Frame On Worship

I've been reading John Frame's (shorter, so I hear) book on worship, Worship in Spirit and Truth. In the midsection of the book, he discusses the RPW and develops some ideas about the worship service over against what he calls the (English) Puritan view.

Certainly, the regulative principle should not be used, as some have used it, to enforce traditionalism in worship. Both in Scripture and in church history, the regulative principle has been a powerful weapon against the imposition of human traditions in the worship of God....

Certainly the regulative principle is a charter of freedom, not a burdensome bondage. The regulative principle sets us free from human traditions, to worship God his way. It limits our choices the way a fish is limited to its watery habitat. When we break out of those limits, we discover death awaiting us, not freedom. To deny the regulative principle is to rebel against our loving Creator and then, paradoxically, to find ourselves in miserable bondage to human dogmatism.

In the remainder of this book, ... I shall present the regulative principle as one that sets us free, within limits, to worship God in the language of our own time, to seek those applications of God's commandments which most edify worshipers in our contemporary cultures. (45-46)*

So far, so good. Frame has caught some flak for this book, so I want here to make clear that he is quite serious about following Scripture regarding what our worship should be like. In the chapters that follow, however, he says things that I'm not so sure about.

He consistently contrasts his application of the RPW with what he takes to be the "minimalist" Puritan view and its narrow interpretation of the RPW. For instance, discussing the parts of the worship service, he claims that the Puritan view offers no scriptural warrant for them since there is no particular, specific place where scripture lists the parts of the worship service.

If a particular practice accords with the regulative principle, surely, it must follow a more specific scriptural command than, say, 1 Corinthians 14:26.... The regulative principle, [the Puritans] held, requires us to find biblical warrant for each of these elements.... The most serious problem [with this approach] is that ... Scripture nowhere divides worship up into a series of independent "elements," each requiring independent scriptural justification. (52-53)

Certainly [the New Testament] gives us no list of elements in the technical sense of Puritan theology--actions requiring specific scriptural authorization, as opposed to circumstances or applications that do not. (54)

I think Frame here is (or, at the very best, in danger of) setting up a strawman (i.e., a distorted, easily knocked down position) of the Puritan perspective. What's more, he doesn't cite any place where this Puritan view is supposedly advanced. That's probably because he will not easily find it. And if he does, I suspect (from what albeit limited reading I've done on it) that it will nevertheless be a minority Puritan position.

Okay, enough of what he says about other positions. What about his? One principle he gets a lot of hermeneutical mileage out of is the notion of the intelligibility of the worship service and frequently cites 1 Cor. 14 as proof-text.

...worship should be intelligible. It should be understandable to the worshipers, and even to non-Christian visitors (1 Cor. 14, especially vv. 24-25). And intelligibility requires contemporaneity. When churches use archaic language and follow practices that are little understood today, they compromise that biblical principle. (67)

Intelligibility? No problem. That it requires contemporaneity? It depends on what you mean. If contemporaneity refers to the first part of the conjunction that follows ("When church use archaic language"), I can see the point. In another place, he mentions the churches use of Latin. If this is what he means by "archaic," fine. Even if he means the "thees" and "thous," I can see the point. But if it refers to the second part ("follow practices that are little understood today"), I'm not so sure. One thing I like about our session is that during the service there is often an attempt to instruct us on why we are engaging in such-and-such element of the service. Why we do what we do in the order in which we do it might be little understood, but there is a good reason for it and we ought to be instructed in that.

To be fair to Frame, he comments: "Most of the historic practices of the church are quite intelligible and can be stated in contemporary language" (67). If this is all he's getting at, contemporaneity in a broad sense, I'm on board. But as is evident later on, it's not all he's getting at. In the context of intelligibility, he says:

Content [of the worship service] is communicated through body language, style, the choice of popular rather than technical terms, well-known musical styles, etc. All in all, it seems to me that the relevant considerations favor an informal service with a friendly, welcoming atmosphere and contemporary styles in language and music.... Determining the most intelligible form of worship requires us to ask what people in a particular culture most easily listen to and understand.... (83-84, my emphasis)

This is what he's getting at. He uses his "intelligibility requires contemporaneity" principle to defend the use of popular styles of worship, styles that appeal to contemporary culture. (For instance, he says that "if the church takes this principle seriously, it will necessarily encourage changes in musical styles and language in order to communicate with new generations" [117].) This is not contemporaneity in a broad sense but in a rather narrow sense. He does add that "we are not asking that question to satisfy anybody's taste; we are asking it so that we may be more faithful in communicating God's word clearly" (84). Okay, but does a drum set communicate God's word more clearly than a piano? Do praise choruses communicate more clearly than the psalms? I sincerely doubt it. But his use of his principle leads him to answer Yes to these questions. The style of worship will also affect the content of what is communicated, not just the way in which it is communicated. It is far from clear to me that a praise band will communicate the fact that we are entering the presence of Almighty God to give him praise and receive his grace in the sacrafice of ourselves.

Of course, this assumes a particular goal and context of worship that Frame shares but that he doesn't seem to think is paramount.

But we should avoid slavish imitation of older practices without attention to the matter of communication. To say this is merely to call us back to our fundamental task, which Jesus set forth in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20)--the task of discipling, baptizing, and teaching all nations. That divine mandate, rather than any human traditions, must ultimately guide our decisions about the order of worship. (67, my emphasis)

Here I just have to disagree with Frame. Is the Great Commission a mandate of the church? Of course it is. Should it be the mandate that guides our decisions about worship? I don't think so. I am much more inclined to agree with Meyers when he says that the worship is primarily a matter of covenant renewal, not of evangelizing the nations. More specifically, he suggests that the goal of the worship service is the Lord's Supper, a meal signifying our intimate communion with God in Christ. Its trajectory is not outsiders but insiders, those who have been redeemed by the Blood. Does this mean there is no evangelical aspect to worship? Not in the least. But it is not what should be the ultimate guide as to what worship is or how it should be done. To put it in Aristotelian terms, evangelization is a subordinate goal, not the final goal, of worship.

This post is already getting long enough, but there is one more thing that I think is related to the communication issue. Commenting on what he calls the "reenactment of redemption" liturgy ("a certain order of worship: the forgiveness of sin, consecration of the forgiven sinner through the ministry of the word, fellowship with God in the Lord's Supper" [68]), Frame says that

worship arranged around the same thematic structure week after week can easily lose its power to communicate the freshness of God's truth. And it is difficult within that structure (though, of course, not impossible) to find ways of emphasizing other biblical themes, such as the reality of God and his attributes, the deity and humanity of Christ, the Resurrection, the doctrines of calling, adoption, and sanctification, stewardship of possessions, sexual purity, and so on.

Furthermore, an important theological point is obscured by the reenactment liturgy. That is that redemption is in the past, accomplished once for all. The reenactment liturgy somewhat obscures the fact that we enter worship, not as lost sinners confronting a wrathful God, but as "saints" (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2, etc.). (68)

Once again, the point of worship is key. Is it to preserve the "freshness of God's word"? Is it to teach theological doctrines? No. Again, I take these to be subordinate goals of worship. Such a "reenactment liturgy" is precisely what Meyers (and, from what I understand, Michael Horton does something similar) argues for in his covenant renewal view. (Perhaps I'll get a chance to say more about that sometime.) The reality of God and his attributes come into play in the call to worship the King of kings and Lord of lords. The deity and humanity of Christ and his resurrection are presented to us in material form in the Lord's Supper. The doctrines of adoption, sanctification, and that we come before God as saints saved by the blood of Christ are explicit in the corporate confession of our sins. The stewardship of possessions is emphasized in the giving of our tithes and offerings. There is a logical progression to the service because there is a logical progression to coming before our LORD and Savior.

Frame's conclusion is not to do away with the elements of a "reenactment liturgy" but instead to change up the order. For instance:

Why, for example, should we not begin a service in praise to the risen Christ, and then at a later point recall that he was raised for the sake of our justification, our forgiveness of sins?... Why should we not begin with a sermon about God as the Creator of all things, then sing praises to his greatness and his love for his sinful creatures? (71)

If the point of worship is to simply have these elements (or at least some of them) as part of our service, then there is really no reason not to implement his suggestions. Once again, then, determining the point of worship is central. Can the progression of a "reenactment liturgy," repeated week after week, lose its power for us? Well, we can lose sight of its significance, just as we can lose sight of the significance of the Lord's Supper. Does this mean that we should partake of the Supper on a quarterly instead of weekly basis? Absolutely not. Rather, we should train our hearts to dive into the significance of our worship, including the way in which it is ordered. As we enter into our corporate worship of God, we should be reminded in its very order and progression of who God is, who we are, the basis upon which we can enter boldly into his presence, and the comfort of communing with him.

* Although I've left stuff out, in each case I think what remains accurately reflects what Frame is getting at.

The RPW 2

Whatever its shortcomings and difficulties in application, I'm a big fan of the RPW. It takes seriously the role of Scripture in directing what we should do. In worship, as in all of life, we should seek what pleases God, what he requires of us. Where does he tell us of such things? How do we know what is his pleasure and requirement? Scripture.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and turn away from evil. (Proverbs 3:5-7)

We are not to lean on our own understanding, nor are we to be wise in our own eyes. What do we lean on? How are we to be wise? Seek the counsel of God. Where is such counsel to be found? Scripture.

I mentioned another principle in a previous post, Whatever is not forbidden is permissible. Although this, too, makes reference to Scripture, there seems to be a different attitude behind it. It seems to me that this principle does not reflect an active seeking after God's counsel in determining what we do; rather, Scripture is there to tell us what we should not do, not what we should do. It seems to betray the attitude that we're doing okay so long as we don't go against what God says, that we don't have to search Scripture to justify our actions but only to tell us when they're not justified. It's a "negative" attitude toward Scripture (i.e., what we should not do) rather than a "positive" attitude toward Scripture (i.e., what we should do). True, for either principle, Scripture acts as something of a boundary; but my point here, as I said, is one of attitude. I for one think we should have the attitude of active seekers after God's counsel, going to God's word first to determine what we should do rather than acting first and then seeing whether it is forbidden by God's word.

The profane or unauthorized fire offered by Nadab and Abihu seems to illustrate the difference between these principles.

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. (Leviticus 10:1-2, my emphasis)

Nadab and Abihu had just been consecrated as priests, along with their father Aaron. Perhaps they were sincere in their offering, and Leviticus certainly talks about burning incense before God. What they did was nowhere expressly forbidden. Yet, presumably, God judged them because they did something other than what was commanded. In their own wisdom, they decided to act in a way other than the way God said to do it, and for that God's fire came upon them.

The point of the RPW is that we should strive to worship the way God says and not introduce unscriptural, man-made (though perhaps sincere) inventions into our worship services. I have an advertisement for a church in Birmingham. It reads:

What if we took the best of a coffeehouse...
great coffee, comfortable chairs, open conversations, casual atmosphere

...and the best of church?
real worship, biblical life lessons, lasting relationships, acceptance

Hmm. "Real worship" indeed. Yep, that's what we should be after, but what constitutes real worship? The WCF gives some freedom about certain logistical aspects of worship:

...there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. (1.6)

Is the building where the local church worships one of these matters "common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence"? This church meets in a coffeehouse. Our church met in an old Athens firehouse at first, moved to another old Athens firehouse (which is attached to conference rooms where other churches met), and finally bought a tire store to set up camp, where we are now. Another Athens church meets at someone's house. The OT people of God worshipped around the tabernacle, then Solomon's temple. The NT churches presumably met in people's houses.

The biblical examples point to a certain freedom about the physical place where the church meets, though prudence "according to the general rules of the word" would suggest certain boundaries. For instance, before we bought our building there was talk about renting out a place upstairs from a local strip club downtown (you wouldn't have to go through the club to get to the meeting place). This, to me, just wouldn't have been very prudent. What about meeting in a coffeehouse? Well, I don't know that it would be all that imprudent, but that's not what bugs me about this church.

What makes this church unattractive to me is probably precisely what would make it attractive to others: "great coffee, comfortable chairs, open conversations, casual atmosphere." Do I dislike these things? Of course not! I love all of these things. What I wonder is what these things have to do with the worship of God's church. What I take issue with is the question as posed: "What if we took the best of a coffeehouse and the best of church?" That is not the right question to be asking. It seems to assume that it's okay to be asking the question in the first place. The question is not, "Is it a good idea to merge the attractive aspects of a coffeehouse with attractive aspects of church?" In the very asking of the former question, the answer to the latter is, Yes. To this latter unasked question, however, I would give a No.

The main reason I would answer in the negative is because I don't see anywhere in Scripture where the worship of God is taken so casually. The church's website has this to say:

Come early and grab a
cup of coffee,
meet people, and
relax, it's Sunday!

The coffee is on us,
espresso drinks can be
purchased 45 min. before
and after "Gathering".

"Relax, it's Sunday"? And why call the coming together of the people of God to worship the LORD of heaven a "Gathering"? Well, I have an idea of why it is put that way; after all, we want people to "come to the LORD," we don't want to scare them away. We want to be "seeker friendly" and have as few obstacles as possible between them and God, between their conception of a traditional church and having their heart right with Jesus. But I see Moses and Isaiah falling on their faces in the presence of God. I see Israel shrink in fear and trembling at the foot of the mountain in the presence of God. I do not see comfortable chairs and casual atmospheres.

This is part of what it means to use the RPW in terms of examples and principles in Scripture. Moses, Isaiah, Israel, Ezekiel, and Paul all provide examples of what attitude one should have in the presence of God. Insofar as worship involves being in the presence of God through Christ, our response should in some significant way mirror theirs. The principle here is that we should come to worship God in reference, awe, and holy fear, seeking his pleasure rather than ours, remembering who he is and who we are in light of his presence. Our hearts are on our knees, and they are lifted up to heaven in Christ.

Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:29)

The Regulative Principle of Worship

How much do we really think about why we are doing what we do in our corporate worship services? The session at my church seems to be epistemologically self-conscious about it and seems eager to pass on this self-consciousness to the members. Although it doesn't happen as frequently as it used to, the leaders of the worship service would regularly explain why we were about to engage in whatever aspect of worship was coming up. "This is what is going on in the Call To Worship." "This is why we confess our sins together." "This is why a weekly Lord's Supper is important for worship." Etc.

So, where do we get the parts of worship? What should we be doing? How should we be doing it? Reformed Presbyterians have an old rule that, theoretically, is supposed to help us answer these (and other questions): the "regulative principle of worship." A lot of ink has been, and continues to be, spilled over exactly what this principle means and how it should be applied. One place it is laid out is in the Westminster Confession of Faith (20.1):

... But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.

The key phrase here is "any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." But what does it mean to be "prescribed" in Scripture? The answer typically gets truncated into the snappy slogan, Whatever is not commanded is forbidden. I say "truncated" because I suspect there is more to it than this slogan can suggest, but maybe that's just my philosophical bias coming to the fore. But now the question is, What does it mean for a worship practice to be commanded in Scripture? God never said "Start off with a Call To Worship, sing a couple of [insert "hymns," "psalms," "praise songs"], then have a Confession of Sin, ...." Yikes. What now?

Clearly, for a worship practice to be commanded or prescribed must mean something other than "Do this: ...." Meyers, in The Lord's Service, suggests this explanation from Martin Bucer:

"Nothing should be introduced or performed in the churches of Christ for which no probable reason can be given from the Word of God." Filling this out a little, we can state the principle like this: the Church must have biblical warrant for the way she worships God; such warrant can be derived from biblical commands, principles, or examples.

Okay, that sounds a bit easier to deal with (or swallow, depending on your attraction to the more narrow conception of "prescribe"). But once we take this as our starting point, we must figure out (1) what the relevant commands, principles, and examples are and (2) how to practically apply them to the act of worship. Is there a way of providing some friction against a slippery slope into, "As long as we are sincerely trying to worship God in spirit and truth, we can engage in any practice that is not expressly forbidden in Scripture"? The principle which seems at work in that perspective is, Whatever is not forbidden is permissible, which seems a pretty far cry from the attempt to derive express justification for worship practices from Scripture.

Worship As Sacrifice

In the book of Hebrews, Christ is described as the priest that is greater than Aaron and as the perfect sacrifice. These references, as all of the other key references in the book, are of the Old Covenant sacrificial system. We no longer need a priest to make atonement for us, for Christ as sacrifice has accomplished that once and for all. He brings the cleansing of sin that the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant order could not bring. He has entered into the Holy of Holies such that no earthly priest need do it again - and there is no more need of earthly priests to make atonement for the people of God.

Applying this to worship, we can see how Christ's sacrifice enables us to come into God's presence, his sacrifice allows us to be righteous in God's eyes. Meyers in The Lord's Service takes the notion of sacrifice in a direction that I haven't seen, though it has been around at least since Calvin: we, too, are sacrifices. Being united to Christ in his offering of himself as sacrifice, we become a sacrifice to God and Christ as priest offers us up before God "as a pleasing aroma" in worship. Christ's dual work as sacrifice and priest does double duty for us in not only cleansing us from sin (which the animal sacrifices could never do) but in making us acceptable sacrifices before God.

One of the interesting things that Meyers does with this is to suggest a further way in which the Old Covenant sacrificial system is not completely abrogated but fulfilled. True, the animal sacrifices are no longer necessary in worshipping God, but sacrifice as such continues even in the New Covenant era. Not only was the shadow OC system to point us to the reality of Christ's perfect sacrifice as the Lamb of God, identifying Christ with the animals, but it also was to identify the people of God with the animal sacrifices. Even in the Old Testament, God was not pleased so much with the animal sacrifices that were brought but with the sacrificial attitude of the one offering them. Whenever the people of God faltered at this point, whenever they failed to make the connection, God pointed out the mistake. We (or I, at least) continue to miss the connection. We typically take Christ as fulfillment of the OC sacrificial system to the point of him as sacrificial Lamb, but we do not go further. Every Lord's Day we are offering ourselves up to God as an acceptable sacrifice through Christ both as the perfect and final sacrifice and as priest. By offering up our prayer and praise to God in worship, we are applying to ourselves the finished work of Christ.

Communion and Worship

Every six weeks or so I help the deacon on duty at the church get things together for Sunday School and Worship: making coffee, getting the communion bread and juice prepared (alas! no wine ... but at least it's weekly communion--if I had to choose between wine and weekly, this would definitely be the choice I'd make), handing out orders of worship, counting tithes and offerings, etc. Because there is much to do before, during, and after the service, we don't really get to participate in worship. One thing we do during worship is help get extra communion juice to those distributing it--we have more people attending the service than we have cups for the six trays we keep on the table up front. So, we're in there during communion and are always offered the bread and juice. I always take it. I took it today.

In the past, I have never been inclined to refuse it. What qualifies me to receive the "body and blood" of Christ? I am His. I am a member of His body. In partaking, I commune with Christ and with His people. But today was different. Today I was inclined to refuse it. Not because I was doubting my identity in Christ. Not because I felt particularly disconnected from either Christ or this body of believers. But I was inclined to refuse the elements for the same reason that I don't offer my tithes/offerings while on deacon duty: such an offering is a part of worship, and I am not part of worship when on duty. I am not a part of the covenant community in praising our Creator and Redeemer in song, in publicly confessing my sin with my dear brothers and sisters, in hearing the Word preached, etc. Putting my money in the bag after the offerings have been taken up seems to view tithing much more as a practical affair and much less as an act of worship, which it (the latter) is first and foremost. This morning I started applying this reasoning to partaking of communion, and it took me to a place I didn't want to go.

I haven't thought that much more about it. But I want to. I partook of communion this morning because the feeling that a refusal of the elements would be along the lines of a refusal of my identity in Christ and in His body was stronger than the feeling that this was an act of worship that I had not been a participant in until that point. Of course, a couple of things could be said about the two options that I presented myself. On the one hand, not everyone who refuses to partake of the elements is doing it because they are rejecting their covenantal identity; on the other hand, people who come in late, say, after the initial praising of God in hymns and the communal confession of faith, are from that point on a legitimate part of the worship and should be a part of it.

Concerning the first point, the only time you shouldn't voluntarily partake of the body and blood should be if you refuse to stake your identity in Christ and His body (I say "voluntarily" to account for cases of church discipline, in which the refusal is decided by someone else). So, if you are not partaking because you "don't feel worthy" or "haven't been a good Christian last week" or something along those lines, you are simply refusing the grace offered in this act of worship of which you obviously are in dire need. You need to be reminded by the very act of partaking that your worthiness does not come from your feelings or from how good you were last week. It comes from Christ, on Whom you are feeding freely, Who is your very sustenance.

Concerning the second point, while we should strive to see all of the service as a unified act of worship (or specific acts of worship presented as a unity), it seems a different thing to be in worship from one point after the beginning until the very end and to be coming in and out of parts of the worship service. Can it really be said of the latter (which was my situation this morning) that I was part of the worship? I have my doubts, but I haven't spent the time reasoning out why I have the doubts. Part of it stems from viewing the worship service as a unity and not as acts independent of one another. This notion of independence seems key. Historically/Traditionally (not sure which of those to use here) we put so much emphasis on the Word of God (and rightly so!), that the preaching of the Word becomes central. So, in our minds, we (including myself) have a tendency to see that as the important part and the other parts as expendable. "As long as I'm there for the sermon, I'm good." That attitude just seems downright problematic. Worship is not a fix. We are not there for ourselves--in this case, to learn something from the sermon, to catch a tidbit that we hope we can remember until next week. We are there to give ourselves to God and to receive the grace offered in that giving. This includes our songs, our sins, our hearts, souls, and minds. The worship service is a unit with a call-and-response pattern--God calls, we respond.

It may seem like I have devolved into theological nitpicking about worship, but this has practical consequences for whether or not I should take the bread and juice when I have not been a participant in the unity of the service. If I do, am I (unintenionally, in this case) treating the service as a buffet line? "Oh, yes, I'll have one of these, and Ooo! I like those, but none of that, thank you, not good for the digestion, you know." I am absolutely committed to my place in Christ and in His body, but is this blinding me to the bigger picture of the worship service?