reframing christian worship ~ a critic to john frame's and r. j. gore's views of worship - frank j....

8/10/2019 Reframing Christian Worship ~ A Critic to John Frame's and R. J. Gore's Views of Worship - Frank J. Smith

1/36


2/36

E I

One o the key reormational docrine determi-nate o the health i not the being o a PrebyterianChurh i the aptly named Regulative Priniple oWorhip. Ti priniple whih wa learly hampi-oned rom the beginning o the Sottih Reormation,and entral to Englih Puritanim, wa refined and

Reframing Presbyterian Worship:A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of

John M. Frame and R. J. Gore

. I now how diffi ult it i to peruade the world that God di-

approve o all mode o worhip not exprely ancioned by hi

word. (John Calvin, On the Neeity o eorming the Churh,

Seleced Work of John Calvin: rac and Letter, edited by Henry

Beveridge and Jule Bonnet. Edited and tranlated by Henry Bev-eridge [Edinburgh: ; pt. Grand apid: Baer Boo Houe,

] .-). All wirhipping, honoring, or ervie inventit

by the braine o man in the religioun o God, without hi own ex-

pre ommandment, i Idolatrie. (John nox, A Vindiation o

the Docrine that the Sarifie o the Ma i Idolatry, e Work of

John Knox,ed. David Laing [Edinburgh: Printed or the Bannatyne

Club, ; pt NY: AMS Pre, ] .).

. While it may have been ued earlier, the term egulative Prin-

iple o Worhip apparently wa oined rom or at least popularized

by uage in the report o the OPC, eport o the Committee

on Song in Worhip Preented to the Tirteenth General Aembly,

on the eahing o Our Standard esecing the Song Tat May

Be Sung in the Publi Worhip o God, seifially ecion A byJohn Murray (Orthodox Prebyterian Churh, Minute of the General

Aembly [] -). eearh by Sherman Ibell upport

Murray authorhip. See Endnote A.

. Te regulative priniple o worhip wa the etablihed do-trine o Sottih Prebyterianim, and o the Englih Puritan. See

Endnote B.

. Prebyterianim the ruly Primitive and Apostolial Consti-

tution of the Churh of Christ, Te Worhip o the Prebyterian

Churh (Philadelphia: Prebyterian Board o Publiation, )

-.

. Samuel utherord, e Divine Right of Churh Government

and Exommuniation(London, ) .

. John B. Adger, A Denial o Divine ight or Organ in Publi

Worhip, outhern rebyterian eview,. (January ) . . George Gillesie, A Disute Against the Englih Popih Cer-

emonie, ed. Christopher Coldwell (Dalla: Naphtali Pre, )

laially preented in the Westminster Standard,

rom whene it ha been an integral docrine o Pre-byterianim ever ine.

Te Westminster Aembly determined: But theaeptable way o worhipping the true God i insti-tuted by Himel, and o limited by Hi own revealedwill, that He may not be worhipped aording tothe imagination and devie o men, or the ugge-tion o Satan, under any viible repreentation, orany other way not preribed in the holy Sripture.(Confeion of Faith, .). Te Prineton proeor,Dr. Samuel Miller, give a uinc statement o the

priniple when he write that ine the Sripture arethe only inallible rule o aith and pracie, no rite oreremony ought to have a plae in the publi worhipo God, whih i not warranted in Sripture, either bydirec preept or example, or by good and uffi ientinerene. A brieer statement still whih um upthe Prebyterian priniple o worhip, i that in theworhip o God, Not to Command i to Forbid, orWhatever i not ommanded i orbidden.

A thi brie definition an lead to miunderstand-ing, a neearily orollary to thi priniple state that

there are ome irumstane onerning the worhipo God, and government o the Churh, ommon tohuman acion and oietie whih are to be orderedby the light o nature and Christian prudene, aord-ing to the general rule o the word, whih are alwayto be oberved. (Confeion of Faith, .). Definingthee irumstane, i part and parel with the di-uion o what authority the hurh ha in orderingthe worhip o God. A or the hurh power in thiregard, George Gillesie give three ondition:

I diret my oure traight to the dieting o the truelimit, within whih the hurh power o enating

law about thing pertaining to the worhip o God

By Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D. D. and David C. Lachman, Ph.D.

olume ()

Te onfessional resbyterian


3/36

olume ()

eframing resbyterian orship Te onfessional resbyterian

i bounded and onfined, and whih it may not over-

leap nor trangre. Tree ondition I find neear-

ily requiite in uh a thing a the hurh ha power

to preribe by her law: stIt must be only a irum-

stane o divine worhip; no ubstantial part o it; no

ared ignifiant and effi aiou eremony. For the

order and deeny lef to the definition o the hurh,

a onerning the partiular o it, omprehend no

more but mere irumstane. ndTat whih the

hurh may lawully preribe by her law and ordi-

nane, a a thing lef to her determination, must be

one o uh thing a were not determinable by Srip-

ture beaue individuaare innita. rdI the hurh

preribe anything lawully, o that he preribe no

more than he ha power given her to preribe, her

ordinane must be aompanied with ome good

reaon and warrant given or the atiacion o tender

oniene.

Alo, in hi letter to All in the Reormed Churhe,Gillesie defined irumstane thi way: ...there inothing whih any way pertain to the worhip oGod lef to the determination o human law, beidethe mere irumstane, whih neither have any holi-ne in them, oramuh a they have no other ue andpraie in ared than they have in ivil thing, nor yet

were partiularly determinable in Sripture, beauethey are infinite. (EPC,xli). Jame Henley Tornwellgive a more detailed definition:

Cirumstane are thoe onomitant o an acion

without whih it either annot be done at all, or an-

not be done with deeny and deorum. Publi wor-

hip, or example, require publi aemblie, and in

publi aemblie people must appear in ome o-

tume and aume ome posture. Publi aemblie,

moreover, annot be held without fixing the time and

plae o meeting: thee are irumstane whih thehurh i at liberty to regulate. We must distinguih

between thoe irumstane whih attend acion

a acionthat i, without whih the acion an-

not beand thoe irumstane whih, though not

eential, are added a appendage. Tee last do not

all within the juridicion o the hurh. She ha no

right to appoint them. Tey are irumstane in the

ene that they do not belong to the ubstane o the

ac. Tey are not irumstane in the ene that they

o urround it that they annot be eparated rom it. A

liturgy i a irumstane o thi kind. In publi wor-hip, indeed in all ommanded external acion, there

are two elementa fixed and a variable. Te fixed

element, involving the eene o the thing, i beyond

the diretion o the hurh. Te variable, involving

only the irumstane o the acion, it eparable a-

ident, may be hanged, modified or altered, aord-

ing to the exigenie o the ae.

Gillesie third ondition raie another priniplewhih relate to the hurh power regarding worhip,whih i the docrine o Christian Liberty or Libertyo Coniene. Te Westminster divine state at Con-eion o Faith .: God alone i Lord o the on-iene, and hath lef it ree rom the docrine andommandment o men, whih are in any thing on-trary to Hi Word; or beide it, i matter o aith orworhip.

Te language o the Coneion at thee everalpoint i reminient o both the writing o Gillesie,and o hi Westminster olleague, Samuel Rutherord.In one o Rutherord work irulating in the Aem-bly during the early part o the diuion on ChristianLiberty, and ited at the ame time during debate onthe ubjec o Exommuniation, he write (Ruther-ord, ):

-. Hereafer EPC. Ti large volume i the most elaborate

deene o the lai Puritan-Sottih Prebyterian view o the reg-

ulative priniple, reently reprinted. Gillesie wa an influentialmember o the Westminster Aembly. John M. Frame, Worhip

in Spirit and ruth(Phillipburg, NJ: P& Publihing, ) .

Hereafer,Spirit and ruth.

. Cited rom John L. Girardeau, D.D. LL.D., Te Diretion-

ary Power o the Churh, Sermon, ed. by ev. George A. Bla-

burn (Columbia, SC: Te State Company, . pt. in Life Work

and Sermon of John L. Girardeau,Sprinle Publiation, nd) -

. See alo, Churh Board and Prebyterianim, e Colleced

Writing of Jame Henley ornwell (pt. Edinburgh: Te Banner

o ruth rust, ) -. On the nature o irumstane, ee

alo: e Work of John Owen,v. , Dioure Conerning Litur-

gie, ed. William H. Goold (pt. Edinburgh: Te Banner o ruth

rust, ).

. egarding the long inorrec text, ontrary to Hi Word, or

beide it, in matter o aith or worhip, Dr. S. W. Carruther note:

Ti double error i the most important in the whole Coneion. It

ha obured a distincion o great ignifiane Te divine ar-

gument i thi: men are ree in all thing direcly ontrary to God

word; but, in addition, i the question i one o aith or worhip, they

are ree in matter not stated in the word. Te distincion between

matter ivil and religiou, and the great docrine onerning thing

indifferent in the eleiastial world, are ompletely obured by

the hange o a ingle letter and an alteration o puncuation. S. W.

Carruther, e Westminster Confeion of Faith: Being an aount of

the Preparation and Printing of it Seven Leading Edition, to whih

i appended a ritial text of the Confeion with note thereon (Man-

hester: . Aiman & Son, []) -. . See the Minute o the Aembly, -. Alexander F.

Mithell and John Struther, ed. Minute of the Seion of the


4/36

olume ()

Te onfessional resbyterian rtiles

In acion or Religiou mean o Worhip, and acion

Morall, whatever i beide the Word o God, i against

the Word o God; I ay in Religiou mean, or there

be mean o Worhip, or Cirumstane Phyiall,

not Morall, not Religiou, a whether the Pulpit be o

stone or o timber, the Bell o thi or thi Mettall, the

houe o Worhip stand thu or thu in Situation.

Our Formalistwill have it in the power o ruler to

Command in the matter o Worhip, that whih i be-

ide the Word o God, and o i negatively Lawull,

though it be not Poitively onorm to God Word,

nor Commanded or warranted by pracie; whih I

grant i a witty way o Romedeviing, to make entry

or Religiou humane Ceremonie.

Gillesie wrote the ollowing a deade beore theAembly, whih not only ontain imilar thoughta the Coneional statement, but relate a well tothe ommon uage, popularized later by men uh aJame Bannerman and William Cunningham, resec-ing the power o the ivil magistrate ira ara[aboutreligion] a oppoed to in ari [in religion] (EPC,, , , ):

Te hurh i orbidden to add anything to the om-

mandment o God whih he ha given unto u, on-erning hi worhip and ervie (Deut. :; :;

Prov. :); thereore he may not lawully preribe

anything in the work o divine worhip, i it be not

a mere irumstane belonging to that kind o thing

whih were not determinable by Sripture. Tee

praeognita [thing foreeen] being now made good,

ome we to seak more partiularly o the power o

prine to make law and ordinane about thing

whih onern the worhip o God. But in all the

Sripture prine have neither a ommendable ex-

ample, nor any other warrant, or the making o anyinnovation in religion, or or the preribing o ared

ignifiant eremonie o men deviing. Now a

touhing the other ort o thing whih we onider

in the worhip o God, namely, thing merely ir-

umstantial, and uh a have the very ame ue and

resec in ivil whih they have in ared acion, we

hold that whenoever it happen to be the duty and

part o a prine to institute and enjoin any order or

poliy in thee irumstane o God worhip, then

he may only enjoin uh an order a may stand with

the oberving and ollowing o the rule o the word,

whereunto we are tied in the ue and pracie o thing

whih are in their general nature indifferent.

Tee lengthy itation and definition are givenbeaue the regulative priniple o worhip i ofenmiunderstood or miharacerized when they are

ignored. For instane when the docrine regardingirumstane i ignored, one may ee question inreacion to the regulative priniple uh a, I youbelieve in thi regulative priniple then why do youue pew in publi worhip, ine they are not men-tioned in Sripture? A William Cunningham write,just beore alluding to Coneion o Faith ., Toewho dilike thi priniple, rom whatever reaon, uu-ally try to run u into diffi ultie by putting a verystringent onstrucion upon it, and thereby giving itan appearane o aburdity. Alo, without any

reerene to historial theology, or to the theologi-al milieu in whih the language o the WestminsterStandard were drafed, the meaning o the divinemay be reast and the traditional/historial meaningdivored rom their oundational statement by omepostmodern deonstrucion o their word. Ti leadto statement like, I hold to the regulative priniple othe Westminster Coneion o Faith, but not to thePuritan understanding o that priniple.

Whether they ully understand them or not, it itrue that many do rejec Prebyterian view o worhip.

Dr. Cunningham write o thoe latitudinarian whoimply find uh a priniple repugnant: O the viewgenerally held by the Reormer on the ubjec o theorganization o the Churh, there are two whih havebeen alway very offenive to men o a looe and lati-tudinarian tendenyviz. the alleged unlawulne ointroduing into the worhip and government o theChurh anything whih i not poitively warranted bySripture, and the permanent binding obligation o apartiular orm o Churh government. (Reform-er and the Regulative Priniple,). Tere i alo an

understandable rejecion o Prebyterian priniple bythoe o an Anglian, Lutheran or imilar peruaion,who proe aith in a different rule o worhip, that

Westminster Aembly of Divine. (Edinburgh: William Blawood

and Son, ).

. Jame Bannerman, e Churh of Christ (Edinburgh : &

Clar, . pt. Edinburgh: Te Banner o ruth rust, ; and

) -. William Cunningham, Churh Power, Diuion

on Churh Priniple(Edinburgh: & Clar, ) .

. William Cunningham, Te eormer and the egulative

Priniple, in e Reformation of the Churh: A ollecion of Re-

formed and Puritan doument on Churh iue (Edinburgh: Te

Banner o ruth rust, ; pt. ) -. Ti i an extracrom Cunningham e Reformer and the eology of the Reforma-

tion(Te Banner o ruth rust, pt) -.


5/36

olume ()


the Churh might warrantably introdue innovationinto it government and worhip, whih might eemfitted to be ueul, provided it ould not be hown thatthere wa anything in Sripture whih exprely pro-hibited or diountenaned them. (Reformer andthe Regulative Priniple,). However, unhappily orPrebyterianim, ritiim and oppoition to her ruleo worhip ha not been limited to thoe who ub-ribe to different oneion o aith, and thi impor-tant docrine ha ofen ome under fire rom withinher own wall. Suh i the ae in thi day.

In partiular, over the last everal deade, twoPrebyterian offi e holder have taken up the penagainst the regulative priniple o worhip and theirwriting have reeived ome urreny and promi-

nene amongst thoe looking or hampion to over-throw thi old ornerstone o Prebyterian orthodoxy.Tee are Proeor John M. Frame, and Dean R. J.Gore. Tough he laim to hold to the bai idea othe regulative priniple, the ormer rejec the acualpriniple by redefining it away rom what he believeare the ompliated Puritan amplifiation o it,while the latter hallenge it direcly and would liketo imply drop the regulative priniple rom Preby-terian theology. (Spirit and ruth, ). Sine thidocrine i ruial to a healthy Prebyterianim, and

a the work o thee disutant are acually quite defi-ient to orm any uffi ient bai or questioning it, theollowing artile urvey their writing and note thekey problem in their ontention with the regulativepriniple o worhip.

In the first ecion dealing with the writing o JohnM. Frame, Dr. Frank J. Smith ommene the urveyby noting ome o the proeor early omment onworhip rom ome eminary la note rom the. He then move on to the proeor publihedview on worhip, oberving ome key problem with

thee, a well a noting and memorializing ome othe ritiim made by other at the time o theirpubliation. Te eond ecion begin with a rigor-ou ritique o R. J. Gore docoral diertation, TePuruit o Plainne: Rethinking the Regulative Prin-iple o Worhip, written by Dr. David C. Lahman,Dr. Smith o-editor o Worhip in the Preene of God.Dr. Lahman expoe eriou defiienie in thi pa-per, and onlude that it ompletely ail to make aredible ae againt the Regulative Priniple o Wor-hip. Te urvey onlude with a review o Dean

Gore publihed work, Covenantal Worhip, whih, athe author, Dr. Smith, note, retain many o the aulto the diertation rom whih it prang.

Te Writings of John M. Frame Against

Te Regulative Principle of Worship

By Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D. D.

History undoubtedly will reord that the most influ-ential opponent o Prebyterian worhip within on-ervative Prebyterianim in the twentieth enturywa John MElphatrik Frame.

Born in in Pittburgh, Pennylvania, JohnFrame graduated rom Prineton Univerity, reeivedhi Bahelor o Divinity degree rom Westminster

Teologial Seminary (Philadelphia) in , andpurued docoral studie at Yale Univerity. He neverompleted the diertation at Yale, however, a in he wa hired to teah at Westminster Seminary. In, Proeor Frame moved to Caliornia to helpstart Westminster branh ampu in Eondido. A-ter two deade in Caliornia, he wa alled in tobe a proeor at Reormed Teologial Seminary inOrlando, Florida. He wa reently awarded the Do-tor o Divinity degree by Belhaven College.

Beaue o hi stature a a eminary theology pro-

eor, he ha been able to develop and inulate viewthat are ar out o the mainstream o laial Re-ormed thought. Among the most distincive o hiview i the notion that theology i appliationthati, even the very ormulation o theologial rubri(ategorie) i omewhat arbitrary, and repreent ahuman endeavor, rather than, ideally, reflecing themind o God a revealed in Sripture.

Teology, o oure, must be applied, or the reulti dead orthodoxy. But theology ha alway been re-garded a the queen o the iene, and, a uh, a

objecive in nature. But the proeor reraming othe theologial enterprie reast it in a ubjecivistidirecion.

Te impliation o uh are proound or theol-ogy a a whole, and it i evident that hi view haveprooundly affeced the way in whih he doe theol-ogy. Indeed, Dr. Frame ha promulgated hi peuliar

A: Fran J. Smith i pastor o the Covenant eormed

Prebyterian Churh o Sheboygan, Wionin, and a ontributing

editor to e Confeional Prebyterian. Dr. Smith and Dr. Lahman

o-edited the book Worhip in the Preene of God: A Collecion of

eay on the nature, element, and histori view and pracie of wor-hip(Greenville, SC: Greenville Prebyterian Teologial Seminary

Pre, ).


6/36

olume ()


belie on a wide variety o topi. But in no field otheology ha thi warping effec been more notieablethan the area o worhip. Te reult i that hi viewregarding worhip are among the most novel withinputatively onervative Prebyterian irle.

W S: D C L C N

In the , Proeor Frame would publih bookand artile on the docrine o worhip (ee below).However, at least ome o hi peuliar view were or-mulated deade beore then, a witneed in hi lalecure at Westminster Seminary.

In hi Docrine o the Christian Lie oure, Mr.Frame dealt with the en Commandment. In on-juncion with the Seond Commandment, he quotedrom the Westminster Coneion o Faith, ., re-garding the regulative priniple o worhip, and aloquoted rom . (liberty o oniene in relation toaith and worhip) and . (good and neeary on-equene being equally binding a expre statemento Sripture; and irumstane regarding worhipand hurh government). Commenting upon the no-tion o good and neeary onequene, he wrote:

Worhip i not limited to expre teahing o Srip-ture, but i baed alo on legitimate inerene romSripture. Tat i, appliation. Te Coneion makeno harp distincion between the meaning o Sriptureand it appliation, and no distincion at all betweenthee a to their authority.

Beore proeeding urther, we would note thatProeor Frame appear to have equivoated regard-ing hi terminology. Tere i a proound differenebetween good and neeary onequene or le-gitimate inerene on the one hand, and applia-

tion on the otherpartiularly the way in whih Mr.Frame define appliation. We hall ee a lot more othi notion o appliation and the blurring o termi-nology relative to the regulative priniple in hi laterwriting.

Commenting on the notion o irumstane oworhip, the proeor stated: Whenever a questionarie a to whether or not a pracie i justified by theregulative priniple, we must ak whether or not thatpracie i an element o worhip or a mere irum-

stane. Suh question are ofen diffi ult to anwer. Yetthe Coneion ee rightly that to apply Sripture toa ituation alway involve ome Christian prudene,ome knowledge o the ituation, ome extra-Srip-tural premie. Tat annot be avoided in worhip orin lie in general (Christian Lie, ).

Proeor Frame ummarized a ollow (ChristianLie, ):

(A) Element o worhip must be preribed by Srip-

ture. Whatever i not ommanded i orbidden. In Lu-

theranim a different priniple prevail, Whatoever

i not orbidden i permitted. Roman Catholiim i

even urther rom the Reormed priniple, laiming

the right to ommand what Sripture neither om-

mand nor orbid. Modernim i even wore, permit-

ting and at time ommanding what Sripture orbid.

(B) Te regulative priniple doe not require that ev-

erything we do in worhip be the resone to a seifi

divine ommand. Ac perormed in resone to in-

erene rom Sripture or a irumstane o wor-

hip are permitted.

Again, what we ee here i a blurring o the atego-rie. What the Westminster Seminary proeor giveth

in point (A), he taketh away in point (B). I the regu-lative priniple ha any meaningand i meaning-ully distinc rom, ay, a Lutheran ormulationtheelement o worhip onstitute the partiular ac oworhip; but in thi proeor ramework, partiularac may themelve be irumstane o worhip(and thereore, by definition, not requiring a divineommand).

Proeor Frame went on to question the widomo the Westminster Coneion o Faith in drawing aharp distincion between lie in general and worhip

in partiular. Afer a long diuion, he finally on-luded: Tere are distincion between aith-wor-hip and other human acivitie, but thoe differeneare ubtle, not a harp a they are ometime madeout to be. Tere i a bai unity o strucure among allo lie acivitie in their relation to God law. Again,we hall ee the onequene o the proeor think-ing along thee line in hi later writing on worhip,and the reult are not ubtle.

Mr. Frame alo diued the iue o exluivepalmody and muial instrumentation. Regarding

the ontent o worhip ong, he ramed the debate thiway: Te logial statu o ong: What i ong? I it anelement o worhip? A irumstane? An asec o

. John M. Frame, S Docrine o the Christian Lie, Lecure

Outline, Part III, sring , . Hereafer Christian Lie. In thiand in all ubequent itation, emphai i in the original unle

otherwie noted.


7/36

olume ()


ome other element? Having et up the term o de-bate aording to hi preerene, he argued: We mustnot imply aume that it i an independent element,a, e.g., John Murray doe in hi minority report to theOPC General Aembly. Some argument i needed.Hi poition i a ollow: I maintain that ong i notan independent element o worhip, but a orm bywhih other element are arried on. It i a orm oprayer, praie, teahing (Col. :), et. He alo ar-gued: I ong i really a orm o prayer, teahing, et.,then when we apply the regulative priniple, we mustak, not what Sripture ommand u to ing, butrather what Sripture ommand u to pray, teah, et.But all Christian agree that extra-Sriptural wordmay be ued in prayer, praie, and teahing (Chri-

tian Lie, -).Here, we an ee more learly the problem in

Proeor Frame poition. Te regulative priniplemean that the partiular element or part o wor-hip are preribed; but in hi view, it i merely asec(prayer, praie, teahing, exhortation, et.) whih areBiblially mandatedasec whih an ome to ex-preion in a variety o way. Aordingly, even thereading o Sripture would not neearily be a pre-ribed element o worhip, ine all Christian agreethat extra-Sriptural word may be ued in teahing.

A a matter o ac, neither the reading o the Wordnor the preahing o the Word ould be onidered tobe mandated under Proeor Frame ystem. I it itrue that whatever you may preah you may alo ing,then there i nothing to prohibit omeone rom ing-ing a ermon rather than preahing it.

Further onuion regarding the regulative prin-iple i maniest in Proeor Frame onideration othe question o instrumental mui. On the one hand,he appealed to variou Sripture paage whih men-tion muial instrument, in an effort to justiy uing

them in publi worhip today; on the other hand, hewrote that instrument are a irumstane whih anprovide the important uncion o oordinating pithand rhythm in the inging (Christian Lie, ).But, a irumstane o worhip i omething whih, bydefinition, i outide o Sripture; to appeal to Srip-ture to justiy a partiular pracie and imultaneoulyto aert that that pracie i a matter o irumstane,i ontradicory. A will beome obviou, the proe-or lak o larity regarding irumstane ha notimproved over the year.

Proeor Frame onluded hi diuion o mui-al instrumentation thuly (Christian Lie, ):

Te last point [viz., that instrument have an impor-

tant role a a irumstane], plu the earlier Srip-

tural reerene, uggest that instrumental mui

i baially a orm o ong, just a ong i a orm o

seeh. Instrument are an extenion o the human

voie. By them we praie, rejoie, et. I thi analyi i

orrec, then the ue o instrument doe not require

any independent Sriptural justifiation. o find out

what Sripture allow u to play, we ak what Srip-

ture allow u to ing, and ultimately to seak. From

thi persecive, the prohibition o instrument be-

gin to look like prohibition o mirophone, hearing

aid, et. Te idea that we an blow air aro our vo-

al ord, or into elecroni devie, but not through a

mouthpiee, eem highly arbitrary.

Not only doe Proeor Frame exhibit onuionregarding the nature o a irumstane, but he alodemonstrate that he doe not really adhere to theregulative priniple. o view the playing o an instru-ment, or inging and seaking, a being on a ontin-uum (to the extent that no meaningul distincion anbe drawn among them), implie that there are no par-tiular part or element o worhip, whih in turnonstitute a denial o the regulative priniple.

S Q A R P

In a artile in the estminster Teologial our-nal, Proeor John Frame poed question regardingthe regulative priniple o worhip;and in o doing,helped to demonstrate hi ontinued miunderstand-ing o the priniple. . David Gordon, in a resone,haracerize thi artile general defiienie:

. Editor Note: SeeMinority Report of the Committee on Song in

the Publi Worhip of God Submitted to the Fourteenth General A-

embly of the Orthodox Prebyterian Churh (). Te text i in

the Orthodox Prebyterian Churh, Minute of the General Aembly

(), -. A orreced verion o both the majority and minor-

ity report, inluding addition o a miing line o text, i available at

the OPC webite at http://www.op.org/GA/ong.html. Aording

to William Young, the o-igner o the minority report, it wa en-

tirely written by John Murray.

. John M. Frame, Some Question about the egulative Prini-

ple, estminster Teologial ournal (Fall ) -. Here-

afer Some Question.

. . David Gordon, Some Anwer About the egulative Prin-

iple, (Fall ) -. Hereafer Some Anwer. Te

author than Dr. Gordon or hi permiion to quote extenivelyrom hi review o the writing on worhip o both Mr. Frame and

Dr. Gore.


8/36

olume ()


Proeor John Frame very aurately entitled a reent

artile, Some Question about the Regulative Prini-

ple, ine question, rather than olution, dominated

the artile. Ti i not neearily a bad thing. Ofen

the road to ogent anwer i first harted by raiing

ogent question. Unortunately, neither the que-

tion raied nor the anwer propoed were eseially

preie or ogent. It wa never lear to thi reader, or

instane, whoeregulative priniple Frame wa evalu-

ating, or whoeunderstanding o the irumstane

o worhip were problemati, or whya new ategory,

mode,wa deemed neeary, ine the three ex-

isting ategorie o Reormed worhip (element, ir-

umstane, and orm) would appear adequate to hi

onern.

Regarding whoe view o the regulative priniple oWorhip Frame may have been addreing, Dr. Gor-don omplained:

It i not lear with whom Frame i debating. Te

lak o seifiity make it unlear to the reader

whether Frame differene i with histori, learly de-

fined understanding o the priniple, or with ome

o the partiular individual he may have met in hi

lietime, who may not repreent any other individual

than themelve. I Frame debating the regulativepriniple a artiulated by the Westminster Aembly,

by George Gillesie, by John Owen, by Jame Ban-

nerman, or by the Southern Prebyterian (Dabney,

Girardeau, Toma E. Pek)? It i not lear that hi

debate i with any o thee, and i it i, he ha miun-

derstood them all.

ircumstances in orship

Frame begin hi artile by noting the distincion be-tween the Calvinisti understanding o the regulativepriniple (whatever i not ommanded i orbid-den), and the Lutheran-Catholi ounterpart (what-ever i not orbidden i permitted). He all theReormed priniple RP1 and the Lutheran-Catholipriniple RP2 (Some Question, -). How-ever, it i painully apparent that he ha ailed to grasthe distincivene o Reormed worhip, partiularlywith regard to the ruial matter o irumstane oworhip. . David Gordon explain (Some Anwer,-):

Frame understanding o irumstane, and how

they are governed, i not (apparently) influened by

the very paage o the Westminster Confeion he

quote. Frame indiate an awarene o the at-

egory o irumstane; however, he doe not de-

fine them by any ommon definition, but rather give

example (time and plae o worhip, ue o a build-

ing, ue o pew, et.). Tee are aurate example

o irumstane, but the lak o a preie definition

lead to an inorrec understanding o how they are

determined. A irumstane i not determined by

omething like RP2. [Some Question, .] It idetermined (in the WCF .) learly enough: In

Gillesie, Owen, and Bannerman the distincion i

between thoe thing that are ira ara and in a-

ri.Tere are thing whih are religiou in them-

elve (prayer, inging praie to God), while there are

thing urrounding religiou event (ira) whih are

not religiou themelve (seaking, instrucing, ing-

ing). Tee thing are to be governed by the light o

nature, and Christian prudene, not by omething

more like RP2.

Dr. Gordon then omment on Proeor Frameallegation that the Westminster Aembly reogni-tion o irumstane looen the apparent ore othe original priniple omewhat. (Some Question,; Some Anwer, -):

It i not evident to thi reader, however, how the A-

embly reognition o irumstane looen the

apparent ore o the original priniple omewhat.

It doe not looen, but lariy. Toe thing whih

urround a religiou ervie, whih have no religiounature in themelve, are not to be exluded on that

ore. Tu, ampliying the human voie i not a reli-

. egarding Gordon ritiim o hi ategory here, Frame

write: A or mode (p. ), I do not are muh about it. ae ev-

erything I aid about mode and put it under irumstane, i that

mae it learer. My new paper doe not ue the mode ategory. It

a question o how you ut the pie and, o oure, whether you lie

it la mode. John M Frame, eply to . David Gordon, WJ

(Spring ) . Hereafer eply to Gordon.See the ootnote

below regarding thi new paper.

. Gordon remar in a ootnote: So Bannerman, e Churh

of Christ.: And o, liewie, there are matter not inthe publi

worhip o God, but aboutthe publi worhip o God, in regard to

whih the law o nature ome in. Te eremonieand institution o

Churh worhip are properly and distincively matter in ari; the

irumstaneo Churh worhip, or thoe that belong to it in om-

mon with the ordinary proeeding or peuliar olemnitie o men,

are properly and distincively matter ira ara (emphae hi).Jame Bannerman, e Churh of Christ(Edinburgh : & Clar,

. pt. Edinburgh: Te Banner o ruth rust, ; and ).


9/36

olume ()


giou matter; it i a matter o prudene, done in both

religiou and nonreligiou aemblie (a i providing

illumination, et.). Te Aembly did not looen the

regulative priniple by thi larifiation; to the on-

trary, it proteced against the very kind o over-restri-

tive proo-texting regarding every detail whih Frame

himel eem to wih to avoid.

One o Proeor Frame onern with the teah-ing o the Westminster Standard regarding irum-stane, i that it may be diffi ult to determine theelemental rom the irumstantial part o worhip.. David Gordon pointedly note that the regulativepriniple o worhip i not the only docrine that mayhave area o diffi ulty (Some Anwer, ):

Te docrine o the two nature o Christ i not with-

out diffi ulty, but Proeor Frame i not prepared to

disene with the docrine or that reaon. Proeor

Van il apologeti i, one might ay, ontroverial,

but thi ha not prevented Proeor Frame rom

teahing uh apologeti with a view toward ettling

the ontrovery. In point o ac, the pracial ontro-

very, whih ha threatened the peae o hurh lie

rom the ixteenth entury to our own, i aued by

thoe who reue to restric the publi worhip o God

to biblially revealed element.

iberty of onscience and hurch ower

Reerring to the Westminster Coneion o Faith po-ition on liberty o oniene and worhip, ProeorFrame state (Some Question, ): In effec, theoneion tell u to ollow omething like RP2 inmost o lie deiion, but to ollow RP1 in matter oaith and worhip. However, he ha been led to on-lude that all human lie i under RP1, and RP2 play

no role in biblial ethi. (Some Question, ). Ahe himel put it, not only i the Coneion o Faithin error, but the Coneion ontradic itel (SomeQuestion, ):

So, both in worhip and in the rest o lie, we hould

adopt RP1: Whatever i not ommanded i orbid-

den. Whenever we are not arrying out (rightly ap-

plying) a biblial ommand, we are ommitting in

(. Rom :).

o ay thi i to ay that the eloquent emiolon oWCF. i mislaed.I ay thi, not beaue I be-

lieve that the paage i too stric in it view o wor-

hip, but beaue I believe it not stric enough in it

oneption o how the ommandment bear upon ev-

eryday lie. O oure, elewhere in the Westminster

standard, partiularly WCF ., whih we have

quoted, there i a very strong view o the uffi ieny o

Sripture or all o lie.

Doe ., then, ontradic .? I think it doe, be-

aue the writer o . did not, evidently, think

through the onept o appliation a I have tried to

et it orth above. Paragraph . tell u that we are

ree (in everyday lie) rom ommandment o men

that run ontrary to Sripture, and that in addition we

are ree (in the area o aith and worhip) rom any

ommandment beide Sripture. But in one ene, we

are alway ree rom ommandment beide Sripture,

not only in aith and worhip. Sripture alone i our

ultimate rule, in all area o lie. O oure, Sripture

itel all u to be ubjec to leer authoritie (both,

inidentally, in worhip and elewhere); but when

thoe leer authoritie ommand ontrary to the will

o God, we may and must diobey them. And when

they ommand omething beide Sripture, then we

may not aept that a omething ultimately authori-

tative. I omeone laim to give ommand equal to

Sripture in ore and authority, we must deny thoe

laim. We are ree o themin worhip or lie ingeneral.

I an ertainly endore what . acually ay,

namely, that we are ree rom ommand ontrary to

Sripture in any area o lie and ree rom ommand

beide Sripture in worhip. But I would go urther

than the oneion doe here in aerting our liberty

rom extrabiblial revelation (ollowing the lead o the

oneion own teahing at .). So, though rejecing

the emiolon and the thought behind it, I do not be-

lieve I am ontravening the ystem o docrine taughtin the oneion.

For omeone who i given over to tri-persecival-im, Proeor Frame allegation that the WestminsterConeion ontradic itel at hapter . and .i perhap no diffi ulty. However, or thoe who holdto bai rule o logi (uh a the law o non-on-tradicion), thi allegation would reate problemwith regard to one theologial ystem and docrinalubription.

. Editor note: Te original puncuation here i indeed a emi-

olon. See the Editor introducion.


10/36

olume ()


Te proeor seulate the writer o . didnot, evidently, think through the onept o applia-tion a I have tried to et it orth above. Evidently!?!Or perhap it i beaue Frame rejec and/or ail tounderstand the theologial ategorie o the Aem-bly, whih at least two o their member (Gillesie andRutherord), were quite artiulate in deending (eethe editor introducion to thi artile).

In the diuion between the two sarring pro-eor, . David Gordon omment on Frame un-derstanding o WCF . and hi ignoring the wholebakdrop o the nature o hurh power in the historistatement o the regulative priniple (Some Anwer,, -):

It appear that Frame i unamiliar with the relevant

writing o the author mentioned above, or i he

were, he ould hardly have mied the point o ignifi-

ant to them all: the iue that gave birth to the regu-

lative priniple wa the nature and limit o hurh

power. Te iue wa not, or them, worhip veru

the rest o lie, but thoe asec o lie governed by

the hurh offi er veru thoe asec o lie not

governed by the hurh offi er. Bannerman, or in-

stane, ay thi about WCF. [Bannerman, .]:

Te direc objec o the Coneion in thi paage

i no doubt to aert the right and extent o libertyo oniene; but along with that, it very distincly

enuniate the docrine, that neither in regard to aith

nor in regard to worhip ha the Churh any authority

beide or beyond what i laid down in the Bible; and

that it ha no right to deree and enore new ober-

vane or institution in the department o Sriptural

worhip, any more than to teah and inulate new

truth in the department o Sriptural aith.

Frame attempt to establih a hermeneuti ree rom

the (misereived) diffi ulty o the regulative prin-iple, whereby he would ubjec all o lie to a om-

mon hermeneuti, requiring poitive warrant rom

God Word. Note, however, the equivoation that o-

ur when he attempt to establih uh an alternative.

Frame hange the Aembly ree rom any om-

mandment whih are beide ripture, i in aith or

worhip, into any ommand whih aume ultimate

authority; [Some Question, ] but thee are not

the ame thing. Te ivil magistrate, or instane,

would not neearily aume ultimate authority in

requiring a seed limit o fify-mile mph. Are we ree

rom thi ommand? For the Aembly, the anwer

i no, beaue while it i beide Sripture, in the

ene that Sripture doe not addre the seed-limit

question, it i not a matter o aith or worhip. But or

Frame, it i not lear what hi anwer would be, and

it may demonstrate the impoibility (or meaning-

lene) o hi RP1 over all o lie theory; everything

would get wallowed up in giving glory to God, but

nothing more seifi ould be aid. Te Aembly

aid nothing about the degree o ultimay given to

the law; or them, the only iue wa whether it wa

beide the Sripture, regardle o ultimay, in area

o aith or worhip.

Frame divoring o thi docrine rom it matrix in

the docrine o the nature and extent o hurh power

lead to the not urpriing onluion o affi rming

RP1 while denying that thi priniple or worhip iany different rom the priniple by whih God govern

other area o human lie. [Some Question, ].

One an only imagine the onequene o thi: the

hurh an require o anybody anything not prohib-

ited in Sripture, a poition with whih the Anglian

would have been most happy and the Westminster

Aembly most haple. Tat question o ruial to

the ixteenth and eventeenth enturie (the limit o

hurh power a regard liberty o oniene) would

ompletely evaporate. I any individual ould argue

that ome ac in ome way brought glory to God, then,by Frame reaoning, the hurh ould require thi to

be done a an ac o orporate worhip. Yet, it take

only a ew step o argument ad aburdumto demon-

strate the allay. Preumably, or instane, the man

who i ully onvined in hi own mind (Rom :)

i ree to oberve a day a religiouly distinc. Yet, or

Paul (but not or Frame) thi individual i not ree to

do anything(put it in a bulletin) whih might indue

another to oberve uh a day ontrary to hi own

oniene. A another (admittedly aburd) example,

giving my hildren a bath beore bedtime i a matterwhih I believe give glory to God (and a muh-de-

erved rest to their mother!). It promote their health,

. Editor note: Te Aembly aigned the topi o Christian

Liberty to the first ommittee on November , , and the ub-

jec reeived about thirty day o debate within the ull Aembly,

inluding thirteen day over the first quarter o / and twelve

day in Ocober. Debate wa onluded and the hapter approved

on Ocober , . See: B. B. Warfield, Te Westminster Aem-

bly and it Wor, Work vol. (pt. Grand apid: Baer Boo

Houe, ) . Te first ommittee ontained around thirty-five

divine, ounting the Sottih Commiioner, and a initially et up

inluded uh men a Palmer, Bridge, Goodwin, Ley, Gouge, Sedg-wi, Nye, uney, and Dr. Burge. Many o thee member wrote

extenively and were noted theologian.Minute,lxxxv.


11/36

olume ()


it alm them down or bedtime, and i good, lean

un. However, a an offi er in the hurh, I annot

bring a bathtub into our ervie o worhip, plae the

girl in it, and give them a bath to the glory o God,

requiring other to oberve the rite. In ac, Frame

own example make a pretty good ad aburdumargu-

ment. He ay: Buying abbage, like all human a-

tion, i a matter o onern to God, and he goe on to

indiate that abbage-buying i an acivity addreed

by the Word o God, iting Cor :. [Some Que-

tion, ]. Sine that i o, and ine he wihe to

have no different hermeneuti governing the worhip

o God than that whih govern other asec o lie,

would Proeor Frame uggest that abbage-buying i

a lawul element o Christian worhip? Can it poibly

be that a proeor o Christian theology find bibli-

al mandate or abbage-buying a an ac o Chri-

tian worhip, but doe not find biblial mandate or

preahing in Christian worhip? [Some Question,

n].

Te egulative rinciple versus ll of ife

Proeor Frame laim to reaffi rm the regulativepriniple in the orm RP1, while denying that thipriniple or worhip i any different rom the prin-

iple by whih God govern other area o human lie.(Some Question, ). He state that hi perseciveerve a a warning against applying RP1 in a woodenmanner, uh a by demanding seifi proo text tojustiy worhip pracie. Tat ort o wooden ap-proah doe have ome preedent in Sripture; it i notwrong to find omething like thi approah in onne-tion with the tabernale/temple/arifiial worhip.But it i not a rule or worhip in general any morethan or the rest o lie. (Some Question, )

But although he proee not to have betrayed the

ystem o docrine ontained in the Westminster Stan-dard, that i preiely what he ha done. Without aharp distincion between lie in general and worhipin partiular, there i no regulative priniple a histori-ally understood and maintained by the Puritan ore-ather. . David Gordon rightly onlude (SomeAnwer, ):

Tat there may be many question properly raied

about the ontemporary miunderstanding o the

regulative priniple doe not imply that the tradi-

tional understanding (Frame stated onern) needadjustment. I there i to be intelligent, ultimately

ruitul diuion o the Reormed understanding o

worhip, uh diuion must have uffi ient resec

or the Reormed tradition to engage the ignifiant,

publihed expreion o that tradition. I Frame had

engaged uh literature, he ould hardly have ailed to

put the question differently than he did. Te regula-

tive priniple o worhip doe not addre worhip a

distinguihed rom the rest o lie. It addree what

an individual may do, obliging no one ele, a distin-

guihed rom what the hurh offi er may require o

the aembled aint. It i not lear in hi artile that

Frame ha amiliarized himel with traditional way

o understanding the priniple. Tereore hi om-

ment do not ontribute ignifiantly to a diu-

ion o the Reormed tradition understanding o

worhip.

rofessor rames eply to rofessor ordon

John Frame replied briefly to . David Gordon An-wer to hi Question (Reply to . David Gordon).In thi reply he first deer, in resone to the questiono ogeny, to an unpublihed paper on the regula-tive priniple whih i longer, and I think more o-gent, than Some Question. It poe ome additionalquestion and provide, I think, a ew anwer a well.He invited reader to write and obtain a opy.

Ti wa a paper the proeor ubmitted to the PCAMiion to North Ameria, entitled Te Lordhipo Christ and the Regulative Priniple o Worhip,whih, along with another paper, he would later ex-pand into the book Worhip in Spirit and ruth, tobe notied next in thi urvey (Spirit and ruth,xvi-xvii).

hose egulative rinciple?

In resone to Dr. Gordon question a to whih

and to whoe view o the regulative priniple he waresonding, Proeor Frame replied that he wa re-sonding to then urrent diuion o the topi butwould not name name, and lef it to the reader to de-termine with whom he wa dealing (Reply to Gor-don, -).

Gordon first ak me to identiy my opponent more

preiely. I resecully deline. I will ay in general

that my artile wa direced toward urrent diu-

ion within the hurhe rather than toward the

. John Frame, Te Lordhip o Christ and the egulative Prin-iple o Worhip, written or the Worhip a Fore o the Com-

mittee on Miion to North Ameria, PCA. Unpublihed.


12/36

olume ()


deliberation and writing o the Westminster Divine

themelve. Gordon know whom I am talking about,

or he identified one o the individual in private or-

resondene, and he admit in hi artile that I am

not entirely tilting at windmill (p. ). I usec,

thereore, that reader interested in thee matter an

alo identiy my target. Beyond that, I will not name

name. Tere i too muh o that in the Christian

ommunity. I the hoe fit, anyone may wear it. I it

fit nobody, then eel ree to diard my artile.

I I were writing a historial paper or a ritique o the

seifi view o an individual, I would have upplied

name and quote. But in Some Question, my pur-

poe wa rather to raie question and tentatively to

put orth a thei. Aademi nietie aide, I did not

eel that or thi purpoe it wa neeary or me to in-

terac with anybody. A to whether I have been attak-

ing straw men, I will leave it to the reader to deide.

Gordon ay that thi matter must be diued only

within a history-o-docrine ramework (p. ). I

diagree. I invite him and other to do historial stud-

ie, whih doubtle will have their value. But mere

historial studie do not tell u where the truth lie.

For the Reormed holar, the truth i to be ound only

through study o Sripture. Tat point i an applia-tion o the very regulative priniple we are diu-

ing. In ac, I think that reent theology in orthodox

Reormed irle ha been too historial in it ap-

proah, to the point where the regulative priniple ha

been lost ight o.

I will then et aide Gordon omment to the effec

that the Divine themelve were not ubjec to my

ritiim. I did not intend my paper to be a ritique

o the Divine. Evidently Gordon think that any re-

erene to traditional view must be a reerene to theDivine (p. ). I do not ue the phrae that way. In

my voabulary, the Reormed tradition i the whole

history o Reormed thinking on the ubjec, rom the

ixteenth entury to the preent. It inlude both the

eminal view o the Divine and the (to my mind de-

batable) view o urrent Reormed hurhmen. For

the reord, let me ay that I am not unamiliar (p.

) with the writing o the Westminster Divine.

Regardle o whether Some Question i le o-

gent than it ould have been, what hould be obviou ithat Proeor Frame ailure to learly define hi term(e.g., traditional view) and to identiy what ontem-

porary view he wa engaging, imply leave matterin a state o onuion. Whih i it? I the proeorrejecing ome modern miunderstanding o the prin-iple, a he ee it? Or i he in reality acually rejecingthe eminal view o the Westminster Aembly itel?Frame would later write, I believe that the baiidea o the regulative priniple, apart rom the ompli-ated Puritan amplifiation o it, i riptural (Spiritand ruth,). But the Westminster Aembly wa agathering of Puritan theologian! Apparently, not onlydoe the proeor wih to let other do historial stud-ie, he will ignorethe historial-theologial ontext othe Aembly determination a well.

In addition, Mr. Frame delare that he wa notresonding or interacing with the view o the

Westminster divine, nor ritiizing them. But whatare the allegation that the Westminster Coneiono Faith i ontradicory, and that the WestminsterAembly did not think through the onept o ap-pliation like I have done, i not ritiim? Te pro-eor resone that he wa not unamiliar with thewriting o the Westminster Divine, would appearto be a tait admiion that he wa indeed unamiliarwith the writing on the ubjec by Owen, Bannerman,Dabney, Girardeau, and Pek (Some Anwer, ;Reply to Gordon, ).

Te balane o Proeor Frame reply i devotedto Proeor Gordon point regarding the entralityo hurh power to the iue o the regulative prin-iple and to the docrine o liberty o oniene. Hewrite:

Well, I did not ue the quoted phrae, but it hould

not be too diffi ult or reader o my artile to ee the

impliation o my poition or liberty o oniene.

Sine I believe that all o lie i under the regulative

priniple, I believe that liberty o oniene alo ex-

ist equally within all asec o human lie. In all olie, we ollow ola Sriptura and thereore reognize

no human authority on the ame level a Sripture.

All o lie i thereore governed by divine ommand,

though the seifi appliation are to be made by

the light o nature and Christian prudene, aord-

ing to the general rule o the Word, whih are alway

to be oberved (Westminster Confeion of Faith.).

Tu the distincion between element and irum-

stane i the ame in other area o lie a it i in wor-

hip. Indeed, I believe that . o the Confeionitel

applie thi priniple to all o lie.

O oure thi view doe not imply that there are no


13/36

olume ()


differene among shere a to God seifi dire-

tive. Government and hurh are both under the

ame regulative priniple, but there are differene in

what God ha ommanded or eah. God ha, or ex-

ample, given to government the power o the word,

whih he ha not given to the hurh. Indeed, nothing

in my argument would rule out the poibility o se-

ifi divine direcive onerning worhip, a distin-

guihed rom other human acivitie. Tereore I am

not ored to ay, a Gordon think, that the hurh

ould require u to bathe hildren at a worhip er-

vie (p. ).

W S

Four year afer the artile in the estminster Teolog-ial ournal, Proeor Frame enapulated hi ideain a book entitled, Worhip in Spirit and ruth: A Re-frehing Study of the Priniple and Pracie of BiblialWorhip. Several review appeared at the time whihnoted the many problem in the author handling othe regulative priniple.

eneral roblems in rames or

Rev. Brian Shwertley, a prolifi author on matter re-garding Prebyterian worhip, ommend and thenondemn Frame book thu:

John Frame ha written a book that both deend

and et orth the worhip paradigm o most [o]

modern onervative Prebyterianim. Beore ana-

lyzing many o the undamental aertion o Frame

book, thi author would like to ommend Frame or

a number o thing. First, the book, Worhip in Spirit

and in ruth, i well written and organized. Seond,

Frame ha takled a ubjec that i very importantand hardly addreed in thi entury. Tird, Frame i

strongly ommitted to biblial inerrany and the abo-

lute authority o the Bible. Although Frame book ha

ome ommendable asec, it must be ondemned

over-all a a eriou departure rom the standard, hi-

torial understanding o Reormed worhip. What i

partiularly disturbing regarding Frame book i that

he abandon the Westminster Standard, yet preent

himel a a hampion o the regulative priniple.

Dr. Joeph A. Pipa, Jr. aee the general problemin thi way:

Tere are numerou methodologial problem with

thi book. Pro. Frame tell u that he will give an ex-

egetial reinterpretation o the regulative priniple. He

leave or another time a diuion o earlier exege-

i o the priniple. But when one depart o radially

rom aepted exegei he need to interac with that

exegei. Furthermore, the great majority o the ew

historial reerene Mr. Frame make are not au-

rate. For example, he aert that the Puritan approah

to worhip wa minimalisti and went ar beyond the

statement o the docrine in the Westminster stan-

dard. He ay, very little o the Puritan theology o

worhip i ound in the Westminster standard (xii).

An aertion doe not make omething true. I Pro.

Frame i going to make uh a uggestion, he need

to validate. Chapter , , o the Coneion; L.C.

Q. -, -; and S.C. Q. -, - are a

very thorough statement o the Puritan and Reormed

theology o worhip and the Direcory o Worhip

only applie the priniple ound in the standard.

Most modern proponent o the priniple are ontent

to limit themelve to it expreion in the standard.

Furthermore, Mr. Frame tend to iolate the Puritan

a i they were more narrow in their understanding

o the regulative priniple than Calvin or the Duth

reormed. Ti i a ale dihotomy (e.g., Heidelberg

Catehim , What doe God require in the eondommandment? We are not to make an image o God

in any way, nor to worhip Him in any other manner

than He ha ommanded in Hi word; . Belgi Con-

eion, Artile ; and Calvin, e Neeity of Re-

forming the Churh).

On the other hand, Mr. Frame exegetial bai or hi

view i at best anty. Ti problem i most telling in

hi ailure to diu the relation o the regulative prin-

iple to the Seond Commandment, whih i the bai

on whih all Reormed exegete rom Calvin throughthe Puritan developed the priniple. Likewie, he ail

. Brian Shwertley, Te Neo-Prebyterian Challenge to Con-

eional Prebyterian Orthodoxy A Biblial Analyi o John

Frame Worhip in Spirit and in ruth. http://www.reormed.om/

pub/rame.htm. We note here, that ine Proeor Frame boo a-

tor greatly in the ongoing diuion o worhip within Prebyteri-

anim, the la o a ubjec/author index i regrettable.

. Dr. Joeph Pipa, eview: Worhip in Spirit and ruth, Pre-

byterian & Reformed New v. , # [Fall ] -. Ued with

permiion o Prebyterian International New Servie. At the

time o hi review, Dr. Pipa wa a olleague o Proeor Frame at

Westminster Teologial Seminary in Caliornia. He i now prei-dent at Greenville Prebyterian Teologial Seminary, where he i

alo proeor o historial and ystemati theology.


14/36

olume ()


to diu the relation o key N paage uh a John

:- and Col. :.

rames tatement of Te egulative rinciple

Proeor Frame begin hi book by aking the que-tion, What i worhip?, and the anwer given i:Worhip i the work of aknowledging the greatne ofour ovenant Lord (Spirit and ruth,). Te proeorwrite that true worhip i aturated with remindero God ovenant lordhip. We worhip to honor himighty ac, to hear hi authoritative word, and to el-lowhip with him peronally a the one who ha madeu hi people. When we are distraced rom our ov-enant Lord and preoupied with our own omort

and pleaure, omething ha gone eriouly wrong.A my ormer pastor, Dik Kaumann, ay, when weleave worhip, we hould first ak, not What did I getout o it? But How did I do in my work o honoring theLord? (Spirit and ruth,).

Afer treating worhip in Old and New estament,Proeor Frame turn to Te Rule or Worhip, anda diuion o the regulative priniple o worhip.Te proeor note that, in ontrast to Roman Catho-li, Epiopalian, and Lutheran, Prebyterian andReormed hurhe have employed a stronger

priniple: whatever Sripture doe not ommand iorbidden. Here, Sripture ha more than veto power;it uncion i eentially poitive. On thi view, Srip-ture must poitively require a pracie, i that praciei to be uitable or the worhip o God (Spirit andruth,).

Afer quoting rom the Westminster Coneiono Faith, hapter ., Mr. Frame write: Te opera-tive word i preribed. Eventually thi restricion oworhip to what God preribe beame known a theregulative priniple o Reormed and Prebyterian

worhip (Spirit and ruth,).

enitional hanges

However, having enuniated the Coneional prin-iple, Proeor Frame promptly, and ubtly, begin torender it meaningle. He doe o, a we have een be-ore,by making the regulative priniple apply to allo lie (worhip in the broad ene, to ue hi nomen-lature); and by arving out the novel ategory o ap-pliation whih allow or human innovation.

nder the ircumstances

In preenting hi ategory o appliation, the proe-or again tangle with the onept o irumstaneo worhip, in order to rejec the term in avor o hinew onept, and doe not dislay any apparent bene-fit rom hi exhange with . David Gordon, or romthe number o work listed in hi bibliography. Hewrite (Spirit and ruth, -):

What are thee irumstane? Te oneion doe

not define the term, exept to ay that they are om-

mon to human acion and oietie. Some o the

Puritan and Sottih Prebyterian, trying to ur-

ther explain thi idea, taught that irumstane were

eular matter, o no acual religiou ignifiane. But

urely, in God world, nothing i purely eular; noth-

ing i entirely devoid o religiou ignifiane. Tat

ollow rom the ac that in one ene worhip i all

o lie. Te time and plae o a meeting, or instane,

are not religiouly neutral. Deiion about uh mat-

ter must be made to the glory o God. Te elder o a

hurh would not be exeriing godly rule i they tried

to ore all the member to worhip at : AM!

Although it i ommon to human acion and oiet-

ie to make deiion about meeting time and plae,

the deiion neverthele ha religiou ignifiane inthe ontext o the hurh. Te divine understood thi,

and o they inisted that all thee deiion be made

aording to the general rule o the Word.

In resone to thi we first reer the reader bak tothe definition and itation preented in the editorintroducion to thi artile. Te publiher and writerKevin Reed, in hi review o Frame book, providea uinc rebuttal to Frame omment on irum-stane o worhip:

He then move to a ecion o appliation, aking, I

there, then, no role or human thought, planning, or

deiion, in the worhip o God? (p. ). He pro-

vide a negative aement o ome (unnamed) Puri-

tan and Sottih Prebyterian who uppoedly drew

a harp distincion between eular and ared mat-

ter. Yet, the Puritan or Sot did not laim that de-

iion on irumstane were purely eular; rather,

irumstane may be onidered indifferent matter

onidered abstracly, but they obtain a ared ignifi-

ane when implemented in ome way or the ervieo God. . evin eed, Prebyterian Worhip: Old and New: A e-view and Commentary upon Worhip in Spirit and ruth. http://www.all-o-grae.org/pub/other/regulativepriniple.html.


15/36

olume ()


Mr. Frame ontinued on the ubjec o irum-stane o worhip (Spirit and ruth,-):

I agree with the oneion that there i room or hu-

man judgment in matter that are ommon to human

acion and oietie. But I do not believe that that

i the only legitimate shere o human judgment. In

my view, the term best uited to deribe the shere

o human judgment i not irumstane, but applia-

tion. ypially, Sripture tell u what we hould do in

general and then leave u to determine the seifi by

our own ancified widom, aording to the general

rule o the Word. Determining the seifi i what I

all appliation.

Unlike the term irumstane, the term appliation

naturally over both type o example I have men-

tioned. Appliation inlude uh matter a the time

and plae o worhip: Sripture tell u to meet, but

not when and whereo we must ue our own judg-

ment. Similarly, Sripture tell u to pray, but doe not

dicate to u all the seifi word we hould ueo

we need to deide. A you an ee, the shere o ap-

pliation inlude ome matter that are ommon to

human acion and oietie and ome matter that

are not.

In everyday lie, I am never ree rom God om-

mand. When I am obeying the Lord, everything I do

i done in obediene to divine ommand. Some om-

mand, o oure, are more general; other are more

seifi. Do it all or the glory o God ( Cor. :)

i general; do thi in remembrane o me: ( Cor. :

), reerring to the Lord Supper, i relatively seifi.

By the proe o appliation, I make the general om-

mand seifi and the seifi ommand more o.

Tu understood, the regulative priniple or wor-hip i no different rom the priniple by whih God

regulate all o our lie. Tat i to be expeced, beaue,

a we have een, worhip i in an important ene, all

o lie. In both ae, whatever i not ommanded i

orbiddeneverything we do must be done in obedi-

ene to God ommand. In both ae, appliation

determine the seifi in aordane with the gen-

eral priniple o the word.

I am aware that traditional Prebyterian statement o

the regulative priniple typially draw a muh harperdistincion than I have drawn between worhip er-

vie and the rest o lie. Te Westminster Coneion,

or example, state that in all o lie we are ree rom

any docrine and ommandment o men that are

ontrary to God word, but that in matter o aith

or worhip, we are alo ree rom docrine and om-

mandment that are beide the word (.).

My own ormulation doe not ontradic the one-

ion, but goe beyond it. In my view, we are ree rom

anything beide the word, not only in matter o

aith, or worhip, but in all other area o lie a well.

In all area o lie, we are ubjec to biblial ommand.

Sripture alone i given by insiration o God to be

the rule o aith and lie, a the oneion indiate

(.). Human widom may never preume to addto it

ommand. Te only job o human widom i to apply

thoe ommand to seifi ituation.

Dr. Pipa write on thee new unoneional view:

In deending hi new definition he onue both

irumstane and orm o worhip with element.

Te Westminster Coneion doe not define irum-

stane a appliation o element, but a thing

that help perorm the element o worhip. Form

are the preie ontent o an elementor example,

whih ong to be ung or whether to ue ommon

prayer in addition to ree prayer. Dr. . David Gor-don ha helpully written o the ontrast: Similarly, i

we agree that prayer are to be offered (a element),

it i a irumstantial onideration a to how many

prayer we will have, and a ormal onideration a

to whih partiular prayer to inlude (or instane,

whether to pray Te Lord Prayer, or not i a ormal

onideration).

Further, Frame ail to distinguih between the broad

and narrow ene o worhip in hi appliation o the

priniple. Tu understood, the regulative prinipleor worhip i no different rom the priniple by

whih God regulate all o our lie (). He onlude,

ine in broad worhip Sripture allow u to apply the

seifi ommand to our irumstane, then we may

do the ame in narrow worhip. A he reely admit,

thi goe beyond the distincion made in WCF :

(God alone i lord o the oniene, and hath lef it

ree rom the docrine and ommandment o men

whih are in any thing ontrary to hi word, or beide

it, in matter o aith or worhip). He laim not to

ontradic the Coneion but to go beyond. But theConeion define the regulative priniple purely in

matter o orporate worhip and government and not


16/36

olume ()


broad worhip. Hi new interpretation learly ontra-

dic the standard.

We agree with Dr. Pipa, a we have indiated previ-ouly on thi ore, thatby going beyond the Cone-ion o Faith, Proeor Frame ha indeed modifiedthe meaning o the regulative priniple. Clearly, theConeional Standard, with regard to both the do-trine o worhip and liberty o oniene, domakea harp delineation between lie in general and wor-hip in partiular. Te regulative priniple mean thatthe acual element or pracie o worhip, not barepriniple o worhip, are preribed. But i the appli-ation o Christian liberty in matter o worhip anddocrine i equated with the appliation o Christian

liberty to lie in general, then there i no bai or se-ifi element o worhip (ine, in lie in general, theappliation o Biblial priniple will lead to varyingexpreion o obediene).

Proeor Frame onlude the hapter on TeRule or Worhip by stating that:(Spirit and ruth,-).

the regulative priniple limit what we may do in

worhip, but it alo allow different ort o applia-

tion, and thereore a ignifiant area o liberty. Di-

erent hurhe legitimately apply God ommandin different way. God ommand u to ing; ome

hurhe may apply that ommand by inging three

hymn in their ervie, other our. Some may ing

primarily traditional hymn, other ontemporary

ong. God ommand u to pray. Some hurhe may

have one prayer, led by the minister, or many, led by

member o the ongregation. A we hall ee more

learly in ubequent hapter, there i quite a large

role in worhip or human judgment, or human re-

ativity, operating within the limit o God word.

Certainly, the regulative priniple hould not be ued,

a ome have ued it, to enore traditionalim in wor-

hip. Both in Sripture and in hurh history, the reg-

ulative priniple ha been a powerul weapon against

the impoition o human tradition in the worhip o

God. Conider again the protest o Iaiah (Ia. :)

and Jeu (Matt. :-) against thoe who plaed hu-

man tradition on the ame level a Sripture. Alo

onider again the protest o the Puritan against

thoe who laimed the right to impoe eremonie

without riptural warrant.

Certainly, the regulative priniple i a harter o ree-

dom, not a burdenome bondage. Te regulative prin-

iple et u ree rom human tradition, to worhip

God hi way. It limit our hoie in the way a fih

i limited to it watery habitat. When we break out

o thoe limit, we diover death awaiting u, not

reedom. o deny the regulative priniple i to rebel

against our loving Creator and then, paradoxially,

to find ourelve in mierable bondage to human

dogmatim.

In the remainder o thi book, thereore, I will not

urge anyone to onorm to the Puritan style o wor-

hip or to any other style. In that resec, thi book will

be rather unuual, ompared to most other worhip

book! Rather, I hall preent the regulative priniple

a one that et u ree, within limit, to worhip God

in the language o our own time, to eek thoe appli-

ation o God ommandment whih most ediy

worhiper in our ontemporary ulture. We must be

both more onervative and more liberal than most

student o Christian worhip: onervative in hold-

ing exluively to God ommand in Sripture a our

rule o worhip, and liberal in deending the liberty o

thoe who apply thoe ommandment in legitimate,

though nontraditional, way.

In hi review, Dr. Pipa omment on Frame inon-istent terminology:

Moreover, when he applie the new priniple, he ay

that the regulative priniple may not be ued to en-

ore traditionalim in worhip (). Again Mr.

Frame ail to define hi term. He ue the term tra-

ditionalim here a worhip that i invented by men,

while throughout the book he ue the term or the

approah that areully applie the regulative priniple

to all the element o worhip. Tu, he give the im-

preion that thoe whom he oppoe are worhippingby man-made tradition.

rames ejection of lements of orship

Having repudiated the oundation o the regulativepriniple, Proeor Frame, in hi hapter What toDo in Worhip, proeed to gut the priniple in itentirety. With regard to the Puritan (and WestminsterConeional) notion o part or element o wor-hip, he write that there are eriou problem with

thi approah. Te most eriou problem i thatthere i no riptural warrant or it! Sripture no-where divide worhip up into a erie o independent


17/36

olume ()


element, eah requiring independent riptural justi-fiation. Sripture nowhere tell u that the regulativepriniple demand that partiular level o seifiity,rather than ome other (Spirit and ruth,).

Te proeor ontend that the New estament(Spirit and ruth,):

give u no ystemati or exhaustive list o the

event that were authorized or uh ervie [o pub-

li worhip]. Certainly it give u no list o element

in the tehnial ene o Puritan theologyacion

requiring seifi riptural authorization, a oppoed

to irumstane or appliation that do not.

Another problem with the onept o element o wor-

hip i that the thing we do in worhip are not alway

learly distinguihable rom one another. Singing and

teahing, or example, are not distinc rom one an-

other. When we ing hymn with biblial ontent, we

teah one another (Col. :). And many hymn are

alo prayer and reed. Prayer with biblial ontent

ontain teahing. Te entire ervie i prayer, ine it

i uttered in the preent o God, to hi praie. Perhap

it would be better to seak o asec o worhip,

rather than element or part.

However, i there are no partiular element oworhip, but merely asec whih may be expreedin a variety o way, then what, pray tell, i lef o theregulative priniple? How doe Mr. Frame poitiondiffer ubstantially rom the Lutheran or Anglianview?

Further onfirming the onuion exhibited, Pro-eor Frame laim that the New estament doe notgive u an exhaustive list o what wa and wa not doneat early Christian meeting. However, a in the aeo the Old estament ynagogue, we may, by appeal

to broad theologial priniple, gain aurane a towhat God want u to do when we gather in hi name(Spirit and ruth,).

Regarding the urory way in whih Frame handlethe onept o element o worhip, Dr. Pipa write:

But the Westminster Coneion o Faith i quite lear

on element (:-). Bannerman ay: Te rip-

ture are the only rule or worhip, a truly a they are

the only rule or the Churh in any other department

o her dutie. And the Sripture are uffi ient or that

purpoe; or they ontain a direcory or worhip, ei-ther exprely inulated, or justly to be inerred rom

it statement uffi ient or the guidane o the Churh

in every neeary part o worhip (e Churh of

Christ, I, ).

Not only doe Frame differ rom the standard, but

he alo neglec to interac with the exegetial prin-

iple that Calvin and the Puritan ued to determine

the elementpriniple that are ummarized in the

Westminster Coneion I, : Te whole ounel

o God, onerning all thing neeary or hi own

glory, man alvation, aith, and lie, i either exprely

et down in ripture, or by good and neeary one-

quene may be dedued rom ripture. Bannerman

offer three guideline or determining element: ex-

pliit ommand (Eph. :; im. :); N example

(Ac :); and general priniple (theologial iner-

ene) drawn rom ripture (ue o benedicion or

plaing Baptim in orporate worhip) (I, ).

In rejecing element o worhip, Kevin Reedmake lear that Mr. Frame ha rejeced portion oWCF a well a the earlier Reormation reed:

It i important to realize that, in rejecing the idea

o element (or part) o worhip, Frame ha under-

mined ecion - o hapter o the Westminster

Coneion. Te Coneion seifially ue the term

part or part three time within thee ecion, init deription o worhip. Tereore, to rejec the on-

ept o part to worhip, i to rejec the teahing o the

Coneion.

Moreover, a we have een, the onept o part o

worhip i muh older than the Puritan. It i interwo-

ven within numerou Reormed reed and advoated

by writer rom the outet o the Reormation. Tu,

Mr. Frame ha not only dimied the Puritan, and

the Coneion; in hi el-prolaimed widom, he ha

alo ast off the teahing o the Reormer.

r. rames Tings to do in orship

Proeor Frame proeed to develop a list o thingto do in worhip. Hi list inlude Greeting andBenedicion, Reading o Sripture, Preahing andeahing, Charimati Prophey and Speaking inongue,Prayer, Song, Vow, Coneion o Faith,Sarament, Churh Diipline, Collecion/Offering,

. Proeor Frame doe note that Charimati Prophey and

Speaing in ongue, although part o New estament worhip,were seial gif o God or the ounding o the hurh and hould

not be expeced in our time.


18/36

olume ()


and Expreion o Fellowhip (Spirit and ruth,-). However, thee ategorie do not fit with standarddefinition.

For example, not only doe he equate preahingand teahing, but he urther onue matter whenhe attempt to justiy drama a a orm o preahing(Spirit and ruth,):

When God give u a general ommand (in thi ae

the ommand to preah the word), and i ilent on

ome asec o it seifi appliation, we may prop-

erly make thoe appliation ourelve, within the

general rule o Sripture. Te question beore u,

then, are whether drama i legitimately a orm o

preahing or teahing, and whether there are any

riptural teahing that would rule it out a a mean

o ommuniating the word. I would anwer ye to the

first question, and no to the eond.

God ofen teahe hi people through drama. Te

book o Job, the Old estament arifie and east,

and the New estament arament are reenacment

o God great work o redemption. A we have een,

the traditional liturgy ha ontinued thi proe o re-

enacment or many enturie, o drama in worhip i

nothing new.

I we grant that the word an be preahed or taught by

more than one seaker, that teahing an take plae

through dialogue, and that teahing inevitably ha

dramati element, then we annot objec to drama a

a orm o teahing.

Dr. Pipa oberve the ollowing regarding Proe-or Frame view o Preahing and Drama in worhipervie:

I alo diagree with blurring the distincion betweenorporate worhip and other oaion on whih

teahing or ellowhip our. Moreover, he ail to ee

the unique role o preahing (keruo) a verbal, pub-

li prolamation by one ommiioned to that tak by

Christ and thu define all kind o instrucion and

verbal ommuniation a preahing. More eriouly,

he inlude drama a a kind o preahing. In doing

o, he blur distincion and equivoate. He ail to

note the differene between the dramati element in

seaking, and drama. He onue illustration or

Jeu quoting people in a parable with drama. He ailto distinguih between propheti revelatory acion

and drama.

Regarding Vow, the proeor laim that they notonly are involved in the arament, beoming hurhmember, ordination, and marriage, but that they areinvolved indeed, more broadly, [in] the onerationo our live to God purpoe. All publi worhip in-lude the ongregation vow to erve Christ a Lord(Spirit and ruth,). But, i vowing inlude every-thing in lie, then how i it a distinc ac o worhip?

We ould note other ambiguitie and outright er-ror in Proeor Frame list. However, we will atthi point imply onentrate on the final item, viz.,Expreion o Fellowhip. Here, he et orth hi be-lie that worhip ha both vertial and horizontal a-pecthat in worhip we hould be onerned aboveall or God glory, but alo or our ellow worhiper

a our brother and ister in Christ. In hi opinion,ellowhip meal, holy kie, and announement anbe appropriate or worhip. Beyond that, he write: Iti not wrong in worhip to honor human being, along a that honor doe not ompromie the upremehonor due to the Lord. Nor i it wrong or the on-gregation to expre that honor with a ong, applaue,hand holding, or hug (Spirit and ruth,-).

At thi point, one hardly know what to ay. It i,to ay the least, breathtaking to think that a Reormedtheologian would uggest that, in worhip, honor

ought to be offered to mere mortal. However, we areertain that the Lord o the univere ha ome defi-niteand very ondemnatorythought about theoffering o praie to men during a time that i to bereerved or the worhip o God.

Proeor Frame peuliar persecive alo ha ledhim to ountenane emale leaderhip in worhip,and, apparently, leave the door wide open or the re-ligiou obervane o Christma andother holy day(Spirit and ruth,-; n). He alo ontend thatliturgial daning i koher: God i pleaed when we

dane beore him in worhip, but he doe not expecu to do it every time we meet in hi name. [I]t inot a neeary element o worhip, but omethingthat provide enrihment o worhip rom time totime. Enouraging the lapping o hand and lifingup o hand in publi worhip, Proeor Frame laimthat thee alo onstitute mui o the body. Godwant body a well a sirit to be engaged in hi wor-hip. He write (Spirit and ruth,-):

I people want to stand up and move rhythmially to

the ong o praie, they hould be enouraged to doo. Dane in worhip i first o all the imple, natu-

ral, phyial dimenion o the reverent joy we hare


19/36

olume ()


in Christ. Most o u, even thoe who are not very

demonstrative in our worhip, find it natural to way,

however lightly, to the rhythm o the ong we ing.

Tat movement itel i a imple orm o dane. I that

i justifiable, who i to draw the line to how preiely

how muh movement i permitted? And i uh im-

ple movement are justifiable, why not greater move-

ment, eseially in light o the biblial reerene to

dane?

Dr. Pipa, ommenting on thi ommendation odane in worhip, onlude:

One other eriou problem i hi deene o liturgi-

al dane. He admit that God doe not preribe

dane. He dimie the appliation o the regulative

priniple a a mean o preerving the statu quo and

onlude that even though God doe not preribe

dane, he i pleaed when we dane beore him in

worhip (). In reahing thi onluion he vio-

late hi own priniple expreed in hapter three that

ine all Old estament worhip i ulfilled in Christ,

it i very diffi ult to derive priniple o worhip in the

New estament.

With resec to hi advoay o drama and dane one

begin to ee the true nature o Pro. Frame regula-tive priniple. He i not refining the poition that the

Westminster standard teah a the riptural poi-

tion, but rather i moving toward the Lutheran view.

Luther taught that one may do whatever i not or-

bidden in Sripture. Calvin inisted that we may do

in worhip only what the Bible ommand by expliit

word or good and neeary onequene. Mr. Frame

redefinition: ypially, Sripture tell u what we

hould do in general and then leave u to determine

the seifi by our own ancified widom, aordingto the general rule o the Word (). A he diue

the element o worhip he ay, Where seifi

are laking [he never how whih seifi are lak-

ingJP], we must apply the generalitie by mean o

our ancified widom, within the general priniple

o the word (, ). In diuing drama, he ay I

do believe that Sripture give u the reedom to ue

drama; (). With resec to dane he ay, It i

true, o oure, that God doe not preribe dane

seifially or the regular worhip o the ynagogue,

tabernale, or temple ().

Herein lie the book most eriou problem. Mr.

Frame depart rom the Reormed exegetial under-

standing o the regulative priniple. O oure thi

doe not make hi poition wrong. It rightne or

wrongne must be determined by Sripture. But i it

appropriate or Mr. Frame to offer thi book a a lari-

fiation o the Coneion poition (xiii)? It would be

muh more helpul to admit that thi book i a reor-

mulation o the priniple o reormed worhip and to

diu it on that bai. O oure, then Mr. Frame will

have to put hi exegei on the table. I am addened

that he publihed thi a a study book or the hurh at

large. Te diuion would have been more helpul i

he had written the tehnial book first and interaced

exegetially with hi riti.

C F V W

What are we to make o Proeor Frame view?Desite hi protestation to the ontrary, hi poi-tion denie the regulative priniple o worhip, evenwhile he proee allegiane to it. Moreover, hi viewhave led him to all kind o unorthodox onluion,inluding the endorement o liturgial dane anddrama, and the honoring o men during worhip.

I thi merely an aademi or holarly debate,

wherein Mr. Frame i imply hypotheizing rom theivory tower o the eminary? Not aording to theproeor, who i onerned with the lear direpan-ie between the urrent pracie o the hurh andthe rule o her worhip a it ha been historially un-derstood. We agree, and thi raie the real ontext inwhih thi diuion hould have been handled, thato oneional Prebyterianim. Pastor Shwertleyrather bluntly bring thi to the oreground:

Frame book hould be een or what it i. It i first

and oremost a deene o the departure and delen-ion in most Prebyterian denomination in the area

o worhip that ha ourred over the past two hun-

dred year. Frame openly admit that there i a

direpany between what modern Prebyterian

proe and what they acually pracie. Ti di-

repany aue ome Prebyterian minister to eel

guilty.

So what apparently i needed, aording to Frame,i imply a revamped and more flexible rule o wor-

hip. Afer all it i muh eaier to read a new defi-nition bak into the Westminster Standard, ratherthan making an honest diavowal (with appropriate


20/36

olume ()


hange). Tu pracie an be maintained or intro-dued, with little regard to what thoe statement re-ally mean. (Shwertley).

One would think that a onervative Prebyterianwould wih to avoid behaving like a theologial lib-eral, but what i rejecing the regulative priniple byredefinition but doing just that? A liberal would beperecly ontent to ay, I hold to the oneionaldocrine o the virgin birth, but I rejec the Puritanoneption o it. I Prebyterian onervative on-tinue to behave like liberal regarding their ordinationvow in the area o worhip, there i every poibilitythat uh behavior will oon erode other docrinemaybe even uh a entral docrine a that o justifia-tion by aith alone.

In addition to the question o oneional integrity,the reult o Proeor Frame view i little differentthan that o R. J. Gore, who rejec the regulative prin-iple o worhip outright. Whom do we find writingthe introducion to Gore reent book (to be notiedin the ollowing hal o thi urvey), but John Framehimel. In thi preae, the proeor andidly makethe ollowing statement bringing their view to one: arejecion o the regulative priniple o worhip:

When I heard, in the early , that R. J. Gore

had written a diertation at Westminster Teologi-al Seminary oppoing the regulative priniple o

worhip, I had to ee it or myel. o ritiize the

Puritan view o worhip in that itadel o Prebyte-

rian orthodoxy eemed a bold move, even perhap

a bit oolhardy. But Gore atified hi examiner at

Westminster, and he impreed me with the high qual-

ity o hi reearh and thinking.

Reearh a

reframing christian worship ~ a critic to john frame's and r. j. gore's views of worship - frank j....

Documents