nonverbal cues that they are not wanted by the leadership.  Exclusion may be accomplished by veiled references with criticisms from the pulpit where the victim and others know who is being described.  It may be a more direct approach: telling them they probably would do better elsewhere.
Worst of all, it may be the full force of condemnation and accusation.  Pastoral knowledge of their lives or weaknesses may be marshaled against them abusively.  “Look at your life – you are an utter failure.  And you question me?”  Victims may find themselves berated, facing tremendous anger and rage designed to cow them into submission.  Even when individuals may have questioned the leadership, the force of spiritual authority and the collective power of a body of complicit leaders may convince them that the problem is indeed themselves.  This may be the worst scenario, as the victim finds himself under the terror of condemnation, believing that the anger he is receiving is the anger of God.  Sins are magnified in his own mind in a terrible distortion of reality.  The psychological toll is terrible.  But this tactic is effective: such persons are neutralized as a “threat”.  The misuse of spiritual authority is diabolically contrary to the commands of scripture for spiritual leaders and it can destroy people.
Discrediting and Demonizing:  Third, in order to minimize any potential damage to the leadership’s reputation and maintain control, individuals must be discredited.  Here is where the real work must be done upon a congregation to get them on board.  Those who have been marked and excluded continue to pose a threat because they may speak with persons in the congregation.  The more godly and mature the excluded person is, the more intently the leadership will have to work to discredit them.  This results in demonization.
The words of the Pharisees whose control was challenged by the formerly blind man are pertinent: “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” And they cast him out (John 9:34).  This will be the propaganda shared with the congregation. “Can you believe the utter sin of that person?”  Pastoral knowledge is once again inappropriately used, as failures and sins are brought out of confidentiality to discredit.  Sins may also be completely fabricated or embellished.  “He has completely failed in his marriage and parenting!”  “They have a problem with alcohol and were serving in leadership! How dark!”  The process may begin before the person has left the church, at times before the person even knows they are targeted, with insinuations and accusations made about them behind their back.  This is particularly bad if the person was in any sort of leadership, where they pose the greatest threat.
Full Shunning:  Fourth and finally, now the leadership can train the naive congregation to slowly accept this practice.  It takes place incrementally, with exhortations of “protecting the flock from dangerous people,” “purging the church from sin,” “not compromising,” “exerting tough love toward unrepentant people,” and “not allowing Satan a foothold” at the forefront.  These are convincing themes for biblical Christians who trust their leaders.  Although there may be no formal discipline, the character of the person is so slandered that others conclude they have reason to withdraw from them, and even a moral obligation.  Various avenues are used to push these principles.  The pulpit, private conversations, committee meetings, and public prayers become useful for insinuations.
It will not necessarily be the whole church that takes on this practice, but if the core of staff and leadership is convinced by the abusive leader to begin cutting off contact with a few people because of these principles, then the pattern will easily be replicated and expanded.  The leader therefore begins with strong pressure on the other leaders to do this.  Other involved members will pick up on the practice as it is now reinforced from multiple people.  Once the principles are inculcated with a core, it will spread. It becomes a powerful tool for control as well as instilling fear of disagreeing and being among “those compromised people” whose eternal destiny is called into question.
When it is leaders who step out of line and are excluded, they will quickly be erased.  Material from departed leaders is removed from websites, indicating silently that they are dangerous.  They may be forced to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in order to receive a severance or if they are cowed and docile from the abusive mind control, they may be ordered to leave town.  But the demonization will be swift and the plan for shunning will advance.
Ultimately those who maintain any degree of connection, even the most basic formalities with shunned people, are pressured to cease and desist and may themselves be spiritually abused for failing to shun. “You are keeping a foot in the world.” “You are looking back at Sodom and Gomorrah like Lot’s wife.”  Heartbreaking stories unfold.  Long standing close relationships are ruptured.  Members are sometimes influenced to sever or curtail family bonds.  The closer the remaining individuals are to the core leadership, the more severe the pressure will be. Victims multiply.
The Root
In biblically orthodox contexts, often at the root of abusive leadership and shunning is the sort of self-idolatry commonly described as narcissism.  This takes the shape again and again of a charismatic figure, compelling in his leadership, capable in his use of scripture, remarkably gifted in different ways, yet underneath gripped by sins of great spiritual pride and need for control.  He labors to hide these from all people and especially from himself with ministerial activity and forms of piety.  He views himself as fundamentally different and above others and unable to begin to consider the possibility of something being so wrong within.  This leaves him with great insecurity and unable to receive criticism or be questioned in his judgment.  He excels in gathering others around him by flattery to serve as supporters, training and convincing them of his ways, but will swiftly crush them if he detects disloyalty.  Resources on this subject, including non-Christian ones such as narcwise.com, are useful to understand the mindset when read through biblical lenses.
Take Action
In the end, accusations against the brethren will not stand.  The Lord will vindicate his people.  Nonetheless, the damage done to lives through shunning and other aspects of spiritual abuse is real and terrible.  It is important to recognize shunning for what it is, along with other marks of spiritual abuse.  If you have concerns that such tendencies may be present in your church, read further resources on the topic and seek objective counsel and prayer from other Christians outside of your church.  Equipped with knowledge, prayer, and counsel, consider then asking questions of the leadership.  Ask direct questions about how they receive criticism and disagreement.  Be sure to ask the leadership if they are comfortable with you having friendships with people who have left the church.  Both the answers and the way you are treated after asking questions will be telling.
Any Christian leader should gladly welcome such questions with great transparency.  That will not be the case with abusive leadership where asking such questions will raise alarm and suspicion.  For this reason, prepare to ask such questions prayerfully, in the strength and freedom of the glorious gospel of grace.  When Christ’s grace is known, the fear of man has no power, as demonstrated by a formerly blind man long ago.  The man answered, “Why, this is an amazing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes (John 9:30).
Steven Light is a member of a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) congregation in Jacksonville, Fla.

1 See also, Why Don’t Churches Stop Spiritually Abusive Pastors, and What Do You Do when an Abusive Leader Is Allowed to Remain in Ministry.  For books on the topic see Kruger, Michael J., Bully Pulpit: confronting the problem of spiritual abuse in the church, Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 2022. Also, Johnson, David W. and VanVonderen, Jeffrey, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, Bethany House Publishers, 1991.  Also Three Recent Books on Narcissism and Spiritual Abuse in Church, Michael Gembola, Journal of Biblical Counseling, 35:3, pp 61-92.
2 When Narcissism Comes to Church: Healing Your Community From Emotional and Spiritual Abuse, Chuck DeGroat & Richard Mouw. Intervarsity Press, 2020, ch 4.
Related Posts:

The commission grounded its petition in the teaching that God has special care for children, noting when Jesus Christ warned strongly against scandalizing children when he urged his disciples in Mark 10:14: “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” Petitioning the government is an unusual act in the denomination that adheres to the 17th-century Westminster Confession of Faith, which advises churches “not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary.” Supporters of the measure believe the Biden administration’s support for such interventions fits the definition of “cases extraordinary.”

A Presbyterian Church in America commission sent a letter to President Joe Biden and other U.S. government leaders Sunday asking them not to promote sex-change surgeries and puberty interventions for trans-identified minors. 
“It is more important than ever to protect children from the harms that come from rejecting biological sex,” a PCA spokesperson told The Christian Post. “God created humanity male and female; persons who try to change their biological sex are attempting the impossible.”
“Children, above all, must be protected and given time to progress through natural puberty. The PCA’s letter affirms the Bible’s care for children as a reflection of God’s love and asks leaders of the United States government to protect the lives and welfare of the most vulnerable among us,” the spokesperson added.
The letter from a commission appointed by the PCA General Assembly sent to Biden, congressional leaders and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts coincided with the 50th National Sanctity of Human Life Day.
The PCA is the largest body of confessional Presbyterian and Reformed churches in North America, consisting of more than 1,500 congregations and 374,000 members in the U.S. and Canada.
The letter is the result of an overture the conservative denomination passed last June by a vote of 1,089-793 that formed a commission to draft a formal petition urging the government to “renounce the sin” of transgender procedures for minors.
The commission “humbly petition[ed]” the leaders to “protect the lives and welfare of minor children from the physical, mental, and emotional harms associated with medical and surgical interventions for the purpose of gender reassignment.”
The authors stressed that medical attempts to change a person’s gender through surgeries or hormonal intervention are physically impossible and can lead to more suffering.
“Persons who try to change their biological sex through the process of transitioning —including psychotherapy, lifelong hormonal treatments, and extensive nongenital and genital surgeries — are attempting the impossible,” the letter states. 
Such interventions are in opposition to God’s design of male and female, the commission said, possibly leading to “sterility, infertility, cancer, cardiovascular disease, strokes, blood clots, pituitary apoplexy, pseudotumor cerebri, and diminished bone density.”
The letter called on leaders to “use your positions to promote the health, bodily integrity, and wellbeing of minors who are suffering from gender dysphoria and related conditions.”
The commission acknowledged the “complexities” around such issues but predicated the appeal on the doctrine that all human beings are created in God’s image, which they described as a “unique status” that “accords all human beings with inherent dignity, a dignity that extends to both soul and body.”
Read More
Related Posts: