The Martial Ethos of Historic Reformed Worship: Psalm singing and persecution in the Netherlands

In pursuing the connection between psalm singing and persecution, we move from France to the Netherlands. Sadly, the experience of the Reformed in the Netherlands varied little from the experience of the French Reformed, as pools of bright red Reformed blood formed across the landscape of the Netherlands as the Reformed faith struggled to take root. Besides being bonded by blood, these churches were bonded by a common commitment to the singing of psalms, and it was this commitment that generated violent opposition against the Reformed church.

From the inception of Reformation in the Netherlands, there was no lack of Psalters available to Reformed Christians to help them give voice to their praise. As early as 1539 psalm books flowed from the presses in Antwerp as the Reformed faith began to gain a footing. In 1540 Souder Liedekens' complete Psalter was rolled out, eventually  going through thirty-three editions. Another Dutch Psalter was produced by Jan van Utenhove who brought his own version of 100 psalm settings over from London. The introduction to Psalm 46 in this Psalter highlighted the relationship between psalm singing and persecution stating, “this psalm also aroused all those truly praising God to trust whenever the godless arose in persecution.” However, the Psalter which gained widest circulation was the Marot-Beza Genevan Psalter of 1562 which was translated into Dutch first by de Heere, and then by Dathenus, the latter version being adopted officially at the Reformed synods of Wesel (1568) and Dordrecht (1574).

As the psalms began to unite the hearts and voices of the Dutch Reformed in praise and worship, it will come as no surprise that persecution was initiated against them. Strada, a Roman Catholic historian, reports that hundreds of Reformed Christians flocked to public meetings where psalms were sung in protest against the Roman Catholic magistrate. In the Netherlands, public psalm singing led to the same experience of bloodshed as it did in France. On one occasion, 300 English refugees were sent to the stake with Psalm 130 on their lips, while on others, riots broke out and arrests led to mass executions.

A series of instances of persecution against the Reformed are worth taking a moment to highlight and draw attention to, as we consider the connection between psalm singing and persecution in the Netherlands. First, in 1562 at Valenciennes, when the magistrate attempted to execute a man named Faveau and his associate for publicly preaching Reformed doctrine, a large crowd of Reformed Christians began to form and started to loudly sing the psalms. Mayhem was unleashed and the end result was that the mob of psalm singers overwhelmed the executioners, effecting the release of the prisoners. Second, in 1562 a man named Christopher Fabricius was condemned to death for preaching Protestant doctrine. While positioned on the pyre awaiting execution, Fabricius began to sing Psalm 130 and the crowd began to join their voices to his. The situation rapidly deteriorated with the executioner  and civic officials turning tale and running; however, before the executioner fled in panic he thrust Fabricius through with a sword and smashed his head in, instantly killing him. Third, in 1566 Viscount Brederode began to publicly organize large public worship services as a means of civil disobedience against the magistrate. These public services, often attracting crowds measured in the thousands, consisted of preaching and psalm singing. On one occasion, Dr. Hermanus led his followers into a cathedral and preached a fiery sermon against idolatry. In response to the sermon, the crowd began to vigorously sing the psalms, which eventually led to an outburst of iconoclasm as the worshipers destroyed all the images in the cathedral. The regent was so alarmed by these public meetings that she wrote to Philip II warning him psalm singing was leading to widespread civil unrest and rebellion. Fourth, by 1574 the public singing so enraged the magistrate that the Dutch Reformed experienced their own St. Bartholomews Day massacre in Alva’s Council of Blood, which effectively suppressed the public gatherings of the Reformed.

This brief survey of the early days of reformation in the Netherlands shows that the Dutch Reformed were psalm singers whose experience was one of persecution and the costly shedding of blood. While Roman Catholic oppressors hated the psalms, the Reformed found their identity and unity in them.  Though the psalms were sung out of the conviction that God had prescribed them as an element of worship, they were not relegated to the Lord’s Day worship alone, as the Dutch Christians made use of them at home privately and in the public square openly as a means of civil disobedience.  Clearly, the Psalms were the fuel of first generation reformers in the Netherlands, giving shape to Dutch worship, piety, and practice, and would remain dominant in Dutch Reformed life for hundreds of years until the winds of 19^th century liberalism would sweep over the Dutch church in the Netherlands and until the blight of revivalism and Yankee pragmatism would ravage Dutch Reformed convictions about worship in the 20^th century in America. If the Dutch Reformed church would regain the robust faith of their forefathers it will need to toss out the use of manmade revivalistic hymns and junk praise songs and replace them with the Psalms, God’s very own appointed manual of praise.

Charles Garside on Calvin's view of Psalmody Pt.10: the 1543 Epistle to the Reader

Knowing what to say and when to say it can be of as much strategic importance, in certain situations, as how something is actually said. In the 1543 Institutes Calvin had added a couple of significant lines of thought to reinforce and shore up his argument for psalmody in public worship: history and the necessity of moderation. Given the unambiguous testimony of the early church and its use of the psalms in worship, establishing the propriety of using the psalms for congregational singing in public worship was easily accomplished. A different format however, would be needed to enlarge on the significance of the concern to maintain appropriate moderation in the use of music in worship. It is to this subject that Calvin now turns in the 1453 Epistle.

Ever since Calvin had proposed the use of psalms in worship in the 1537 Articles, his appreciation for their spiritual power and worth had grown substantially as he both witnessed and experienced their powerful effects in worship. By 1543, after several years of experimentation with the singing of psalms, Calvin began to see their incredible utility for cultivating piety within worship and without, in the grooves of daily living. Calvin was so impressed with the spiritual value of singing psalms that he heartily commended their regular use “in the homes and in the fields” (p.21). What is developing and growing in Calvin’s thought is the fact that it is the very nature of music itself that makes it not only a vehicle of praise, but even more, a rich source of stimulation to praise as it fires the spiritual sensitivities to behold the power and glory of God in the full sweep of life.

Two sets of antitheses are used to expand upon the spiritual utility of music. The first antithesis is between is the spiritual duty of rejoicing in God on one hand, and the sinful tendency for man to delight in vanity on the other. As a wise and compassionate Father, the Lord knowing our weakness and proneness to wander repeatedly into snares and temptations, provided us with music to occupy our minds and fill our hearts with godly joy. Calvin expounds upon this line of thought with several well crafted statements:

Our Lord to distract us and withdraw us from the temptations of the flesh and the world presents us all means possible to occupy us in that spiritual joy which He recommends to us so much

            (music is) a gift of God deputed to that use…

           (music is given for the purpose of) recreating man and giving him pleasure

            (and is) dedicated to our profit and welfare (p.22).

At once, not only the goodness, but also, the power of music is made evident for all to see. Yet, it is right there in the awareness of music's power, that a potential problem begins to emerge. If music can be put to such positive spiritual use, it can just as easily be corrupted by sinful men to cultivate gross moral degeneration. It is to this concern that Calvin now addresses himself in the second antithesis.

In a fallen world full of sinful men, even the best gifts are subject to corruption. This fact leads to the framing of the second antithesis which is that even though music has the power to “raise men up to spiritual joy” it also has the power to lead men to into “disordered delights” and even to “obscenity" (p.22). Clearly, Calvin is aware of contemporary discussions about the power of music to enhance or corrupt, but he has adequate testimony from “the ancient doctors” to confirm this point as well, when they lament that “obscene songs” were corrupting the world of their day already. Enlarging upon the degenerating and corrupting potential of music he explains:

There is scarcely anything in the world which is more capable of turning or moving this way and that the morals of men, as Plato prudently considered it. And in fact we experience that it has a secret and almost incredible power to arouse our hearts one way or another (p.22)

Garside notes that although sentiments such as these betray the influence of sixteenth century humanist thought, this philosophical perspective does not entirely account for his stance toward music. Arguing against such a wholesale influence, Garside makes the case that Calvin distinguishes himself from contemporary humanist reflection by developing “the notion of moderation in practice” (p.23). What that means for Reformed worship is diligent and careful regulation of worship music, which we turn to next.

For Calvin, the binary nature of music was more like a riddle to be solved or a knot to be untied rather than a Zwinglian death knell to the use of worship music altogether. Solving the problem begins by understanding the relationship of melody to lyrical content, for it is in the combination of words and sounds that music takes on its peculiar nature, as Calvin writes:

It is true that every evil word (as Saint Paul says) perverts good morals, but when the melody is with it, it pierces the heart that much more strongly and enters into it; just as through a funnel wine is poured into a container, so also venom and corruption are distilled to the depth of the heart by melody (p.23).

It is unquestionable that, from this remark, we can see Calvin’s view of the power of melody. On his understanding, melody is like the tip of the poison dart that drives the corrupting influence of song deep into the heart. However, it is equally clear from Calvin’s remarks that words and lyrical content are of great concern as well since we have apostolic testimony to confirm their capacity to pervert good morals. Distinguishing between these twin features of song points to the way out of the dilemma because if melody can drive corrupt ideas and influences into the heart it can also be used as a vehicle to harness the power of music for good if it accompanies pious lyrics. Such lyrics are in rich store and easily found since the Lord has provided them for us in the Scriptures. By putting the words of the Scripture, primarily the Psalms, to appropriate melodies, the spiritual value and power of music can be unleashed for the advantage of God’s people.

It turns out then, that the large leap forward, made in the 1543 Epistle, is that it represents the full flowering of Calvin’s thought as he makes the crucial connection between melodies and lyrics, and above all in fashioning the priority of words over tunes. While both are important, it is clear by now, that Calvin places the priority on what it is that is sung rather than how it is sung. Since the Psalms are worthy of God because they have been given by Him, it is clear to Calvin the key to using music in worship as a force for good comes through regulating its lyrical content and prescribing the rule that only songs inspired and produced by the Holy Spirit are fitting for the worship of God. Upon making this connection Calvin proceeds to make some of his most memorable and oft quoted statements about the Psalms:

When we sing them (the Psalms), we are certain that God puts the words in our mouths, as if He Himself were singing in us to exalt His glory…

(men will now have) songs not only seemly, but also holy, which will be like spurs to incite us to pray and praise God, to meditate on His works in order to love, fear, honor, and glorify him

Only let the world be so well advised that in place of songs in part empty and frivolous, and in part stupid and dull, in part obscene and vile, and in consequence evil and harmful, which it has used up to now, it may accustom itself hereafter to singing these divine and celestial hymns with the good King David (p.24)

Clearly, these statements indicate that Calvin did have a sort of regulative principle of song, and that principle is, that every word of edifying praise must come from God Himself. The claim is often made that Calvin merely preferred the Psalms and that he only commended their use rather than taking the position that the regulative principle of worship specifically required their use. Claims such as these fall flat upon reading Calvin in context. The reason Calvin can take the stand against the position of Zwingli who forbid the use of music in worship altogether is precisely because he came to understand that the way to resolve the problem of the potential spiritual harm of music was to find its value in the lyrical content. By making lyrics the issue, Calvin brought congregational song under the strict application of the regulative principle since only canonical songs possessed the specific quality of divine inspiration.

In our next post, we will examine the uniqueness of the Psalms.

Charles Garside on Calvin's view of Psalmody pt.6: The Strasbourg pastorate

Before pressing on to survey Calvin’s pastoral stay in Strasbourg, we should take a moment to set up the context by reviewing  the principles of worship which had prevailed there for the past 15 years or so. In 1524 Bucer spelled out his Protestant understanding of the regulatory principles and practices of Christian worship in a book entitled Justification and Demonstration from Holy Scripture. Two themes emerge from this work which are particularly relevant to our concerns. The first is the emerging concept of the regulative principle of worship. With respect to the content of worship song, Bucer explains that “in the congregation we do not use songs or prayers which are not drawn from Holy Scripture.” It is evident that Bucer makes a concrete connection between theory and practice as he spells out the standard for songs sung in public worship. The second theme which is evident in Bucer’s early views on worship is the use of the church fathers and early church worship as a guide for applying apostolic principles of worship.  This principle is evident as he takes a swipe at Zwingli in these remarks, “those who decry the use of song in the congregation of God know little either about the content of Scripture or about the practice of the first and apostolic churches and congregations, which always praised God with song” (12). Again, in the 1530 Tetropolitan Confession (written by Bucer) Garside notes that “Scripture and the Fathers continued to be the norm for evaluation of the liturgy” (12). So a regulative principle of worship which requires Biblical warrant for worship practices and the use of the early church and the Fathers as a guide to applying this regulative principle mark out two dominant characteristics in Bucer’s theory and practice of Christian worship, which of course were given expression in the Strasbourg liturgy which Calvin encounters as he arrives in 1538.

It was into this context of careful reflection on worship, that Calvin came to serve as pastor to French refugees the latter part of 1538. Calvin’s early correspondence from Strasbourg indicates that the prevailing liturgical practices were shaping and influencing his thoughts on worship. A profound indicator of this influence is the publication of a French psalter in 1539 edited by Calvin himself and modeled on the Strasbourg Psalter. Garside argues for more than a mere editorial role for Calvin in the construction of this psalter, as he makes the case that more than a handful of the psalms had been rhymed by Calvin himself. Another piece of evidence that indicates the influence of the Strasbourg liturgical practices on Calvin's thinking is found in the 1539 edition of the Institutes published there. Garside juxtaposes Calvin’s comments in the chapter on prayer contained in the 1536 edition and those made in 1539, siezing on a slight revision made in the latter version as evidence of a significant advance in Calvin’s thinking about the role of song in worship. In the previous edition (1536) Calvin expressed the opinion that he did not “condemn speaking and singing provided they were associated with the hearts affection and serve it” (hardly a ringing endorsement of congregational singing) while in the 1539 edition he inserted between “singing” and “provided” the following phrase:  but rather strongly commend them (13). Another revision occurs where Calvin deleted the phrase “serve it,” as was expressed in 1536, removing the notion that song had a mere servile role in worship. Garside suggests that these slight modifications in the 1539 Institutes, written as they were in Latin, which means they were available to a wide reading audience, form a permanent record of Calvin’s views on worship song and set in motion the emergence of the liturgical principles of Strasbourg as the standard for the next few hundred years of Reformed worship which would eventually erode and give way under the weight of popular revivalism. 

In our next post we will examine the 1541 Ecclesiastical Ordinances submitted by Calvin to the Genevan council.

Charles Garside on Calvin's view of Psalmody pt.1

In the following series of blog posts I will be outlining Dr. Charles Garside’s very historically illuminating study on Calvin’s theology of worship song entitled, “The Origins of Calvin’s Theology of Music: 1536-1543.” This study was presented in the summer of 1979 to “The American Philosophical Society,” the oldest scholarly journal in America, which reaches back to 1769. To the best of my knowledge, the historical work produced here by Gardside, relating to the development of Calvin’s thinking on worship song, has not been exposed or refuted as false and inaccurate. Therefore, this historical analysis provides invaluable information about not only Calvin’s views on public worship song, but also, by extension, a baseline to help evaluate the worship views of subsequent 16^th century Reformed thinkers and ecclesiastical practice.

What made this particular study so useful for scholarly research and understanding concerning the factors contributing to the development of Calvin’s views on worship song, was that it plugged a hole in Calvin studies relating to Calvin’s theology of song. As Garside points out., since the late 19^th century and going on into the mid 20^th, a number of outstanding studies on Calvin’s view of song had emerged in the scholarly literature. Felix Bouvet published a work surveying the history of the Hugenot Psalter in 1872, in the later 1870’s Orentin Douen produced a two volume work, massive in scope, which attempted to critically analyze Calvin’s view on music, while Leon Wencilius presented valuable research on Calvin’s view on the arts in general in 1932, then Pierre Pidoux published a critical edition of the Genevan Psalter in 1962, and finally, Walter Blankenburg generated a wide ranging body of research which aimed at producing a panoramic view of the milieu of the Psalter as a whole.

What this massive compilation of research established was that psalm-singing formed something like a badge of identity for 16^th century Reformed Christians; what this research had not yet established was the chronological development of Calvin’s views on worship song. More  specifically, Garside narrows the focus of his historical investigation to the events and factors which account for the shape and solidification of Calvin’s theology of worship music and song between 1536 to 1543. The historical investigation is bracketed on one end by Calvin’s scant and underdeveloped remarks about worship song in the 1536 Institutio and the rather enlarged and substantive remarks about the matter in the 1543 preface to the Genevan Psalter on the other.

I bring this first post on Garside’s publication to a conclusion by quoting Garside’s summation of Calvin’s matured and developed view on worship song:

Calvin’s vernacular psalmody in the last analysis is nothing other than a formulation, in uniquely musical terms, of the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. Thus from its inception Calvin’s theology of music in its textual dimension was Scriptural. The Psalter was conceived, and always would be considered by him, as an indispensable instrument for the prosecution of his ministry of the Word of God to the city of Geneva and the wider world beyond (p.29).

Four distinct factors converge to form the basis of Calvin’s views on worship song, which in turn will be the lines of investigation developed by Garside and explored in subsequent posts: pastoral concerns, historical considerations, Augustinian theology, and a 16^th century humanistic philosophy of music.

I trust that you will find the forthcoming posts informative, interesting, and edifying.

Calvin resurgence: a two-edged sword pt.2

(In the first installment of this essay we set forth the thesis that Timothy George presents a portrait of a two-sided Calvin, one who is malleable and adaptable to progressive evangelicals in a postmodern age and one who is intolerant, divisive, and better ignored and left in the past. In this second and final installment, an argument is presented for interpreting George as presenting a two-sided Calvin, and focus is on the divisive, intolerant, and dangerous Calvin who is better left ignored.)


Where is the other Calvin, the one who is intolerant, divisive, and better left in the past? The answer is, he is found in the things that have been conspicuously left unmentioned. While it is true that George makes reference to the doctrine of predestination, what casual and uninitiated folks might think is the central identifying feature of Calvin’s thoughts, he gives a superficial explanation of its meaning and role in Calvin’s theological system and offers no suggestions for how gaining an appreciation for Calvin’s views on the topic may be useful for contemporary evangelicals. But more disturbing is what is missing. Careful examination of the essay reveals a complete lack of reference to any of the doctrines which Calvin himself identified as the most salient features of Reformed thought: worship, the gospel, and church government.

Offering even just glancing insights into Calvin’s views on these core Protestant doctrines in order stimulate a discussion of his views on these topics seems in order if the aim of the biographical essay is to explain how a recovery of his thought could be beneficial to 21st century evangelicals. For instance, to an evangelical world which experiences anything but a consensus on what constitutes a standard of worship, it is strange that George is utterly silent about Calvin’s very clear definition of what constitutes Biblical worship. In an evangelical world where defining what the gospel means is a constant issue of debate, how could George fail to make reference to Calvin’s view of justification by faith alone, which is Calvin’s definition of the gospel? To an evangelical church which has self-consciously attempted to train its pastor/leaders in the mold of Fortune 500 CEO’s, why not present Calvin’s view of a pastor a teacher and as a holy person who “ought to excel others, and shine by the example of a holier life”? (Cf. 2 separate articles in this CT issue for pastors as CEO's, "Liberty Unbound," p.40; and "The Art of Cyber Church," p.54ff).

Failing to offer even brief discussion on these points which Calvin himself identified as the central doctrines of evangelical Protestantism is curious at best and conspicuous at worst. Of course it would be illegitimate to expect slavish conformity to one man’s views on these crucial doctrines, but it is extremely befuddling that no space at all is given to these basic positions and the claims Calvin made about them in an essay designed to encourage recovery of Calvin’s thought. This glaring omission coupled with George’s rather lame attempt to portray a protopostmodern Calvin characterized by bold strokes of mystery shaded in with highlights of tentativeness, leads the thoughtful reader to conclude that George has serious reservations about a robust Calvin resurgence.

It might be reasonable to suggest that lack of space prevented discussion of such issues, but weighed against the significant amount of time he spent filling in highlights of Calvin’s biography in order to set up the narrative of Calvin as a savant wondering the far reaches of the outpost of modernity in search of entirely new way, seems like an intentional effort to direct attention away from the intolerant, theologically defined, and divisive Calvin. The not so subtle impression left by this biographical piece is that a contemporary Calvin resurgence is like a two-edged sword, fraught with potential danger for evangelicals, if left in the hands of the unskillful. Apparently, the real story is, that five hundred years after his birth there is precious little of the historical Calvin to salvage for contemporary use, and deconstructing those rare and precious parts and translating them into 21st century terms is best done by experts like George who are better equipped to figure out what to ignore, suppress, and leave safely behind in a remote and premodern past.

Churchapreneurs: a Reformed response

As we take up our final installment in this series, I want to conclude by offering a way forward. Before I do that, I want to briefly review what we have said. We began by defining a churchapreneur: a churchapreneur is a pastor of a local church who views Christianity as a product to be marketed and sold. In other words, churchapreneurs see the church and Christianity as a means of seeking financial gain and gaining access to power and influence through growing a big business. The churchapreneur creed is well articulated in the poster that hangs outside of Bill Hybel's office: what is our business? who is our customer? what does our customer consider value? This view is prevalent throughout Protestant evangelicalism today. To confirm that, all you have to do is take a look at the "whose who" of North American Christianity and the overwhelming percentage of them are churchapreneurs, from Chuck Smith, to Robert Schuller, to Joel Osteen, to Rick Warren. All of these men have compromised Biblical standards and replaced them with pragmatic practices designed to build their megachurch empires.

With that brief overview in mind, my purpose now is to offer a way forward that is Biblical and CONFESSIONAL. My aim is not to rehash critiques of broader evangelicalism, but to propose a model for confessionally Reformed churches to follow in order to counteract the devastating effects of the churchapreneur model upon the image of the church today.

First, Reformed churches need to stress the nature of church. One of the most significant questions that has to be answered in order to offset the business model of church is, what is a church? That's really the nub of the debate; if scripture did not include any teaching on the nature of the church, if it did not condemn using the church and Christianity to get rich and acquire influence and power, we would have no quarrel with churchapreneurs. The fact is however, scripture forbids using the ministry and the church as a means of financial gain, and it does give explicit teaching about the nature of the church. Over against the the business model of church, scripture teaches that the visible church is the covenant people of God and exists to be a word and sacrament institution governed by duly called and appointed elders. The church consists of believers and their children, and is authorized to worship collectively and Biblically, shepherd the saints lovingly, and evangelize the lost relentlessly. The primary way all three of these objectives is accomplished is through the public preaching of the word by a lawfully ordained minister of the word; and then secondly, that public, verbal ministry of the word is publicly reinforced through the proper administration of the sacraments, which are designed to visibly signify the gospel, and to seal and intesify our union with Christ. So, the first way for Reformed churches to work to counteract the unbiblical, churchapreneur business model is to identify the nature and function of the church, and then to faithfully implement that at the local church level. The visible church is not a business and it is not a social organization, it is the covenant people of God, believers and their children, and it exists to preach the word, administer the sacraments, and lovingly shepherd God's people.

Second, the Reformed church needs to recommit to the regulative principle. The regulative principle, as stated in our Reformed confessions, is that we may worship God in no other way than he has commanded in His word. That means, that the church, when it gathers for worship, may only do what God has commanded in scripture. This is a very challenging principle, because it is so clear cut: it does not permit good intentions, people's preferences, or church traditions to determine what is done in worship; it only permits what is commanded either explicitly or what is deduced by good and necessary inference. Just because some people find certain things "meaningful" or "enjoyable" does not mean that its warranted to have in worship. Additionally, just because we think certain practices or styles of music might attract unbelievers to church, that, of itself, does not authorize the church to worship in that manner. God is worshipped only in the way He has commanded. If you think about that, it makes perfect sense. God knows Himself and what glorifies Him better than we know Him and what glorifies Him; and therefore, we must not presume to be wiser than God by offering worship to Him that seems fitting, proper, and even satisfying to us, if He did not command it. To do so is to put ourselves above God and dictate to Him what He should like.

If the church submitted to this principle, much of what passes for worship, in the name of "innovation" or "creativity" or "seeker sensitivity," would be eliminated from worship since it is included in the service purely for human consumption, and, is not commanded by God. Its what Paul called "self-made religion" in Colossians 2:23; it has the appearance of a religious experience, makes people "feel good," might even attract a crowd, but it is of no value because God did not command it. The Reformed church could do much to counteract the churchapreneur phenomenon by conforming its own worship to the regulative principle which it confesses, and then call other Protestant churches to do the same thing.

Beyond conforming its worship to what scripture commands, the Reformed church needs to conform its church life to what God commands. The regulative principle extends not only to worship but also to church governement and by extension to church life. I say this in connection with the churchapreneur "program" approach to luring people to church. We talked about the "cutting edge" programs churches utilize in order to attract customers to church. These programs are designed to offer some sort of religious experience in a casual, attractive atmosphere. The problem with this approach is that it seeks to offer something that God did not command the church to do. Christ has instituted the means of grace, the preaching of the word and the sacraments, as the two means by which he communicates himself with his grace to believers. There is no other way, ordinarily, to receive the grace of Jesus Christ than the preaching of the word and the sacraments. Yet, the modern Protestant church has multiplied sacraments, far beyond Roman Catholicism, through instituting numerlous programs, as new and "fresh" ways to access the grace of Jesus. The church does not exist to be a social club, to hold karaoke meetings, to be a place to pursue personal hobbies with fellow believers, or to be a glorified recreational facility or amusement park; the church is a word and sacrament institution where believers may access the grace of Christ by making use of the means which Christ has appointed to receive his grace, and be shepherded through this life under the watchful care of the elders of the church; THAT'S IT! If Reformed churches are to please God and to counter the destructive influence of churchapreneurs they must recommit themselves to this regulative principle, remove from their worship and church life what is contrary to it, and seek to access the grace of Christ only in the ways which he has ordained: the preaching of the word and the administration of the two sacraments, Holy Baptism and the Holy Supper.

Third, the Reformed church needs to counter the churchapreneur paradigm by aggressively and relentlessly pursuing its mission, the Great Commission. The Great Commission is Christ's command to the church to make disciples by going, teaching, and baptizing. Its aim is to win converts to Christ by His grace, not to simply attract great numbers of people to church in order to have a big building, make lots of money, and acquire access to power and influence. The aim is not numbers, its CONVERTS to Christ. We don't know how many the Lord has determined to effectually call; but, we do know He has chosen to call His elect to himself through the preaching of the gospel by the church and therefore we must be busy pursuing that commission. Just as the churchapreneur paradigm is unbiblical in so far as it conceives of the church as a business and aims at acquiring wealth and access to power and influence, so it is wrong for the Reformed church to sequester itself behind the safety of the church walls, turning the church into a social club for personal enrichment and mutual admiration, to endlessly dot doctrinal "i's" and "t's," and to rarely, if ever, lift a finger to go out into the world where lost sinners are and seek to win them to Christ. It is fair to say that some of what goes on in the churchapreneur, seeker sensitive church world, is a reaction to the laziness and indolence of the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian church which decided to retreat behind church walls rather than to vigorously engage unbelievers with the gospel. The sad fact is, by doing this, not only have the lost not been reached out to by us, we have made it more difficult to reach the lost because we have allowed the churchapreneur segment of evangelicalism to be the public face of Christianity in North America, and due to the slick, business oriented packaging of the Christian faith, a vast segment of unchurched people in the United States have grown wary of Christianity and are turning a deaf ear toward its message because of the hypocritical, unscrupulous methods of the churchapreneur model. We can counteract this though, if we recommit not only to embodying, at the local church level, the nature of the church as described in scripture, by worshiping and conducting church government and church life according to the regulative principle, and also by mounting a vigorous campaign to go out into the world, and live among unbelievers, love them, pray for them, and seek intentionally to win them to Jesus Christ.

That's my Reformed response to churchapreneurs: recover the Biblical concept of the nature and function of the church, carefully and scrupulously follow the regulative principle both in worship, in church government and in church life, and aggressively pursue the Great Commission. I HOPE YOU WILL ENGAGE ME IN CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS MODEL.