何為規範性原則?WhatIs the Regulative Principle?
作者: Derek Thomas 譯者: Maria Marta
敬拜的規範性原則簡單說來就是集體敬拜上帝必須以聖經的具體指示為依據。我們很難從表面理解，為何重視聖經權威的人會感到這樣的原則令人反感。難道人生本身不應按照聖經的原則生活嗎? 這一原則是所有自稱合乎聖經的基督徒心裡所珍視的。提出相反建議，就是向反律法主義和放縱敞開大門。
但事情卻很少會如此簡單。 畢竟，聖經並沒有告訴我，是否可以從聆聽馬勒交響曲（Mahler Symphony）中獲益；是否可以找到集郵的回報；是否可以享受繁殖雪貂這種有益的消遣，盡管善意但被誤導的相信聖經的基督徒，以教條式信心斷言，上述任何或所有例子都違反了上帝的旨意。在任何情況下都要知道上帝的旨意，是每個基督徒生命中重要的職責，而要知道上帝的旨意，則必須願意順服在任何時代和環境下都是上帝權威話語的聖經。 但在上述情況下，聖經權威究竟是什麽意思呢?
聖經作出一些具體規定：例如，我們要在主日與上帝的子民一起敬拜；我們應該從事有益工作，並賺取日用的飲食。 此外，聖經亦針對任何可能出現的情況作出一般的原則：「要把身體獻上，作聖潔而蒙 神悅納的活祭；這是你們理所當然的事奉（『理所當然的事奉』或譯『屬靈的敬拜』）。不要模仿這個世代，倒要藉著心意的更新而改變過來，使你們可以察驗出甚麼是 神的旨意，就是察驗出甚麼是美好的、蒙他悅納的和完全的事。」（羅十二1-2; 《聖經新譯本》） 顯然人生必需受聖經管理，無論藉著明確的命令或禁令，抑或藉著一般的原則。因此在某種意義上，有一項規範性的原則為人生而設。因此我們必須在所做的一切事上，以這種或那種形式遵從聖經的教導。
然而，改教家（尤其是約翰加爾文）和西敏斯特神學家（作為十七世紀清教徒的代表）對集體敬拜有不同的看法。在這種情況下，遵從聖經的一般原則是不足夠的; 必須有（並且是）具體指示，管制全體會眾如何敬拜上帝。我們不能隨意忽視或增加對公眾敬拜所作出的明確規定。加爾文的說話是典型的表述: 「上帝不許可一切未經祂說話明確準許的敬拜方式」（《關於教會改革的必要性》）; 另外《1689年倫敦第二浸信會公認信條》也聲明：「敬拜真神惟一蒙悅納的方法乃是由祂自己所設立的，並限於祂自己所啟示的旨意，因此我們不可按照人的想象和設計，或撒但的建議，使用任何有形的代表或聖經所未吩咐的其它任何方法，去敬拜祂。」（廿二1）
聖經何處出現這一教導？在多處出現，比通常想象的要多，包括出埃及記中關於建造帳幕的永久規定，一切建造都要「照著在山上指示你的樣式」進行（出廿五40）; 上帝對該隱獻祭的宣判，暗示他的供物(或他的心)不符合祂的要求 (創四3-8)；第一和第二誡命顯示上帝特別關注敬拜（出廿2-6）; 金牛犢事件教導我們，不能只按照我們自己的價值和喜好來敬拜；拿答和亞比戶獻「凡火」的故事（利十）; 上帝拒絕掃羅的非規定性的敬拜------上帝說「聽命勝於獻祭」（撒上十五22）; 耶穌根據「古人的遺傳」拒絕法利賽人的敬拜（太十五1-14）。所有這些例子表明，要拒絕一切按照有別於聖經具體規定的價值觀和指示獻上的敬拜。
保羅在歌羅西和歌林多對錯誤的公眾敬拜的回應具有特別重要的意義。保羅在歌羅西書一度將公眾敬拜描述為私意崇拜（ethelothreskia）（西二23），此字被譯為「意志崇拜」（欽定版）和「自制宗教」（標準版）。歌羅西人引入某些元素，顯然無法讓人接受（盡管他們聲稱自己的行為來自天使---- 歌羅西書二章18節一種可能的解釋是「敬拜天使」）。也許正是哥林多人對方言和預言的使用（濫用），我們才從中找到最明確的證據，顯示使徒願意「規範」集體敬拜。他不是以一種適用於「一切生命」的方式來管理屬靈恩賜運用的數量和次序: 沒有翻譯就不要用方言(林前十四:27 - 28)，只可以有兩至三個先知說方言，且要輪流著說(29-32節)。至少，保羅對哥林多人的教導強調了集體敬拜應該受到管制，並且其應用方式有別於適用於一切生命的方式。
有何結果呢？敬拜的特別元素得到強調：閱讀聖經（提前四13）; 宣講聖經（提後四2）; 唱聖經（弗五19; 西三16）------詩篇和聖經歌曲，這些歌曲反映了在耶穌誕生 - 生活-死 -復活 - 升天過程中所層現的救贖歷史的發展; 按聖經禱告-----天父的殿是「禱告的殿」（太廿一13）; 領會教會兩個聖禮，洗禮和主餐的聖經義意（太廿八19; 徒二38-39; 林前十一23-26; 西二11-12）。 此外，一些特殊場合的元素，如宣誓、許願、嚴肅的禁食、感恩等也得到承認和強調 (參看西敏信仰告白廿一5）。
認識這一點非常重要，即規範性原則應用在公眾敬拜，教會就避免出現不正當和愚蠢的行為-----例如，我們不任意宣傳，在下周的主日崇拜，小醜將以默劇的形式演繹聖經課程。然而，此原則並非讓教會訴諸「千篇一律」，或禮拜儀式的同一性。在堅持原則的前提下，仍存在著巨大的變化空間------在聖經沒有具體處理的事当中（adiaphora，即聖經沒有絕對命令與絕對禁止的事)。因此，規範性原則本身不可被引用來決定采用現代歌曲抑或采用傳統歌曲；閱讀聖經三節抑或三章；作長時間禱告抑或幾次短暫禱告；主的晚餐用單個杯抑或用盛有真葡萄酒或葡萄汁的杯。對上述這些問題，必須采用「凡事都要規規矩矩地按著次序行」的原則（林前十四40）。然而，假如有人提議舞蹈或戲劇在公眾敬拜中有其正當合理性的一面，那麽必須提出此問題-------聖經對它的解釋在哪裏？（提議傳道人在講台上走動或采用「戲劇性」的聲音是在上述意義上的「戲劇」，就是對辯論的輕視。舞蹈和戲劇都可能是「好主意」(口語表達) 的事實是有爭議的，而且是無關緊要的；這兩者都毫無聖經的證據，更別提命令了。用詩篇的詩歌或大衛在約櫃前跳舞的例子（當然是赤裸的）來辯論是多余的，除非我們願意放棄所有公認的聖經解釋規則。這是一個有參考價值的事實，殿裏不存在「編舞家」或「制片人/導演」辦公室。舞蹈和戲劇都是基督徒的合理追求這一事實，也是不切正題的。
有時在這些討論中被人遺忘的是良心的重要作用。倘若沒有規範性原則，我們只能任由「敬拜領袖」和跋扈牧師擺布，他們指責不順從的崇拜者不討上帝喜悅，除非崇拜者按照某種模式和方式參與。對惡霸受害者來說，人類寫過最甜蜜的句子是: 「惟獨上帝是良心的主，使良心自由；出於 人 的道理與吩咐 ， 任何事情若違背聖經、在信仰或敬拜的事上若越過聖經，良心都 不能順從。所以，如果任何人丟棄良心去相信人的道理 、聽從人 的吩咐，就是出賣良心的真自由；如果要求人接受強制的信仰 、 要人絕對盲從，就是毀滅良心的自由，也是毀滅理性。」（西敏信仰告白廿2）。遵守上帝的明確規定乃真自由; 其他一切都是束縛和法律主義。
本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌。
What
Is the Regulative Principle?
FROM
Derek Thomas
Put
simply, the regulative principle of worship states that the corporate worship
of God is to be founded upon specific directions of Scripture. On the surface,
it is difficult to see why anyone who values the authority of Scripture would
find such a principle objectionable. Is not the whole of life itself to be
lived according to the rule of Scripture? This is a principle dear to the
hearts of all who call themselves biblical Christians. To suggest otherwise is
to open the door to antinomianism and license.
But
things are rarely so simple. After all, the Bible does not tell me whether I
may or may not listen with profit to a Mahler symphony, find stamp-collecting
rewarding, or enjoy ferretbreeding as a useful occupation even though there are
well-meaning but misguided Bible-believing Christians who assert with dogmatic
confidence that any or all of these violate God’s will. Knowing God’s will in
any circumstance is an important function of every Christian’s life, and
fundamental to knowing it is a willingness to submit to Scripture as God’s
authoritative Word for all ages and circumstances. But what exactly does
biblical authority mean in such circumstances?
Well,
Scripture lays down certain specific requirements: for example, we are to
worship with God’s people on the Lord’s Day, and we should engage in useful
work and earn our daily bread. In addition, covering every possible
circumstance, Scripture lays down a general principle: “present your bodies as
a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual
worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal
of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is
good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:1–2). Clearly, all of life is to be
regulated by Scripture, whether by express commandment or prohibition or by
general principle. There is therefore, in one sense, a regulative principle for
all of life. In everything we do, and in some form or another, we are to be
obedient to Scripture.
However,
the Reformers (John Calvin especially) and the Westminster Divines (as
representative of seventeenth-century puritanism) viewed the matter of
corporate worship differently. In this instance, a general principle of
obedience to Scripture is insufficient; there must be (and is) a specific
prescription governing how God is to be worshiped corporately. In the public
worship of God, specific requirements are made, and we are not free either to
ignore them or to add to them. Typical by way of formulation are the words of
Calvin: “God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by
his Word” (“The Necessity of Reforming the Church”); and the Second London
Baptist Confession of 1689: “The acceptable way of worshiping the true God, is
instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not
be worshiped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the
suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not
prescribed in the Holy Scriptures” (22.1).
Where
does the Bible teach this? In more places than is commonly imagined, including
the constant stipulation of the book of Exodus with respect to the building of
the tabernacle that everything be done “after the pattern … shown you” (Ex.
25:40); the judgment pronounced upon Cain’s offering, suggestive as it is that
his offering (or his heart) was deficient according to God’s requirement (Gen.
4:3–8); the first and second commandments showing God’s particular care with
regard to worship (Ex. 20:2–6); the incident of the golden calf, teaching as it
does that worship cannot be offered merely in accord with our own values and
tastes; the story of Nadab and Abihu and the offering of “strange fire” (Lev.
10); God’s rejection of Saul’s non-prescribed worship — God said, “to obey is
better than sacrifice” (1 Sam. 15:22); and Jesus’ rejection of Pharisaical
worship according to the “tradition of the elders” (Matt. 15:1–14). All of
these indicate a rejection of worship offered according to values and
directions other than those specified in Scripture.
Of
particular significance are Paul’s responses to errant public worship at Colossae
and Corinth. At one point, Paul characterizes the public worship in Colossae as
ethelothreskia (Col. 2:23), variously translated as “will worship” (KJV) or
“self-made religion” (ESV). The Colossians had introduced elements that were
clearly unacceptable (even if they were claiming an angelic source for their
actions — one possible interpretation of Col. 2:18, the “worship of angels”).
Perhaps it is in the Corinthian use (abuse) of tongues and prophecy that we
find the clearest indication of the apostle’s willingness to “regulate”
corporate worship. He regulates both the number and order of the use of
spiritual gifts in a way that does not apply to “all of life”: no tongue is to
be employed without an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:27–28) and only two or three
prophets may speak, in turn (vv. 29–32). At the very least, Paul’s instruction
to the Corinthians underlines that corporate worship is to be regulated and in
a manner that applies differently from that which is to be true for all of
life.
The
result? Particular elements of worship are highlighted: reading the Bible (1
Tim. 4:13); preaching the Bible (2 Tim. 4:2); singing the Bible (Eph. 5:19;
Col. 3:16) — the Psalms as well as Scripture songs that reflect the development
of redemptive history in the birth-life-death-resurrection- ascension of Jesus;
praying the Bible — the Father’s house is “a house of prayer” (Matt. 21:13);
and seeing the Bible in the two sacraments of the church, baptism and the
Lord’s Supper (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38–39; 1 Cor. 11:23–26; Col. 2:11–12). In
addition, occasional elements such as oaths, vows, solemn fasts and
thanksgivings have also been recognized and highlighted (see Westminster
Confession of Faith 21:5).
It is
important to realize that the regulative principle as applied to public worship
frees the church from acts of impropriety and idiocy — we are not free, for
example, to advertise that performing clowns will mime the Bible lesson at next
week’s Sunday service. Yet it does not commit the church to a “cookie-cutter,”
liturgical sameness. Within an adherence to the principle there is enormous
room for variation—in matters that Scripture has not specifically addressed
(adiaphora). Thus, the regulative principle as such may not be invoked to
determine whether contemporary or traditional songs are employed, whether three
verses or three chapters of Scripture are read, whether one long prayer or
several short prayers are made, or whether a single cup or individual cups with
real wine or grape juice are utilized at the Lord’s Supper. To all of these
issues, the principle “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Cor.
14:40) must be applied. However, if someone suggests dancing or drama is a
valid aspect of public worship, the question must be asked — where is the
biblical justification for it? (To suggest that a preacher moving about in the
pulpit or employing “dramatic” voices is “drama” in the sense above is to
trivialize the debate.) The fact that both may be (to employ the colloquialism)
“neat” is debatable and beside the point; there’s no shred of biblical
evidence, let alone mandate, for either. So it is superfluous to argue from the
poetry of the Psalms or the example of David dancing before the ark (naked, to
be sure) unless we are willing to abandon all the received rules of biblical
interpretation. It is a salutary fact that no office of “choreographer” or
“producer/director” existed in the temple. The fact that both dance and drama
are valid Christian pursuits is also beside the point.
What
is sometimes forgotten in these discussions is the important role of
conscience. Without the regulative principle, we are at the mercy of “worship
leaders” and bullying pastors who charge noncompliant worshipers with
displeasing God unless they participate according to a certain pattern and
manner. To the victims of such bullies, the sweetest sentences ever penned by
men are, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the
doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His
Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such
doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true
liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute
and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also” (WCF
20:2). To obey when it is a matter of God’s express prescription is true
liberty; anything else is bondage and legalism.
This
post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.